Historians consider attempts to whitewash Stalinism in Russia dangerous. Disputes about the role of Stalin in history

The collapse of the country and the role of the KGB Russia in the twentieth century suffered three destructive military-political tsunamis. At the beginning of the century Tsarist Russia was broken by the First World War and the revolution that followed it. But the sick country, having healed its wounds, emerged from the “red font” by the 1930s and

Unfortunately, over the past two decades, or even half a century, that have passed since the ill memory of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, not only anti-Soviet, but also party propaganda has persistently introduced into the mass consciousness a maliciously distorted image of Stalin and false information about his activities.

In particular, truly incredible figures were given for the repressed, innocent prisoners of the “GULAG archipelago”, millions of whom were executed.

Behind last decade previously classified materials were published that convincingly refute such speculation, lies and slander. Although even without this, specialist demographers, for example, and honest historians - domestic and foreign, have shown with specific facts that in Stalin's time waves of repression affected almost exclusively the ruling elite (party, state, military, punitive) and those close to it.

However, we will not touch on this topic now (it is covered in sufficient detail in our books “The Tangle” around Stalin,” “Secrets of Troubled Eras,” “Conspiracy and the Struggle for Power from Lenin to Khrushchev”). Let us only note that the successes of Stalin’s foreign policy are enormous and indisputable. Without this, it would not have been possible in the three five-year plans after Civil War not only to create the world's first full-fledged socialist country, but also to bring it to a leading position, to make it a superpower. The Great War was a terrible test for our Motherland. Patriotic War. Stalin spoke simply and clearly about the main factor of victory: “The trust of the Russian people in the Soviet government turned out to be the decisive force, which ensured a historic victory over the enemy of humanity - over fascism."

You can often hear that Stalin treated ordinary people with contempt, considering them “cogs.” It's a lie. He really used this image, borrowed from F.M. Dostoevsky (he has a “pin”). But in what sense? Receiving participants in the Victory Parade, Stalin said that people without ranks and titles are considered (!) cogs of the state mechanism, but without them any leaders, marshals and generals (“we are all” - in his words) are not worth a damn.
But maybe he was being cunning and politicking? A ridiculous assumption. At that time, he, famous throughout the world, had no point in adjusting to the opinion of the crowd, pleasing it. And if he wanted to strengthen his position among the leadership of the party and army, he would emphasize the role of the party and the generals in the great victory (which to a certain extent would reflect reality, and indirectly would exalt him as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and party leader). Moreover, he did not speak in front of the people. He simply said what he was firmly convinced of. He spoke the truth.

Another favorite theme of anti-Sovietists: Stalin allegedly suppressed the intelligentsia, experiencing an inferiority complex in front of highly educated people. This is the opinion of those for whom the criterion of education is the presence of diplomas “completing…”, titles and scientific degrees, and not knowledge and creative thinking. It's time to remember true statement American writer Ambrose Bierce: “Education is what reveals to the wise, and hides from the fool the insufficiency of his knowledge.”
Genuine higher education achieved only through independent efforts and intense mental work; Stalin had them in full measure. Apparently, he was the most comprehensively educated of all the statesmen of the 20th century.
In his extensive personal library (about 20 thousand volumes, which he did not collect, but read, making numerous notes and bookmarks), the books were classified - according to his instructions - as follows: philosophy, psychology, sociology, political economy, finance, industry, agriculture, cooperation, Russian history, the history of foreign countries, diplomacy, foreign and domestic trade, military affairs, the national question... and then more than 20 points. Let us note that the last thing he singled out was “anti-religious waste paper.” This shows that he was a deeply religious person, but not in the church sense, not in the formal performance of certain rituals, but a believer in the highest Truth and highest justice.

Under Stalin, Russia-USSR achieved extraordinary, truly unprecedented labor and military victories (including intellectual achievements), world recognition and authority.
It was a glorious, heroic time for the country and people. Although, of course, there are no great feats and victories without terrible tension, hardships and sacrifices. This is the historical truth. And too often periods of powerful upsurge and enthusiasm are replaced by spiritual decline, degeneration and vegetation... If Stalin had managed to carry out all his deeds against the will of the Soviet, and above all the Russian, people, then such a figure should be considered the most brilliant personality of all time. Although it is more reasonable to assume that he was able to correctly assess the course of objective historical processes

, understand and feel the Russian national character and conduct their domestic and foreign policies accordingly. In other words, he managed to translate into reality that very “Russian idea” that theorists who are far from the true life of the people are unsuccessfully searching for. …When we're talking about about an extraordinary personality, it is fundamentally important to consider who, why and for what purpose undertakes to judge such a person. But it is Stalin who is being judged, viciously condemned by many authors, sometimes talented publicists and writers, but too superficial, primitive thinkers. And their goals are usually the most base, and their worldview is politicized to the point of complete eclipse common sense

. In addition, there are also real slanderers, falsifiers, haters not so much of Stalin as of the Russian people and communist ideals (which, by the way, correspond to the essence of the teachings of Christ).
So, the history of the rise and prosperity of the Soviet Union with the subsequent expansion and strengthening of the world socialist system irrefutably testifies to Stalin’s outstanding diplomatic abilities. In particular, they manifested themselves during negotiations with the leaders of many countries, mostly outstanding people, major political and government figures of the first half of the 20th century (later the level of the “world elite” quickly declined).

Stalin's ability to negotiate showed itself early, when he was still a young revolutionary. In prisons and exile, his comrades more than once instructed him to conduct “diplomatic duels” with local authorities, and he sought acceptance - in whole or in part - of the prisoners’ demands. In July 1917, he, as a member of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, obtained from representatives of the Provisional Government the release of arrested Bolshevik sailors. After Lenin twice gave Stalin important diplomatic assignments, which he successfully completed. At first, he headed negotiations with the Finnish authorities regarding the security of the first Soviet capital - Petrograd (and the situation in Finland and around it was very difficult; the Entente tried to use this country for its own purposes, to suppress the revolution). Then, under even more difficult conditions, he managed to reach an agreement with the Central Rada in Ukraine.

Together with L.B. Kamenev and G.V. Chicherin, Stalin, after difficult negotiations with the leadership of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, achieved the creation of a united front of socialist parties against Denikin, who was rushing to Moscow. And in 1920, Lenin sent Stalin to the Caucasus to untangle the most complex knot of interethnic relations. And Stalin successfully completed this task.
From 1923 to 1941, Joseph Vissarionovich did not hold any government positions, although as the leader of the party he had a great and then decisive influence on the development of the main directions of Soviet foreign policy. Only twice did he personally conduct diplomatic negotiations: in 1935 (with the Foreign Ministers of England Eden and France Laval) and in 1939 (with the German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop).
...For many modern readers, who have been subjected to total ideological indoctrination over the past decade and a half, it may seem strange to even raise the question of Stalin’s diplomatic fights with the largest political figures of that time. In television and radio broadcasts, in articles and books published in tens of millions of copies, it is constantly repeated: Stalin was an uneducated and narrow-minded, evil and insidious despot. It is clear that such a wretched person is incapable of conducting any reasonable diplomacy.

In fact, it was the other way around. In almost all diplomatic fights, as can be seen from the facts, he emerged victorious. It even looks somehow implausible. After all, he was opposed by smart, knowledgeable, cunning government leaders of the largest countries in the world, who had qualified assistants and advisers. Of course, Stalin was not a loner, but since the late 1930s he had to personally make all the most important decisions on foreign and foreign affairs. domestic policy THE USSR.
His enemies would like to explain Stalin’s extraordinary successes in the economic (see here http://www.forum-orion.com/viewtopic.php?f=460&t=6226) diplomatic “ring” as the result of resourcefulness, cunning and deceit. But in reality, it was he who pursued a consistent, honest, noble policy, which discouraged his opponents, who were accustomed to disingenuousness, hypocrisy, and deception. He did not always achieve the desired results. And it’s not surprising: circumstances can be stronger than us.

Thinking about the reason for his successes, you come to the conclusion that their main reason was the fair position taken by Stalin, defending the people’s interests not only of his own, but also of the enemy’s country, reliance on the truth, almost complete absence of personal ambitions with a heightened sense of self-esteem and patriotism. He has always been a worthy representative of a great power, the great Soviet people.

However, Stalin, wittingly or unwittingly, used one folk trick in diplomatic negotiations: he knew how to seem like a simpler, more spontaneous, and even naive person than he really was. Even such venerable politicians and experienced diplomats as Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt initially underestimated his intelligence, knowledge and ability to “unravel” the enemy’s moves. Partly for this reason they lost seriously to Stalin.

It is possible that the most appropriate strategy in intellectual duels with cunning opponents is to be extremely honest, frank and not try to deceive them. This disarms dodgers, forces them to dodge and get entangled in their own intricacies...

I would like this article to help expose the lies and slander spread about the Soviet Union and its most outstanding leader, with whom our people won greatest victories, - the same Russian people who are now doomed by the current rulers of Russia to bitter disappointments, cruel defeats and extinction under the domination of oligarchs and corrupt officials. After all, it was anti-Stalinist diplomacy and politics that led to the dismemberment of the USSR, the transformation of Russia from a superpower into a third-rate country with an extremely low standard of living for the population (with a handful of billionaires and a bunch of millionaires) and a degrading culture. How this ends depends on all of us. Only the truth about the recent past can guarantee us a worthy future!

Surprisingly accurate predictions were left to descendants by I.V. Stalin, some of which have already been fulfilled. Prophetic prediction by I.V. Stalin about Russia - the USSR, the Russian people and the East (quoted from the article by R. Kosolapov, “What is it, the truth about Stalin?” Pravda newspaper, July 4, 1998).

On the very eve of the war with Finland, J.V. Stalin invited the famous revolutionary Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai, the daughter of a tsarist general, who at that time was the plenipotentiary ambassador to Sweden (1930 - 45), to his office for a conversation. The conversation was very confidential and made an extraordinary impression on A. M. Kollontai. “When I left the Kremlin, I didn’t go, I ran, repeating so as not to forget what Stalin said. Entering the house... I began to write down. Was already deep night... A lasting impression! I looked at the world around me differently. (I turned to this conversation in my mind many, many times already during the years of the War and after it, re-read it, and always found something new... And now, as if in reality, I see Stalin’s office in the Kremlin, in it there is a long table and Stalin... Saying goodbye , He said:
- Be strong. Hard times are coming. They must be overcome... We will overcome them. We will definitely overcome it! Stay healthy. Temper yourself in the fight."

A recording of this conversation with I.V. Stalin was found in the diaries of A.M. Kollontai, which she kept for a long time. For the first time, these archival extracts were published by the historian and biographer A. M. Kollontai, Doctor of Historical Sciences M. I. Trush in collaboration with prof. R. I. Kosolapov in the magazine “Dialogue” for 1998
J.V. Stalin said:

“Many of the affairs of our party and people will be distorted and spat upon, primarily abroad, and in our country too. Zionism, striving for world domination, will brutally take revenge on us for our successes and achievements. He still views Russia as a barbaric country, as a raw material appendage. And my name will also be slandered and slandered. Many atrocities will be attributed to me.
World Zionism will strive with all its might to destroy our Union so that Russia can never rise again. The strength of the USSR lies in the friendship of peoples. The spearhead of the struggle will be aimed, first of all, at breaking this friendship, at separating the outskirts from Russia. Here, I must admit, we have not done everything yet. There is still a large field of work here.

Nationalism will raise its head with particular force. It will suppress internationalism and patriotism for a while, only for a while. National groups within nations and conflicts will arise. Many pygmy leaders will appear, traitors within their nations.
In general, in the future, development will take more complex and even frantic paths, the turns will be extremely sharp. Things are heading to the point where the East will become especially agitated. Sharp contradictions with the West will arise.
And yet, no matter how events develop, time will pass, and the eyes of new generations will be turned to the deeds and victories of our socialist Fatherland. New generations will come year after year. They will once again raise the banner of their fathers and grandfathers and give us full credit. They will build their future on our past.”

“All this will fall on the shoulders of the Russian people. For the Russian people - great people! The Russian people are good people! The Russian people, among all nations, have the greatest patience! The Russian people have a clear mind. It’s as if he was born to help other nations! The Russian people are characterized by great courage, especially in difficult times, in dangerous times. He is proactive. He has a persistent character. He is a dreamy people. He has a purpose. That’s why it’s harder for him than for other nations. You can rely on him in any trouble. The Russian people are invincible, inexhaustible!”

At the end of January, the Levada Center conducted another sociological survey, according to which 52 percent of Russians believe that Stalin played either an unconditionally positive or rather positive role in the history of Russia.

Note that Stalin’s popularity rating has been consistently high for 12 years. According to S. Chernyakhovsky, in 2003 it was even greater– 53 percent. In 2008, on the “Name of Russia” project, Stalin was in the lead throughout the entire voting, but at the very last moment gave way to Alexander Nevsky. In 2012, his rating dropped slightly, but remained at 49 percent.

No matter how hard the pseudo-democrats tried, Stalin could not be molded into a bloody, paranoid killer who ate a dozen Russian babies a day.

However, there is one important difference between Stalin’s rating in 2003 and 2016. If earlier he was the idol of pensioners, now the figure of the leader has become popular among young and middle-aged people. Personnel composition organizations that actively use the positive image of Stalin in their rhetoric, for example, “The Essence of Time” in its heyday– living proof of this.

The origins of Stalin's popularity

There are several reasons for such a high popularity of the long-deceased General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.

Firstly, the lies of the propaganda of the 80-90s. No matter how hard the pseudo-democrats tried, Stalin could not be molded into a bloody, paranoid killer who ate a dozen Russian babies a day.

The second reason - social. From the 90s to this day, the state has been systematically discarding its functions of social support for the population. Former citizens of the USSR found themselves abandoned to the mercy of fate. The only obvious alternative to liberal chaos for the disadvantaged population was the idea of ​​paternalism. The principle of “war of all against all” was contrasted with the principle of a society-family, in which the state acts as a collective parent in relation to negligent children - the population. The head of the government apparatus played the role of the father of the family - the patriarch.

Thirdly, Russia's position in the international arena has changed. The country's slide into the third world, accompanied by interethnic conflicts and a decline in prestige in the international arena, gave rise to a feeling of humiliation. A figure was needed who was associated with tangible victories on the foreign policy front. The closest figure was Stalin, associated with the victory in the Great Patriotic War.

So in this popular image a number of features have come together that personify the objective needs of the post-Soviet citizen.

1) Restoration of historical justice.

2) Thirst for social security.

3) Thirst for foreign policy security.

At first glance, the change in attitude towards Stalin can be welcomed. Indeed, through partial recognition of the positive role of this person in the History of Russia, it was possible to rehabilitate the positive aspects of life in the USSR, and through them to reach the rehabilitation of the socialist path of development as a whole.

Liberals were portrayed as revolutionaries; the revolutionary process was associated with chaos, devastation, and degradation. The liberal Sith were opposed by the conservative Jedi, waging an unequal fight against chaos. And Stalin quickly found himself on a par with the guardian rulers.

The reality turned out to be much more complicated. The type of leader supported by many (including pro-government organizations) turned out to be far from both the real actions of Joseph Vissarionovich himself and the aspirations of the majority of the population.

Stalin in a distorting mirror

At first, the image of the Red Monarch gained popularity. “Thank you” for this can be said to the top of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the broad coalition of “national-patriotic” forces around it. The leitmotif of the red-brown journalism of the 90s was the restoration of the stability destroyed by the liberals. Liberals were portrayed as revolutionaries; the revolutionary process was associated with chaos, devastation, and degradation. The liberal Sith were opposed by the conservative Jedi, waging an unequal fight against chaos. The “iron order” was presented in the form of restrictions on civil liberties, strict centralization of management, undemocratic decision-making and a cult of personality. All this was presented as an unconditional public good, and Stalin quickly found himself on a par with Nicholas II, Alexander III and other similar characters in our history. These days, this line of reasoning is supported not only by red-robed conservatives, but also by guards like Starikov. The latter will even declare that the Secretary General was a fighter against the “fifth column”, and therefore all the repressions of that time were beautiful in their essence.

The second ingrained image is Stalin the avenger. Actually, he was wonderfully portrayed by the RabFak group.“So that we are no longer f...ed - rise from the ground, master”- is sung in the imperishable hit. Jokes aside, but everyday perception is succinctly reflected in the formula “Stalin is not on them.” This image expresses the completely objective desire of the disadvantaged people to punish those responsible for their humiliated situation.

Typical idea of ​​Stalin

The third image is also popular– "stealer of the Russian land." Since 2008, works have begun to appear on the shelves of bookstores, one after another presenting Stalin in the image of an “anti-crisis manager” who did not give a damn about the ideological dogmas of Leninism and, in spite of them, restored the “national economy.”

The paradox of the components of this archetype is that, on the basis of them, it is simply impossible to try to build a consistent political strategy.

Hiding behind Stalin, the monarcho-Stalinists are introducing such “socially useful” measures as a 10-hour working day, raising the retirement age, dispersing peaceful rallies and demonstrations, and limiting democratic freedoms, which in essence resembles ordinary fascism. It is not without reason that many monarcho-Stalinists’ views differ little from the fascists.

Let's start with the first side of the archetype. Joseph Vissarionovich as the Red Monarch. The predominance in the mass consciousness of such an image of the late leader of the country under the conditions of the class rule of the bourgeoisie will inevitably lead to the fact that those processes that the monarchist-Stalinists present as the positive content of the Stalin regime, namely, the strengthening of the repressive mechanism, neglect of democratic decision-making mechanisms, certain excesses in centralization will boomerang against the working people. Under the cover of the leader, such “socially useful” measures will be introduced as a 10-hour working day, raising the retirement age, dispersing peaceful rallies and demonstrations, limiting democratic freedoms, which in essence resembles ordinary fascism. It is not without reason that many monarcho-Stalinists’ views differ little from the fascists. Idolizing the negative aspects of Stalin's rule, they anathematize its liberating, revolutionary essence. This approach is expressed most eloquently in the works of A. Prokhanov:

“Stalin, the great statesman and metaphysician, stopped the gigantic forces that defeated Russian Empire, defeated the legions of the newly-minted Joshua, who were clearing Russia of everything Russian, just as the Jews cleared the Promised Land from the “Canaanites.” Stalin prevented the creation on Russian territory of “Red Judea,” a theocratic state similar to today’s Israel, which, according to the Zionists’ plan, should have arisen not in the deserts of the Middle East, but on the richest lands of Russia. Having defeated the Zionist project, Stalin built a red empire - the USSR, which absorbed many features of the Romanov kingdom" (A. Prokhanov, "Putin's Messiahship").

Manipulating the fact that in the Soviet Union the concepts of “state” and “country” merged with each other, they present any strengthening of the “state” as an unconditional good. At the same time, it is silent that the essence of the state directly depends on whose hands it is in. Taking repression out of the historical context, strengthening the state. verticals, they fetishize them, consciously or unconsciously distorting the nature of these processes. After all, their orientation under the power of a large owner and under the power of workers will be completely opposite. Thus, under the guise of the “Soviet revival,” monsters of the past are being let into the 21st century, even more terrible than the demons of our time. Truly, “the empire strikes back.”

Now let's look at the image of Stalin as an avenger. The great Marxist Erich Fromm discovered that the collective desire for revenge, combined with a thirst for security and stability, forms the phenomenon of social infantilism– children's perception of reality. This is expressed in a craving for a metaphorical “father” figure who solves problems and provides peace and security. Why is infantilism dangerous? Wanting to take revenge on everyone and everything for their troubles, the carriers of this form of thinking are divorced from reality, without even imagining the consequences of the measures they call for. It is proposed to organize terrible punishments and full-scale repressarium by armchair avengers here and now. At the same time, it is completely ignored that all this can also be used against them. IN in a certain sense, such behavior is reminiscent of zealots and zealots of traditionalism, who, swearing in every way modern society, who have moved away from medieval “goodness,” in purely everyday aspects indulge the values ​​against which they are fighting. In fact, further strengthening the hated “Kingdom of the Antichrist.” A similar situation can be seen in a monarchical environment. Restoring in their fevered imagination examples of Holy Rus' mixed with Schubert's waltzes and the crunch of French bread, they prefer not to think that with the restoration of the monarchy they themselves would find themselves on the social bottom.

The principle “I rate Stalin and therefore I am better than you” allowed us to remain at the same level of development, obscuring and covering up real personal problems that need to be fought.

This approach reflects the essence of infantilism - the reluctance to take responsibility for practical implementation your plans, thoughts and expectations. Therefore, an infantile society is easily manipulated. Striving, on the one hand, for security, and on the other, for self-affirmation through the thirst for revenge, it gets used to thinking that the wave of unpopular measures will bypass it. Or, in extreme cases, a good dad will come and sort everything out. In fact, the authorities are actively taking advantage of this, promoting “toy Stalinism.” It's convenient. It allows, under the premise of the revival of the USSR, to justify repressive measures and convince the population that reading Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, but at the same time in real life drinking beer, lying on the couch and wasting time hanging out in clubs, that is, essentially leading a philistine lifestyle, are compatible things. After this, people can read whatever they want, listen to whatever they want, but they are no longer dangerous to the system.

The external radicalism of the theory is completely compensated by the philistinism in everyday life.

Propaganda for the acceptability of such a model of behavior led to the fact that the Soviet renaissance of the early 2000s among young people simply choked. Reading Stalin and admiring Limonov and Letov did not motivate me to take significant practical action. Model of behavior in the style: “Of course, I am for the Soviet value system, and in America, of course, there are disgusting sodomites, but I’d better go to a fashionable house party. There, stripping competitions are expected, and maybe the little white ones will be able to indulge” - has become the norm among young people who sympathize with the left. It’s more amusing to curse McDonald’s and American globalization, and at the same time buy Big Macs there every day. Or complain about the decline of morals and at the same time regularly visit a brothel. In fact, the ostentatious anti-American rhetoric was a mask of a teenager, put on to be different from others, but at the same time not to lose anything. “Ian Curtis died before your eyes - and you all remained the same...” - Letov sang about such people. The principle “I rate Stalin and therefore I am better than you” allowed us to remain at the same level of development, obscuring and covering up real personal problems that need to be fought. While apathy and infantilism took even deeper roots in society.

The exaggerated desire to show Kuzka’s mother to the whole world comes not only from the constantly experienced feeling of humiliation, but also from the awareness of her own powerlessness. For comparison, we can cite fans of the bloody component of Quentin Tarantino’s films, who real life can't kill anything larger than a fly. The split between personal and public consciousness leads to a slide into the world of illusions, without the desire to control one’s current actions and be responsible for their consequences. That is why, among the infantilized population, the craving for the leader is so strong, because only an all-powerful father will be able to accomplish what in reality they will never be capable of. “There is no point in bringing yourself into line with your beliefs, because you won’t change anything,” this is what the average person thinks. It’s easier to go with the flow and pray for the coming of the savior. This is actively used various kinds politicians offering themselves for this role - Putin, Navalny, Zyuganov. They offer the people a simple maxim: vote correctly, and we will do everything for you. This paradigm also fits perfectly into the logic of conservative Stalinism.

Joseph Vissarionovich was not any kind of latent monarchist, cleric, and even more so, a supporter of reconciliation with the bourgeoisie. The phenomenon of Stalin is a phenomenon of the Jacobin dictatorship in conditions where the revolution found itself in a hostile environment. Taking it away from the right-wing forces is the most important task of the communists today.

The third side of the archetype. Stalin as a master. His propaganda is not accidental. Modern Russia is a state of corporations. Corporations, quite naturally, belong to the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the bourgeois state is trying as hard as possible to hide the fact that in modern Russia it has an overt class character. And in this, the dead secretary general again comes to their aid. The authorities are trying to present it. in the role of a kind of supply manager who simply built the national economy, without relying on any “Marxism-Leninism”. In the same way, the media are trying to present Putin, who is supposedly equidistant from various political forces and does not adhere to any ideology. Separating socio-economic issues from politics, the government is pushing the idea that modern state corporations and other large owners are a logical continuation of the large industry of the USSR. The fact that the fortunes of major Russian industrialists were built on the brutal plunder of the Soviet industrial complex is kept silent. Thus, the idea takes root in people’s minds that their well-being, as well as the restoration of vitally important industries, science, social sphere possible even under the rule of the bourgeoisie. Which again serves to legitimize the existing political regime and gives hope for the best. Considering the trends in world politics, this is very groundless.

Sometimes conservative Stalinism even gives rise to such miracles

Mythbusting

How can we resist the destructive propaganda of conservative Stalinism?

To begin with, to show that despite all his mistakes and often monstrous miscalculations, such as the tragedy of 1937, Joseph Vissarionovich was not some kind of latent monarchist, cleric, and even more so, a supporter of reconciliation with the bourgeoisie. The phenomenon of Stalin is a phenomenon of the Jacobin dictatorship in conditions where the revolution found itself in a hostile environment. Taking it away from the right-wing forces is the most important task of the communists today. You can agree or disagree with individual measures, but the brutal contradictions of foreign and domestic policies were a consequence of the early socialist nature of the Russian revolution, and not the fruit of his purely personal will.

It is also necessary to clearly demonstrate that the Russian state has a clear class character. And even if it reproduces certain processes that are at least vaguely reminiscent of Stalin’s, for example, the partial restoration of certain industries, one should not be under any illusions. All this will be used in the interests of the ruling class.

A citizen's consciousness is determined by the ability to understand and, if necessary, accept the consequences of his actions. This can be especially clearly illustrated by examples of excesses and mistakes of the Stalinist period. The leader’s mistakes are not the will of evil Trotskyists, on whom they often try to blame certain tragedies of the era, but rather the contradictory will of a muzzled and humiliated people who have become an active creative subject of history. Any change for the better can only be achieved through active collective action, but revolutionary changes will inevitably involve mistakes, excesses and difficulties. It is unacceptable to remain silent and run away from this.