UNDER-PHILOPHIPH DAVID'S TIME 🚔 MACHINE
Αɠɾʝϲμɭʈμɾαɭ ξʂʂαγ ση Ɲαʈμɾαɭ Βεεϝ.
BACKGROUND
Although it was the peasants in soldier's greatcoats who helped the Bolsheviks to seize power, although they were told a lot of opportunistic words about the alliance of pitchforks and hammers, Lenin did not believe the peasantry and did not hide this: small-scale production, he wrote, gives birth to capitalism and the bourgeoisie. This mistrust goes back to the main document of Marxism - to its MANIFEST, in which, albeit with reservations, the main words are said: the peasantry is reactionary.
All the activities of the commissars and their rapid dispersal are clear evidence of the relationship between the Bolsheviks and the peasantry. The party needed not a democratic revolution in the countryside, but a socialist revolution, not the promised distribution of land, but its socialization, not an agrarian program of 1917, but a program adopted 12 years earlier.
The agrarian policy of the Bolsheviks until 17 was not consistent and was constantly changing: at the Second Congress it was reduced to the return to the peasants of the "sections" taken away during the abolition of serfdom, at the third - to the abstract-vague "carrying out reforms in the interests of ridding the peasantry of landlord oppression", at the Tamerfors conference - to "support peasant revolutionary measures up to the confiscation of all land." However, the initial and final line of the party - with all the vacillations - was unambiguous: the nationalization of the land. By the way, the point of the first program on the socialization of the land was not Lenin's idea, but was rooted even deeper.
In Marx we find:
The land can only be the property of the entire nation. To place land in the hands of united agricultural workers would be to subordinate society exclusively to one class of producers.
But the agrarian program of the Bolshevik Party, aimed at nationalizing the land, did not suit the peasants, and therefore, in order to get their support at a critical moment, the last decree on land was transferred into the hands of the working people on the basis of equal distribution, which contradicted all previous principles, and the decree on land itself was compiled by the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Predictably, after the seizure of power, equalizing land use did not last long. The sharp increase in the number of small peasant farms created the basis for rapid differentiation. Crushing paved the way for the subsequent "eating" and nullified the possibility of modernization: the technical level achieved in large farms inevitably fell during crushing and led to regression. The laws issued by the government and aimed at containing the agrarian elements, for the most part, remained on paper.
The revolution chaotic and anarchized the village. The peasant community and zemstvos were destroyed. Gravity reigned in the village. Neither the agitators nor the delegates to the Second Congress of Soviets who had dispersed across the country could cover these vast expanses. Pogroms of landowners' estates took place in the countryside. Large industrial farms were destroyed, the industrial potential achieved in them fell to zero.
The revolution not only opposed the city to the village, but gave rise to previously unknown conflicts, and the main one of them was a merciless struggle for bread.
The famine of the 18th was caused not so much by the lack of grain as by the elimination of trade. If it were not for the shuttle raids of the bagmen, the famine would have assumed appalling proportions. The sluggishness was both the first manifestation of the "second (shadow) economy", trying to smooth out the odiousness and sluggishness of the first, state, and a reaction to dictatorial methods of economic management.
If it were not for the latter, if ideas did not rise above people, with correctly established market prices, with respect for the nursing partners, the bread problem would never have reached such intensity and would not have cost so many lives ...
"Dark men" better than all doctors of sociology figured out what the administrative methods of managing agriculture threaten them, having voted for slowness and voluntariness, that is, for economic methods! The further course of events showed how much they turned out to be more specialists than those who branded them as the main carriers of the petty-bourgeois ideology.
It cannot be said that after the revolution in the country there was no opposition to the party's policy associated with non-economic methods of management, including management in the countryside. Suffice it to recall the names of Maslov, Oganovsky, Tugan-Baranovsky, Chayanov, Litoshenko, Kondratyev, Kritsman, Novozhilov, Nemchinov. The opposition not only existed, even then - before Plato's Kotlov, in 1918 - it predicted the collapse of the agrarian program:
No matter how many decrees and laws are now composed, they will not reach the ears of the people. It is time to admit that the agrarian reform on a national scale has been hopelessly thwarted. Further development of agrarian relations will proceed in addition to any leadership from the center.
.... aggravation of the food crisis, deprivation of land for a significant part of the peasantry, deprivation of wages for rural workers and a huge per capita tax in favor of the committee members - this is a short list of the results of the Bolshevik decrees on land.
Kondratyev, opposing the cooperative plan, argued that the most prosperous peasants were the bearers of advanced farming methods at that time. Another foresight belongs to him: the theory of diminishing soil fertility with collective methods of its cultivation.
Opponents opposed the leveling and scavenging of bins with initiative, the market and consolidation on an industrial basis - this is what we have come to in words, taught by 70 years of experience of agrarian voluntarism. By the way, the idea of Stolypin's reforms in the countryside also boiled down to the creation of strong peasant farms, in which the owners value their property. In essence, it was an American-style farming course that never came to fruition.
GOALS
By collectivization, Stalin wanted to kill several birds with one stone, albeit sick ones. First, it corresponded to the herd ideals of communism and in this respect inherited the albeit failed, but highly ideological "war communism". Secondly, it resisted the attempts of the peasants to determine the market prices for grain. Thirdly, it became the most important source of funds and savings for the industrialization of the country. In other words, it simultaneously closed the way of the village's farmerization and opened an inexhaustible predatory source of financing for the city. The alternative in the form of bazarovism was unacceptable for the Bolsheviks, who initially gravitated towards a "closed" economy. Although the choice lacked purity and purple, it was light and painless ...
In attracting the peasants to their side, the Bolsheviks used their dissatisfaction with the system of landlord land tenure, but the revolution in the countryside was oriented not so much towards improving the quality of life of the workers of the land, as towards the same exploitation in order to strengthen the regime. It is not surprising that the agrarian revolution led to regression. For decades, the agrarian policy of the party contributed not to averaging, but to pauperization of the village.
Not only well-to-do peasants, but also well-to-do collective farms were subject to "dispossession". As soon as a rich collective farm appeared, as soon as it became "not like everyone else," the directive immediately came to "dispossess the kulaks" - to hand over everything that had been acquired. In addition to Antonovism, there was a much less well-known phenomenon: armed reprisals against collective farms that refused to "dekulakize" - surrender of surplus. Naum Korzhavin told about such cases in the S about bl a z n and x k r about v and in about y e p about x i.
The enemy threw tanks, armored vehicles, or cavalry into battle, and the heroic resistance of the peasants was broken.
The prosperous collective farm, the beauty and pride of socialist consciousness, was wiped off the face of the earth. The peasants were scattered, and the collective farm property, which they wanted to take away, perished. It was important not to take possession of it, but only to take it away.
By the way, I later came across an unexpected use of the term "kulak" in geography textbooks. The agriculture of pre-Soviet Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia was based, according to them, on kulak farms, and in Denmark and Holland - on kulak cooperatives. Then I realized what this means: kulak is any form of peasant economy that exists, and even more so flourishing without "us", that is, without a partocracy.
What Trotsky demanded in 1923 - to increase the taxation of peasants in order to accelerate industrialization - was realized by collectivization. Let's not juggle numbers - 20, 30 or 50% of the accumulation fund was the surplus product created in agriculture - it is clear that without feudal extortions - that is, agrarian colonization - there would have been no rapid industrialization. The very fact of the degradation of agriculture during the first five-year plans is an eloquent testimony not only to its inefficiency, but also to its squeezing out.
Unable to deny the obviousness of the "redistribution of surplus product from the countryside to the city," in other words, the financing of industry through agriculture (the consumption of the peasant was 2.5 times lower than the very low consumption of the worker), the Communists explained all this by the "cursed legacy of the past": the economically unequal position of the peasantry, they said, could not be corrected overnight. This is true, but "overnight" stretched for half a century, and time flowed back ...
Collectivization was artificial and objectively contradicted the natural economic development of the countryside: although the productivity of labor in large farms with proper organization should increase, there was no such correctness and completely disappeared the main incentive of the peasant - private initiative, without which consolidation did not achieve its goal. In addition, collectivization was not supported by the development of the material base and was generally carried out not because the land demanded so, but because it required "theory". In addition, the free farmer turned into a state serf, deprived of the opportunity to protest against the expropriation of the products of his labor.
Masterfully manipulating the figures, ours tried to prove that by the beginning of collectivization the village gave less and less bread, that the yield fell, and the possibilities of increasing productivity were completely exhausted. So it is, but the famine came not before, but after ... That's the thing, which we come to.
PRACTICE
https://telegra.ph/Bulldogs-under-the-Carpet-of-07-15
David Rockefeller, May 23, 1973. The Rockefeller family, almost the entire brood visiting the Russian Communists in Moscow.
The more erroneous the idea, the clearer the persistence,
which this mistake is trying to atone for.
P. Clodel
It was possible to turn the village, which was not ripe for socialist transformations, on the "right path" only through violence. Collectivization was his instrument. Its main method is non-economic coercion up to and including execution. Collective farms were created by violence, they existed on violence, they disintegrated from violence.
This is now - Kanuns, Muzhik and and Babs, Kassiyans Ostudnye, etc., and before that - 50 years falsifications and refutations of "bourgeois slander".
No matter how the bourgeois apologists tried to pass off as truth their assertions that the nationalization of the land in Russia was carried out against the will of the peasants, by means of violence on the part of the communists, historical facts testify to the opposite. Nationalization was carried out in accordance with the wishes of the peasants themselves. By turning the land into the property of the whole people, the Communist Party fulfilled the will of the working majority of the peasantry.
WITNESS'S TESTIMONY
1987: Soviet-American Campaign for Peace
And at the end of July, an order was received: to sow millet on fallows raised for next year. Sowed. Millet sprouted well, expanded. Just mow it for hay. No, wait for the grain. Everything went under the snow: no hay, no grain. The order followed: to cut off the surplus gardens from the collective farmers. We have completed this task successfully. The regional executive committee awarded me a monthly salary for this work. Surplus gardens were not added anywhere, they were overgrown with weeds.
The most difficult for us, members of the collective farm "New Way", 1929-1934. There were 40 families on the collective farm, there were 37 cows for individual use (three families did not have any livestock, and did not want to have). In March 1932, an order was received: to hand over 20 cows to the state, and attach those in need of dairy products to the remaining 17. This order was also successfully fulfilled.
Hungry, half-dead people walked from Kazakhstan along the roads marked only by stitches of pedestrians. Our collective farmers treated them with great pity, shared the last piece of bread, and served them a glass of milk to the children. All Kazakhstan at that time was engulfed in famine. And there was famine in other areas. It was a crime. And then everything went at random.
The relations of the Bolsheviks with the peasantry were always built on an opportunistic basis: when we needed his support, we didn’t skimp on the slogans “All the land to the peasants” and actively supported the “black redistribution”, when they gained strength, with the same ease with which we didn’t skimp on promises, they took away their land, motivating it in the highest degree "democratically": "By the will of the majority." Realizing the political impotence of domestic peonies and servos, the great leaders did not hesitate to sacrifice their interests to the “idea”.
At one time, when Stalin decided to prematurely liquidate NEP, using purely administrative measures and direct violence, this led the national economy, to put it mildly, to disastrous results. Agricultural production was undermined, and famine began in a number of regions of the country. In the cities, however, measures against small producers have practically undermined the service sector. The life of tens of millions of people was full of incredible hardships and difficulties, often at the limit of purely biological existence.
Decades separate us from certain events, but they still affect our lives, and the stronger the more diligently we pretend that they never happened. [And our science "proves" that it really was not]. Let us recall, for example, that a huge number of collective farms in our country were created from above, in an administrative, bureaucratic way ... It never even occurs to the peasants to consider themselves co-owners of collective farms. They are just wage laborers doing their assigned jobs. The inevitable result is the alienation of labor, when there is no master's concern for either the land, or the harvest, or the cattle, or the quality of the business.
WITNESS'S TESTIMONY
Dartmouth Meetings - Revold Antonov (left, front row), George Sherry, David Rockefeller, and Stanislav Borisov; Georgy Arbatov (two on the right, back row) Yuri Bobrakov, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1979)
And here I am going to the authorized collective farm. Our power was unlimited, we told the gray-headed farmers what to do and when. Cleaning in progress. We must take out the bread. They told me: although the chairman is a communist, his father had land and a shoemaker. Look there ... My vigilance did not keep me waiting long. The weather was dry and the bread was good. Collective farmers knitted sheaves, piled in heaps, in stacks. When two ricks appeared, I ordered to remove people from knitting, to put a thresher in order to send the bread in a red train as soon as possible. The chairman and the peasants began to object: they say, while the weather is fine, the bread must be removed from the field, and in the rain, you can thresh. But I threatened ... When the ricks were being thrashed, it started raining for many days. The bread was lost in the field.
Yes, this has always been the case for "scientific" or "competent" party leadership.
WITNESS'S TESTIMONY
In the winter of 1929 we were dispossessed of kulaks, although there was no surplus, it was barely enough to feed our large family. For a short time we lived in someone else's kitchen, and then we were expelled. I still see this day: winter, frost, six children, we walk 15 kilometers to the Kurgan station ...
Grandma Asya and Frosya died in someone else's kitchen. In Kurgan for several days we lived in the open air, there were many of us on this land, dispossessed, no doctors, no canteen, no improvement. Then a train of "calf" wagons approached and we were loaded. On the way, people died.
Finally they brought us to the barracks, gave us a lower bunk. Mother worked seven days a week, and even at night she was forced to guard the brick. She could not stand it, she died, and we were taken from the barrack to the orphanage. The hunger was terrible ...
Approximately during these years it was written: “I don’t know of any other country where a person breathes so freely,” and the children of repressed parents have already learned in orphanages: “Thank you Comrade Stalin for our happy childhood” ...
The kulaks were fiction. In 99%, prosperity was not created by exploitation, but by one's own hard work. They were dispossessing the economic, hardworking. The diligence of the people began to undermine already in the 18th - by the chimeras of war communism, and by the 30th it was all over ...
Dekulakization often had a personal motive. In the 37th they wrote denunciations of personal enemies, in the 29th they became fists because of a goat that accidentally wandered into the head garden. The kombeds pursued an openly anti-peasant policy, causing irreparable damage to the attitude of the farmer to his land.
Under the guise of a "civil war" against the kulaks, in essence, a blitzkrieg was carried out against the peasantry. As always, “provocations at the border” were used as a pretext for such a war.
In the first 5 months of 1929 alone, 1141 cases of terror were registered in the country. (And you are talking about some kind of single arson of the Reichstag ...). The expropriation of the last exploiting class — the kulaks — was a vital (why not bloody?) Affair of the working people of the countryside themselves. Dekulakization, carried out in accordance with the directives of party and Soviet bodies, was carried out on the basis of decisions of peasant gatherings (think about how sophisticated Jesuitism is ...) Moreover, there are numerous cases of spontaneous dispossession, when the poor and middle peasants, without waiting for instructions from the authorities, themselves, on their own initiative, they carried out dispossession (yes, what pathetic and insignificant puppies were the provocateurs of the secret police ...)
Fists? For those who, due to poverty - well, in no way - could not be counted among them, they invented the term "podkulachniki". The podkulachnik did not go to the collective farm - the enemy, went - the collective farm, which accepted him, was declared invalid for non-observance of the purity of the poor blood.
When dispossession began, the concentration camps, oddly enough, began to fill with the poor. It was at this time that this term was invented - podkulachnik, that is, even though it is rolling, but from the collective farm - flatly. There was also an order: so many podkulachnikov from the village. In prosperous Cossack villages, each had one or the other horse, and fists were recruited from three-horse; in the poor villages of the Non-Black Earth Region, a one-horseman could pass for a kulak.
Dekulakization was mainly the concern of the OGPU. In groups of ten people, the guys and girls called up by the party, led by the Chekists and commissars for the villages, marched, dragging out the unfortunate, their wives and children, their pitiful belongings from the wooden houses, not disdaining the handles of guns and revolvers, or even just a fist, leaving behind them crying and blood. Some tried to defend themselves - it cost them their lives. Could anyone then have imagined that over time, many dispossessed people themselves will become bribery and rich, importantly driving around on their "hundred horsepower"?
FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA
The liquidation of the kulaks as a class was carried out in the conditions of a fierce struggle against the kulaks, who fiercely resisted the collectivization of peasant farms, and with their direct agents - the right restorers of capitalism. K.'s fierce resistance was broken in open battle; his sabotage attempts against collective farms were also exposed and suppressed.
Koba said: millions have been dispossessed. But after all, already in the 18th the commissars took away equipment, livestock, and other means of production in favor of the poor, having requisitioned most (50 million hectares) of the land of the kulaks. After all, by the beginning of the 1920s the material base of the kulaks had been destroyed, the Antonovism was crushed, the land was divided per capita, and "equal" working conditions had been created. And suddenly this multimillion-dollar fist appeared again - every 20th was declared a fist! For what? And in order to rob, to take away bread. It was an outright robbery with completely definite consequences of the defeat: in the mid-1920s, the country exported 150 million poods of grain - grain purchased from the peasants. After dispossession, she traded in selected grain while it was possible to select it. But grain was requisitioned from collective farms at symbolic prices, and it began to disappear ...
The communists tried to present all the mistakes of collectivization as leftist excesses, perversion of the general line of the party in the countryside: Godvelikogoperelom, speeches of agrarians in December 1929, a draft resolution of the party of the All-Union Communist Party (b. ) about the pace of collectivization in December 1929 and the amendments to it by the Yakovlev commission - everything indicates not mistakes, but a carefully thought-out policy of military-feudal enslavement of the peasantry. Yes, there were also decrees on excesses, but these are nothing more than the fruits of Koba's "serpentine disposition", who wanted to turn the people's anger against the executors of his own orders.
Orders, decrees, red words - how many crippled lives, destinies, deaths are behind all this? ..
Collectivization, industrialization, the Stakhanov movement, labor enthusiasm - all this was a grandiose bullshit, a deception in which everyone participated and which covered everyone. It was a mutual guarantee of lies - from below and from above - everyone knew that this was a lie and it was beneficial for everyone to pass off a lie as the truth - not even for psychological protection, but for self-defense against a bullet, which everyone who saw a naked person immediately received - literally and figuratively. - a colossus. Naked, no pants ...
Universality, compulsion, bondage, violence led to a reduction in production. Just as the dictatorship of the proletariat turned out to be a dictatorship against the proletariat, so the "alliance of the working class and the peasantry" turned into malnutrition of one and enslavement of the other.
Entry into collective farms was accompanied by mass slaughter of livestock and destruction of equipment. We explained this by the provocations of the kulaks, but this applied to the middle peasant and the poor and even acquired its name - “self-dispossession”. Then the death of the collective farm herd began. During the period of collectivization, the number of livestock decreased by a leap by almost an order of magnitude.
REFERENCE
During the years of collectivization (29 - 33 years), destroyed, fell, slaughtered:
over 25 million cattle, including 10 million cows;
17.7 million horses (noble guingmas);
more than 10 million pigs;
71 million sheep and goats.
This is such a war, such a planetary catastrophe, such a blow to the country's productive forces that the folk poetics of fear - Mamai and so on - is pale and naive.
Even in comparison with the lethal level of 18-19, when the pulse of the economy was not felt somewhere, meat production in 34 was two times lower! Below the hungry 19th, the production of milk and eggs fell by the thirty-fourth year. Imagine how many child deaths.
The poor harvest in 1932 was due to the drought, and by the robbery and destruction of agriculture, which Mamai did not even dream of, the destruction of the most powerful and interested producer, the unwillingness of the survivors to regularly carry the new corvee. The shameful word “kulak” was used to describe the most industrious and wealthy peasants, who were declared a separate bourgeois class to be destroyed. Genocide of the 37th - and on a comparable scale! - began eight years earlier - with the physical destruction of the "kulak". Is it any wonder that this threw the country back a quarter of a century - into the year 1913, beloved by our statistics.
After the release of the Decree of March 14, 1930 "On the fight against distortions of the party line in the collective farm movement," the percentage of collectivization in several months of 1930 fell from 52 to 21, and in the region of the capital - from 72 to 7.5% - 65% of "volunteers" simply escaped from the coveted phalansters.
But not far ... The "mistake" of March 14, which led to the collapse of the collective farms, was quickly corrected; the place of direct coercion was taken by an indirect one - the tax on individual farmers was sharply increased and symbolic benefits for collective farmers were increased. But the "benefits" did not help: harvests were falling, the cattle died. These "mistakes" were also immediately exposed by a wise party - the decree of March 26, 1932 "On the compulsory socialization of livestock." But, alas, no cases of resurrection of fallen cattle with the help of a decree were registered.
Every year new mistakes were revealed - pioneers! dialectics! - and new party resolutions were issued, while agriculture was getting sickly. In the 32nd, the seed fund went to the account of the obligatory harvesting, in the 33rd, the largest of the world's known cattle burial grounds was formed ... a stable zone of unfavorable farming. Since then, every congress has proved to be "a decisive turn in the attitude towards agriculture." How many ramps - so many turns.
Periodically, to save the situation, injections were made into the villages from cities: 10, 25, 40 thousand people. The workers who were forcibly sent to collective farms, naturally, did not have the appropriate skills and knowledge: the dictate was superimposed on illiteracy. They were greeted with hostility.
A new decline in agricultural production - this was every time the reaction to directive intervention and the next "turn".
Now there is no meat, then there is sausage and cheese,
Then there are no hats wherever I go
But I have met with great misfortune
There are no loved ones. No health. No apartment.
No joy no conscience no peace
No respect for your work
There is no warm toilet in the village
No harvest next year
But there is canned fish meatballs
Vague and fantastic purpose
There is meanness, vodka, boredom and ballet -
Forests and steppes, construction sites and rockets
There are even people in the backwoods somewhere
And God sees! - even though there is no God either
Stubbornly seeking ways to shame America, Khrushchev ordered to buy from the collective farmers without any evasion all their horned animals. With this administrative method, it was possible to increase the public livestock by several million heads. But with the onset of cold weather it became clear that the collective and state farms were not ready to accommodate and maintain the purchased cows, and they had to be partially slaughtered. Since then, there have been no cows or calves in the village, and the stubborn old women, no matter how they are now persuaded, do not want to bother with the spear anymore. TV is better. So drinking a mug of milk in the countryside has become a problem generated by the same ambition: “What milk! We, my dear, are not humming anything now, as if the ears are blocked. "
“It is safe to say,” one of the documents later sounded, “that the meat problem in the shortest possible time in our country will be successfully solved and we will have enough meat not only for domestic needs, but we will be able to lay down significant state reserves and allocate some meat and meat products for foreign trade ”.
“Or remember the sad decree about horses. They were called parasites, eating someone else's food, dishonoring Soviet Russia with idle neighing and squeaking of cart. But the point here is not "idle neighing". Some court cunning whispered to Khrushchev that if he slaughtered several million horses, then how much feed would be saved immediately. Plus, for almost so much horse meat! Yes, leather on belts and soles! It was forbidden to give feed for horses, they were excluded from all types of reporting, that is, in fact, they were outlawed, and collective farms, willy-nilly, were forced to send them to slaughter. And these mournful, downcast processions of horses along the roads of Russia, which they had fed, plowed, mowed and protected from enemies for many centuries, reached for the knackery.
In the meantime, the milk jar from the farm to the rural kindergarten is being transported on a tractor with a trailer. Whereas highly motorized America now holds 10 million horses for common work.
And the planting of decorative agro-towns ?! For the sake of such a theatrical life, it happened that people were forcibly relocated with a policeman to state-owned apartment buildings with a common toilet under the fence. Meanwhile, the abandoned villages were declared hopeless, the courtyards were overgrown with thistles, radio posts were wobbling and falling, wells crumbled and the wind fluttered the decaying whitish flag, forgotten over the roof of the boarded-up school.
Or the multiple unification of collective farms, their transformation into ostentatious giants, where everything is huge: the fields, and the tractor rushes, and the combined incomes that have become millions (and debts too), but the person himself turned out to be very small, whose voice was increasingly lost in the vastness of the impersonal land , no longer warmed by love, shouting her.
And what a mess all sorts of structural and governing combinations have brought, say, the creation of economic councils, these other paper-and-red-tape structures!
Decisions and decrees, orders and instructions rained down in a hail, the lower bodies did not have time to perceive and comprehend them, they were seized by nervousness and unsteady uncertainty of perspective. Against this background, a tragic shot rang out in Ryazan: the secretary of the regional committee Larionov committed suicide. But many, since the Stalinist times, accustomed not to contradict, adapting to ostentatious digital creation, began to openly lie in their reports, passing off what they wanted at the top for reality at the bottom.
And, like harbingers of impending disaster, dust storms began - a direct consequence of excessive ploughing and violation of crop rotations. Millions of tons of disturbed land lifted by winds from the fields of the Kuban and Stavropol. Overnight, our Kursk, still snow-covered pre-spring fields changed into black snowdrifts. Black suspension penetrated through the window pasting, black lay on the windowsill, on writing paper, and, of course, on the soul ...
Such dust storms were then repeated repeatedly. Despite the optimistic charts of milk yield and weight gain that had not yet faded, but washed away by the rains, meat and all meat began to disappear from the shelves of stores. Then everything is dairy. In a matter of days, the dried processed cheese was rummmed. Somewhere went millet and buckwheat, as it turned out, disappeared for decades. It came down to noodles and pasta. In autumn, bakeries stopped the planned baking of loaves and rolls, confectionery shops were closed. White bread was issued according to sealed certificates only to some patients and preschoolers. In bread shops and canteens there were appeals offering to think again how much bread you need. The threat of the card system hangs over the country. In a word, we came...
"Bolyar hat" was not "our Senka".
Khrushchev, contrary to his simple-minded peasant appearance, turned out to be a man with a stubborn and willful character, was able, without listening, suddenly and violently angry, unceremoniously and rudely scold. Having taken a number of measures against Stalin's monopolism, he himself moved to a single, volitional and indisputable management of the country, without having for this purpose a tendency to a thoughtful, in-depth socio-economic analysis of the situation ... ".
What inhuman talent must be possessed in order to turn the boundless, fertile, numb land into the desert in order to destroy everything - to the point of aphids. And not for geological times - for years ...
We talk a lot about the victims of repression, about the war, but who knows how many millions fell in the 33rd after the great accomplishment - collectivization, who knows the scale of the famine - and where? - in the most fertile regions of the Black Earth region, where hunger was not known from the Tatars? Who remembers that the internal troops defended half-starved cities from starving peasants? Who knows that parents did not let their children on the street - they will steal, they will eat? Yes, yes, there was cannibalism in the Kuban, the writer who is rooting for his people writes with the blood of his heart. Was!
People flew like at the front. Kaganovich drove - as Mamai passed, and now not a gugu, as if not people - dogs what shaled.
Some chubby grandmother came to us and told her mother: "Wash the dishes - do not pour, I will drink."
Tears in my eyes, frost on my skin... I don't know of any other country like that...
I can't write...
OUTCOMES
In order to encourage the people, he instructed the merchant to arrange a picnic in a country grove and set off fireworks. A picnic was made, fireworks were burned, "but bread was not provided to the people through that." Then the foreman called to himself "favorites" and told them to encourage the people. They began to "favorite" to walk around the neighbors and did not miss a single desnised so as not to console.
M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin
Collectivization was not just a deception of the peasantry or violence against it - it was a road to nowhere: the destruction of agriculture, which was eternally built on relations of property and profit, these guarantors of prosperity and abundance. Just as in industry industrialization led to the alienation of the worker from the product of his labor, in agriculture socialization led to ruin.
Even ours cannot deny that the agrarian revolution led to a sharp deterioration in the food supply of cities. The destruction of large farms had disastrous consequences, the creation of new ones on a collective basis - even more terrible. Labor productivity, already not growing, fell to a minimum, commodity production fell sharply.
Attempts to explain the low marketability of the agricultural sphere by the heavy legacy of tsarism and the growth of peasant consumption are groundless: the decline occurred precisely as a result of transformations in the countryside and led to a decrease in consumption both in the city and in the countryside. Under tsarism, bread was traded, after the revolution it began to be bought. There is also no reason to explain the disadvantage of the food balance of the cities by the contradiction between state-owned industry and small-scale agriculture: the cooperation of the countryside only aggravated it.
The low productivity of the collective farms and the high cost of food were a direct consequence of the command economy, which led to the almost complete expropriation of the products of peasant labor by the state and to the absolute disinterest of the grain farmers in the results of their labor.
Our vaunted collectivism turned out to be a perverted, distorted, pathological form of mass character — herd, ordinary, primitive collectivism, trampling the individual and turning the people into a submissive, ruminant, apathetic mass, that is, collectivism misanthropic in its deep essence.
That is why the "temporary" difficulties of the collective farms proved to be permanent. If the crisis in industry grew over time, then agriculture from the very beginning did not come out of it.
In the village, we really did the impossible: for a couple of decades, we completely discouraged the peasants from the age-old craving for land. How could it be otherwise? Repressions against the most industrious, the idiocy of lumpen-socialization, Soviet corvee, stupid prohibitions, grosiche payment, continuous and unpredictable fluctuations: then you can have a cow, then you can't, then supertaxes, then corn, then kok-sagyz, then bald ... The surprising thing is not that everything is gone, but that there is still something left...
And above all - "wise policy of the party!" Yes - there is nowhere wiser ...
Collective farms led the country to coupons, to ruin on the ground, soil degradation, starved millions of cattle, deprived tens of thousands of villages of prospects, dispersed millions of hereditary peasants in the cities.
And today, in the years of "perestroika", the new laws force the villagers to enter into rental relations with obvious bankrupts and grieving leaders who are just waiting to tear off the tenant of the next three skins.
No, not heroes, not "beacons" solve the problems of the villagers, What was done to the village is a crime of the leaders of the state and the party. That shock didn't go through. Kolkhoz is synonymous with lawless, equalization. And the afternoon! There is not only de-peasantization, but also dehumanization. Why didn't the mass of the rural population go into cooperation today? Shock. Makes itself felt the experience of grandfathers and fathers. Stolypin called poverty the worst of slavery. People in the village live half a life - there is a lack of everything...
***
It's time to apologize to the people for the crime.
The priority properties of genius are phenomenal, I would say, fantastic insight, that is, the ability to see what will sprout from unknown seeds and hear the noise and fury of the distant future. This property is given to the rarest representatives of the human race. In Gulliver's Travels, visionary Jonathan Swift brilliantly outlined the involution (degradation) of a special human type, which he called the sonorous word yahoo (yehu). These are by no means disgusting fictional humanoid creatures, as it is customary to interpret the vivid image of Swift, and not even the result of misanthropy attributed to him, but the genius's concern about the future destinies of humanity, yet a concentrated image of human nature, not ennobled by morality and spirituality.
In order to explain what he meant, I will limit myself to a few damaging characteristics of the real and, mainly, potential degradation of homo, which has undergone the loss of the prefix sapiens:
- Battles between yehu of neighboring areas start for no apparent reason; yehu in one area try in every possible way to attack neighbors by surprise, before they had time to prepare.
“Most yehu herds have some kind of ruler who is always the ugliest and most vicious in the herd. Each such leader usually has a favorite who bears an extreme resemblance to him, whose duty is that he licks the feet and ass of his master and delivers the females to his lair ... This favorite is hated by the whole herd, and therefore for safety he always keeps near his lord. Usually he remains in power until an even worse one is found; and as soon as he receives his resignation, all the yehu of this region, young and old, males and females, led by his successor, tightly surround him and douse him from head to toe with their excrements.
- If you give five yehu food, which would be enough for fifty, then instead of calmly starting to eat, they start a fight, and everyone tries to take everything for themselves ... Yehu are the only animals that are susceptible to disease; they are all due not to their mistreatment, but to the uncleanliness and gluttony of these vile brutes.
- In some places of this country come across multi-colored shiny stones for which yehu have a real passion; and if these stones sit firmly in the ground, as sometimes happens, they dig with their claws from morning till night in order to pull them out, after which they carry away their prey and bury it in heaps in their lairs; they act with extreme caution, constantly looking around for fear that their comrades might discover their treasures.
- One more very juicy root comes across here, however, very rarely, and it is not easy to find it; yehu diligently search for this root and suck it with great pleasure ... Under its influence, they either kiss, then fight, roar, grimace, mutter something, write out a pretzel, stumble, fall into the mud and fall asleep.
Thus, the dominant features of the Swift yehu are: spitefulness, aggressiveness, vileness, scum, greed, greed, a propensity for alcoholism and drug addiction, the focus of the mind on the development and multiplication of vices.
In the most vivid literary way, Jonathan Swift described what people turn into when they are set free by the base passions and lusts of their ego and outlined the dangers of the spiritual involution of mankind with amazing insight.
Swift's talented heirs developed his Epiphanies to an exhaustive completeness, creating a grandiose canvas of truly endless possibilities for further debilitation of yehu - especially in the era of human masses, prone to homo rollback to George Orwell's barnyard: "polyps of humanity", "lazy stupid plebs nature ”by A. Schopenhauer,“ rascality ”by F. Nietzsche, predators-Morlocks by H. Wells, heroes by G. Ibsen, D. Joyce, H. Borges, W. Golding, hollow people by T.S. Eliot, “rhinos” by E. Ionesco, characters by S. Beckett, “one-dimensional man” by G. Marcuse - everything that is usually called rabble, cattle, rags, rabble, rabble, boor, redneck, gopot, etc.
Many outstanding thinkers of the past who studied the phenomenon of mass communities, including S. Kirkegaard, F. Nietzsche, G. Lebon, J. Burkhardt, G. Tarde, H. Ortega, wrote with great concern about the ubiquity and timelessness of the phenomenon of the potential yehuization of a person. i-Gassett, M. Weber, B. Bauer, D. Santayana, N. Berdyaev, D. Merezhkovsky A. Platonov ...
Siren Kierkegaard a century before the "triumph of Yehuism" insightfully, colorfully and in the smallest detail described its tragic consequences, Friedrich Nietzsche, with his characteristic brilliance, outlined the future "the rule of the bastards" - this is the most heinous monster that ever burdened the earth, - "impudent, predatory , disgusting, with the bile of a bull, with the heart and brains of a peacock "...
In human society, yehu is a common, natural phenomenon that exists everywhere and carries a well-defined social role. But its involution begins with a sharp breakdown of the social order, when the yehu declare themselves to be the "vanguard of humanity", "the highest race", the protector of the "national spirit" and "lost identity", the main bearer of spirituality or "true faith." This invariably happens in a standard, stereotyped way: the enraged leaders of the yehu provoke to throw off the "criminal power", to destroy the aliens or the rich, to defeat the omnipresent enemies, to build the fairest state on earth, to achieve total yehuization of the whole earth ...
The slogans are well known, leading to incredible excitement of the masses of yehu: who was nothing, he will become everything; cooks can run the state; forward to the complete victory of Yehuism; construction and triumph of Yehuism in a single country; enemies are everywhere; but victory and paradise will be ours, etc., etc.
Possessing an animal scent, the yehu leaders skillfully choose the moment of the putsch and, possessing a huge reserve of aggression and anger, easily break traditions and established orders - which has repeatedly happened in different countries on our planet. I would call it a devastating collapse or a coup.
In a yehugate there is a whole set of social institutions and structures, with only one proviso - “as it were”: as if a constitution, as if elections, as if a parliament, as if law and law, as if rights to yehu, etc. There is even a Yekhuligency of its own, but the task of the latter is fundamentally different from the functions of the intelligentsia of a normal state: it is the Yekhuligenia that is the stratum between the Yehuvozhaks and the "people" intended for the most effective intoxication of the masses.
Yehuobrazans-propagandists are trained by special yehursitits according to the programs of the formation, parade ground and military regulations: a step to the left, a step to the right from the "general line" of the yehupar party, and, at best, you are a rejected outcast or a pariah by everyone, and at worst, a prisoner or a corpse.
Instead of law, law, legitimacy - here is yehusudie and yehuprudentia.
The principles of their activity are also well known: telephone law, total corruption, lack of jurisdiction of the supreme rulers, Kafkaesque trial, friends - everything, enemies - the law ...
Since the yehu have an organic hatred of the "hefty smart ones," few critically-minded or dissidents, so to speak, yehufoba, are subject to special persecution. The result is such unique phenomena as meritophobia and meritocide - the expulsion or destruction of all the slightest thinkers. Therefore, the indispensable companions of the Yehuga state are prisons, camps, mental hospitals, punitive medicine ...
The place of culture here is occupied by the total yehuiization of the people's consciousness - the incessatable propaganda of yehuzism, powerful yehuzombiving on all channels of the television screen, the most primitive pop culture aimed at lowering the already low level of consciousness of the population. This is a culture of involution: fences, walls, elevators, painted with obscene language, slogans designed for assholes, vulgar songs and poems glorifying yehuvozhde, moron, but carefully censored books, primitive philosophy for the final beating of the brains of yehuligancy...
They also have yehunauka, which, due to the viciousness and aggressiveness of the yehu, is entirely aimed at creating weapons of mass destruction, the widest range of poisons and bacteriological weapons. Other areas of yehunauki serve the science of aggression and war in one way or another.
The yehu army is perhaps the only thing that resembles an ordinary meat grinding machine used all over the world, but due to the natural cruelty of the yehu, hazing, wild unwake drunkenness and feudal relations of command and rank and file personnel reign in it. This army is sometimes even able to win, but the price of its "victories" is achieved in a monstrous way: to overwhelm the enemy with corpses, to send soldiers to attack through an undimined field or through a nuclear test site immediately after the test of an atomic bomb - here all this is a common, everyday thing ...
But still, yehu, like no one, are proud of their victories and heroes in all areas of their grief-stricken life. I would even introduce the concept of "yehupedovysny", but because of their illiteracy and unwillingness to learn, including from their own mistakes, everything that yehu come up with, they invariably declare either the most remarkable, advanced or highly spiritual.
Arnold Toynbee in "Comprehension of History" described in detail the birth and fall of countries, empires and even entire civilizations, explaining their breakdowns by the erroneous answers of the elite to historical challenges. In fact, it seems to me that states and peoples are dying as a result of the "triumph of yehuism", that is, the absolute degradation of all aspects of life without exception, surrounded by a rapidly evolving normal human society.
The first integral part of the essay ⬇️
https://telegra.ph/GLOBAL-KOGAL-CREATE-ARTIFICIAL-HUNGER-Agro-terrorism-08-10
Annexes to the Crown 👑 Agenda
1.
https://telegra.ph/STATE-BIOTERRORISM-CROWN-08-09
2.
https://telegra.ph/Forced-vaccination--fascist-experiment-of-the-Third-Reich-08-09
3.
https://telegra.ph/Courts-martial-of-the-United-States-08-09
That's why it's important to ask questions out loud and loud!
The point should shake the servant of the people (president and vice president) when he answers the questions asked, and not the journalists or the people when he thinks to ask the question out loud or not!
Ϻɾ. 𑀝αʈʈɭε Βɾεεɗεɾ 🐄