Irina Crutcher Boyko’s running blog in English: critical articles, comments and analysis about the USSR and Russia, now on China Rising Radio Sinoland.


By Jeff J. Brown

Pictured above: The flag of the USSR on the left and Russia on the right. What an incredible civilization, what an amazing story to tell.


Right here, it takes just a second…

Support my many hours of research and articles on CRRS via FundRazr! FundRazr also accepts bank cards, PayPal, with recurring or one-time contributions

Support all my hard work, videos, podcasts and interviews on CRRS via PayPal! Bank cards can also be used through the PayPal portal, with recurring or one-time donations as well,

If you prefer Patreon for ongoing support, take your pick, CRRS or China Tech News Flash!

Thank you, Jeff

Sixteen years on the streets, living and working with the people of China, Jeff

Brighteon Video Channel:

lMPORTANT NOTICE: techofascism is already here! I’ve been de-platformed by StumbleUpon (now Mix) and Reddit. I am being heavily censored by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. It’s only a matter of time before they de-platform me too. Please start using Brighteon for my videos, then connect with me via other social media listed below, especially VK, Telegram, Parler and WeChat, which are not part of the West’s MSM Big Lie Propaganda Machine (BLPM).

Note before starting. I’d like to welcome Ms. Irina Crutcher Boyko to China Rising Radio Sinoland. Her understanding and deep knowledge of Soviet and Russian history makes for must reading. Due to great interest in these topics, she joined my China Writers’ Group in June 2021. It has been pure pleasure, to the point that I want to share her written work with China Rising Radio Sinoland fan, so you can learn too. The running blog below has the most recent contribution to start, on down.

Irina’s specialty is to subtitle Soviet films, videos and songs in English. Here are her excellent channels. Like me, I hope you subscribe,

Running Blog

Numbered from first at bottom to to most recent up top.

Added to daily, so check back regularly…


[For my use]:


Comments from China Writers’ Group,


122-Russian diplomat summoned to British Foreign Office over Skripal case

In Russian, we call it “marasmus grew stronger” by analogy with the expression “the frost grew stronger.” Moroz (frost in Rissian) and marasmus in Russian are consonant

121-A Dash of Disorder: How Controlled Uncertainty Can Help Russia’s Defence

Worth the read and some new thinking about it.

One option is called “spatial or parallel uncertainty”. For example, if two countries introduce sanctions against Russia, one is hit with hard counter-sanctions while the other is randomly spared any consequences, (this is a crude example but it does illustrate the principle). Needless to say, analysts are stumped since they cannot explain the decision via the available information. One can profit from the ensuing confusion and use it to set up follow-up scenarios.

“Serial or temporal uncertainty” refers to the inability to predict a point in time of a reaction.

“Scale or fractal uncertainty” refers to the alignment of elements of a response at different scales. From individual reaction up to geopolitical movements, or a combination.

Three forms of uncertainty can be combined and varied so that rather complex schedules can be devised and implemented in a controlled environment.  “Operational unpredictability and deterrence”.  What is suggested is a combination of deception and bluffing.

What prevents the opponent from deploying the same strategy? This is where I believe that the uncertainty approach has potential. The strategic and tactical advantage lie fully with the defender. The total war on Russia has been so ferocious that no change in strategy can increase the harm.


Russians have a different mindset. We do not think, do not make a decision and do not act in the way they think. Therefore, for them, our subsequent actions turn out to be unexpected and uncalculated. They do not consider it worthy to study us. And we study them very carefully. They have no worthy advisers, no one except the Ukrainians with their hatred of us. So our surprises will always await them.

120-The United States by the hands of Ukraine can repeat the scenario with the downing of MH17 deep in the territory of the Russian Federation


119-The best fights in the parliament of Ukraine


118-Leaders and losers of the former USSR: how GDP grew in the former Soviet republics in the last 30 years. Almost 30 years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and it is already possible to summarize


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

I think that I have an unconventional view of the Soviet Union, which I can share.  First I will discuss the EU, which is not my main point.

1.  All the ex-Republics of the USSR voiced a loud love for the EU and a disdain for Russia.  (Some say that “the people” don’t really feel that way, but we have to go with what the government is doing.)  Yet those that have joined the EU have not really flowered economically.  Why did they join?

What you are doing in the EU, you are renting your territory out for a future atomic battlefield.  You get a NATO base that is not in your control, and if they ever shoot off a missile with any excuse, You will gain various radioactive no-go dead zones in your country.  (Of course you’ll get many 1000’s of dead people too.)

They do it because some of the leaders will become very rich, and others rich people will become billionaires.  And the common people support it, because EU membership is their doorway to get the heck out of the country.  I think population decline is evident in all the new EU members.  Some from emigration and some from declining birth rate, (which is the same thing), no belief in the future.  I found a very detailed EU study on population, but it was a long-term projection into the future, so I won’t include it here.


2.  Many Russians say that the Soviet Union was good for them.  So they wish they had it back.  But I ask you?

What did the Soviet Republics ever give to Russia?

Did they have anything that you needed?

From the very beginning in 1922, at its creation:

Soviet leaders schemed on how to subdue “Russian Chauvinism.”

Cripple Russia with every known device.

(I posted details before and am not going to repeat it.)

At every tremor in relations, separatism raised its ugly head.

Giving, and more giving were the only proposed solutions.

Bleed Russia dry. (dozens of times)

We Can Fight the battles on these buffer zones.

The territories were strategic even for the tzars.

If you give up the Republics, you’ll have NATO bases on your border.

Guess What???

So in my view it is not a loss to be rid of the Republics. You should have done it in the 50’s, you’d be a super-power.

But how they went about ending the USSR, created an enormous loss.

A so-called market economy perhaps could have worked for Russia.

But instead of carefully building the institutions for the market, they only dismantled the currently working planned economy.  With nothing to replace it, they built a bandit economy.  Why did they do it?  After examining the events of the time, I have to conclude that the leaders of the Soviet Union for 30 years, from Khrushchev to Yeltsin, were Enormous Gangsters.  The whole lot had to be complicit too, or why did they let them get away with it.


I don’t allow them to say “Ooops, I guess I was naive”.  I go with Roosevelt when he said, “If it happened, it was planned that way”.

3.  Now let’s take back the republics?  Are you kidding?

What do they have for Russia?

Let them beg like they are begging the EU.  Don’t give them a nickel, now it is their turn to give.

Build Russia. Fuck the Republics.  Just watch out they will send their terrorists.

4.  Of all the statistics, GDP or whatever they come up with, only one tells the truth every time.  What percentage of income do the people need to pay for food?

Read it and be informed about who has an economy.  Sorted from the least to the most.

(2020 infographic from:

The countryShare of spending on food, %Share of spending on alcohol and tobacco, %Share of spending on cafes, restaurants and hotels, %Share of spending on leisure and culture, %
3United Kingdom10,62,28,813,1
20Czech Republic19,23,06,910,6
37Northern Macedonia37,84,03,61,8


One of the main and perhaps the most important reasons for the return of the republics is a strategic issue.
The entire post-Soviet space, as we also call the former republics in another way, fell under the rule of the West. NATO military bases are almost everywhere. And if there are no NATO bases, then there are biological laboratories of unknown purpose. For some reason, NATO military laboratories collect biological samples from Russians
Over the centuries, Russia, like no other in the world, has experienced countless military attacks in order to seize territories with natural resources. Russia is the only country that has on its territory all the fossils of the Mendeleev’s periodic table. And even more.
We are always afraid of another attack on us. And we always prepare for it. Only the last two world wars have inflicted devastating damage on the Russian gene pool. But there were also the destructive interventions of the Entente, our civil war.
According to Mendeleev’s calculations, 600 million Russians should live in Russia today. And we are not even 200 million now.
You are right that most of the republics gave Russia practically nothing while they were part of the USSR. The Russians gave them jobs and everything they needed to live. The Russians taught them, created universities in the republics. The Russians built factories there. For 30 years they have eaten everything they got from the USSR, have not created or preserved anything. Even Ukraine, which was one of the most developed republics. All her riches have now been sucked out of her.
If there is such a government decision to return them, then I just hope that for the republics it will not be a free gift like a gift for them of the territories of Russia that they took with them after secession from the USSR

There is such a sad video on YouTube. To make it clear, in all the former republics, Russians began to be called occupiers. The video talks about what kind of invaders we really are.


117-“We killed Hitler’s dog.” How Uzbekistan lived 30 years after the collapse of the USSR


116-Consumer basket for 2021, composition, price per month


115-Why did Academician Sakharov need a “world government” and what “God’s scourge” was he afraid of?


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

The way I see it:

If an article ostensibly about world peace does not take into consideration the world situation as it is:  IS IT NOT MISINFORMATION?  Is it not designed to confuse?

First it says Andrey Dmitrievich Sakharov was born a genius.  So then: must all that follows be the wisdom of a genius?  If a genius says something that misses the point, or is dangerously stupid, doesn’t that make him an idiot?

He says something about the devastation of atomic weapons, and then says, “humanity divided into military and political blocs”.   As if, atomic weapons caused the division of political blocs.  But this division existed centuries before atomic power.  Subterfuge number one.

Then he muses that “a solution could be found by combining all the best that exists in the socialist and capitalist systems.” Thus, having merged together, they would, firstly, cease to conflict, and, secondly, neither of the two “formations” would begin to plot to destroy the other.  So what would be the “best of the capitalist system” that might combine with some other system??  Let’s take a look:

✓Capitalism as we know it in our world today, (I think always was), is a Mill that concentrates wealth.  “Concentrates wealth” is a code word that means “concentrates poverty”.  The way that this mill works is that something has to be thrown into the hopper, and out the other end comes concentrated wealth.  It is kind of like a harvester machine.  The grain goes into the wagon and the chaff is dropped onto the ground to become next year’s fertilizer.

OK, what goes into the hopper?  Like in 1954 in Guatemala  Colonel Jacobo Arbenz, with his Decree 900, a proposal by Arbenz to redistribute the undeveloped, privately owned land of the wealthy, to the 90% of Guatemalans who were farmers without any land. A year into his presidency, Arbenz expropriated 225,000 acres of land, paying the land owners for this land, and redistributing it to landless and rural farmers.

Thereafter he went into the hopper, and out came the increased wealth of the United Fruit Company, the UFCO.  Soon The United Fruit Company built its empire across Central America; and Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Costa Rica went into the hopper.  The chaff was left to rot as usual.

So again, what is the best of Capitalism?  It is that since the 50’s they have alway found something to throw into the hopper of their mill.  A couple of things about this mill, (about so-called Capitalism as we know it).  The mill has levers that can speed it up, as we see it is going faster and faster.  But there are no controls to bring it slower or even to moderate it.

In fact, when the hopper goes empty the machine explodes.  Especially nowadays that 99% of “wealth” is virtual, that is it is made of only paper derivatives.  It amounts to a billion of $ Billion dollar fragile “bets” on any stupid thing, (how many angles dance on the head of a pin, or not much better).

But with the real economy;  soon it will start eating its own arms and legs.  It has to.  So those that claim capitalists are driven by greed, (that is another blooper), they are in truth driven by survival and doing their duty to make sure the hopper never goes empty.

So Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China, all have to go into the mill and be harvested.  Now put the “best of Capitalism, with the best of Socialism”, and see what a good menu could be created.

Anyone with half a brain will see immediately that, if any one of these giants go into the mill, next in line will be Europe and all the other so-called allies.  The owner of the mill shares the wealth only to meet their objective, to catch the big fish.  After that all of planet earth will be owned by one entity, with a big “FOR RENT” sign.

All of the statements below are slobbering idiocy, and they are all water on the mill of world imperialism.

a unified world of labor and capital requires a single governing body.

develop left-wing forces that would give rise to active international cooperation, from which the “world government,” dear to the academician’s heart, would eventually grow.

you can understand it – living in peace and creating medicines instead of bombs or building universities is much better than filling ammunition depots.

Sakharov was a typical idealistic dreamer. He thought that in life, as in physics, everything can be calculated and constructed.  This made him into a blind man.


114-The mistake was not to send a limited contingent of Soviet troops to Afghanistan, but to withdraw them from there.

113-Dastardly tricks: the “Holodomor” in American and Ukrainian politics…


112-the Real STALIN continuation, and Broken World Views

Dear Richard,

I would like to draw your attention to the work of Professor Katasonov again. These are Katasonov “Golden scam. The world economy as a financial pyramid”; John Perkins, Susan Lindauer, Valentin Katasonov “World Capitalism. Exposure. They Dared to Tell the Truth”; Valentin Katasonov “World bondage”. In them, in particular, the professor explains the mechanism of inflation and the inclusion of a machine for printing cash money through the flow of non-cash money into cash.



111-We develop our understanding in an ideological framework

Hello Billy,

(Really, these new comments should go under another subject line, like: “we develop our understanding in an ideological framework”.)

You write a good overview of the world situation.  I don’t find myself in gross disagreement with much of anything that you say.  I can say a few words about it below, if it still seems relevant when I get down there.  (It didn’t seem that relevant, not because anything you said was inadequate.  But because it does not move out of so-called “real-politics”. –  OK Last thing, there are two comments down there.)

First: I don’t have “any answers”, nor do I have an ideology.  So the best I can do is come up with a few new questions.  What are some of the beliefs that drive so many of today’s thinking individuals?  You said it before: – “we develop our understanding in an ideological framework”, so then I said, (that framework is what we should be discussing).  Or just call it a “worldview”.

(a) One such belief is that a balanced comprehension of past events is critical to move toward the future.  Like repeating the Holocaust story will bring peace on earth.  I can somewhat agree.  It is not that damaging if it does not consume all of our attention.  But then that balance has to be projected forward in time.  I expressed it that we argue over story A and story B, but today humanity lives in reality C.

Then you said, if I get you correctly, that story A and story B are permanent, in that they are the class struggle.  I don’t minimize the relevance of this struggle, but I don’t put all my weight on it either.  For me, this is not the way out of the maze.  That was proven on the ground, right?  It didn’t liberate us.  So keep doing what didn’t work, right?

Maybe it is permanent, if you interpret class as those in perpetual power and those in perpetual submission, rather than the struggle between workers and owners.  (More of my thoughts that do correspond to your views are also on this thread, under what Patrice said.)  But Let’s look further here.

(b) Another great belief is that ideology (thought) is more important than my actual life.  So I am willing to give up my life, (better to give up someone else’s life), because my non-existential idea rules me.  And with this, giving up someone’s life, mine or theirs, is essential and assured.

It’s the confusion between breathing and thinking.  I use “breathing” as an analogy for the existential life that we are living today.  Working, sleeping, eating, wives and husbands, children, home, school, community, and on and on.  Thoughts about that life, rather than just the living of it, might take up most of our attention.  They could be of satisfaction and appreciation, but the idealist judgements are always negative, rejection, complaining and blame.  Otherwise, why would you need an ideology?  And each of those negative thoughts generates a negative emotional content.  I’m not saying these thoughts don’t have any component of truth, but I’m just noting how you handle them.

This thinking may be connected to our existential life, or it may be totally disconnected from it.  If connected, it’s a life that you can work with, if not connected it’s an ideology that you must press onto others.  We will all agree that communism has never been realized, it’s non existential as it’s defined.  It is not in this life, in that you can’t modify it and see the feedback.  It’s always in the head.

(c)  Another firmly held belief is that we must look at the world as an opposition, and we must choose sides and insist on our view with all of our might.  (Judaic/Christian good and evil.) So therefore dividing the sides and power, is the game we all must play.  (You’re with us, or against us.)  $ Trillions of (virtual) wealth is a power that we cannot fathom, nor know how to counter, so:

(d)  So we have the belief that this division can only lead to (violent) revolution, and the destruction of everything that exists (as we know it).  It’s our sworn ideology.  Life has to collapse, and we will have to suffer along with everyone else, since that collapse will be world-wide.  Clearly this ideology has the likely end-game to destroy the planet and everybody in it.

Again:  I don’t have “the answers” that will resolve your doubts.  So the best I can do is come up with some new questions.

(e)  We also believe that we must go into the street and cause an upset, burn buildings, throw things at the police and try to break through their lines to ransack some of our public institutions.  We honor that behavior.  We must get into the world news feeds, so that we can enlist foreigners to join our crusade and to destroy our own (oppressive) government.  Of course they are only too happy to oblige.  But do it for us????  Get real.  We are doing it for them, for their benefit.  World Capitalism vitally needs our country to crash.

(I can still find a reporter’s story about the Portland riots. She tried to video the demonstrators taunting and attacking the police.  But there was a team within the demonstrators that attacked all outside filming.  (Ya’ Can’t Film Here!)  Then when the police retaliated, the demonstrator cameramen were busy capturing it.)

Provocateurs abound, and hundreds of private interests can put in their licks, and create the greatest chaos possible.  But still we firmly hold to our old belief, that out of this rubble a new and utopian world will emerge.  God are we delusional!

Anyone who holds to beliefs (a) through (e) is certain to create a path of destruction, war and suffering.  These beliefs are the basis for the saying that, human nature is aggressive by their DNA.  They’re also the basis of most of the back and forth comments under the articles, on the websites we visit.  But that statement is only the justification for these ideologs to continue their rampage!

(f)  So Stalin did what he did, in the times in which he did them.  How did he get there??  But he reacted as best he could in the middle of those circumstances.  (Really it was the Russian people that did all that was good, and the Soviet leaders that did all that was negative.)  Stalin’s expertise was that he didn’t hinder the people’s creativity that much, and he encouraged it in so many ways.

But now, will “Stalin II” come back and save us?  Will there be a mobilized economy in the R.F. where people will dedicate every waking hour, for $500/mo, to the giant struggle to beat off the other enemy-class, (with this as my fundamental thought structure)?  Will Marxism rise from the ashes of the USSR?  (Remember, if there are really such war conditions to justify that mobilization, it might be over in 45 minutes, Max 48 hours.  Hardly enough time to begin the rebuilding.)

(g)  So I say that class struggle or no class struggle, conditions are so much different, that Stalin or no Stalin is irrelevant.  Let’s get on with examining future scenarios.

The way it is now, you need money to make changes and to create.  The way it is now, you need world trade and foreign direct investment to have money.  You’re lucky (I think) to have sanctions, where autarky is stimulated.  I don’t say this is sustainable or a known truth, but it’s the beginning of another kind of experiment.  Personally, I am sure that you need your own money to best transact your own business (and development).

A single money always concentrates wealth.  Concentrate wealth is a code word for, concentrate poverty.   Surely internationally, or just look at America where the regional cities collapsed and became “boarded up” while money and business and job-seakers ran to the major cities.  Within every city too, the ghetto crashed while the center thrived.  Or the EU is another graphic example.

(h)  Maybe it is worth revisiting the so-called two-loop monetary system which was functioning in the Stalin economy.  The essence of it boiled down to cash rubles were used to service market relations (sales of final products), and non-cash rubles were used for the administrative and planned distribution of raw materials and intermediate products. The latter are not full-fledged money, but perform the functions of a certain accounting unit, necessary for the control and planning of production and distribution. They’re credits.  There is no free flow of money from one circuit to the other.

Point being there must be credits to move forward.  In a (single) world-wide monetary system those credits will have to come from the outside.  (Well, the “big boys” over there make them up.)  So why can’t we make them up too?  It is never very clear to me what this “two-loop system” is.  But I am thinking it is like quantitative easing, that it comes out of nowhere.  Why even call it Rubles, (or dollars)?  Call it “energy units”, or “Paper Joules”.  (Joules are an engineering measure of energy.)

I think all nations should have their own paper joules, regions or states should have them, and even cities (and inner cities) should have paper joules.  It is called “complementary currency”, not to replace the major denomination, but to be the 2nd loop, the crediting loop.

I’m on a roll and I want to go on, but really we need a new thread and a new topic.  We have to shift focus off of “real-politic”, (the broken way that it is), and move to the way that it could be. Ways it could be, plural, – to consider more than one scenario.

Last thought:  If you are firmly entrenched on beliefs (a) through (e), then the October 1917 revolution is honorable.  If you are willing to question a) through e), well there is a lot to say about Marxism, and what it led to.

Other possibilities to talk about are the Russian potentials.  Please comment on my post of Sep 4th “WHO IS THE REAL RUSSIAN MAN”.  What is the temperament of the Russian personality that has the potential for the future?

And on the 7th, please comment on “What is the true situation in today’s Russia?”  We travel with blinders, and only imagine what we want to hear.

I guess two other things you said do deserve comment.

  1. You say: “extremely dishonestattacks on Stalin”.  It is Khrushchev that is the lead slanderer.  Whether or not the west was saying the same thing, (they always said that about everyone).  That is one of my main points.  The Soviet leadership for the most part, sunk to the level of a mob of gangsters.  Doesn’t that also taint communism?  If there are any good leaders, (besides Stalin), please tell me.


  1. I don’t discount anything that was accomplished under Stalin.I only point out that there are the results, and there are the methods.  Do the ends justify the means?  Each person has to decide that for themselves.  I say that for me, I don’t justify excess killing.  And I think the same could have been accomplished without it, (or with much less of it).

In 1939 in the report to the 18th congress Stalin himself said, It cannot be said that the purge was not accompanied by grave mistakes. There were unfortunately more mistakes than might have been expected.”  That innocent people had been convicted and punished in the purge.

Certainly the “excess killing model” is not the way to move into the future.  This must be acknowledged.


110-WHO IS THE REAL RUSSIAN MAN (and woman)?

This is the study of “Ethnogenesis”.  It is a term coined to mean the characteristics (political focus and people’s energy, and their level of cohesiveness), in a population living in a certain territory.  It is usually a nation, and/or an empire, and goes through phases of formation, building. plateauing, various phases of decline or collapse, anarchy, and the criminal chaos that might ensue.   It might last 1000 or more years and has a life of its own.  Once in a certain phase, it might be next to impossible to displace it to another era, or introduce an outside vector.

As the philosopher Berdyaev rightly noted: “The landscape of the Russian soul corresponds to the landscape of the Russian land, the same boundlessness … aspiration to infinity, and breadth”. The Russian man is a spontaneous man.

It is different in Europe; there everything is cramped, “everything is arranged and categorized”, everything is systematic and rational. And, let us add, there is control everywhere, they look after you everywhere, and if anything happens, there is nowhere to run to. They’ll catch you and punish you.

But we had somewhere to run – to the free Don, the Volga, then to Siberia. (This is to the question of a certain “indiscipline” of the Russian person.) Therefore for example, in the West there has never been such a spontaneous and anarchic concept of “Will”, which is so close to the Russian person; instead, they had the concept of “Freedom” (within the law). Therefore, paradoxically, our man, even under political despotism, was internally much more free (in everyday life, morals, social life) than a European, who was always pressed by the close authority, to the letter of the law and a rigid class – this is not allowed, that is not allowed – almost everything is not allowed – walk on the edge of the ruler, where the lines are drawn, and the signs show you. Otherwise, you’ll get pushed around and get in the way of others – because, really, it’s crowded. And, again, there’s private property all around. And this property is – “sacred”.

Berdyaev wrote: “The German and I will never agree on the concept of freedom. In the free air he feels the pressure of chaos, the German feels free only protected in the barracks.

The Russian man organically could not and did not want to live according to a given program, a boring pattern. For example, the German, even when going to drink beer, he knows how many pints he will drink (he has a program in his head for everything), the Russian does not. Therefore there is a well-known proverb: “What is good for the Russian, for the German is death”. It’s because there are neither endless steppes nor frosts in Germany. In this sense, our nearest neighbors in Northern Eurasia, the nomadic steppe-dwellers, were closer and clearer to us than these Europeans. And this despite centuries of wars, the yoke, and even racial differences.

Writer Sergei Kuniaev recalled how once a Slavic professor from the GDR came to visit Vadim Kozhin. During the feast, the German asked him to sing a Russian folk song: And we were just ripe to sing, “On the wild steppes of Transbaikalia, where they wash gold in the mountains” – a song about a vagabond. We sang it with heart and soul. And we looked at our guest, expecting, naturally, his approval. And he sat frowning. “What’s the matter with you, Dietrich? – Vadim asked. – Didn’t you like our performance”? Well, I’m sorry, of course, we sang into the woods and out into the woods!

Not only did we have a long time to explain to the German the meaning of the proverb, but when he understood it, then he completely shocked us: “It’s strange! Why did you admire the hero of the song so much? He comes to Baikal and “takes a fisherman’s boat”. But it’s someone else’s boat! What’s more, he’s escaped from prison and started stealing again. He’s a recidivist!  Not only that! His own mother comes out to meet him and says that his brother “has been ringing in the irons” in Siberia “for a long time now” – after all, his whole family is criminal! What is there to admire”?

As they say, “no comment”.

Let us ask ourselves the question, why the Russians, for the most part, are not able to work as systematically and punctually as the Europeans? Why do we have so much love to rush? First of all, because Russia, unlike Europe, has an unfavorable climate: short summers and long, cold winters. The Russian peasant had to do the entire annual volume of agricultural work (“the stada”) within a short period of time. Therefore they had to work hastily. Risking to lose the harvest because of early frost, prolonged rain or drought (which does not happen as often in Europe). Hence our traditional: “Come on, come on! Hurry up, hurry up! – “The day feeds the year”… And then we’ll be lazy in the frost, on the stove.

But the Chinese and Japanese, for example, have all year to feed themselves. In their warmer, humid climate the peasant had to work the whole year, with almost no breaks between seasons. So he worked monotonously, like a machine. Plus the specific rice crop, which unlike cereals – sowed in spring, harvested in autumn – rice required constant daily care. This is the reason for the traditional meticulousness and scrupulousness that has been part of the Chinese mentality for thousands of years and that has been genetically fixed in the people of the Celestial Empire. (Just like the Koreans, Vietnamese, etc.) This is why the southeastern man is ideally suited to work in modern assembly line production – he is not bored with being a machine. But the Russian man is bored, even more so, disgusted and very nervous. He is by nature a more versatile, universal worker. After all the Russian peasant was engaged in agriculture only five-six months in a year and to make ends meet he had to do something else: a carpenter, make furniture, utensils, sew clothes, go hunting, be a trapper, be a trucker (we know that the best truck drivers are Russians), finally, make some things for sale.

A Russian person is much more interested in creative, piecemeal production, for example, “shoeing a flea”, ha. Or inventing something amazing. Or to work for a “big deal,” like making military aircraft in a factory. Because this is not a simple monotonous task, but a super-task – to defend the Motherland. (By Russians we mean here Great Russians, Belarusians, and Little Russians.)

If we recall the famous parable of the construction of the Cathedral of Rouen, we can say that, while a Russian person is organically incapable of simply “carrying these damned stones,” – he IS capable of “building the Cathedral of Rouen.” This is to the question of why we in Soviet times made excellent spacecraft and sophisticated military equipment “for the country” and could not cope with the simpler, conveyorized production of passenger cars “for the man in the street”. And, I should add, we won’t cope for a long time yet, and we won’t catch up with the Japanese or Germans in this business, despite capitalism and the market, “which itself should regulate everything”. The stereotype of behavior (let alone the archetype) is not regulated by order. It is a deep phenomenon of nature.

Another example. A small ethnic group is the Chechens. It is known that Chechens have long been engaged in robber raids on neighboring tribes, and sometimes on one another, even before the arrival of the Russians. In addition to booty, prisoners were seized and either sold into slavery or returned for a ransom. With time, raids turned into a national tradition and were considered an honorable occupation, in which the military spirit was tempered and the youth learned the art of war. Chechens and some other mountain peoples firmly retained this passion for permanent “small wars” in their stereotypes. From the point of view of peaceful farmers, the bearers of this stereotype of behavior were bandits and murderers. From the point of view of the highlanders themselves, they were young men of action, maybe heroes.

But the question arises: was it not possible to do without raids? After all, the constant risk of being killed … it turns out you cannot. The main reason is the same geographical factor. The fact that suitable land for arable farming in the foothills and especially in the mountains was very small. The development of cattle breeding was also limited by the few pastures, for which there was a constant struggle. Therefore, the highlanders often lacked food and the simplest things needed to survive. Raiding was, so to speak, a way of extracting the necessary and surplus product. And there was very little surplus at that. The main value for the highlander was a weapon and a warhorse. (A kind of “means of production”.) Otherwise, they were content with the bare minimum. Hence the famous expression: “A dzhigit may have a tattered Circassian coat and a leaky saklya, but his horse is a Meskhetian and his weapon is in silver. Let us recall Lermontov and the first Caucasian War. And let’s pay attention to such an important natural factor as the mountainous landscape, ideally suited for raiding and guerrilla warfare.

Over time, the material situation of the highlanders changed for the better, especially during the last decades of Soviet power. Chechnya’s territory expanded markedly at the expense of the fertile lands of the Terek Cossacks. All mountaineers had jobs, sturdy houses and large plots of homestead land. Their standard of living has risen, but the stereotype of behavior has hardly changed! Let’s remember the last Caucasian War.  And not only that one, for example, the way in which the form of traditional Caucasian raids “on neighbors” has changed little in our time.

Now, let us return to the Chinese and ask ourselves a question: why do the Celestial Chinese have such a developed reverence for rank, hierarchy, the cult of the state (even more than the Russians), why are the Chinese organized and disciplined? The roots go back there to the natural and climatic factor, or more precisely, to the way they adapted to the unique Chinese landscape.

The first Chinese civilization was born in the III millennium BC, in the valley of the Huang He River. The Huang He is the Yellow River; it carries a lot of sediment, sand, and small stones from the mountains. For thousands of years it has washed up an entire dam and flows along the dam like a chute. From time to time this dam would burst at the river bends, and the water would fall down, flooding vast areas. Farming under such conditions was simply impossible. Eventually, however, a solution was found: a clever Chinese emperor who lived as early as the second millennium B.C. proposed repairing this natural dam by reinforcing the walls of the huge trough. And the Chinese began to do so. Since then, the Huang He River has been placed in a rigid framework – it is already an artificial river with an extensive system of irrigation. But in order to do such a grandiose work, it was necessary to organize and discipline huge masses of people, and this required a whole hierarchy, an army of overseers, officials, managers. That is, in the end, a strong state power headed by an absolute ruler. (An ant-colony of a state!) This was the way of survival in the natural environment, and it has imprinted itself on the Chinese stereotype of behavior.

Since then, the Chinese have become disciplined collectivist-statesmen. And they also began to actively breed and multiply. This was possible because in the warm and humid climate of the subtropics, “where even a stick grows if pushed into the ground,” there was always plenty of food to grow. And when it is warm and there is enough food with almost no outside threats – natural boundaries (mountains, deserts, ocean) on three sides – families always have a lot of children. Hence the cult of the large patriarchal family in China and the ancestor cult associated with it. This is also where Confucianism itself comes from, the essence of which is the strict observance of the established order, strict hierarchy, respect for elders and care for the younger ones.

It is necessary to say that not only Chinese, but also Russian communal collectivism, which, let us note, differs greatly from the Chinese, derives from the geographical factor. It was possible to survive in the unfavorable climatic conditions of Central Russia, with extremely low yields and risky farming, only by uniting in a rural community.

The European-type khutor, individual farming, was possible only in the south of Russia, but there was for a long time the danger of nomadic raids (“Wild Field”). That is why the ideas of equalizing socialism and collective farming found their breeding ground in Russia. (The concept of the “Soviet collective farm” is close to the concept of the “Russian peasant community.”) And so the Russian peasants, going to work, have long been united in artels, where everyone was responsible for everyone, and where the incentive to work was not so much the money, as the worker’s responsibility to the “community.” And we must say that the productivity of such artels was very high. So artels, for example, built the Trans-Siberian Railway, the pace of construction of which amazed contemporaries. In Soviet times the artel way of working manifested itself in the form of a brigade contract.

It is quite typical that Russian collectivism was reflected in the language. For example, the words “at us” (на нас) “in our village,” “at our factory,” “in our country”, are used very often in Russian, and Russians are usually surprised to learn that there is no corresponding equivalent in English.

Unstable climate is also connected with such peculiarity of our behavior stereotype as dislike to prognosis and dislike of wishful thinking, as well as hope on notorious Russian “avos”. For what the Russian man criticized and even scolded people with non-Russian stereotype of behavior, calling “nebsoska” and “avoska. As historian Kljuchevsky wrote: “Often deceiving in the most careful calculations, the Russian person undertook, sometimes, for the most hopeless business (“was – or was not!”), having opposed a whim of nature, with a whim of his own bravery” and, that is characteristic, – quite often he won. And in this he was helped by our magic wand – the Russian ingenuity – derived from extreme conditions of existence. In cases where Russian ingenuity clashed with German programming, for example, in wars, then Russian ingenuity often won. Because when the German “lost his program,” he simply did not know what to do, and he needed time to “reset”. But the Russian knew, all the more so, that he sometimes had no program at all, except the one he called: “act according to the situation”.

As already noted, the stereotype of behavior in addition to the climatic factor is always influenced by a geopolitical factor. In Russia it is a huge territory, for a long time unprotected by natural borders: seas, mountains, deserts. And consequently, the constant threat of attack from outside. Therefore, beginning with XIV – XV centuries the Russian man was formed not only and even not so much as a free Cossack, but also as a statesman. He understood that only a strong centralized state can protect him from numerous external enemies, and from his own robbers, too. (And to this day continues to illiberally believe that, “the state – must help!”). Therefore, our peasantry voluntarily submitted to the despotism of state power, and sometimes gave this power their last shirt, knowing that without a shirt you can live, but not without security. The same Crimean Tatars would raid, beat, burn, pick out the healthiest guys and beautiful girls, and steal them away to be sold as slaves.

This is why until the Moscow state turned into the Russian Empire and established a reliable defense of all borders (especially southern borders), the Russian people for centuries lived with caution, ready at any moment to throw everything and flee from the enemy – the good thing was where. This is to the question of our dislike of calculations and the unsettled Russian way of life. And also to the question: “Why Europe is so rich and beautiful, and we have everything through, it’s still a dull patch”.

In order to put everything in order – as it is in comparatively compact Western Europe, which is located on the edge of the continent and is protected from three sides by the sea – we need relative security. And also, recall, we need a surplus – a surplus product, which in our cold climate was very small. While in Europe, with its milder climate, this surplus product was much larger. Plus a very convenient geographical location for the development of trade, especially the most profitable – by the sea.

After all, where did the European bourgeois (Protestant) stereotype of behavior, with its unquenchable thirst for profit, come from? It began with the Catholic Italian merchant -speculative republics of Venice and Genoa, who profited from robbing the Byzantine Empire. Then this virus of greed carried over to Holland, and from Holland to England, which, occupying a very advantageous geographical position (an island at the crossroads of sea routes) began to actively develop large-scale wholesale maritime trade. The English peasants were driven from their land by their landlords, and then those of them who did not die of starvation and escaped the noose, turned into wage laborers. Eventually the whole economic life of England became based on trade.

Then other countries joined this activity, and gradually the Anglo-Saxon bourgeois stereotype of behavior began to spread throughout Europe. And then it moved to America.  At the same time we should not forget the terrible robbery and murder of the colonies. And all this – by sea, by sea.

And before the British, the carriers of a similar stereotype of behavior were farmer-sailor merchants, the Frisians, who lived in relative safety on the peninsulas of the North Sea coast and they were the intermediaries in the trade between Rome and the Germanic tribes. And before them were maritime predators and speculators from Phoenicia, Carthage, and Ancient Greece. All these peoples lived in very combative places at the crossroads of land and sea routes.

And one more very important point. Comparing the “backward” Russia and the “civilized” Europe one more factor must be taken into account beside the geographical factor – the age of the ethnos. After all, for the accumulation of material values and the organization of life in a bourgeois, ordered way requires a long time, when the count goes on not for decades, but for many centuries.

Returning to the stereotype of behavior of the Russian man, we must emphasize that he, unlike the European, for many centuries lived by his own, anti-bourgeois formula: “If you have it, it’s good; if you don’t have it, to hell with it!” Even if he dreamed of wealth, it was the kind of wealth which falls suddenly, “at God’s will”, rather than accumulated over many generations, as in relatively stable and prosperous (since the 17th century) bourgeois Europe. Our people sincerely believed that “you will not get chambers of stone from righteous deeds”. And through sin?  – no need.

Therefore, the main thing for the Russian person was not the law (“freedom”, parliament, capital), but the grace. Or according to the terminology of philosophers – Perfection. The main thing that there was harmony in the world. And that there was peace in the soul.

Everything changes over time, and as we said, so does the stereotype of behavior. Looking ahead a little bit, we note that the Russian man for the last, crisis – transition of 150 years has changed noticeably. He has become more bourgeois, and, accordingly, less spiritual; we have become more kulaks-accumulators, and we have fewer straightforward idealists-no-kindnesses. The new Russian individualist has greatly supplanted the old Russian collectivist. He has not yet won definitively, but he has already entered into “the operational space”.

Of course, the Russian individualist does not look like a Western burgher, he is still incomplete – with one foot in the communal past and the other in the “civilized” future, and with a Eurasian bent. But nevertheless, he is already an individualist. If to imagine mentally the thousand-year way, which the majority of ethnoses pass through, from not very comfortable but heroic and religious youth (high spirituality) to satisfied but completely vulgar and irreligious old age (no spirituality – just eating, drinking and fornication), then the present Russian man is somewhere in the middle. Therefore note, it is not necessary looking only into the past, to idealize the modern Russian man, as it is done today by some good and kind people – the preserved patriotic idealists. At the best half of what was left, and it is not a little, but it is not that.

There are two circumstances that are somewhat comforting. First, there is the fact that it could be much worse – for example, as in modern Europe or, God forbid, in America. Obviously, the fate of Babylon and Sodom awaits them simultaneously in the coming decades. Secondly, there is the fact that even with the mass “okulachization” and secularization of the Russian population, our Eurasian (spontaneous communal -imperial) psychology still continues to dominate over the home-grown bourgeois and artificially introduced liberal psychology. Especially in the provinces. For all the losses, there is still a healthy core among the people. So there is no need to give up on the modern Russian man, or to write him off.

And here it should be emphasized once again that mentality, that is the original psychological makeup of an ethnos, from which arises the worldview of a given people, is a more stable phenomenon than the “ethnic stereotype of behavior”.  Mentality is a deep consolidating factor, both at the level of ethnicity and at the level of super-ethnos, especially when the super-ethnos has a variety of behavior sub-stereotypes. Thus the core of Russian super-ethnos – Russians, Little Russians, Belarusians – apart from a close psychology, has always been united by the Orthodox faith, which for many centuries was included in the flesh and blood of our people, and to a large extent preserved in it to this day.

Practice shows that mentality, unlike the stereotype of behavior that is transmitted from parents to children by signal heredity, mentality is stored in the deeper layers of the subconscious (unconscious), and it changes, (or it is destroyed) very slowly. This is already at the gene level.

Hence the conclusion is that in the modern Russian super-ethnos, despite serious losses, there is a mental resource for independent development. No matter how much they try to artificially impose alien values and stereotypes upon us.



109-What is the true situation in today’s Russia?

We talk a lot about the Soviet Union, but how does this relate to modern Russia?  I don’t know the answer, consider this as a question.  (Socialism I suppose?)

  1. A) I posted here before the video of a 9 year visual on the transformation of Ivanovo. One hundred photos of before / after of the city development. Now I realize that video blogger, Студия Позитивчик, named “Studio Positive”, has made 8 of these before/after videos comparing the last 9 years of development in 8 Russian cities. The video links are on his home page:

Naberezhnye Chelny,  400 km east Moscow

Ivanovo,  254 km NE Moscow

Sochi,  NE coast of Black Sea

Gelendzhik, NE coast Black Sea 150 km up from Sochi

Veliky Novgorad,  125 km south of St Petersburg on road to Moscow (about 450 km from Moscow)

Ryazan,  200 km SE Moscow

Saratov,  On the Volga, about 850 km SE Moscow

Tyumen,  East of Ural mountains, about 8-900 km east Moscow

Naberezhnye Chelny, in Tatarstan, about 600 km east of Moscow

What do you see when you scan through these video records?  Well, you see modern Russian architecture, which is very interesting just for that.  Eight cities are developing, growing, being renewed.  I ask “How is this being done”?  You can identify several different kinds of projects.

✓Renewed streets and landscaped parks and waterfronts.  This is all local government financed obviously.

✓Commercial activity, strip malls, restaurants, shopping malls.  I am thinking this is all private investment, it must be capitalism, for the wide variety of it.

✓Some large residential complexes?  I don’t know, is there social ownership in living spaces?  Or is it capitalism again?

✓Many old residential complexes (ragged looking in the 2011 before photos), are renewed with white walls and brightly colored balconies and the accent of architectural touches.  Would a private owner put money into building aesthetics?  Would they get any more rent out of it?  Has it changed hands and the new owner is upgrading?  Maybe it is old communal residences with community financing doing the work?

✓Also there are some stadiums and other large structures.  What is the ownership status of these complexes and who are the investors?

These are questions that I don’t have the answers to.  Who are the city planners, and how much do they have a say about city development?

  1. B) We try to get a better understanding of Russia’s future by going to some websites that are purported to have expertise on Russia, and run by Russian speakers. These are like the Saker, Dmitry Orlov, Andrei Martyanov, Charles Bausman, John Helmer, Vsevolod Pulya, Patrick Armstrong, Alexander Mercouris, Marko Marjanović, I think that there are others that I have left out.

What do they say?  Lots are concerned with geo-politics and military science.  Then we are led to believe that “Putin’s successes are anchored in a powerful energy sector, along with a vigorous science-technical and arms sector, which are also under direct state control”.  Russia must be doing pretty good, right?  Or are we getting a correct picture from these new “Hypersonic missiles”, gas pipelines, super weapons, and atomic Ice-breakers?

Plus now lately, we are told that Russia will build 5 new cities from scratch in Siberia, and the order is signed and the money is available.  (Let them start with one.)

Will this happen?  Is this a full and correct picture of modern day Russia?  The 8 videos above show developmental progress in some important cities.  If this is the general picture it should show up in all phases of Russian technical, scientific, educational, and commercial activity.

But lets’ try to take an honest look with a 2017 survey of Russia’s achievements.

✓In a listing of published scientific articles by country, Russia is number 12, with only 10% by numbers, of the articles published in the USA.  I won’t discuss the quality of the articles, which some do. the 2021 figures are here:

You can also divide the papers up by what Russia is good at, like mathematics and astronomy, but still the standing is very poor.

✓Russia has a very poor standing in studies of foreign countries. For example China has at least an order of magnitude more people studying about Russia than Russia has studying in the universities about China.

Russian salaries in 2012, $500/mo for a Research Fellow, $900 for a senior researcher at the Institute of the Far East RAS.

$1,000 for an Assistant Professor, $1,500 for a full Professor at Moscow State University’s (MSU) Institute of Asian and African Country Studies. (2012)  The $ exchange rate has more than doubled since then, so do scholars survive on those same old ruble rates, or have they gotten a raise?  (Admittedly their expenses are in rubles, not in dollars.)  But if it was too low they may leave the country.

✓Salaries for R&D are some of the lowest in the top 50 countries.  I could put up a chart, but Russia is at the bottom.

✓R&D equipment is missing, in 2017 Russia had 3 supercomputers, China had 202, US 143. Russia is 18th in the list.

✓It is hard to come up with the number of Russian “high throughput DNA sequencers” for biotechnology research.  But I think it is minuscule compared to the rest of the world.  Some (older) sources said only 8, but let’s give it 25. 2013-14.  Back then there were 250 in China and over 900 in the USA.  Europe is loaded too.

✓Russia is 6th in patent application in 2017, 30,000 compared to 1 million in China, 300,000 in US and 250,000 in Japan.

✓In 2016 Venture Capital funding in Russia was 300,000 Euros, about the level of (less than) Ireland, or Finland, and more than in Italy.  All of Europe $14 billion, US $72 billion, China $49 billion, India $8 billion.  Russia is 6% of China, Russia 4% of US.

✓Artificial Intelligence startups in 2017, Europe 409, US more than 1000, Russia only 12. Equal to Sweden, Finland or Switzerland each with 10% of Russia’s population.

✓Russia had an operational stock of around 1,771 multipurpose industrial robots as of 2012. America 200,000, China 100,000, Japan 300,000, ROC Korea 138,000, Germany 162,000. Poland 4,500.

The absurdly low levels of robotization in industry raise serious questions about Russia’s political economy and its economic future.   Low wages preclude automation, and low automation preclude greater productivity and higher wages?

✓2014-2015 Russia is 17th in machine tool companies, 485 companies producing machine tools in Russia (Canada just ahead, Thailand just behind).  China 22,000 companies, Japan 13,000, German 12,000. Italy 5000, ROC 4,600, USA 4,500.

The problems holding Russia back are severe, and possibly intractable.  There are strong financial and ultimately institutional barriers to unlocking Russia’s scientific potential.

(Russia does consume around 2.7% of the world’s machine tools – it is, after all, the world’s eighth (or so) manufacturing power.)

A solid start would be to look at these statistics and acknowledge that a very big problem exists, which if unresolved, will continue to degrade Russia’s economic, industrial, and eventually military competitiveness.  Where is the money and where is the resolve to tackle these problems?  That is what I am asking, to anybody that might know.

Who are the true friends of Russia?  Those that sound this alarm, or he who says “don’t say things that our western sworn enemies are always saying”?  To me the answer is obvious.

Of course I have sources for all of this data.  It comes from Karlin on Unz.  He’s got all the charts and 5000 words of commentary. 2017. You can check them yourself.  If there is a newer study, of course I would love to see it.


108-How the Soviet defeat of Germany prevented a Nazi Manhattan Project

Comments from China Writers’ Group,

This is a very good and correct article. I am glad that there are people who talk and write about it.

Thank you, Patrice


This may make our Russian comrade Irina happy:

The real reason behind Japanese surrender is not because of the 2 atomic bombs. It is Russian 1.5 million troop entering the war in Northern China.

Below Google translate:

And we all know that on August 8, 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. 1.5 million Soviet troops launched an offensive against the puppet Manchukuo from the north, east, and west directions. This completely shattered Japan’s conditional surrender. This is also true for Japan. Do you know the reason for the surrender?


Back in 1944, Churchill instructed his generals to work out Operation Unthinkable, involving an attack on the USSR on July 1, 1945. But the generals turned out to be more prudent than the British Prime Minister and clearly told him that even in this case, victory over the USSR was impossible. And it is better for the USSR to enter the war with Japan, since without the participation of the USSR, the Americans and the British will lose 1-1.5 million of their guys. They were very much afraid of large losses of their personnel during the landing on Japan from the air. After the USSR entered the war with Japan, a month later, Japan surrendered.

The nuclear explosions of the cities of Japan were not directed at Japan itself, it was simply used as a proving ground. It was an act of intimidating Stalin. However, this act only pushed Staln to speed up Soviet work in this area. Soviet intelligence worked well. Stalin knew that the United States had only 2 nuclear bombs, which they detonated in Japan. Mass production was not yet established. And in the USSR, work was also carried out on the creation of a nuclear bomb. In order not to waste time testing and finalizing bombs, Soviet intelligence brilliantly stole the missing documentation from the states. The Americans did not even know about it right away.


I researched and reported in detail about what happened in Europe, Russia, China and Japan,


107-The Far East will blossom: Shoigu announced the construction of new megacities


106-Another brilliant essay by Soviet born and now US based writer, Andrei Martyanov.

Comments from China Writers’ Group,

Attempts to portray Joseph Stalin as the main villain of his era are part of an attack on our country’s past, on the results of World War II. This was stated on Monday by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a meeting with veterans of the Great Patriotic War in Volgograd. He stressed that outside attacks on Russia’s historical past are aimed not only at rewriting history, but also politically weakening the Russian Federation. “[You mentioned] Joseph Stalin, who <…> was supposed to lead all the processes. I absolutely agree that history should not be touched. By the way, attacks on Stalin as the main villain, lumping together everything he did in the pre-war period, during, after the war – this is also part of that very attack on our past, on the results of World War II, “the minister said.

Some days ago we had this post, (above by Eric) which is a comment on Lavrov’s speech, where he is defending the truth about Soviet war participation.  Since Stalin ran the country during the war, it could easily be taken as a defense for Stalin.  In fact, the “Russia Haters” are actually claiming that Stalin’s Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact  was the real cause of WWII!  I know a bit about The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and what led up to it.  But that is not the point of this post. The point that I am leading to is this:


I say, absolutely not.  Maybe someone like Andrei Martyanov writes a post that leaves this question dangling in the air.  (Like; draw your own conclusions.)  Is this because of his oversight, his incompleteness, or is this some hidden agenda?  Maybe not to offend any apologists for Stalinist?  I”ll leave that to YOUR own conclusions.

Let’s see what the Chinese have to say about it, in an article I have just read:

A sound political system should have been able to prevent the Cultural Revolution, (Read here the repressions of Stalin), which was launched, organized, and operated outside of the scope of the constitution and the law, but the political system in place at the time did not have this capacity.  The political system established by the 1954 Chinese Constitution was destroyed with one blow by the Cultural Revolution, a fact which deserves careful study.

The Cultural Revolution did not happen by accident. In terms of ideas, we failed to shift the focus of the work to economic construction in a timely manner, and we continued to insist on the Outdated Marxist Ideological line of “taking class struggle as the key link,” (pure Russian politics),  despite the fact that the exploiting class had been basically eliminated, and we adopted the ideological line of “creative destruction 破字当头.”   In recent years, people have analyzed the Cultural Revolution from any number of perspectives, including thought, ideology, culture, and the economy, but not enough has been done from the perspective of the (inadequate) political system.

(I posted on the 24th, “What is an Ideology?”, where I claim that rigid Marxism was one of the seeds that surely destroyed the Soviet Union.)

Back to China:

First, the ruling party that constitutes the core leadership of our political life does not have a healthy internal democratic system.

When the Party leaders mistakenly decided to launch the Cultural Revolution, many cadres and Party members in our Party who disagreed were powerless to do anything about it. The inadequacy of the Party’s internal democratic system made it impossible for the Party to prevent this wrongful act.  The national leaders such as the Chairman were sidelined, and some leaders were even persecuted and killed.

So Let’s move to the Soviet Union.

First, the Bolsheviks eliminated their “fraternal parties” one after the other: the Mensheviks, the Constitutional Democrats, the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, and in 1921, Russia changed from a multi-party system to a one-party state, which was clearly a step backwards in history.

Second, the Russian regime after 1917 ran counter to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and checks and balances, and subsequently went from its original stance of “all power to the Soviets,” to a narrower focus on “all power to the Bolsheviks,” and finally to the extreme situation of “all power to the Party General Secretary.” This created a highly centralized dictatorship.

Under the name of “bourgeoisie”, you robbed well-to-do people; then, under the name of “kulaks”, you turned to robbing richer and more diligent peasants, thus multiplying poverty, even though you must realize that, by ruining a great multitude of individual citizens, you destroy public wealth and lead the entire country into destitution.  (I added this paragraph.)

Third, although the Soviet Constitution contained provisions for a system of universal and equal direct elections, in practice the candidates were chosen by the ruling party and voted on by the voters, and those who were not on the list of candidates had no chance at all. Elections became a farce year after year, decade after decade.

Fourth, the lack of freedom of the press in the former Soviet Union was known the world over, to the point that after the fall of Khrushchev, he had to listen to the Voice of America to keep up with the news, an ironic commentary on the denial of constitutional principles.  (this written by a Chinese person)

Stalin, who destroyed checks and balances and concentrated the power of life and death in his own two hands, spent a great deal of time on the elimination of dissidents and the killing of innocent people. (Overkill, just to be sure.) The numbers are telling.  Of the 24 members of the Party Central Committee who provided political leadership at the time of the October Revolution, 14 were killed by Stalin; of the 60 soldiers who led the military aspect of the October Revolution, 54 were killed by Stalin; of the 15 members of the First People’s Committee, 9 out of 13, not counting Lenin and Stalin, were executed in the name of the revolution; in addition, more than 1.2 million Communist Party members were arrested, many of whom were sentenced to death or to prison terms.  Red Terror enveloped the whole country.  (Then add the repression of writers and intellectuals, Kulaks, and other big groups, the numbers multiply.)

In fact, it is said that the only thing you can say about Stalin is that everybody before him and everybody after him, were worse, (for Russia).  Stalin said that he was “a Russian, with a Georgian origin”.  The other “buggers” hated Russia (the so-called great power chauvinism) with a passion, and ripped Russia from stem to stern without respite for 70 years.

In fact, if you know a Soviet leader with any merit towards Russia?  Please let me know.  I haven’t noticed them.

And it was all increasingly multiplied in perpetuity by a political system, rotten to the core.

Soviet Russia’s anti-constitutional practices endured for more than seventy years,  but then had finally met with universal anger and resentment. It’s then that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, led by former Soviet Vice President Gennady Yanayev (1937-2010) and other high-ranking officials, staged a coup d’état on August 19, 1991, in an attempt to save the critical situation.  These were the only guys that really loved Russia and the USSR, and could have saved it.  But western lapdog idiots claim that they were the main cause of the collapse.

And then, the people fearing a return to the horrors of one-party dictatorship, the scorn for human life, the rigged elections, and the stifling of press freedom, did not support the August 19 coup.  It failed within three days.  The results rained down on Russian heads for at least a decade, and it is still raining.

The masses of citizens and their representatives abandoned the anti-constitutional political system, to the extent that that the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, made up of a majority of communists, adopted a resolution at its emergency session on August 29, 1991 to stop all the activities of the Communist Party of the USSR on Russian soil.  The resolution passed by an overwhelming majority of 283 votes in favor, 29 against and 52 abstentions. History finally declared that the return of the tricolor flag in Russia in 1991 was a progressive move, and in line with the worldwide trend of constitutionalism.

Who is this Chinese dissident who writes all this crap about Russia?

Well – – actually No:  Wang Huning (b. 1955) is widely viewed as China’s most powerful intellectual. He has directly served the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee under three successive leaders: Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping. He is currently the fifth-ranked member of the Party’s seven-man Politburo Standing Committee and directs the Central Secretariat, effectively making him Xi Jinping’s deputy in managing day-to-day Party affairs.  He also serves on a range of central Party commissions that drive policymaking in areas such as political-legal affairs, cybersecurity, finance, Party-building, official appointments, and military-civil fusion. Given his depth of experience and proximity to Xi, it is possible that Wang will rise even higher within the Party hierarchy when the 20th Party Congress meets in October 2022.  Wang became the the Central Policy Research Office (CPRO) director in 2002, a position he held until 2020, when he relinquished it to his protégé Jiang Jinquan 江金权 (b. 1959). During this time he joined the Party Secretariat in 2002; the Politburo in 2007; and the Politburo Standing Committee in 2017.

Wang is widely credited with having contributed to the major theories of each of the Party leaders that he has served: Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents,” Hu Jintao’s “New Development Concept,” and Xi Jinping’s “China Dream of the Great Revival of the Chinese Nation, and “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.”

He wrote this document (that I quoted), in 1986.  He revised it five times – the final time on the eve of Xi Jinping’s ascendance to the position of General Secretary. Unlike the original 1986 version, Wang’s 2012, last revision places the conclusion up front.

I say, If you want to know about Communism, about socialism, or especially about Marxism, you must study the Soviet Union.  That is the “On-the-Ground” expression of all these theories.


This is an interesting perspective.  I have always considered Xi a defender of Stalin and have thought myself in agreement with Xi on  the issues you raise above.  Here’s a few quotes I’ve seen floating around the interwebs which have convinced me Xi was an admirer of Stalin (and that those honest folks that disparage Stalin have been confused by capitalist inspired revisionism).

“In January 2013, months after taking the helm of China’s ruling party, Xi Jinping gathered the country’s  top politicians and asked them why the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had collapsed.

Xi, of course, already had the answer.

“It completely denied Soviet history, the history of the Soviet Communist Party, denied Lenin, denied Stalin,” he said. “Party organizations at all levels had almost no effect, and the army was not there.”

In that same year (and maybe same speach) Xi said:

“”I believe that, for real communists, Stalin weighs no less than Lenin, and in a percentage of right decisions, he doesn’t even have an equal in world history”.- President Xi Jingping 2018″

These quotes contradict the capitalist inspired anti-Stalin mythology which permeates the thought of China’s “most powerful intellectual” Wang Huning, at least as put forth in the article above.  There is an obvious contradiction here and I’m not sure how to reconcile these two competing narratives except to say that Huning’s thoughts on the topic are his own and are not shared by Xi.

““No theory in history can match Marxism in terms of rationale, truth, and spread, and no theory has exerted such a huge influence on the world as Marxism. This proves the truth and vigor in Marxism and its irreplaceable role in understanding, reshaping and advancing the world” – Xi Jinping”

Lastly I would recommend reading the following article regarding the Molotov Ribbentrop pact.  It truly helps one to recognize and appreciate the genius, necessity, and success of this diplomatic triumph.

“The Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 23, 1939: Myth and Reality – The Greanville Post”

Any information that results in enlightenment is appreciated.

-Billy Bob

Hello Billy Bob,


1. Thanks for your input and thanks for the two great links.  I will go to the last link first and say that: yes I did know about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before, and I had arrived at the same conclusion as the author of this excellent article.  I didn’t have quite that much detail though.  But I am there.


I had mentioned the non-aggression pact because I believe that is what Lavrov was talking about.  And the point of what I had written is, I don’t see him as endorsing Stalin’s rule.  He is confirming the results of the war that was led under Stalin.


2.  Here’s my understanding of Marx and Engles:


Marxist historians viewed history through the prism of the development of productive forces, as a successive change of socio-economic formations: primitive, slaveholding, then feudal, capitalist, communist. That is, as a linear and continuous process, going from the lowest to the highest. And this is actually in much of the world, (for now), if we keep technological progress in mind.


But if we consider the history of nations, i.e. the ethnic history of mankind, we will see that it is discontinuous, because they all had their “beginnings” and “ends”. 


I think scientist have proved that the merger of the nations – which is the orthodox system that Marxists used to talk about, and today the globalists talk about  – it is pure nonsense: “If all people merge, and become the same, then there will be no movement, no development, no culture, and just “a breathing” of life. There will be a slow decline, and it is good if it is slow. For according to the iron law of systems, only a complex system is viable. As long as all mankind is, as K. Leontiev said, “a blooming complexity” consisting of many ethnicities, cultures, languages and religions, (that tension that creates movement and invention), life will go on. If we comb everyone under one heading, that is, if we simplify the planetary system that much, of course they’ll have to do it ruthlessly, it will die quickly.


Today’s globalizers, who advocate the removal of all borders: state, national, cultural, religious, linguistic – are leading the world into an abyss. They think it is possible to rule a shrunken humanity from a single center. They think you can cheat the nature of human relationships!  


In most cases, disassociation to preserve peace between peoples is much better than the merging and interpenetration of different ethnic groups.  There was a force in the 50’s that wanted to release all of the Soviet Republics to their own devices.  I will post it here some time in the future.  But the way it was done in the 90’s, was by first totally destroying the economic system (surely on purpose in my view).  I am already getting too far off topic to finish this thought!  Later.


What we do know well, however, is the history that lies between the fall of Troy (11th century B.C.) and the surrender of Napoleon (1815). “Before that, it’s a total blur. After that – it’s all lies.”


3.  You have included a couple of important quotes by Xi.


Let me spin a hypothetical example.  You and I are in business together.  In fact we are building our relationship and creating great plans.  When I am asked about you by others, I applaud you for how quickly you built your factories, product lines, financial reserves and how your expertise shines as a beacon to the world.  But I am not going to say, Yeah I know he is the biggest gangster, he has ruthlessly suppressed all competition, paid off the government to steal from the commonwealth.  And when he couldn’t do that, his Mafia connections employed hit men to mysteriously disappear all of his enemies. 


XI is not going to bash Russia, nor any latent connections to the Soviet Union.  No matter what.  It is counterproductive to his method.  In fact he has tried for years not to bash the USA either.  But finally he is forced into it.


4.  Then you might be suggesting that the capitalist inspired anti-Stalin mythology is what permeates the thought of China’s “most powerful intellectual” Wang Huning.  I don’t see it that way at all.  He gives names and numbers of which early leaders were eradicated by Stalin.  Are you saying these names are a western invention?  They’re damn true numbers.  I am going to equate the Cultural Revolution to Stalin’s years of repression.  For China, the period was the same, but some years later.  Wang Huning wrote about it in 1986 as a giant mistake, and carefully revised it 5 times.  We can assume that IT IS NOW the position of the CCP, or it would have been erased ages ago.


We’ll see down below in the 2013 speech, that Xi does not bash the Cultural Revolution, but just calls it out for what it is, what seemed necessary (maybe mistakenly) at the time.  Does that mean he holds it as a tool that may be useful in the future, just one more arrow in our quiver?  We’ll have a good repression if we need it?  Hardly  I think you can be sure that Xi does not applaud Stalin’s methods in any way, and that Xi and Huning are on the same page, chapter and verse in their thoughts.


5.  The one quote:  “Stalin’s percentage of right decisions has no equal in the world.”  That’s right, he did whatever it takes, to accomplish what was necessary.  That’s a comment on what he did, not a comment on the method he used to do it.


The other quote: ““No theory in history can match Marxism in terms of rationale, truth, and spread, and no theory has exerted such a huge influence on the world as Marxism. This proves the truth and vigor in Marxism and its irreplaceable role in understanding, reshaping and advancing the world” – Xi Jinping”.


I would like to get that quote in it’s full context, in a speech or in his written paper.


Of course if you have no opposition, you can do miracles with any ideology.  Marxism says build for the workers and the peasants.  Circumstances were such that the world was in an emergency, which facilitated a mobilized economy.  Capitalism also mobilized an economy, and took every advantage of the unfolding situation.  Does that mean capitalism is better??? NO!


I have tried to dig into what Marxism is to Xi?  For instance in his address to the 19th congress and other speeches.  The only concrete foundation I could determine is when he said (paraphrasing):


“Marxism proves that the worker and the peasant are the masters, not the slaves.”   


Full Stop!  After that everything he says is that “Marxism with Chinese Characteristics” (for a new age) is in full flux.  We are reinventing it every day, and we will reinvent it for many GENERATIONS in the future.   Under the Chinese theorem that “Practice is the only Measure of Truth”.   So what does Xi’s Marxism still have to do with Marx or Engles? I don’t know?  And unlike Russia (Lenin), China did not say the landowners and the owners of the means of production are the slaves.  They’re just people, like the rest, but no longer the masters.


  1. OK, let’s look at that speech from 2013.Ten paragraphs:

On January 5, 2013, a seminar for new members and alternate members of the Central Committee to study and implement the spirit of the 18th Party Congress began at the Central Party School. Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the opening ceremony.  (His words in Black and blue, mine in red. )

1. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism and not any other doctrine.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism and not some other doctrine, the basic principles of scientific socialism can not be lost, if lost, it is not socialism. Our Party has always emphasized that socialism with Chinese characteristics not only adheres to the basic principles of scientific socialism, but also gives it distinctive Chinese characteristics according to the conditions of the times. That is to say, socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other doctrine. The key to what kind of doctrine a country implements depends on whether it (that doctrine) can solve the historical problems facing the country.

In #1 he talks about Socialism, not even using the word Communism.  Whatever it is, it will have Chinese characteristics, and be an answer to the times.

2. The “China collapse theory” has never been interrupted, but China’s comprehensive national power is increasing day by day.

It was Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought that guided the Chinese people out of the long night and established a new China. Not to mention the earlier period, from the beginning of reform and opening up, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe, the international public opinion was incessantly negative about China, and various kinds of “China collapse theory” had never ceased. However, China has not collapsed, but its comprehensive national power is increasing day by day, people’s living standards are improving, and our scenery is “unique”.

#2 Marxist-Leninism and Mao led us out of a black-hole, and we will never forget it nor bash that period.  (But we don’t do that now, in the same way, for we are renewed).

3. It is totally wrong to say that China is now engaged in “capital socialism”.

In recent years, some public opinions at home and abroad have raised the question of whether what China is doing is still socialism or not, it’s “bureaucratic capitalism”. These are all completely wrong. When we say that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, it means that no matter how to reform or open up, we must always adhere to the road of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the socialist system with Chinese characteristics.  The basic requirements of the 18th Party Congress is to win a new victory of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

#3 Forget about “bureaucratic capitalism”, or any other moniker that the west tries to stick on us: for WE call the shots here.

4. The practical and theoretical achievements made in the past cannot be a reason for complacency.

There is no one-size-fits-all development path or development model in the world, nor is there any unchanging development path or development model. The practical and theoretical achievements we have made in the past can help us better face and solve problems in the future, but they cannot be a reason for complacency, let alone (cannot) become a burden for us to continue to move forward. The more we move forward, the more we develop, the more new situations and new problems, the more risks and challenges we face, and the more unpredictable things we will face. We must enhance the sense of worry, to be prepared for danger in times of peace. Emancipation, seeking truth from facts and advancing with the times are the living soul of Marxism, the fundamental ideological weapon to adapt to new situations, understand new things and accomplish new tasks.

#4 There is no one-size-fits-all development path, which means there is no pre-existing Marxism that we are not currently inventing.  The practical and theoretical achievements we have made in the past cannot become a burden for us in the future.  Forever seeking truth is the living soul of “Marxism”.  It’s his new definition of Marxism.

5. The two periods of history before and after the reform and opening up cannot deny each other.

The historical period before the reform and opening up should be correctly evaluated, and the historical period after the reform and opening up should not be used to negate the historical period before the reform and opening up, nor should the historical period before the reform and opening up be used to negate the historical period after the reform and opening up. The practical exploration of socialism before the reform and opening up accumulated the conditions for the practical exploration of socialism after the reform and opening up, and the practical exploration of socialism after the reform and opening up is the persistence, reform and development of the previous period.

I emphasize this issue because this major political issue will have serious political consequences if it is not handled properly.

#5  We’re in no way divisive.  The present can’t be used to bash the past, and the past cannot be used to bash the present or the future. We have learned from all of our experiences, and they are our building blocks.

6. The collapse of the Soviet Union, a large socialist country, is a lesson from the past.

Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse? Some important reasons are the fierce ideological struggle, the total denial of the history of the Soviet Union, denial of the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the denial of Lenin, the denial of Stalin, the historical nihilism, the ideological chaos, the party organizations at all levels almost no longer have any role, the army is no longer under the leadership of the party. Finally, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, a large party, was scattered, the Soviet Union, a large socialist country, was falling apart. This is a lesson from the past!

#6  The Soviet Union disintegrated because:

– a fierce ideological struggle, (belief in fixed Marxism)

– the historical nihilism, (denying the past and bashing it all, people, places, systems, as no good.  They were what they were.)

– the party organizations at all levels almost no longer have any role, the political system broke down, (if it ever worked).

7. We still face many unclear issues and problems to be solved.

China’s socialism is still in the primary stage, we still face a lot of unclear issues and problems to be solved, the understanding and handling of many major issues are still in the process of deepening, this is not in doubt. The understanding of things requires a process, and socialism, something we have only been engaged in for decades, our understanding and grasp is still very limited, still needs to deepen and develop in practice.

#7, We’re still working on it, socialism is a process.

8. It is unrealistic to think that we can enter communism in one or two steps.

It is unrealistic to think of entering communism in one or two steps. Comrade Deng Xiaoping said that it would take a long period of history to consolidate and develop the socialist system, and it would take several generations, a dozen generations, or even dozens of generations of our people to persistently strive for it. Dozens of generations, how long is that! From the time of Confucius to the present, there are only some seventy generations. Seeing things this way fully illustrates the political sobriety of our Chinese Communists. It must be recognized that our present efforts and the continued efforts of many generations in the future are all directed toward the grand goal of the ultimate realization of communism.

#8  What about the entrance of Communism?  Well it will take dozens of generations.  (That’s at least 24 to make it plural, and that out of 70 generations from the time of Confucius.)  What is the point of talking 500 years in advance, when we don’t know what will happen tomorrow?  At least it means we sure don’t have to worry about it, and it is a nice amorphous goal that says our people are good and deserve the best.

9. We must Correctly understand the objective reality of the long-term dominance of developed Western capitalist countries.

We should have a deep understanding of the self-regulating ability of capitalist society, fully estimate the objective reality of the long-term dominance of the developed Western countries in economic, scientific and military aspects, and seriously prepare for the long-term cooperation and struggle between the two social systems in all aspects. For a long period of time, socialism at the primary stage will have to cooperate and struggle with capitalism, which is more developed in terms of productive forces, and will have to study and learn from the beneficial civilizational achievements created by capitalism.

#9 We have to see where we can eventually fit in with capitalism, and for now know their strengths, absorb their abilities, and counter their cunning ways.

10. Some people think that communism is unattainable, which involves the problem of their worldview.

Some people think that communism is unattainable, or even that it is unattainable, unseen, and illusory.  This involves a materialistic or idealistic view of world history. Some of our comrades wonder why the ideal is slim, faith wavering, and why the fundamental and historical materialist point of view is not solid? To educate and guide the majority of the party members, and cadres, to practice the common ideals of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the firm unified communist ideals, and to be devout and persistent, to the letter, and to be deeply respectful, (is our challenge).

#10 For the immediate future let’s just keep telling our people that being in togetherness (call it communism) is good and let’s have consensus and unity about our nation, our path, our governance, and all of our beautiful and flowering ethnicities, working and living together.  Let’s be creative together and guard against the anti-system, or people that want to deconstruct what we have built.

HEY, It’s a good speech.


Thanks Richard for your thoughtful reply.  CWG is an eclectic mix of political perspectives and it is truly my honor to engage with other members and learn from them even if we don’t see eye to eye on every issue.  As I formulate my response to the perspective you shared below, please forgive anything that comes across as pretentious or condescending.  I’m used to conversing on Facebook where such presumptions are entirely warranted and I may have difficulty expressing my thoughts without resorting to such unfortunate tendencies.

First though, I want to thank you for providing greater context to the few quotes I shared in the previous response.  The speech excerpts you shared have validated and re-affirmed my own perspective a perspective which seems irreconcilable with your own (at least in regards to Stalin, his legacy, and how he should be viewed by subsequent generations).  In my humble opinion, it seems clear that you have adopted a certain understanding regarding Stalin and his “methods” and this is the lens with which you process the words of Xi.  This fact, in and of itself is not an indictment and is indeed an inescapable aspect of human thought and the only possible way for us to develop our understanding and ideological framework.  We use our current level of understanding to process new information and this in turn structures the framework with which we use to process further information.  (As I have engaged in this process over my 45 years, it has become clear that there exists powerful forces that are interested in manipulating our understanding and our conceptual framework.  This fact itself is very telling and has become a significant aspect of my own conceptual framework.  But I digress…)

The question begged from the paragraph above is “what is the correct way to understand Stalin and his methods”.  We are right to analyze and interpret Xi’s speech through the lens of historic truth but if we misunderstand or misperceive historic truth, our analysis and interpretation of further information will be less insightful and less correct than it otherwise could be.

So this is my basic assertion regarding what I perceive to be our fundamental disagreement over who Stalin was, why it matters, and what a more correct view of him looks like.  So, now lets move to some of the specific facts that you have brought up which support your perspective:

“Stalin, who destroyed checks and balances and concentrated the power of life and death in his own to hands, spent a great deal of time on the elimination of dissidents and the killing of innocent people”.

The historic reality is far more nuanced, complex, and favorable to Stalin than the prose which precede and follow the quote above.  In fact those paragraphs listing “Stalin’s crimes” are indistinguishable from every assessment of Stalin disseminated by the Western capitalist dictatorship and shoved down the naïve throats of Westerners everywhere (from cradle to grave) for the past 75 years.  The reality is that what the CIA was telling themselves in private was far more correct than the dumbed down anti-Stalin propaganda which they have been proliferating for main-stream consumption.

Here’s what a declassified CIA document attests:

“Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership.  The Western idea of a dictator within the communist setup is exaggerated.  Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the communist power structure.  Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.  However, it does not appear that any of the present leaders will rise to the stature of Lenin and Stalin, so that it will be safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western policies force the Soviets to stream-line their power organization…”

In addition to the fallacy of exaggerating Stalin’s dictatorial power, cold war capitalist revisionism imputes malign motives and mal-intentions to Stalin when there are far less damning and far more rational explanations for his actions and decisions.

Let’s start with the Kulaks.  Stalin inherited an agricultural system which was inadequate to meet the needs of the nation and which benefitted only a minority of land owners who were known to get “fat off famine”.  According to the world’s foremost expert on Soviet agriculture, Mark Tauger:

“My research has shown that the [“Holodomor” or more precisely the 1931-33] famine resulted from drought, plant disease and pest infestations that caused two years of crop failures.  I argue that this famine has to be understood in a broader context of earlier famines and Soviet agricultural sciences.  I showed that the famines of the 1920’s not mentioned in previous studies, led Soviet leaders to resort to collectivization to restructure Soviet agriculture on the model of American mechanized farming, as an attempt to overcome its vulnerability to environmental disasters.”

The Kulaks of course opposed collectivization efforts and literally burned their crops, and killed their own livestock in order to resist.  They did not want the inadequate agricultural system to end because they were the prime beneficiaries of that system.  At first the CPSU (known in the West as “Stalin”) attempted to work with the Kulaks and integrate them into the new system by way of gradual reform.  But when the Kulaks refused to cooperate and another famine resulted, it would have been irresponsible for any Soviet leadership to simply concede and submit to the inadequate and famine prone system demanded by the Kulaks.  Expropriation was a final and necessary step which allowed for collectivization to take place and which ultimately resulted in tremendous improvement and modernization of the Soviet agricultural situation and in a vast improvement in quality of life for the average Russian.  The CPSU was entirely correct and had no other choice but to expropriate the land of private farmers who preferred getting fat off famine to integration, industrialization, modernization, and collectivization.

This particular example ought to be seen as a microcosm of the general rule regarding the treatment of history and the explanatory narratives which compete for primacy within our minds.  The capitalist class would have us believe in an all-powerful Stalin (today Putin) who’s motivations were irrational, paranoid, selfish, bloodthirsty, and who’s methods were craven, diabolical, underhanded, and intent on instilling fear in furtherance of his own political power, ego, and cult of personality.  It ought to come as no surprise that I view any such assertion, insinuation, or implication as entirely spurious and promoted out of either ignorance or a conscious desire to deceive.  There is not a single criticism of Stalin or the CPSU that can withstand critical scrutiny and which there does not exist an explanation which is far more comprehensive, compelling, and satisfactory when compared to the dumbed down tropes which have resulted in the Anti-Stalin conventional wisdom which exists today.

From the very beginning the Bolshevik Revolution was attacked by enemies from within and without.  The fact that many within the original revolutionary coalition government eventually attempted to utilize agitation, propaganda, and terror to further their own narrow political views because they were unable to convince a majority of the party to see things their way, should not be misconstrued as some kind of an indictment against Stalin.  In the adolescent worker’s state, treachery and opportunism abound.  In such a nascent state, oversight and “checks and balances” are non-existent, not because of the moral or bureaucratic failings of the General Secretary but rather because of the undeveloped nature of the system and the powerful pull of opportunism which such a system invites.

The West calls them “Moscow Show Trials” but in reality they convicted men who were guilty of conspiracies against the CPSU.  Here’s Walter Durant in 1944, providing the basic framework with which to understand what took place:

“It is now clear that the Kremlin-Opposition conflict falls into three chronological phases. The first period covers the years from 1923, when the Bolshevik leaders first realized that Lenin’s days were numbered, to January, 1928, when the Opposition, which by then had formed a somewhat disparate bloc under the leadership of Trotsky, was crushed and its adherents, great and small, were scattered in exile across Siberia and Central Asia. This may be called the phase of Open Controversy. There followed the phase of Reconciliation, from the latter part of 1928 to 1934, during which Trotsky’s supporters in Russia recanted their heresies and paid abject lip service to the Kremlin. Many of them were restored to posts of high importance, although they had already shown that their previous recantations of error and promises of amendment in the future were not to be relied upon. During these years Trotsky found harborage on the Isle of Prinkipo in the Bosphorus, where his activities were somewhat hampered by Turkish supervision and where he appears to have confined himself to the preparation of a new campaign against his opponents on Soviet soil by the formation of the so-called Fourth International and by writing in order to raise funds. He established and maintained contact with his friends in the USSR and elsewhere, and by the end of 1932, when he was able to leave Prinkipo for a less restricted and more congenial sojourn in France, he had laid the foundations for a renewed attack on the Kremlin. This preliminary work was continued and developed in 1933 and 1934, coincidentally with a great extension of German activity in the USSR. At the end of November, 1934, Kirov, one of Stalin’s closest henchmen, was assassinated in Leningrad. This marked the beginning of the third and present phase of Secret Conspiracy. This development was due: (a) to the character and ability of Trotsky himself, (b) to the international situation, with particular reference to German and Japan, and to circumstances inside Russia.”

The most remarkable aspect of all of the above and the thing most relevant to our discussion here is the way in which historic reality has been rewritten in order to malign Socialism in general and socialism’s most effective leaders like Stalin and Mao in particular.  In evaluating what is true, it is important to understand all the opposing narratives and evaluate them within the fullest possible context.  In my experience, those that explain Stalin’s behavior in terms of an irrational, blood thirsty, paranoid, drive to maintain and further his own power, are totally confused both about what Stalin actually did and why he actually did it.  It is simply taken on faith that Stalin was evil incarnate and often such an indoctrination is too deep for folks to even question.  Of course this is the power of propaganda and why the Western capitalist dictatorship has invested so heavily in creating the greatest propaganda apparatus the world has ever seen… (I digress yet again).

Richard, I can tell you like to read so I will not offer the usual apology for sharing this long article below.  It is the introduction written by Bruce Franklin to his collection of Major Theoretical Writings of J. Stalin.  It is by far the best and most comprehensive treatment of all the issues which the West has used to malign and attack Stalin.  It is also a relatively long introduction but it is easy to read and you will not want to put it down.  I would also recommend, if you have not already done so, reading Mao’s “On the Question of Stalin”.  It is another superb analysis which I totally agree with.

So, now we get to the heart of the question.  How do we assess Xi’s view of Stalin based on the quotes gleaned from his various speeches.  In order to do this, it is important to remember that true Marxism and true Scientific Socialism, is not a blueprint for precisely how to advance the planet away from barbarism and towards peace through mutual prosperity.  On the contrary, it is a method that can be applied but will look different depending on the circumstances, situation, and existing material conditions which exist when the method is applied.  Stalin’s application of scientific socialism was correct for the material conditions which existed in Eastern Europe in the early 20th century just as Mao’s application of scientific socialism (aka Marxism/Leninism) was correct for the material conditions which existed in East Asia (i.e. Western economic embargo and Sino-Soviet split) after 1949.  This is why the question of “doctrinal purity” incessantly advanced by “ultra-leftists” was characterized as a mental disorder by Lenin.  There is no one size fits all dogmatic approach which must be adhered to in order to get the official Socialist stamp of approval.  Such thinking is dumb, misguided, and dangerous and indeed contributed to some of the negative excesses of the cultural revolution.

These seem to be the two greatest misunderstandings and falsehoods which Xi is addressing in the relevant quotes.  First he dismisses the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach to developing socialism and secondly he denounces the revisionists who have done their best to obfuscate historic reality and like Mao before him, he defends the legacy of Stalin and agrees that the dishonest sabotage of the historic reality, conducted for self-serving and politically opportunistic purposes, was a primary catalyst for the subsequent failure of the Soviet Union.

Anyway, I have written far too much already yet there are so many more points I would like to add.  I think I will just leave it here however and please respond (or not) however you see fit.

Thanks again for motivating all the paragraphs above.

Billy Bob

Regarding R Miller critique of Marxist theory, a few quick points:

1. The injection of ethnic arguments in a discussion of Marxist dialectics is actually a distraction, like discussing identity politics, something extraneous to the central theses Marx and Engels, and later Lenin, Mao, etc., advanced, all grounded in the understanding of human technological advances, and the birth and evolution of classes, their eventual tensions and struggles, and the march of humanity across different stages determined at each point of the historical curve by the national, regional and global status of the class struggle.

2. As a lifetime “tankie”, I back Xi’s positions, and observe with interest how Russia’s leadership, frequently disparaging Marxism (which I regard as misguided) still manages a hybrid form of rulership, a modern version of what the French used to call in the 1960s, “l’economie mixte”. It is undeniable that Putin’s successes were anchored in his decisive anchoring of the new Russian economy in a powerful energy sector, along with a vigorous science-technical and arms sector, also under direct state control. In this confrontation, Putin fortunately had (and still does) the support of the nation’s security machinery, who remained largely patriotic even after attempts by Yeltsin and his gang to practically disband it. As well, Putin, largely an Eurasianist, has had to contend with a powerful, but gradually decreasing “Atlanticist” faction mostly comprised of US-oriented oligarchs and finance-oriented technocrats, and some of the usual upper middle class, Western-influenced sector. Indeed, as Michael Hudson has suggested, Putin’s great victory, so far, has been to maintain an “industrial capitalist path”, rejecting the magnetic pull of the Death Star, that is all-out financialization of Moscow’s economy, which might naturally quickly render Russia a de facto vassal state of the Great Hegemon.

3. Great challenges remain, of course. How Putin (and his successors) expect to stabilize the Russian economy for much longer with such a still strong component of oligarchs and the inevitable toxicity of capitalism—for which there is no known cure—is one of the great questions confronting humanity. On many occasions, perhaps as a feint to throw many of his enemies off, Putin has come out talking as if he thought capitalism can succeed in Russia. He has also fully vindicated the Orthodox Church, and praised publicly notorious reactionaries if not outright fascists like Solzhenitsyn. In any case, if Putin and his advisers have discovered a cure for capitalism, they should share it, so as to subject it to peer review. If not, they should put that horse to pasture and move to a sustainable future. 

Xi, for his part, has seen the writing on the wall, and is apparently moving quickly to contain the capitalist cancer already sprouting all over the place, precisely as the Great Hegemon moves to concentrate all its forces against China. Xi’s reforms are in some regards a bit overdue, but China is thankfully implementing them with their usual decisiveness.

Fact is, no responsible leader can afford to disregard —in 2021—the great lessons about capitalist social morbidity and sheer socioeconomic unsustainability offered in eloquent terms by the collapsing US empire, as no one in the US, Japan or the EU has yet come up with a real solution to the classical problem of overproduction. Which, naturally, the digital revolution is exacerbating.

While in the short-term some placating of the inevitable may be possible by some astute or brute-force maneuvering, in the mid-term the disease will be obvious even to the most recalcitrant defenders of capitalism, not to mention the prospect for humanity in the longer term, when the ecological bomb fully detonates. By then, I hope the whole arc of anti-imperialist nations will have their house in good socialist order.

Since the leap toward autarkic industrialization and technical sufficiency is proceeding quickly in China, Russia, and Iran, this process accelerated by deeply misguided US harassment, China, for one, has far less reason to tolerate such a huge capitalist sector in its midst, nor does she depend on Western-controlled supply chains for her normal performance.

The great clash between a parasitic empire founded on war industries, and “wealth creation” through money manipulation, indefinite debt creation, etc., and sovereign nations like China, Russia, Iran, Korea, etc., who create wealth through concrete industrial operations (including service sectors that do not reflect negative or speculative functions in the GDP), has been decided. What’s more, Washington’s disgusting hubris, appalling governance, and inability to learn from history and reality, doom it to a downward spiral that will be sealed when dedollarization and vertical autarky are completed in key anti-imperialist nations in the next decade or perhaps even sooner.


Hello Billy Bob,  I think that I “get you” well, and I appreciate all of your input.  And about CWG, well, I’ve often wondered, that those that probably “know”, seem hesitant.  Well, they do their own thing.

I’ll start at the bottom:

  1. “Thanks for motivating all these paragraphs”.Absolutely.  My thoughts on it, – that by being forced to write, I become more knowledgeable, maybe even more intelligent.


  1. “I have written far too much already.”That’s me in spades.  I will try to suggest how we can find a sharper focus.  We have to open new threads on certain very broad topics.  Otherwise nobody is going to follow the discussion, if it just goes everywhere.  At least I will start to number, so you don’t have to re-quote statements, but can just say “on your number 3, I would consider the following. . . . “


  1. What is the world overview on the whole Soviet, Russian, Socialist, Communist discourses???

(a) private property is “sacred” to absentee owners, (aka billionaires).

(b) anyone who might say “you can’t own that” is their mortal enemy.

(c) “Communist” is a billionaire code-word for those we must kill.

(d) We must kill them in such a tortuous way, that no one will dare.

(e) Therefore the sides are drawn (by them) and I must choose sides.

(f) If I look at the events, or the methods, and try to tell the truth that I see?  (I might wind up on the wrong side.)

(g) If I stick with Story A, or if I stick with Story B, do I really serve the people of the future, who live in reality C?

(h) Exaggerations in one way or the other, leave out important considerations.  Omitting is a form of a lie.

(i)  Do lies serve the present or the future? Are they the foundation for building a new life?

SO – – – People love symmetry.  If there are too many people saying A, well, then I must say B, to balance it out?  (Or if they say B too much, I must say A, we call it a troll.)  That’s how I view the discussion of Stalin, of Communism and Socialism, and the discussions of the Soviet Union.

And to pile on to one side or the other of the argument is the perfect formula for divisiveness, exactly what we don’t need.  Divisiveness will collapse all of the old-line civilizations.

We must create a new-line civilization.

  1. Guess What? I didn’t write anything in the original post. Just a few words here and there.  It is all a direct quote from the white paper written by Wang Huning in 1986 and subsequently carefully revised 5 times until the 2012 version which I read.  I even took out some of his words (because of our Story A – Story B confusions), that is, his numbers of the Stalin repressions are even higher than the Russian figures.

Wang is now the fifth-ranked member of the Party’s seven-man Politburo Standing Committee, (2021) and directs the Central Secretariat, effectively making him Xi Jinping’s deputy in managing day-to-day Party affairs.

To suggest that (highest level) Chinese leaders are clueless about Soviet history, and that they may have to consult with western “Experts” to know what the hell happened there, is beyond belief for me.  I am sure they know more about it than you or I will ever know, and likely know way more about it than they will ever tell.  (I just read your 2nd link, and Mao already has it down pat back in his lifetime. (Written September 13, 1963)

To suggest that there is a radical division at the very top of the Chinese Politburo, and that this “Wang rascal” is against Xi, and holds unconventional views, is also completely disrespectful, and “off-the-wall”.  (In my view.)  Neither do I have to accept his numbers, but what is clear to me is that China is not about a mobilized communist society, and not about condoning it, nor endorsing it, nor most probably, they don’t even want to discuss it.

  1. I have long said on this forum that the definitions we use are completely useless, capitalism, communism, socialism, Marxism, industrialism, financialism, it takes some thinking even to make the list.I can think of multiple examples of very differing systems, each one using the same one of these “broken words”.  But there should be separate words for each use.

We burn our energy arguing over what amounts to loose slogans.  We are sloganeering experts and can go no farther than to where???  To Nowhere as far as I am concerned.

I call them “verbal containers”, (these ones are leaky buckets) and you can’t make new thoughts in an old worldview.    It’s a huge topic that can be discussed by the willing, in a serious contemplation.  (Or in a book)

  1. About Stalin, I have not adopted any “certain perspective”.I only have investigated the undisputed events.  (Well, some may want to dispute them), but the only way they can do it is by fogging the issues and adopting slogans.  What happened, happened; and yes there are records of it.  If there weren’t any, I’d have another opinion.

I think the words of Xi are clear as a ringing bell, they don’t need any of my processing.  He works toward unity.  History is a zigzag path, and you can either use those zigzags for divisiveness, or he chooses to find unity in them.  He knows what builds the nation and what destroys it.  He is a confirmed builder.

OK, I like what you said in one place:

– we develop our understanding in an ideological framework  (so that framework is what we should be talking about)

– current level of understanding used to process new information

– there exists powerful forces that are interested in manipulating our understanding

And then you say – “correct way” to understand Stalin and his methods?

(By the way, the correct way, and it is the obvious way, to understand Stalin must be in the light of “what will give the current Russian Federation the most power to thrive and develop.”  If you say Stalin, well, – – – he was actually the good guy – – – then those people are to think, Oh, Yeah, Right, . . . Maybe we could go back to those “glorious times”.)

Nothing could be further away from a useful vision of future expectations.

  1. “Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership.”

the fallacy of exaggerating Stalin’s dictatorial power

imputes malign motives and mal-intentions to Stalin

I totally agree, and I’ve prepared a post some time ago to that effect.  When I finally post it I will call it “Team Stalin, uncovered in the 1950’s”.  But to try to include it here is impossible.  But “Team Stalin doesn’t mean the team didn’t use misguided methods.  It means the whole team is implicated, caught up in the inertia, of a “steamroller to hell”.

  1. You bring up the Kulaks:Holy hell, that’s such an enormous subject.  You say:

“Stalin inherited an agricultural system which was inadequate to meet the needs of the nation.”   So what’s new about that?

Every nation that has ever made it into the modern stable of statehood (let’s say at least 150 of them), had that same universal initial problem.

(a) to industrialize you need workers (capital, resources and other stuff too)

(b) to industrialize on a shoestring, you need cheap labor.

(c) to have cheap labor you MUST have cheap food.

(d) to have cheap food you must drive traditional farming into the poorhouse.  They must be less than subsistence.

(e) to get industrialized food you must drive farmers into bankruptcy and destitution, off of the farm and into the cities.  What they had for free by their own labor now they have to buy, from the state no less.

Then if you want to do that very fast:

(f) if they still don’t leave the land you have to take the land by force.

(g) If they still object you have to shoot them (according to you-know-who)

It is as simple as reciting the alphabet.  It can be no other way.  They’re still doing it today in America, driving the family farm into bankruptcy.

To say someone “got fat-off-of-famine” is simply way off of the map.  That excuse was the only way you could digress to point (g).

There was some slaughter of cattle in 1930 as a protest, and it was successful to soften government policies.

In other periods a new tax levied on each head of cows and a tax on each fruit tree were designed to drive farmers off of the land, to the point (d).  They killed their cows and cut down their trees to survive financially, not because they were “enemies of the state or the people”.  The government killed those cows, with their purposeful tax policy.  And the people repeatedly went on the ration system because of it.  You say they were the prime beneficiaries of that “outdated” system?  Well, they were living.

I believe that famine happened from the government decrees radically interfering with a system that had worked up until that point, but they decreed the change before having successfully arranged an alternative system to supply that food. They had the idea, but it wasn’t in place yet.  What was left was a void.  I can back all that up with production figures and ratios of where all resources came from.

Kulaks are another vast subject that I have been preparing, but again it must wait.

  1. Now you’re going to some points that you can’t seem to shake.

– I view any such assertion, insinuation, or implication as entirely spurious, ignorance, and a desire to deceive.

– not a single criticism of Stalin or the CPSU that can withstand critical  scrutiny

– where there does not exist an explanation which is far more comprehensive, compelling, and satisfactory

– The fact that many within the original revolutionary coalition government eventually attempted to utilize agitation, propaganda, and terror to further their own narrow political views, because they were unable to convince a majority of the party to see things their way,

– (WHO was that by the way??  The ones that came out on top, right?  Is it the ones you’re defending?)

– treachery and opportunism abound.

– “checks and balances” are non-existent

– not because of the moral or bureaucratic failings

– (Here you say the failings of the General Secretary, but let’s leave him out of it completely.

– The bureaucratic failings are also rampant in everyone else.)

– The political structure was a free-for-all.

You said Walter Durant (Duranty).  I read “The Kremlin and the People” 1941, last year, along with about 10 other books on the revolution.  I found it again, but I don’t want to go back and scan through it just now.

I don’t relate to any of the above, because apart from those 10 books (half for and half against), I don’t read western propaganda nor western studies.  All of my background in the USSR is Russian.  All Russian authors, all written in Russian.  The bulk of it is a 2 year history course at the Moscow State University, Under-grad junior and senior level, and what they are teaching Russian students right now.  Now I am widening my search from there.

In the course I refer to, they open the archives of each series of events.  Call it the facts.  There is precious little commentary.  From the facts you just draw your own conclusions.  What happened seems to be very clear.

  1. Thanks for those two links.I read the shorter one, Mao, yesterday

Fantastic!  Mao has it exactly how I see it, and how I think Xi has it.  Back in 1963, when Khrushchev was still in power.

In defending Stalin, the Chinese Communist Party defends his correct side, defends the glorious history of struggle of the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat,  While defending Stalin, we do not defend his mistakes. Mao

In the work led by Stalin of suppressing the counter-revolution, many counter-revolutionaries deserving punishment were duly punished, but at the same time there were innocent people who were wrongly convicted; and in 1937 and 1938 there occurred the error of enlarging the scope of the suppression of counter-revolutionaries.  Mao

The errors of Stalin, which were only secondary, are taken as historical lessons so that the Communists of the Soviet Union and other countries might take warning and avoid repeating those errors and commit fewer errors in the future.  Mao

Really, the total Mao article is about Khrushchev, not much of Stalin.

Lenin said, “Abuse in politics often covers up the utter lack of ideological content, the helplessness and the impotence, the annoying impotence of the abuser.” Does this not apply to the LEADERS of the CPSU who, feeling constantly haunted by the specter of Stalin?  (The word “Leaders” is plural,  Mao said it. it’s the whole pack around Khrushchev.)

The “combat against the personality cult” launched by Khrushchev is a despicable political intrigue.  “He is in his element as an intriguer, while he’s a nonentity as a theorist.” – Mao

Even in the last paragraph, Mao goes for unity, he doesn’t call Khrushchev hopeless when he says:

We would like to offer a word of sincere advice to Comrade Khrushchov. We hope you will become aware of your errors and return from your wrong path to the path of Marxism-Leninism.  Mao

I’d love to talk about all of his points.  It goes into a Khrushchev discussion. You could make a post on just this one article.  I’ll read the Bruce Franklin introduction next, and see what I find.

  1. After giving the links, what you say; I have no argument, that’s all what I want to see too. I’ll add this, I love the Chinese saying:

Practice is the only measure of truth.


Practice is also the only measure of Un-truth.

If you want to know anything about communism, socialism or Marxism, you must study the Soviet Union.  It’s the on-the-ground experience of running communism.  On the other side of the coin, China; It is “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, (for a new era)”.  It’s something quite different, (and just as interesting of course).

  1. A) And what will you find in the USSR? Soviet Communism is 70 years of multiple disappointments, sometimes even shocking. The Soviet and Russian person’s personality must be steeped in overcoming disappointments.

Can you fix communism, or must you move on???  The other question I will also repeat:

  1. B) “What will give the current Russian Federation the most power to thrive and develop?” (And such that the Russian people are not led to disappointment again?)

Hey, Post anytime.  I’ll surely be reading it.


Hello Pat,

  1. You speak of Marxist THEORY;”grounded in the understanding of human technological advances, and the birth and evolution of classes, their eventual tensions and struggles, and the march of humanity across different stages, determined at each point of the historical curve by the national, regional and global status of the class struggle”.

I kind of get your point, that even if various ethnicities and various time periods might prove this theory is not universal, why not stick with it, until some next phase disproves it more forcefully?

The Chinese have said that class struggle, as such, in China is not dominant.  (I have leadership quotes.) So why should they keep talking about class struggle?  Yes there are again rich people, but the economy-for-all, is not based on them, nor hindered by the money they filter out of the system.

And shouldn’t we still look beyond, when robotics and A.I. will make most of the “Proletariat” into the excess “Protoplasm”.  Is there a notch in Marxism where that will fit into the theory?

  1. You give a certain praise to Putin for:

– decisive anchoring of the new Russian economy in a powerful energy sector

– a vigorous science-technical and arms sector (how vigorous I am wondering? With regard to arms of course.)

These actions are just gravity aren’t they.  It’s just happening out of necessity, not because of special leadership qualities.

“Contending with the “Atlanticist” faction mostly consisting of US-oriented oligarchs and finance-oriented technocrats, and some of the usual upper middle class.”

This isn’t ideological, they have the money.  (I posted the list here last month, a $ Trillion sequestered by Russian billionaires).  “Change the laws so we can control and extract rent from all of you, just like they do in the west, or we will move our money over there”.  They have already moved it haven’t they, and the hidden part of their wealth, we have no idea.  Putin has to be seductive to get any part of this back into the country.

  1. A“curefor capitalism?   That means both, how to live with it, how to integrate a part of it, or how to evict it.  None of which are clear alternatives, nor simple procedures.

– a solution to the classical problem of overproduction?

Of course there IS a centuries old solution to overproduction, which is WAR.  All the wars in our age are capitalism at work.  Capitalism needs a major war every 30 years at the current rhythm.  And it is not just about the MIC and making money with that.  All of Corporatocracy needs war.  Building the MIC is their reassurance that it can happen again.  (I’m not talking about you-and-me capitalism, trying to make a living.  I’ll call that “enterprise-ism”).

After the big war I think that they were biding their time, waiting for the 30 year turnover.  Then they were going to nuke the Soviets to smithereens.  But Stalin wrecked it: when he blew off the atomic bomb in 1949 and then the Hydrogen bomb in 1953 just after his death.

All the harping about greed and morals and incessant profit totally misses the point.  It’s not people’s morals, it’s the system. Capitalists don’t fight for greed, they fight for survival.  The system cannot function without a periodic clean sweep of all the competition.  The 30 years are up.

If ever they win, (that is, manage to deconstruct Russia etc.), will they still share the bounty with Europe, Japan, S.Korea, Australia?  Will there be any “Partners” left over?  Get-Real about that one!  Only one group will put up the sign on planet earth, FOR RENT.  Pay up or get out.

3a.  OK, Autarky is important for nations under siege.  But can an economy thrive, relying solely on the domestic market or it’s own internal consumption?  I can’t answer that, but a solution has to be in the model.  Perhaps you can raise the domestic quotient, but I don’t think there is any evidence to demonstrate it can thrive alone.

– either money manipulation vs. wealth through concrete industrial and service operations

– no negative or speculative functions in the GDP

– But you make 10 times more money, and 10 times faster with market manipulation, and

– virtual wealth is a 100 (100’s) times bigger than the real economy.

– How to equalize that?  It won’t fit in.

– Sounds very violent to me?

What does this really mean?  Nowadays the real economy is not as important as the virtual economy.  (Of course not so, for you and me, the other way around).  If the absentee owner has carved out a regional monopoly, fine and good, let’s milk it.  But otherwise I see the real economy as a money laundering front.  It is the way to get virtual money back into the spending economy.  For this it serves well.

Only my opinions, of course.


Richard, I agree that we are a little bit all over the place and it will be difficult for others to follow.  But I’m not motivated to address any issues except the one which I perceive to be central to our differences.  Your framework appears to be that the reality of oppositional class interests within the capitalist mode of production is not the prime driver and force behind political events, laws, economic regulations, wars, and the entirety of history which communists perceive it to be.  In contrast to communists, you would minimize the relevance of oppositional class interests and reject it as the singular most important reason for why things are as they are.

That’s cool.  Of course many folks don’t think in these terms.  Many are nationalists, racists, and most in the West are just too busy making ends meet and too subdued by their own political disenfranchisement to have any serious opinions at all (other than those passively absorbed through exposure to Western media).

But, as you alluded to elsewhere, it is not the opinions or (lack thereof) of the masses that determines what matters.  What matters is determined by the ruling elite, the monied interests, the oligarchs, and their intelligentsia which is tasked with maintaing and increasing the obscene disproportion of wealth, power, and privilege, enjoyed by the very few (at the expense of the vast majority).  Their motivation, actions, strategies, etc, are calculated and designed to further their interests which are naturally in opposition to the interests of the vast majority.

Now, a dictatorship of the proletariat can tolerate and indeed harness the benefits of capitalism (private ownership) while doing it’s best to minimize the negative externalities of inequality, political corruption, and disunity which naturally follow and this is of course China’s current course.  Mostly however, where capitalism exists, the capitalists have taken over political power as well and the entire system is run by a capitalist dictatorship.  This is the system that flourishes in the West and which hides itself with terms like “Democracy”, “checks and balances”, and “constitution”.

In reality if push comes to shove, the capitalist class will quickly reveal it’s dictatorial nature and things like “rights” are quickly thrown out the window.

Following WWII, the US found itself accounting for half the world’s economy but only 5% of the world’s population.  They were in a very fortunate place indeed and used their disparity in wealth and power to subdue the developing world, ensure socialism was eradicated by any means necessary (without any moral restraint whatsoever including the creation and use of sadistic narco deathsquads, extreme and intolerant religious fanatics, and racist, nationalistic neo-nazi militias).

The Wester ruling class perceived the threat of successful socialism as an existential one because even a single successful socialist country, like Cuba for instance, would be an example that many others would certainly follow.  The US has made clear though through the average of one “regime change” operation per year (not to mention 100’s of rigged foreign elections) that socialism is not a political approach that will be tolerated.

The developing world has to choose between being a second class Western colony where anything of value is exploited or extracted, or becoming the enemy of US led Western imperialism with all the subversion, sanctions, assassination, and hopelessness that entails.

I say all this too make it obvious and clear that within the era of capitalist development which our planet currently exists, it is class struggle and class war which is the defining feature of why things are as they are.  Today’s struggle is not really between two different modes of production, private ownership vs. Public ownership, but rather today’s struggle is between which class holds the levers of political, economic, and military power.  Is a given government a lackey or member of the dictatorship of capital that will acquiesce and work with the US led global empire which is interested solely in maintaining and projecting it’s unearned and obscene disproportion of wealth, power, and privilege?  Or does it resists the empire and stand on the moral high-ground of sovereignty and a sincere desire to benefit their working class and all of humanity like Libya, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China, DPRK, etc, etc?

These countries are targeted for subversion because they do not prostrate themselves to the exploitative will of Western imperialism.  Just as scores of countries have been targeted since 1945.  But you must understand the class nature of imperialism to appreciate all of this.  It’s the only way it truly makes any sense.

So on the question of whether or not oppositional class interests are the prime force directing world events I would emphatically say that they are and to perceive otherwise will result in a flawed analysis.

I will end with a few words about Stalin’s successes which you have glossed over by speaking of the SU as 70 years of multiple disappointments.  While it’s true that a capitalist counter revolution eventually succeeded to take power, it seems obvious that this failure resulted from the initial and extremely dishonest (my opinion) attacks on Stalin which Mao makes expounds on in his 1963 article.  This led to the Sino-Soviet split and also the end of the Western economic embargo against China.

What Stalin was able to accomplish during his time seems to me to be tremendous success after tremendous success.  He managed to industrialized the country and bring electricity, education, and healthcare to all.  He championed women’s rights and ended ethnic pogroms.  He singlehandedly (for all intents and purposes) defeated the Nazi war machine.  His leadership inspired the working class throughout the world and forced the Western capitalist dictatorships to provide far more largess to their working class than they otherwise would have and this resulted in what is widely understood to be the golden age of capitalism in the 1950’s where millionaires paid effective tax rates of 50% and the government financed huge public works and implemented things like social security etc.  If the Western capitalist dictatorship was not in an ideological competition with Stalin, none of these things would have happened.

Richard, I am enjoying this back and forth.  I hope you found some of the hasty words above useful or relevant.  BTW, I see that you are also conversing with Patrice but I can’t read Patrice’s contribution.  I know that Patrice and I are in very tight agreement and ideological solidarity and that his insight is very keen indeed.  Maybe I should scour my emails closer to see if I can find what you were responding to below.

Anyway, thanks for the continued discussion.

Billy Bob




104-The Soviet elections of 1937 were alternative!


103-Electoral system and elections in the RSFSR in 1918-1936


102-Stalin’s fierce struggle for power in the crucial 20s


101-Two attempts at Stalin’s democratic reforms




99-The 1991 coup : a desperate attempt to save a great country or a path to a bloody regime?


Today marks 30 years of events that turned the world

98-Mikhail Suslov: a man with the face of an aged student


97-Russia raps West’s actions in Syria, says it openly used terrorists to overthrow Assad

Lavrov is right. But everyone in the world needs to know that absolutely all parties involved in military conflicts, and the United States and Russia are no exception, use local conflicts to practice military skills and strategies, as well as to test their weapons. What is the point of making new weapons if in practice it turns out to be incapable of combat? This is my private opinion


96-China Writers’ Group comments about legalienate: Lesser Evil Politics Assure Greater Evil Economics, with reflections on Russia/USSR

✓What we are pretty good at is to lay out the world situation and point to all the things that are worsening the problems, and that look like they will end in certain catastrophe.

✓Also we have our theories (and certainties) of who, or what groups (what classes) are leading us toward this destruction.

✓Why do they do it?  I’ve never really read much about WHY’s.  I don’t know, just grab as much as you can while the grabbing is in vogue, and then in the collapse, your nest egg will be so big that it will solve any personal problem.  To control of course!

✓Then the solution, as an end-game, we have that too.  Mostly in the form of ideologies, such as an amorphous global democratic communism”, whatever that might be, (hey, we all don’t know what that is).  Something – – – like – – – well, what someone said or wrote.  But of course never tried, or if tried, never achieved it.

Global:  of course the only thing that could be global is global terror.  A couple of clans of enforcers, fighting it out to impose their own brand of Global.

Democratic:  Of course meaning printed green papers control who runs things, and you better not try to print any yourself.

Communism: god, who knows what, something with no money, no possessions, no distribution mechanism, just go get what you need. No enemies, no frustration, no more than a 5 hour check in at the factory.  Hey, no factories nowadays, just robots.  No need for much more than free time to sing and dance and learn all about????  Is there anything to learn about?  Why bother?

Come’on Frank, I know you can lay it out better than that.

(I didn’t really get the connection with your subject line either?)

✓So the only thing missing is the step by step or how to get from here (from the hell that you painted), to there;  some fuzzy ideas of a better life.  When the step by step is too laborious, then just spout out about revolution, a discontinuous break, a collapse.

Revolutionaries are those who want to use my body(bag) to fulfill their pipe dreams.  Use your own friggen body.  Leave me out of it.  (Maybe some of us might have fought in a war?  It doesn’t much sound like it.  I was in the army but never sent to the front.)  Revolutionaries forget their role.  1)The billionaires are the killers;  2)you are the killed.  Once the shooting starts, they will be more than happy to wipe you out.  They’re actually waiting for that, and if you don’t start it soon, they’ll do their own false flag, and start without you.

Admitted, John proposes a Contract for American Renewal for politicians to get elected. I’m okay with that and would gladly vote for someone who has signed the contract.  My proposal of a year or so ago is more like Which are worker owned companies performing in a capitalist environment.  We also discussed this in Irina’s post lately about Mondragon.  It is not a final solution, but a gradual change in mentality of workers taking care of themselves.

I also posted on Aug 8 “Capital Formation in Russia”, listing, and asking will the $1 trillion sequestered by Russian Billionaires and multimillionaires ever be used for development in Russia, or do you even need that money?  So far, the model says you do need it. What’s the solution?

It is way worse in the US, as so-called capitalism is designed to drain the real economy, which it has done very well.  Will a politician under a signed contract have anything to say about that?

(Is talking about the limitations of an ideology considered “Russia Bashing”?  Aren’t there enough people faulting the Soviet Union to last a lifetime?  But yet, some people actually do yearn for its return?)


President Putin can be masterful with words.  His quote, “Anyone that isn’t nostalgic for Soviet times has no heart.  Anyone that wants to return to it has no brain”.


Answer to the subject question:


If you’ll permit me: An ideology is a definition, pure and simple.  It is a theory of how things could be, it’s a hypothetical construction based on some form of “logic”, a logic which comes from a philosophy that contains, or has developed that brand of logic.


And why do we have an ideology?  Because that formation is nowhere existential.  It has never existed, never has been proven, never has been tested nor modified as a result of any practical experience.  If it was existential, we wouldn’t need an ideology, it would just have a name.  But up until now it is a fantasy, devoid of any reality. The hope of the authors is that with this ideological blueprint we will now impose our ideas on some people, somewhere in the real world.  And prove that we are right.  (Impose, they say at first, and then later people will flock to it voluntarily.)


From Marx, the classic’s work was devoted mainly to justifying the exhaustion of capitalism’s possibilities and the inevitability of a new society – a socialist one. The contours of the new system were not so thoroughly defined, and Marx’s futuristic sketches were taken on faith by his supporters. It fell to the share of the Bolsheviks to become the first party of socialists, which received the opportunity to test in practice some of the Marxist ideas.


Just a bit more on ideology: It is said by ideologues that “we have the domination of socialist ideology, the inviolable basis of which is Marxism-Leninism. But we still have remnants of a bourgeois ideology, vestiges of private-proprietary psychology and morality”.  But private property and the use of your own two hands to improve your own life are not an ideology.  They are a reality of many 1000’s of years, (which maybe you can work with and perhaps modify in some behaviors), but they don’t depend on words and thoughts to exist.  They already do exist.


Ideologies are then hollow beliefs that may someday be proven, or disproven.  A good example is a communist belief that never worked out, and that actually was an important seed for the communist destruction (there were others):


“The national question (contradictions in relations between the ethnic peoples) was seen as secondary in comparison with inter-class contradictions. Its resolution was seen as directly dependent on the success of socialist construction. It was believed that with the transition to socialism and the elimination of class differences, national contradictions and differences would also be overcome.” The opposite is what finally happened.


Was the USSR good for Russia?


In the autumn of 1922 much deliberation and conflict went on in the Plenum about how to create the Soviet Union.  The major problem was called “great power chauvinism”.  In other words the “republics”, (ethnic peoples), lacked trust because of the historical domination of the Russian Empire.


Attention was drawn to Georgian chauvinism directed against Armenians, Ossetians, Adjarians and Abkhazians;  Azerbaijani chauvinism against Armenians;  Uzbek chauvinism (in Bukhara and Khorezm) against Turkmen and Kyrgyz.  However, all these kinds of chauvinism were for some reason portrayed as a peculiar form of defense against “Great Russian chauvinism”.  The bias toward local nationalism “is a reaction against the Great Russian chauvinism, which found its expression in a number of mistakes of the Russian comrades on the ground and the struggle against which, constitutes one of the most important ‘next tasks’ of the Party.” At the meeting there were calls to “cut the throat” of the behemoth of the great power (N. A. Skrypnik), “eradicate it completely, burn it with a hot iron” (G. E. Zinoviev), to prepare for a long struggle, because “great Russian chauvinism will exist as long as there is a peasantry” (A. I. Mikoyan).


The RSFSR accounted for 90% of the area and 72% of the population created by the Union.  Giving the peripheral states the status of independents, but the Russian majority was not to be given that same status. 


Thus a union of “equal republics” was to be formed with some nations being “more equal” than the others.


In discussing national problems at the Congress, Bukharin thought it necessary to acknowledge directly and openly the unequal position of the Russian people. “We,” he said, “as the former great power nation must put ourselves in an unequal position, in the sense of even greater concessions to national currents. Only when we have artificially placed ourselves in a position inferior to others, and only at this price can we buy ourselves the true confidence of formerly oppressed nations“.


Rakovsky directly stated that “the Union construction has gone the wrong way. It is necessary to take nine-tenths of the rights of the union commissariats away from Russia and transfer them to the national republics.” Frunze suggested “reconsidering the existing federal associations, turning a number of new republics into independent republics”. 


The most radical were the proposals to replace the RSFSR and the ZSFSR with a number of independent national republics, including the Russian one, and unite them in a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on an equal (equally powerless) footing.


P. Mdivani demanded “neither more nor less” than the immediate transition to the division of the RSFSR into its component parts and their transformation into independent republics.


So the project in 1922 was identical to the western neo-liberal project of the 1990’s to dismember Russia into all its ethic components, and to join that weakened structure in a union with all the external republics.


Stalin called on not to hurry with breaking the newly created federal structure: “We’ll see in a year or two how it will go and if the practice shows that we have to split RSFSR – we will do it, but there’s no need to rush ahead”. A. I. Mikoyan also rejected the idea of “splitting up the RSFSR” as “essentially reactionary” and could “lead to the undermining of Soviet power and endless conflicts between individual peoples in the outskirts”.  So it didn’t happen that time.  


Russian people are sacrificed again and again for ideology


The history of the formation and subsequent development of the USSR shows that the Russian national-state interests in fact were sacrificed to the Leninist-Trotskyist utopia – in the interests of the phantom World USSR, and the nationalism of “oppressed” peoples of the former Tsarist Russia.  (Bolshevik propaganda about “Bloody Nikolashka” aside, only around 6,321 people were executed for all offenses (including purely criminal ones, like murder) in the Russian Empire from 1825-1917. The Red Terror that Lenin would unleash would claim many orders of magnitude more lives.)  Plus the civil war and famine, we’re getting up to 10,000,000 lives lost in 4 years, justified against 6,000 in 90 some years of the Tsars.


Instead of a realistic analysis of the processes in the national sphere and corresponding reforms in the national-state structure of the USSR, the government once again got carried away with the ideological utopian project of the “final solution to the national question”, linking it with a forced breaking down of “national partitions”, with the erasure of national distinctions and the assimilation of the nations in Soviet society, in other words – with denationalization.


What characterizes the development in the USSR and by the beginning of the 1960s are hollow phrases repeated as dogma, as follows: 


“Under the conditions of socialism, nations flourish, strengthening their sovereignty”. The development of the nations is not on the way to increasing national discord, national narrow-mindedness and egoism, as it happens under capitalism, but on the way to their rapprochement, fraternal mutual assistance and friendship. The emergence of new industrial centers, the discovery and development of natural wealth, the development of virgin lands, and the development of all kinds of transport increase the mobility of the population, contributing to the expansion of mutual communication between the peoples of the Soviet Union. People of many nationalities live and work together in the Soviet republics. The boundaries between the union republics within the USSR are no longer important, because all the nations are equal, their lives are built on a common socialist basis, the material and spiritual needs of each nation are equally satisfied, they are all united by their common vital interests in the Fatherland family, and are together moving toward a common goal – communism. The Soviet people of different nationalities have formed common features of spiritual character, born of a new type of social relations and embodied in themselves the best traditions of the peoples of the USSR.  In sum, the “new man” has been born.


Sounds good, doesn’t it?

OF COURSE THIS WAS NEVER TRUE, BUT THE LEADERS CAME TO BELIEVE IN THEIR OWN PROPAGANDA.  Thus so many problems were never confronted nor solved.


Leninist / Trotsky aims were much worse


L.D. Trotsky joined the discussion in November 1920. He and his supporters believed that the main goal of the Soviet power was to prepare for a “revolutionary war” and to push the world revolution in every possible way. They suggested turning the country into a military camp, to militarize it, drastically limit democracy, “keep in check” the multi-million peasantry, which, according to the theory of permanent revolution, is hostile to socialism. It was suggested that the trade unions should be “shaken up,” merged with the economic organs, and that paramilitary methods should be incorporated into the work practices of other social organizations.


The November 1920 Plenum of the RCP(b) rejected Trotsky’s proposals and called for abandoning military methods in the leadership of trade unions. However, this did not stop the Trotskyists. In the Central Committee of the United Trade Union of Railway and Water Transport Workers (headed by Trotsky since March 1920), work was still carried out by military methods. Union members were imprisoned for various misdemeanors and sent to forced labor.


The Leninist project gave Russia the role of brushwood, which was going to be thrown into the furnace of the world revolution. And the Russians – the role of cannon fodder, which will be sacrificed to the International Socialists, who dreamed of a landed republic with its capital in either Berlin or New York. People were expendable material like Saruman’s Orcs, to pelt Europe with their corpses for the interests of the “lords of the rings” of the world revolution.  – Trotsky said not without reason that the real revolutionaries sit on Wall Street! Fin-intern-news, the bankers of the City of London and Wall Street, in their plans for revolutionary change of the world – the capitalist globalization, Russia and the Russians were given the unenviable share as the raw materials for creating this ideology.


This was Soviet Communism from the very beginning.  Did it get any better after that period?


You can tell me if you know.  Some say, where would humanity be today without Lenin, Stalin, et al?  I can’t answer that question.


95-Independence fever: Ukraine chose sovereignty in exchange for gold


94-“I am asked to show the truth”: What an American blogger from Donbass saw in the Russian Crimea


93-Were the participants of the State Emergency Committee criminals?: facts that have been kept silent for 30 years


92-“Fantastic mess”: military pilot Anatoly Kopyrkin – about the evacuation of Americans from the Kabul airport


91-How London and Paris contributed to the conclusion of the treaty between the USSR and Hitler


90-The Taliban began to guard the Russian Embassy in Kabul

89-Yevgeny Yevtushenko: It is not enough to know history, but you need to understand it. Lev Gumilyov’s Theory of passionarity on the laws of history


88-Was Stalin great?


87-If you can’t win fairly, then change the rules


86-More on Federenko’s writings

1) I’ve been asking questions about what will bring about the development of Russia?  In one post I calculated the power of Russia’s elite.  With billionaires and various levels of millionaires, projected at 77,000 people with (about) $1.5 trillion at the end of next year.  I showed less, but without counting offshore.

I wondered if they have much interest in investing in real assets, or like all elites they are speculators? I wondered if the government could reign them in, or if you even need their money?

In another post I showed the 9 year transformation of Ivanono, (a city of 440,000).  How are they developing their city? It seems quick now, after a very long lag?

In a reply Irina mentioned taxing offshores at a different rate, or breaking the mutual tax treaties, will bring money back, which I had read about.  Does that mean Russian growth depends on capitalism now?  No more social investment, but mostly private ownership?  It does look that way in Ivanovo.  I don’t know, I am just asking.

The state owns oil and other resources, and so as long as oil prices hold high, they’ll have a budget.  But where will they put that money?

2) Where I think I would find the answer is in a book by Nikolay P. Fedorenko.  I’ve mentioned it before, and now I will tell you about it through a review.  Who is he?

In 1946 he had carried out an original development related to economic calculations of combined productions. In 1949, he developed the methods for determination of costs and estimation of efficiency of products manufactured in combined chemical processes. In the early 1950s, on the basis of a series of calculations, he contributed to the practical implementation of the idea of cost accounting in chemistry-related industries. He is the author of monographs “The Economics of Synthetic Materials Industry” (1961), and “Issues of Economics of the Industry of Organic Synthesis” (1967). In 1970 he was awarded the State Award of the USSR for his contribution to the chemical industry of the country.

He was one of the theorists and organizers of research of the system of optimal functioning of socialist economy. In his works, he created the scientific basis of the comprehensive system for the development of future national economic plans, which combined program-targeted, sectoral, and territorial planning.  He wanted to connect all industry sectors with computers, way before the internet.

If I had this book, I would translate it into English.  (Pdf that I could copy/paste of course.)  A paper book I could do nothing with.  This, above and below, I had found in Russian, so these are all translations.

3) Here is Doctor of Economics O. Inishkov’s review.

Fedorenko N. P. Russia at the turn of the century.

М. ZAO Izdatel’stvo “Ekonomika” [Economics Publisher]. , 2003. – 727 с.

The problem of wealth – traditionally central to economic science – attracts particular attention in transitional epochs and at the turns of history. It was then that works on the essence and sources, types and measures of wealth of peoples and countries emerged. These include the works of W. Peggy and I. Pososhkov, A. Smith and A. Storch, A. Butowsky and C. Gini, R. Goldsmith and Alb. Weinstein, M. Gilbert, and others. Much has been done to measure the wealth of humanity, but apparently more remains to be done. That is why a fundamental advance in this direction of modern economic science is so significant. The new book by Academician N.P. Fedorenko is not the patriarch of economic science “Bygoye i dumy” (“Bygone and Thought”). Tirelessly reflecting on the “eternal paradoxes” that at all times did not give rest to domestic economists. But this scientist is focused on the future.

✓”Why does complete poverty arise in the face of immeasurable wealth?”;

✓”Is Russia objectively condemned to such a deplorable state of affairs? And if so, why?” (pp. 21-22) –

The very posing of such questions gives this study the character of an actual “answer” of economic science to the “challenge” of strategic modernization of the economic system, and the multifaceted composition of the monograph allows us to consider this “answer” systematically and comprehensively justified.

The large-scale and complex task of assessing the dynamics and evolution of Russia’s national wealth and its proportions in the XX century, the first results of the solution of which N. Fedorenko already described as the first results of his previous work

“Russia: Lessons of the Past and Faces of the Future” [1], and now he is again presenting us from the different angles:

– methodological and theoretical,

– methodological and statistical,

– political and ideological,

– moral and humanistic.

In a new multidimensional study the author conducts objective historical comparisons of the levels of economic development of the country, providing a basis for assessing its prospects in the XXI century.

✓They are connected, first of all, with the creation of mechanisms of overcoming poverty,

✓improvement of the standard of living and quality of life,

✓effective use of resources and factors of productive activity,

✓formation of optimal reproduction proportions,

✓passing to future generations of “good economy” (p. 18) .

To study the age-old dynamics of Russia’s national wealth, it was necessary to analytically identify its components, the synergistic interaction of which in living labor and real production is the basis for the creation, accumulation, transformation and distribution in the economic space of all the diversity of goods.

To such components, which in the modern world take special forms of capital, N. Fedorenko refers to human (including intellectual), and natural-resources, scientific-technical, and institutional-organizational factors of economic development. He also takes into account the influence of the accumulated wealth in society embodied labor, which appears in the forms of capital and property. “Labor potential, natural resources, accumulated capital and accumulated property, intellectual power and the art of management, their forms, scale and power, are the main components and driving forces of national wealth, specific generic forms of its embodiment, and its existence” (p. 21) .

The above provision shows that among methodological tasks of economic theory, the structural and functional differentiation of categories of potential and capital, property and wealth, resources and factors, is brought to the forefront. Without this, many methodological solutions in the field of measuring and comparing the wealth of nations are impossible. The relevance of theoretical discussions about the actual composition of the basic arguments of the production function and the need for their further clarification and harmonization are obvious. Only on the basis of a consensus on this fundamental issue is it realistic to make further progress in the long-term empirical generalizations and knowledge of the patterns of dynamics and evolution of Russia’s economy.

  1. Fedorenko’s fundamental position on the need to separate categories of national wealth remains unchanged. If under the first one we understand “everything, without exception, that the country has at its disposal”. The notion of national wealth includes “everything that the people of this country have accumulated and have at their disposal at this moment ( – O.I.)” (p. 34). If a country’s wealth does not belong to the people, then whose wealth does it belong to? Unwittingly, questions arise about the stratification of social forces, about the confrontation between society and the state, about the need to resolve the contradictions between them. The development of an economic mechanism for the establishment and consolidation of civil society in Russia becomes an urgent task.

At each stage of the historical development of any country there is a different understanding of people’s wealth and national wealth. “And the greater the contrasts and, consequently, contradictions between different ways of life and labor, as well as modes of production, the greater these differences will be (between countries. – O.I.), of course” (p. 34). In the context of globalization, it is time for new approaches to the assessment and comparison of national wealth of different countries, for the completeness and reliability of which a unified international methodological framework should be created.

It is necessary to develop a methodological basis for the study of the role and significance of the fictitious part of national wealth, the nature and extent of its interrelation with the real component. “What is the price of the paper part of the national wealth of modern Russia, how can this wealth double overnight or melt away in the same amount, what is its relation to the real wealth of the country, how does it affect the real wealth of Russia and how is it depreciated under the pressure of financial speculators?” (с. 71) . It is extremely difficult to make this comparison because natural indicators of national wealth are widely used along with the value indicators to exclude the influence of fluctuations in the stock markets.

Therefore, there is a problem of forming a comprehensive mechanism of assessment in monetary terms of the rates and proportions of reproduction of various elements of national wealth – fixed capital of enterprises and property of households, intellectual capital, minerals developed and put into circulation, information, connections and statuses. Still little-studied elements of wealth should include the “goodwiII” (reputation) of enterprises, individual property rights and competencies, other intangible assets. Their valuation can be based on the value of agreements and contracts, patents and licenses, standards and norms, rituals and procedures, statuses and reputations rooted in a particular economy.

But in order to give the required objectivity to the process of assessing national wealth, it is advisable to conduct a general inventory (p. 673), in the course of which its hidden part – the “shadow” component – should be identified. It is no secret that most enterprises underreport their activities within the framework of official reporting. And if, in the “crooked mirrors” of domestic statistics, about the problems of which N. Fedorenko writes about in detail, Russian economic space looks like a lifeless desert, in fact, the “fog” of shadow relations only covers the real metamorphosis of conditions, resources, factors and products, in the process of reproduction of national wealth. A significant step in this direction was made in the regional study led by A. Tatarkin and V. Yakovlev [2].

The costs of the all-Russian inventory seem to be enormous, because influential groups of oligarchs, directors of enterprises, financial magnates, hidden owners will be interested in its blocking and distortion of the results obtained. Therefore, it requires a combination of the political will of the head of state and an independent scientific expertise on the part of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The fundamental issue of any transformation is a change in the proportions of objects and subjects of various forms of ownership, which determines the transformation and modernization of the entire economic mechanism of society. It is no coincidence that N. Fedorenko draws special attention to the results and effects, expectations and prospects of redistribution of property rights in the course of privatization of the 1990s. He bitterly writes about the social cost of liberal reforms: “… Ordinary shareholders are removed from the management of the enterprise, and a narrow circle of owners seizes large blocks of shares… The process of secondary redistribution of property is carried out under the banner of deepening monopolization, strengthening the oligarchic nature of the economy and has nothing to do with the search for an effective owner” (pp. 438-439) . As a result, we have an unprecedented social stratification on scale and intensity. The conclusion is logical: “… Privatization has not contributed to the strengthening of social security and the development of social infrastructure, but rather has led to their destruction” (p. 439) .

The author actualizes the search for an optimal balance between sectors of the economy (state, private, cooperative, etc.), the balance of property functions (use, ownership and disposal), including a review of the results of privatization. Tools of this harmonization should be evaluated from the perspective of not commercial, and public effectiveness, so that “de-privatization, nationalization and confiscation are, from the perspective of the interests of the national economy and the population of Russia. They’re not antagonists and not “poor cousins” of privatization, and its equal partners, if not “sisters in arms” “. (с. 441) . It should not be forgotten that privatization and de-privatization unduly and continuously replace each other in the course of economic evolution.

The reproduction mechanism in contemporary Russia generates a set of internal contradictions, multiplies the costs of transformation and modernization for society, contributes to the emasculation of the real content of the status of the worker, fixes the inversion of social groups on “place and role” in economic processes, status and income. In many respects, the reason for this is ignoring the indisputable fact that “national wealth is created for PEOPLE, is created by PEOPLE (their living and materialized labor) and is the property of the people, i.e. the aggregate PEOPLE” (84). The processes of total de-ideologization and de-naturalization of the economic space are in full swing.

That brings us to social alienation, atomization and growing fragmentation instead of tendencies to strengthen civil society.  Narrow political groups and factions become more isolated, people become farther apart from each other, and there is an escape from reality into alcoholism, drug addiction, and sectarianism. There is an irreversible erosion of generally accepted norms, with a parallel increase in the homogeneity of institutional space due to globalization [3]. “The “elite” is increasingly opposed to the “masses”.

The poverty of the majority of the population “triggers” the mechanism of degradation of the country’s human potential, because it is doomed to “narrowed reproduction”. This is due to the receipt of income sufficient only to achieve a minimum level of life, which sharply narrows the range of monetary and natural provision of a significant part of people’s physical and spiritual needs. N. Fedorenko is deeply convinced that “the cost of upbringing children, education, sports, health care and all other “investments in man” should be considered not as non-productive consumption, but as investments that give a direct economic effect and ultimately provide an increase in national wealth” (p. 86) . After all, the expanded reproduction of human capital is a prerequisite for the effective growth and development of the economy. Social humanism should really become the methodological and ideological “core” of Russia’s development economy [4].

Enriched with new ideas, N. Fedorenko’s work includes a number of chapters covering the logic and features of the centuries-old development of certain spheres and sectors of the economic system. These are industrial production and agriculture, construction and energy, trade and transport. Includes unparalleled in Russian science a continuous statistical series showing annual changes in basic economic and branch indicators of Russian economy throughout the XXth century (Chapters 3-7). Of undoubted interest, in particular, are arguments of the author about the nature and consequences of rapid pace of development of agriculture in modern Russia. In his opinion it is necessary to form interrelated dynamics of branches of AIC (grain production, cattle breeding etc.) on the basis of synchronization and scientific forecasting of demand in their production and production potential (p. 201-202).

The formation of scientific foundations for the modernization of the economy and the transition to a sustainable economic growth trajectory, the determination of individual directions and guidelines, priorities and imperatives within the framework of Russia’s development strategy are inextricably linked to the creation of a methodology for managing the evolution of the economic system, taking into account changes in indicators of its condition. According to N. Fedorenko, economic development “in general” in the current conditions is unacceptable for Russia, so a set of industries capable of becoming “donors” of the economy in the medium term should be identified, and a strategy for their factor and resource support should be developed. (oil, gas, minerals?)

The coordinated implementation of comprehensive target programs for the development of individual spheres and industries, regions and macro-regions should lead in the future to multiprogram dynamics of the entire multi-branch economy of Russia, becoming the basis of its sustainability. Although “theoretically any industry can be regarded as a point of potential growth” (p. 670), the scientist names three spheres, which should become a priority for investment and all forms of state support. These are the export-oriented sectors of raw materials, science and education, and small and medium business (Ch. 14). The seemingly paradoxical conclusion on increasing emphasis on the development of exports of FEC products is combined with the justification of the need for a gradual transition to a resource-saving type of development mechanism and multi-channel monitoring of demand for natural resource products, state and dynamics of reserves, reserves and resources, as well as geological exploration to control the exploitation and development of Russia’s natural wealth.

  1. Fedorenko’s position seems much more objective and patriotic compared to the loud statements of the adherents of the rapid construction into a post-industrial and even “post-economic” society in Russia, which is shrinking like a shagreen leather. His book has considerable heuristic potential, (learn by discovery) guiding the search for new generations of scholars, encouraging them to make bold advances in their methodology and methodology of measuring wealth.

The enormous amount of work done and the century-long scale of economic generalizations in the book by N. Fedorenko allow us to say after the ancient Romans: Faciant mcliara potcnt. cs – let him do better who can. The book gives us hope that the time is coming soon when “the higher moral principle of careful, prudent and very efficient use of the national wealth of Russia” will prevail (p. 22-23).

Doctor of Economics O. Inishkov

1 Fedorenko N.P. Russia: Lessons of the Past and Faces of the Future. М. ZAO Izdatel’stvo “Ekonomika” [Economics Publisher]. , 2000.

2 See: Shadow Economy of the Region: Diagnostics and Measures of Neutralization. Under the editorship of A.I. Tatarkin, V.F. Yakovlev. Institute of Economics of UrB RAS. М. ZAO Izdatel’stvo “Ekonomika” [Economics Publisher]. , 2004.

3 See: Castells M. The information age: economy, society and culture. М. State University – Higher School of Economics, 2000, p. 508.

4 See : Lvov D.S. Economics of Development. М. Examen, 2002, pp. 126-150.


Richard, I found for you an online version of Katasonov’s book “The Economics of Stalin”. Here’s the link

I cannot find Fedorenko’s books yet, but I will continue to search.

Regarding the budgets of different levels in Russia and where budget funds are directed, I found the textbook “The Budgetary System of Russia”.

Here is the link

I myself do not have information regarding the Ivanovo budget and social spending

This is a link to the municipal finance of the city of Ivanovo


Book: Fedorenko. Optimal functioning of the economy



Dear Richard, Fedorenko’s manuscript, which I sent you yesterday, does not open up to me in any format either. Today I searched the Internet for e-books of this author. I did not find any in electronic form. I will look for more, but it looks like they are only in the printed version

Hello Irina,  Many thanks.


Wow, those are really good things to find.  


The file that you had attached (Fedorenko. Optimal functioning of the economy), seems to be damaged, and I can’t open with Preview, Word or text edit.  Could you please try something?  Open it on your computer and copy the text into another program, like Microsoft Word, or some other text file that you have.  Please save that and send it to me, to see if my computer recognizes it.  For instance, it might be fonts.  Word had to download 3 additional fonts before I could paste the Katasonov book.


I had wanted to read Katasonov’s book on Stalin’s Economics, since when you directed me to a free chapter.  Now I captured the Russian text and dumped it into Microsoft Word, from which I will organize the translation.  It is 88,000 Russian words.


The textbook on Russian Budgetary system is a pdf, and downloads easily. About 300 pages.


The Ivanovo Budget is a series of links, pdf’s and Excel files.  Maybe I will look into them later:


Latest Ivanovo documents

July 30, 2021, Friday


Order of Finance-Treasury Department of 30.07.2021 №69 “On amendments to the plan of control measures of Finance-Treasury Department of Ivanovo City Administration for 2021”.


Text of the document (.pdf, 299,34 Kb)

July 26, 2021, Monday


Directive of the Administration of the City of Ivanovo dated July 26, 2021, No. 209-r “On Approval of the Report on Execution of the Budget of the City of Ivanovo for the First Half of 2021” (209-р)


Text of the document (.pdf, 131.99 Kb)

Report on the execution of the budget of the city of Ivanovo for the first half of 2021 (.xls, 841 Kb)

July 22, 2021, Thursday


Summary report on accounts payable of municipal budgetary institutions in the city of Ivanovo as of July 1, 2021


Text of the document (.pdf, 156,01 Kb)

July 8, 2021, Thursday


Performance of the municipal programs as of 01.07.2021


Document text (.xls, 67 Kb)

Tuesday, July 6, 2021


Summary of information on debt obligations of the city of Ivanovo as of 01.07.2021


Text of the document (.doc, 34 Kb)


I’ll keep up good hope for the Fedorenko file.


Thanks again.


85-“It’s all the same to go to bed later” Why an American is surprised how a Russian woman makes the bed (says an American)


This post is not about history, not about politics. It’s about habits that speak volumes.


84-The whole world is shocked by how successful Russia performed at the Tokyo Olympics. No one expected this from the Russians


83-Post-war period: how the country recovered so quickly. Asian “tigers” never dreamed of such a pace


82-The COVID-19 mystery, the Clinton “mission” and the new Lysenkoism. Column by Gennady Onishchenko


81-77 years of the Warsaw Uprising: why Russians and Poles will never come to an agreement?


77 years ago, a desperate uprising broke out in Warsaw against the Nazi invaders, which led to the complete destruction of this beautiful European city and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Already after the “velvet revolution” in Poland, this event was expected to become a pivotal event for the Poles, and, as a result, extremely mythologized. And the most important myth of the uprising still poisons relations between the Russian and Polish peoples…

80-Polish press about the Warsaw Uprising


79-My post on a Russian Village simulator

Everyone. I am overjoyed to have participants in the forum that know Russia. I admire them and I read their writings like they are worth gold. I wrote a post in my website about a simulator that allows you to walk about in a deserted Russian village. I have been told that it is accurate, but I would like to ask if any of the knowledgeable experts here if this is indeed the case. I would seriously and sincerely appreciate your feed back.


Comments from China Writers’ Group,


Interesting concept. I traveled in Russia in 1984. Andropov was Premier. So much has changed since then.

I’m copying Irina, David and Eric, who have much better and more recent experiences there.


My wife says that this is very authentic.  There are many abandoned villages in Russia.  The young people leave because there is no work and the old people died off.  I find Russia Beyond to be a great website.  It is sponsored by the Russian government.

Here is a very heartwarming story, of a young woman who is reviving a Russian village in Siberia:


It was a little exaggerated and a little funny. If someone needs a Russian simulator, then in my opinion this is the best  one



I love Russian humor.


When there is little you can change, only humor remains.


Here is another video I can relate to:


What about this?

78-Capital Formation in Russia

I think every Russian has a right to ask:

– Are the Russian people doomed to eternal poverty?

– Why do nations with scarce resources live better than we do?

– How do we use, and how should we use our national wealth?

– Will we be able to leave our descendants with a good economy?

So where is the search for answers?  We read about Putin, about military strategy and new weapons, and we might think Russia is a powerful modern country.  But really, looking deeper, it is a developing nation that is horribly behind in many important technologies.  That’s another story that I’m not writing about here.

So let’s say that what is lacking is investment capital to bring Russian industry, and Russian living into the modern age.  So what is the nature of Russian capital formation?  I don’t know if the state can come up with capital investment, or on what limited basis?  So far, not much shows up.  Then if capital formation is in private hands, what is the prognostication?

Russian capital formation is very new, not centuries old like British and European wealth clans, not like 200 year old American family dynasties.  It dates only from 1993 and thereafter when Yeltsin was able to offload $200 Billion of Russian Industry for $7 Billion, to whomever could grab it.  Americans designed the breakup, but American industrialists didn’t take the plunge, because they thought it was too unstable, and might revert to Communism.

So puny Russians with $10 or so millions found themselves as owners of giant industries with 10,000 or more employees.  They couldn’t even afford to turn on the lights, much less pay 10,000 salaries.  But after much tragedy the situation has stabilized to this:

From 2017 on Ron Unz:

There are about 100 Billionaires in Russia.  23 of them ranked in the Bloomberg top 500 billionaires last month, and 77 of them have less than the $5.8 Billion, that’s the bottom of the list.

(in 2017) There are about 2,620 (250 more in CIS) Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, with over $50B each (up to? unknown $500B)?

Taking the ratio of UHNWI in the world and in Russia and projecting it to the $5 plus millionaire range:

There are 51,205 individuals with over $5m and less than $50m.

Sticking with the minimum of each range in 2017 we have:

$366 B with 23 big billionaires (this June)

$192 B with 77 little billionaires

$143 B with 2,620 UHNWI, (way more because I used only $50B)

$256 B with 51,206 $5 millionaires (again way more)

$1T   54,000 people, really way over a $trillion,  (especially with off-shore and hidden wealth)

Now there is projected growth of 43% for 2022.  Give that growth to all the figures:

$523 B with 33 super B’s

$274 B with 110 little B’s

$204 B with 3,740 UHNWI’s

$365 B with 73,000 $5 millionaires

$1.37 T and 77,000 people, a growth of 23,000 people by next year

OKay, we can get to the point:

1)  Are these rich Russians going to invest in the country and bring it out of the doldrums?  Of the super B’s and UHNWI’s, 60% have dual passports and 45% say that they want to emigrate.  Doesn’t look promising there.

2)  It is claimed that Putin is corrupt and allows these guys to steal.  Isn’t that the reverse?  Like in the rest of the world, these 77,000 plutocrats run Russia, and Putin is just their symbol of respectability, regardless of his desires, his range of action is limited to a tiny window.

3)  A real he-man anti corruption champion, like Alexei Navalny, will take those billionaires to task.  Are you kidding?  A puppy dog like that will be in a canvas sack with a brick, and at the bottom of the lake within a week.

So what is the answer for capital formation in Russia?  He – he – he, that’s a good one.

I’m asking the questions, I am not supplying any answers.  Write one of these dudes and ask for a venture capital loan.

rank23 Russian Billionaires$ Billionslast change$ YTD change
42Vladimir Potanin33.5plus 480kplus 3.47B
45Leonid Mikhelson31.1plus 250mplus 6.38B
50Vladimir Lisin29.2plus 253mplus 5.61 B
51Alexey Mordashov29.2plus 137mplus 6.17 B
86Vagit Alekperov21.4plus 205mplus 4.11 B
87Gennady Timchenko21.3plus 232mplus 4.61 B
94Alisher Usmanov20.8minus 352mminus 288m
111Roman Abramovich18.7plus 57.4mplus 318m
115Viktor Vekselberg18.01minus 30.2mplus 1.85 B
120Andrey Melnichenko17.01minus 245mminus 1.14 B
154Victor Rashnikov14.01plus 19mplus 2.83 B
159Mikhail Prokhorov13.7minus 20.8mplus 906m
171Mikhail Fridman13.3minus 352mminus 1.09 B
219Dmitry Rybolovlev11.01minus 20.5mplus 606m
227Suleiman Kerimov10.8minus 58.1mplus 882m
287German Khan9.1plus 19.9mminus 683m
295Alexander Abramov8.98minus 24.7mplus 591m
299Iskandar Makhmudov8.94minus 271mplus 1.09 B
322Leonid Fedun8.37plus 86mplus 1.71 B
328Tatyana Bakalchuk8.25minus 30.6mminus 832m
402Alexey Kuzmichev6.86plus 9.53mminus 560m
414Andrey Guryev6.78minus 28.3mplus 1.66 B
478Petr Aven6.05plus 13.8mminus 71.4m


Your questions are very tough, Richard.

Firstly, since I am not an expert in this field, it is difficult for me to answer your questions competently and reasonably. To begin with, let me ask you, in which capitalist (you are accustomed to the term them democratic, so be it) country, the people prosper at the expense of natural resources, and is this so? Perhaps there is something similar in Arab or Scandinavian countries. But there is nothing more there than income from natural resources, their economy is, in a sense, rather primitive.

Second, you are very much mistaken about the fact that the people of Russia live in poverty. This is the mistake of the majority – those who hated Russia and those who are loyal to it. We could consider separately the budgets of the Russian and American families for comparison. I assure you, you will get almost the same balance of income and expenses. I know it

Third, the question of leaving a good economy should be of concern not only to Russians, but to a greater extent to Americans, don’t you think? As for Putin’s actions. It is obvious to me that before starting changes inside the country, it is necessary to create conditions so that no one can interfere from the outside, and even more so no one starts a new aggression against us. The first thing that is needed in this regard is an army and reliable defense against intrusions. Unfortunately, it took 20 yyas to create this protection.

Only now have we switched to the development of the domestic economy. I admit that Putin is far from Stalin, who managed to create both a strong economy and an army for 20-30 years before the war, and after the war in less than 10 years to restore what was destroyed during the war. But Putin also has to work in different conditions, when foreign interference in all processes was started under Yeltsin, is deeply rooted, and opposes what is being done in the economy. Yes, Putin is not Stalin. He will not massively arrest and send to the GULAG the fifth column, traitors in a simple way. Times have changed


Hello Irina and thanks for thinking about my questions.  Actually those are not my questions.

They were asked by Nikolai Prokofievich Fedorenko.  He was a chemist, mathematician and economist who lived from April 1917 to April 2006 (88 years).  Most of his works were about Soviet state planning of industry, cost accounting in the Chemical industry etc.  He wanted to connect all industries with a computer network, way before the internet.

Fedorenko also had the honor to be denounced for borrowing notions from bourgeois theories,  I have the total quote of the Soviet thought police (horrendous), and it was a miracle that he wasn’t purged. (I really want to quote it, but I am already so long.)

I think those 4 questions came out of his book:

Remembering the Past, Looking into the Future. – Moscow: Nauka, 1999. – 479 с. – ISBN 5-02-013699-9

Also interesting to be would be this one:

Fedorenko N. P. Russia at the turn of the century.

М. ZAO Izdatel’stvo “Ekonomika” [Economics Publisher]. , 2003. –

I have searched for these books, not found any excerpts for free, don’t want to translate 700 pages anyway, but I do have some reviews of one of them.

1.  You don’t have to be an expert to consider a future that would benefit your nation, and then shift the focus away from ruminating (accusing or justifying) About the past.  What’s the use in it?

I admit, when rabid critics so overly exaggerate the past to make your forbearers into arch villains there’s the overwhelming desire to correct the record.  I am just now devoting some days to internet discussions (very knowledgeable), but almost all about who’s right and whose wrong in the past. And these guys are posting at least once a day for 6 or more years.  They live on this stuff.  But I am thinking these questions that were asked 20 years ago, have had very little concentrated thought put into them.  At least I have not found these answers.

What if you don’t listen to them, but just know among your friends that certain things did happen, and maybe they were tragedies that you don’t want to repeat?

As far as yearning to return to the past, one thing is really certain.  It can never happen.  That system failed, and was always propped up by hidden, denied and counter productive methods anyway.  (I won’t even add any of the adjectives that it most justly deserves). That society built by the global anti-Capitalist uprising of the early 1900s has become a thing of the past.  Destruction of private property and socialization of the means of production proved to be a rather dubious road to Socialism. In practice, they only led to the creation of a new class – the nomenklatura, a decline in individual initiative if it was not forced, logistic and planning errors leading to shortages, and even famines. And, in the long run, they failed to prevent the restoration of Capitalism in its most savage incarnation in the 1990’s.  Why make excuses about it?

2. Some form of Neo-Socialism will be the natural response of a society that enshrines equality, to the emergence of our new growing inequality. How will it be different from classic Socialism? Most analysts say it will be strongly different.  A few ideas of what it might look like.

The ideal of a normal human, as it turns out, is to have his own house, not to live in an army barracks, or a kommunalka. Collectivism has invariably led to the tyranny of mediocrity, and dooms the societies that adopt it to backwardness in scientific-technical development.  You can say that parts of the Soviet system were very advanced.  But what was the fire that was underneath that progress?  I would say that it wasn’t pure docile collectivism, but some kind of forced transfer of wealth, (like Prodrazvyorstka which was a Soviet policy of forceful grain confiscation, formally reimbursed with a nominal fee much lower than the market price, leading to mass pauperization of peasants and famine), and even forced labor.  Was that progress outside of the proposed system, and in spite of it?

Under modern conditions, Neo-Socialism presupposes, above all, the socialization of income and prohibitive measures on capital concentration. The world of future Socialism is a world where all offshores are annihilated (I think rightly) and each and every fat-cat is subjected to high income and property taxes, with inheritance laws hampering the transfer of super-wealth. This nullifies the magnetic effect of large capital, and most of income is redistributed as wages in the context of free labor and a free market. From an instrument of optimizing income, the market turns into an instrument of optimizing expenditure.  So what is the end effect of this, as good as it may sound?

There will be a dearth (scarcity) of those interested in starting a new business “to beat all competitors and make a nice buck”. And, needless to say, an “inventor or innovator” certificate or plaque on your wall is a feeble substitute for super-incomes.

The only remedy to the entrepreneurial crisis within Neo-Socialism could be a change in business philosophy: Stop chasing big money and instead take pride in the individuality of your business, its attractiveness and its social relevance. Yet in a wide society, someone else is also making your product, performing your service.  If you are lulled into complacency, your business might close shop.  Furthermore, is this plan only domestic, or are you going to operate on the ruthless world market?  A society that guarantees a relative equality of income would be doomed to low economic growth. However, this is precisely the form of economic growth stabilization – especially within the core of even the Capitalist system – envisioned by Neo-Socialist economists, like Piketty above all.

And this only works for small and middle-sized businesses, while bigger enterprises require huge investments (including non-returnable ones) and risks so enormous that a small-time businessman can only dream of it if he is aiming for a super-income. An alternative is a planned, state-run innovation policy, a “Communism of ideas” that will be of dubious long-term efficacy, and of dubious effect in globalism.

And now we re-encounter a fundamental contradiction within the Socialist dream. It is inspired by a global historical trend towards equality and social justice, but the justice in question turns out to be a tyranny of mediocrity, the erasure of extremes of arrogant wealth and abject poverty. But how is the value of this justice comparable with the imperative of development that presupposes those certain extremes? To move forward, one must desire to be the best, which is impossible without a certain, sufficiently wide “score chart”, (income potential) – even if it comes at the expense of others.  If you think it will work differently, then let’s hear about it.

Combining the values of justice and equality with the values of development, is a task yet unsolved by New Socialism.

2.  You also asked about capitalist countries that may base their income on nothing more there than exploiting natural resources.  I have my ideas about how capitalism functions.

The so-called Socialist country was most concerned with productivity, a willful, determined achievement of an industrial breakthrough, and not with wealth redistribution.

Social Democracy, Christian Socialism, Swedish Socialism, Social Reformism all followed another model, without abolishing private property as such, without creating a dictatorship of Leftist parties, by limiting themselves to a selective nationalization, they achieved more economic equality by fostering a system of high wages and a well-developed social sphere, and ushering in the welfare state. (I don’t think that they can afford it anymore.) Essentially, it was a huge Ponzi scheme organized according to Keynesian precepts.  It created a rising middle class, the 40% that follow the 10%-strong wealthy strata; this middle class laid claim to 30-40% of national wealth as opposed to just the 5% they had before World War I. Then the 50% of the poor were stuck with the same 5% as before. No gain.

Lower inequality levels, broad opportunities, intensive social lifts, high levels of welfare, a wide availability of consumer goods thanks to a developed and flexible market. All of it seemed like a brilliant alternative to Socialist experiments: Socializing not wealth, not industry, but revenue, redistributing it so that everyone could decide where to spend it within a wide spectrum of options.

But capital “magnetizes” and draws income. The owner of capital tends toward rent-oriented, and not work-orientated, behavior. This “capitalist” wants to gain interest and rent, to make his capital inheritable, to pay the lowest taxes he can, Nowadays all the giant profits come from speculation and market manipulation.  So the last thing capital wants is to invest in factories, jobs or the real economy.

This is what I was referring to with my chart of the billionaires.  Nothing there for building the economy.

There was a massive uprising of capital that wanted back its right to extract revenue and spend it on itself without sharing with society.   Capitalism at the end of the century was most pronounced and most socially destructive in Russia. A savage, dog-eat-dog oligarchic Capitalism that took sway in the country, and freed itself from practically all burdens of social responsibility. It was a tyranny of wealth limited only by the hands of thugs, be they mafia racketeers or bureaucrat raiders.  Nobody wants to improve real economic indices, nobody wants to make money by producing value, (for the population), everybody wants to live as a rentier.

That’s the small stuff up above.

The real “success of democracy” was based on the one limitation of capitalism.  That is over-production.  At first, this is all new and everybody wants some of it.  Then there is more and more production and it is getting cheaper, until finally, there is no demand and capitalism crashes.  The preferred solution is to have a war. Big or little, but big is best.  So the US Corporatocracy designed two world wars, 25 years apart, (sure, they had help in this creation.  Others are good at it too.)  First they stay out of it and sell arms to both sides.  That’s to soften them all up, let them massacre each other, and we’ll come in when the plumb is ready to drop.

So democracy has a resounding success by bombing all competing “overproducers” into the flatlands.  Afterwards, hey, now it is time to rebuild all you poor violent devils, and our corporations are the only ones left standing.  (Did it twice mind you.  Hurray for democracy.)

Then Stalin screwed the works when he blew off the A-Bomb in 1949, and the H-Bomb in 1953, shortly after his death.  By the 70’s capitalism was in desperate need of another big war, but they had to settle for little Vietnam, because now their preferred victims were now out of bounds.  Then they got the idea that lots of little wars might come close to a big one, the war on terror.   And 20 years later you know the result.

Anyone demonstrating in the square for more democracy will need to figure out who to go to war with, in order to make their dreams come true.

Why did Europe and Japan have success with democracy?  If you will please rent your country to be the future atomic battlefield, we will put our atomic missiles where your bullseyes are supposed to be located.  Then when we win, of course you will no longer be needed, and we can begin with your de-industrialization, and your tax and interest payments to us.  Don’t worry, we can sell you everything that you’ll need.  That will keep capitalism and “democracy” going for another short stay, at least on our side of the fence.

OK, about your section 2 and 3 questions, I’ll put them into the next chapter.  I think I can answer them, at least from my opinion.


Dear Richard, to be honest, I felt a certain straightforwardness and harshness in your questions, and was somewhat surprised, because earlier these features were not peculiar to you. I have met such features only among Russians. Therefore, I am not surprised that in fact you simply conveyed the questions of a Russian person and a scientist. Your knowledge and well-read Russian primary sources amaze me frankly, I can admit it. But I cannot agree with some of your conclusions.

First of all, I want to explain why we Russians study our past. Our great scientist Mikhail Lomonosov once said  – A people who do not know their past has no future. We study our past, mistakes that were made in the past, so as not to post them in the future. Therefore, I am personally interested in delving into the Soviet past. In the past are the causes of our problems today, I think so. And I am also interested to understand whether our Soviet past was really as flawed as so many claim today?

According to my subjective feelings, socialism was not flawed at all. In this regard, the following question arises. How and what should be done to revive socialism? You assert that socialism is gone forever and cannot be returned. I cannot agree with you. The previous stage of human development – capitalism – also took a long time to firmly take its positions. Somewhere it could not resist and society returned to a lower stage of development – feudolism. After that, capitalism again and again was forced to seek its leadership. But in the history of mankind it is normal when the lower stage of development is replaced by the higher one. Someday capitalism will be replaced by socialism. The USSR was only the first experience of mankind and far from unsuccessful.

I disagree with your statement about the backwardness of scientific thought under socialism in the USSR. In fact, the Soviet scientific school was one of the best in the world. And the peculiar competition of scientific thought between the USSR and the USA guaranteed unprecedented progress in science and technology.

You mentioned the food appropriation system in the 30s in the USSR and people’s opposition to collective farming. In fact, the food appropriation was not the goal of socializing the peasants. This was a forced measure in response to various reasons, including the need to pay for the purchase of equipment with grain. In addition, the drought and poor harvest in those years gave rise to a shortage of food throughout the world, not only in Russia. This is how external circumstances developed that no one planned and did not intend to introduce under other conditions. In the Soviet school, we were taught not only to study historical facts, but also the reasons that gave rise to these facts. Was it possible to do otherwise or not.

Regarding whether the Soviet public consciousness contradicts the Russian people, I will say no, it does not contradict. Russian society, as we say, from the depths of the centuries, for millennia, has had a tendency to live in communities, which under socialism took the form of collective management. Therefore, it was in our society that socialism was born. But it did not completely die, in some aspects of our life it still exists. And there is also a great demand from society to preserve it and bring it into other spheres of life, where the returned capitalism has settled.

There is no cure for capitalism itself, capitalism is not being cured, not changed, not improved, because the essence of capitalism is to obtain maximum profit primarily through the exploitation of the working person by his master. If you change something in this design, then it will no longer be capitazim, but something else. And today, industrial capitalism has been replaced by financial capitalism, where financiers suck their excess profits not only from their own workers, but also from their borrowers, many of whom also belong to the capitalist class.

I only spoke out on the first half of your message. The essence of socialism needs to be talked more long and deeply


In my post on “Capital formation in Russia”, I asked “How will Russia Develop?”  I noted that the elite had sequestered over a $Trillion, and would that capital be available for investment?  Let’s look at an example:


Ivanovo, population 408,000 (2010), maybe down .5% to 406,00 (2018)


Ivanovo gained a reputation as the textile capital of Russia during the nineteenth century. The development of the textile industry involved the importation of textile machinery from England often accompanied by supervisory staff particularly from Lancashire.[16] Most textile workers are women, so Ivanovo has also been known as the “city of brides”.


By the early 20th century (under the Tzar), Ivanovo was one of the primary textile production centers of Europe (number one or two).  The workers’ living conditions were appalling, the strikes were frequent. One of these strikes (May 14-July 22, 1905) may have led to the first Russian revolution.   Ivanovo was bombed in World War 2 and fought over, briefly in the Russian Civil War.


It was said by someone who’s family came from there that in 1985 it was a dull, dead and grey place.  By 1995 it was much worse. 


Since the beginning of the 21st century there has been declining production in Ivanovo. In the first decade of the century, a large number of enterprises were closed. The weaving factories BIM, BAT melange Plant and other smaller companies in the textile industry ceased to exist.


In 2008 former Mayor Alexander Fomin: said Over the past 20 years, the number of vehicles in the city has increased by more than 10 times, while traffic is 5–7 times higher than that for which the roads were designed.  The period from 1914 to 1934 became the “golden age” of architecture in Ivanovo.[18] The center of the city boasts buildings of the period of constructionism built there under socialism in the 1920s – early 1930s


From 2011 to 2020 a lot of things happened in Russia: the sanctions against Russia, the fall of the ruble, crises, import substitution, the creation of its own payment system, massive construction of roads, housing, infrastructure and other things, the return of the Crimea and much more. Let’s compare what Ivanovo was like in 2011 and what it has become in 2020 and in the intervening years. Here are 101 addresses, street scenes where you can compare the difference from before and after 9 years, Let’s go! 🙂




So again, my question, How did they do it?  Is this socialist investment?  Are these all private owners?  Are these medium businesses?  Is this big-capital?  I read that billionaires don’t invest in real estate in Russia, that they would rather buy apartments in London.


What is the future for the Russian economic system?



The government is well aware that money should be in the country and work for its economy. Thank God that people who think about the country have finally appeared. The fact that the richest people in the country make money in Russia, but keep it abroad, is unconditional harm to the economy. The first measures have been taken this year. Several offshore zones were offered either to introduce a 15% tax on capital exported from Russia, or agreements on the avoidance of double taxation have been broken with them. Civil servants are prohibited from having not only dual citizenship, but also bank accounts and property abroad. An increased rate of personal excess income tax has been introduced. The introduction of a differentiated income scale for the rich is discussed. The so-called amnesty for capitals returning to Russia is being carried out. These are just the first steps. We have to gradually accustom a rich society so as not to immediately scare and not cause an outflow of capital.


77-How did the Americans avenge their soldiers on the Germans?


The Second World War is something that has not been fully understood to this day. Not only ignorance of what is already known about that war, but also lack of knowledge serves to distort those events.


76-Hello Irina, Oh Wow, I thought it was such a terrible misleading bogus article about Gorbachev and the breakup.  I hope my posts stick.  I had to break it up into about 8 posts because of the length limit.  Here’s the RT link:

Here’s what I wrote: I cleaned it up here and there so it wouldn’t get cancelled.

Dear Professor Robinson, I had hoped to learn something from a professor of Soviet history.  When you quote Gorbachev’s reasoning, you have to comment on why he said it.  When he said the country was in stagnation in 1985, what did Gorbachev have to do with that?  Why didn’t you tell what Brezhnev did or didn’t do?

And even you said when he took power in 1985. “The Soviet model had reached the limits of its potential”. “Central state planning was incapable of responding effectively to the demands of a modern, high-tech economy”. Well, that is a standard western belief, but I contend that there is no such natural limit, as I will try to indicate below.

Actually what I think you call reforms, and not reforming fast enough are merely the dismantling of state planning, which Khrushchev started with a vengeance back in the early 50’s.

From Khrushchev’’s decree of Aug 5 1955, “Previously, the industrial plan was drawn up from above, by the State Planning Committee and ministries, now attention is paid to the preparation of the plan at the enterprise.”  This is a blow to the planning hierarchy.  In 1956, the first results of changes in violations of the strategic approach in planning appeared – the plan for coal mining, cement production, and metal production were not being implemented. Failure to meet the plan for these positions leads to a disruption of the construction and capital investment plan, and this already means a drop in the economic growth rate.  A nod to the local authorities-we trust you, we give you the opportunity to make your own decisions, and you, in return, support our central (Khrushchev) leadership.

The State Planning Committee ended the function of state strategic goal-setting, which determines to a decisive extent the organization, coherence and integrity of the economic system.  Now Gosplan has turned from a “strategist” to an “accountant”. –  This led to the abandonment of big goals.   As a result of such “bogus planning”, the growth rate of the economy begins to seriously slow down, in fact – to fall. And, as a result, (in the 50’s) the country began to lag behind in its economic development more and more.

And The State Planning Committee of the USSR itself from 1953 to 1962 changed 8 managers and underwent 4 reorganizations. This indicated that the continuity of work on the organization of the economy was disrupted, the integrity of management was destroyed, the system was being fragmented by Khrushchev, and this already led to disorganization.  “…reduce the number of administrative and managerial personnel by at least 450,000 people… 46 ministries and departments, 200 main directorates, directorates and independent departments, 147 trusts, 93 local directorates, and 898 supply organizations should be ABOLISHED…”.

The number and quality of plan indicators is drastically reduced.  In 1954, the number of planning indicators was reduced by 33.5% – from 9,940 to 6,308. In 1955 – to 3,081 indicators. In 1958 – down to 1,780 positions.  According to this characteristic, only 18.7% of the State Planning system that existed in 1953 remains by 1958!  And what replaced it?  A big fat Zero.  That is your reforms, a certain destruction. The slowdown in economic development is beginning to affect the socio-economic situation in the country – the standard of living of the population is falling, the commodity deficit is increasing, and inflation is increasing. The quality of our products is falling.

In 1965, these ideas became the basis of a reform called the Lieberman-Kosygin reform. Under this reform, the priority of monetary indicators of the plan over natural indicators is finally fixed.  But this is a different tragedy, a different time, after Khrushchev.

The government could barely finance itself.  The tax on alcohol was what kept it going.  So the government was wedded to alcoholism.  Then you include this idiotic remark by Alexander Yakovlev.  “It seemed to me that it was enough to remove the machinery of repression … and all would be well.”  Wow?? What the hell do you think the repressions were there for, if not to keep the system from exploding??

Then a couple of slogans that the western reader will be attracted to.  “Give enterprises more freedom from central planning authorities.” “What sank the union was the August 1991 coup.”  What! It was a 2 day coup that wasn’t a coup.

As a summation, what do you offer?  Well . . . A little of this, a little of that, and why not throw in all the rest, when you say everything, you say nothing.  Then when everybody is anesthetized from saying so much about nothing, you slip in your beautiful assertion.  THE COMMUNIST MODEL WAS FATALLY FLAWED FROM THE START.  Would you care to tell how it was flawed, or is that for the next chapter?

With regard to the dissolution treaty: The legal assessment of the final draft of the Treaty was made by a group of 15 experts before August 19, 1991. They questioned the legal significance of the document and found it to be internally inconsistent, illogical and having no significance as a legal successor. The experts stated that “by recognizing a federation, the treaty in fact creates not even a confederation, but simply a club of states. It leads directly to the destruction of the USSR; it has laid all the foundations for tomorrow’s blowup of currencies, armies, customs, etc.”.

By drawing this line secretly, implicitly, it is doubly dangerous, because it blurs all the concepts to such an extent that a state monster is created. As J.M. Baturin, a witness to the Novogarev discussions, noted, “the choice between legal quality and political expediency was made in favor of the latter.”

Further work on it was carried out in secrecy, which caused various rumors and stirred up the members of the government, deputies and public organizations. The final document was not published until August 16, 1991, three days before it was supposed to be signed (on Friday in fact). This made it practically impossible to discuss it in detail and make any corrections. The outcome of the “Novogarev process” even before August 19 was a document that meant the end of the existence of the USSR as a single state.

About the so-called coup:

The top leadership of the USSR was vehemently opposed to the August 20 signing of the text of the Union Treaty. Unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade Gorbachev to make necessary changes to the text, they decided to act on their own. In the absence of the USSR President (he was on vacation in the Crimea), the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP) was created on August 18 at one of the KGB “facilities” in Moscow.

The composition of the committee was intended to demonstrate the unity of the highest authorities and the main social groups in their concern for the fate of the Union. On the same day, A. I. Lukyanov, Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, interrupted his vacation and returned to Moscow, but was not included in the GKChP.

In an ”Appeal to the Soviet People”, which for the first time stated at such a high level that “the policy of reforms initiated by Gorbachev had reached a dead end” and analyzed the reasons that caused “disbelief, apathy and despair”, loss of confidence in the government and ungovernability of the country. Among the main reasons was “the rise of extremist forces bent on the liquidation of the Soviet Union and seizing power at any price”, (that’s Yeltsin). For the first time in Soviet history, the document did not call for protection of socialism, not even the adjectives “communist” and “socialist”. The appeal to patriotic feelings was designed to emphasize the criticality of the moment, to consolidate all state-oriented citizens of the USSR, regardless of their political sympathies.

Analysis of the events of August 19-21, 1991 shows that their outcome was influenced not so much by force or the legal validity of the parties’ positions, as by their sense of the political situation, the ability to gather their supporters at the right moment and in the right place, and put the enemy in such conditions in which even numerical or force superiority would not bring them victory.

On the night of August 20 to 21, an incident occurred, which was to have a significant impact on the political situation. In strange circumstances, three young men among the “defenders” of the White House were killed. Later investigation of these events showed that the incident was not an accident, but rather the result of a premeditated provocation. A False Flag designed to justify repression. Nevertheless, the bloodshed of “civilians” by the GKChP-controlled military (fake, it wasn’t the military) was the final straw that ended the hesitation of the Committee’s already unstable supporters, allowing the Russian leadership to launch an all-out political offensive against its opponents and achieve a complete and unconditional victory.

On December 8, 1991, the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Belarus, S. S. Shushkevich, the President of the RSFSR, B. N. Yeltsin, and the President of Ukraine, L. M. Kravchuk, in Belaya Vezha, near Minsk, signed an “Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States”, the preamble to which stated that “the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality CEASES TO EXIST”.

I have to note: You put a picture of the White House Parliament building burning on the morning of Oct 4 1993 after Yeltsin shelled it and murdered 145 Parliamentarians, and jailed a bunch of others. This is in an article about the dissolution of the USSR dated December 8th 1991.  And unbelievably you superimpose Gorbachev’s picture on Yeltsin’s burning building.  I think none of us understand this.


Hello, Richard

I totally agree with your arguments regarding Professor Robinson’s article.

On my own behalf, I can add that at present, attempts are being made to bring Gorbachev to justice for the collapse of the USSR. And naturally, Gorbachev is taking steps to defend himself. It is now known that Gorbachev did not destroy the country alone and not without the help of the United States and Britain. For which he received a corresponding payment, made by the West to a specially created Gorbachev fund. His ideological assistant Alexander Yakovlev was once recruited by the American special services.

In my opinion, such one-sided articles indirectly confirm the participation of the West in the collapse of the USSR and are a preventive measure in order to justify Gorbachev’s actions and remove responsibility from him, shifting it onto Yeltsin, Shushkevich and Kuchma, and leaving in the shadows the participation of Western countries in the coup.

I would also like to clarify that 9 republics firmly wanted to remain in the USSR, but 2 more – Moldavia and Armenia – hesitated and tended to say yes rather than no. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia announced their unshakable decision to secede from the USSR.

To our great regret, for many decades Western Sovietology has been politically ordered to conceal and even distort Soviet history, manipulating events in such a way as to draw the necessary political conclusions. Distortion of history leads to distortion in modern relationships between Russia and the US and Europe. Therefore, I find your comments not only fair, but also very helpful. It will be interesting to know what Professor Robinson will answer to them.


Thanks, Richard for your excellent detailed analysis! I have only seen Robinson once on Regis Tremblay’s Youtube channel and felt he is a sophist prevaricator. Pretends to be pro Russian when he’s the opposite.

The main problem of the USSR was its many opportunist internal enemies. Helped along by Western oligarchic and imperial influence.

What really disturbs me is that even Putin has legitimated Solzhenitsyn and delegitimated Lenin. They won’t even call it ‘Lenin’s Tomb’ but merely ‘the Mausoleum” as if to even utter the word LENIN is bad.

People like Robinson perpetuate the ongoing war against both Russia and the USSR.


Yes I read that article. Pure historical revisionism.

Thanks, Maitreya

75-Lessons from Hiroshima: why the US does not admit its guilt for the atomic bombing of Japan


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

This article points out that the atomic attacks were not necessary. However, there was another reason for the attacks besides military objectives in Japan.

Truman wanted to intimidate Stalin and the USSR, to ‘show who’s gonna be the boss’.

And of course there were plans to nuke many Soviet cities and destroy the USSR in plan such as Operation Dropshot, where over 200 atom bombs would have been dropped.

We are finally seeing both Russia and China calling out the US for its massive hypocrisy in blaming them for things that didn’t happen while refusing to apologize for the US’s own obvious unnecessary slaughters, case in point Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


74-Gorbachev accelerated the degradation that had been growing since the 1960s. Says the historian and analyst A. Fursov


73-The processes of the collapse of the USSR started in the mid-60s. Says the historian and analyst A. Fursov


72-Dastardly tricks: the “Holodomor” in American and Ukrainian politics…


71-Replacing Peter 1 with an impostor. How has life changed in Russia?


I think that few people in the West have heard about this, but in Russian society there is a reasoned version of the substitution of Tsar Peter the Great after his return from Holland.


Peter the impostor made such a transformation with Russia that we still get a hoot.

The author D. S. Merezhkovsky in his work “Antichrist” noted a complete change in the appearance, character and psyche of Tsar Peter I after his return from the “German lands”, where he went for two weeks, and returned two years later. The Russian embassy accompanying the tsar consisted of 20 people, and was headed by A.D. Menshikov. After returning to Russia, this embassy consisted of only the Dutch (including the notorious Lefort), the only one from the old composition was only Menshikov.
This “embassy” brought a completely different tsar, who spoke poor Russian, did not recognize his friends and relatives, which immediately gave away the substitution: This prompted Tsarina Sophia, the sister of the real Tsar Peter I, to raise the Streltsy against the impostor.
As you know, the Streltsy riot was brutally suppressed

He began to act like a normal conqueror:
— defeated the Russian government — “Zemstvo” and replaced it with the bureaucracy of foreigners, which was brought to Russia stealing, debauchery and drunkenness and hard it here planted;
— gave peasants the property of the nobles, than turned them into slaves (for whitening the image of the pretender this “event” dumped Ivan IV);
— defeated merchants and began to impose Industrialists that led to the destruction of the former universality people;
— defeated the clergy — carriers of Russian culture and destroy Christianity, bringing it closer to Catholicism, which inevitably gave rise to atheism;
— introduced Smoking, drinking alcohol and coffee;
— destroyed the old Russian calendar, omololu our civilization 5503 year;
— ordered all Russian Chronicles dumped in St. Petersburg, and then as Filaret, ordered them to burn. He called on German “professors” to write a completely different Russian history;
– under the guise of fighting the old faith, he destroyed all the elders who lived for more than three hundred years;
– forbade the cultivation of amaranth and the consumption of amaranth bread, which was the main food of the Russian people, which destroyed the longevity on Earth, which was still in Russia at that time;
– abolished natural measures: fathom, finger, elbow, tip, which were present in clothing, utensils and architecture, making them fixed in the Western manner. This led to the destruction of ancient Russian architecture and art, to the disappearance of the beauty of everyday life. As a result, people ceased to be beautiful, as divine and vital proportions disappeared in their structure.;
– he replaced the Russian title system with the European one, which turned the peasants into a class. Although “peasant” is a title higher than the king, about which there is more than one evidence;
– destroyed the Russian script, which consisted of 151 characters, and introduced 43 characters of Cyril and Methodius writing.;
– disarmed the Russian army, exterminating the Streltsy as a caste with their miraculous abilities and magical weapons, and introduced primitive firearms and stabbing weapons in the European manner, dressing the army first in French and then in German uniforms, although the Russian military uniform was itself a weapon. In the people, the new regiments were called “funny”.
But his main crime is the destruction of Russian education (image + sculpture), the essence of which was to create three subtle bodies in a person that he does not receive from birth, and if they are not formed, then consciousness will not have a connection with the consciousnesses of past lives. If in Russian educational institutions, a person was made into a generalist who could do everything himself, starting from bast shoes and ending with a spaceship, then Peter introduced specialization, which made him dependent on others.

Before Peter the impostor in Russia did not know what wine is, he ordered to roll out barrels of wine on the square and give it for free to citizens.


70-It is high time to learn that socialism does not make everyone equal. Socialism gives everyone equal opportunities!


69-Without inflation, capitalism doesn’t work! And how did the economy of lower prices work then?

“The nation that is the first to recognize the crucial fact that the goal of our economic system should not be money, but production, will have, all other things being equal, the dominant influence on civilization… It is interesting that in the end, the greatest success will go to the industrialist who forgets about profit and focuses on producing at the lowest price a useful item needed by millions of people.” Jerome Davis Capitalism and its culture“.


68-“A bullet for being too ostentatious”- war crimes committed by US soldiers who went unpunished


67-Why did Churchill call Poland the “hyena of Europe”, and why is it not a victim of the Second World War ?–610022246de5cb27f7331891


66-The myth that socialism is worth living. An example of a successful modern socialist society. Note to the apologists of capitalism.


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

Thanks for this article.  Mondragon is one of my favorite topics.

I introduced it in this group last year as part of a solution to world problems.  Back then I mentioned this website that works to initiate more worker owned companies.   The point is that if a certain percentage of companies were worker owned, there would be a model for worker rights.  It is not about whether every company should be worker owned.  There are different structures, joint stock, co-ops and what-not.  It was said that Huawei is worker owned, but that is different.  Huawei is way too big for the workers to have any input on how to run the company.  Maybe they get a profit sharing??

About 5 years ago I studied Mondragon intensively.  If I ever went back to Europe (I’m not going to go) I would go to Mondragon University and see what’s the latest.  It would be nice to have an update, but I will comment here from memory.

Mondragon is a huge multi-billion dollar enterprise, yes, but that is the umbrella organization.  The actual working units are no bigger than 250-300 persons.    That is the maximum they have determined that they can get to know each other and trust each other.  In anthropology there is a similar number, I believe called the Dunbar number, less than 200.  (Professor Dunbar came up with it.)  That was the maximum size of a hunter gatherer tribe, before they had to split the tribe.  Bigger than that they couldn’t keep the organization, or that amount of land wouldn’t feed them?  (That was 10,000 years ago.)

So in Mondragon there are 350 plus of these smaller 250 people enterprises, most often in differentiated businesses.  They don’t all make one series of products like Huawei.

These 250-300 workers in Mondragon companies don’t run the day by day operation by referendum, but only do their own job.  They act kind of like a board of directors, and they hire a professional CEO who makes decisions, and all the professional staff.  They are a capitalist company, just like any other.

They know damn well that if those 300 people don’t perform well and make up-to-date decisions, capitalist competition from all quarters will take their business.  So there is no slacking, no nepotism, no weakening or dilution of their company.  The umbrella Mondragon will try to help in a crisis, but nobody is going to bail them out.  For instance in the big Spanish housing crisis the company that made white goods (refrigerators and ovens) went without sales and closed.  About 60 people retired (from memory), and most of the others were finally absorbed in other Mondragon ventures.

So let me get to my point.

Many people say that human consciousness is expanding. There are many theories, from the advancing of astrological ages, to brain capacity or human experience is putting together wiser alternatives.  But it is supposed to be happening.

There’s another proposal that in human collectives, the determined rules of each society allow consciousness to rise only to the level of that society. It is kind of the problem of the chicken or the egg.  How does society get to a high level without a high consciousness somewhere?  In a smaller cohesive society getting along might have been just natural, especially if food was plentiful.  The opposite proof is easy to spot.  When the US destroys another Middle Eastern government, many people sink into barbarism.

It’s the same with economics, within productive enterprises, “the way it works” (rules) gives incentive only for certain behavior, and that will be the “level of consciousness”.  It will never become more idealistic, nor go beyond those behavior norms, (without a breakdown or some catastrophe).  OK some examples:

✓A Soviet production unit has 20,000 workers.  At some point it is too big to fail.  What that means is you take advantage of it in whatever way you can, but the unit will always be bailed out.  I have read examples in Soviet industrialization where they were installing Dutch equipment.  They had 1200 workers running it.  The Dutch guidelines said 250 people were all that were needed.  Or take the failure of the Venezuelan Oil companies.  Eternally ripped off.

✓Take a capitalist company of large size. There’s a limited market with over production.  It is extremely difficult to out compete all the competition coming in from all sides.  It is vital to suppress that competition by any means or dirty tricks, and to out-cheat them in every way possible.  Buy them up and close them.  We must sanction China.

(Not as important in the age of financialization and market manipulation, where the real profit is made.)

✓Take a small capitalist absentee owned company in your town.  Their goal is to give less and less to that community.  Let the employees pay all the services for the privilege of remaining open.  Best is in an acquisition, because then the factory is old and obsolete anyway and they want to close it.  Tax free for 20 years or we move out, where we will get 25 years in the other town.

✓Take the case of the local owner in your town.  Not much different from the above.  Every dollar paid to the community is a dollar less of profit.

✓Or finally take the case of the worker owned company.  They live in the community, kids go to school there, law and order, parks and recreation, culture, libraries, museums, fix the streets, water, sewer, power, internet.  The company must remain profitable, but the community thrives as a partner.

That’s Mondragon.  I wouldn’t call it in any way socialist.

They have cooperative ideals only because it serves them directly.  And that’s a great formula for consciousness rising.


And one more question: a socialist society is a society in which the means of production are socialized. If the means of production belong to the community, and not to someone personally, but this is already a socialist society. What do you think about this?


Hello Irina, and thanks for these questions.


I am not a very good expert at Marxist / Leninist philosophy either.  I read about Marx multiple times in my life, but nothing ever stuck.  I attributed that to it didn’t really strike me as a truth.  I may be wrong.  I think there are some here in this group as avowed Marxists and members of the Communist Party.  Maybe they can weigh-in and explain some things.


A.  What I think for now:


1.  Marxist History is viewed as an hierarchical economic class struggle, winner takes all.

Is that true?  It underestimates the problem in that hierarchical struggles came way before capitalism.  Isn’t it a primary conflict in the natural world? Do any hierarchies have a positive end?


2.  It is only a binary class struggle, no multiple identities. All evil on one side, all good on the other. Is that an over-simplification?


3.  A benevolent dictatorship of the proletariat calls for violent revolution.  With what criteria do you assume benevolence?  What is benevolent about this call to violence?


4.  Nothing that capitalists do has productive value as labor.  So business organization happens by itself??  A couple of workers come off the production line for an hour and settle all the plans?


5.  There is criticism of profit.  I hope that doesn’t mean surplus, because without surplus how can you grow and renew?  Profit is a constraint on wasted labor. There are now forms of stupidity that you can no longer engage in.


6.  Centralization will become magically productive.  When there are enough goods for all, then people will all become creatively productive.  Has that ever been true in any socialist practice?


7.  The worst tragedy might have been how Russia was ripped-off again and again in support of the so-called “World Revolution”.  That is clear as a ringing bell.


B.  I read Xi Jinping’s speech to the 19th congress.  He expresses his total commitment to Marxism.  But what is his meaning of the word Marxism? (with Chinese characteristics)?  Reading that speech, everything about socialism is up for reinterpretation, it is all being renewed, “for a new era”.  It is beyond me why he sticks with the old word Marxism.  The only one thing that I could find that Xi likes, is that Marx said “the workers and the peasants are the masters, not the slaves”.  Full stop.  I may have missed something, and I could seek help on that point.


So what is Marxism?  I could go into my opinion, and it’s based on the detailed history of the USSR that I am now studying.  But I’ll save that one for later.


C.  Above in this post I was proposing that higher consciousness is able to flower within an enlightened governance.  “Enlightened Governance” definitely needs to be defined, but let’s say that it doesn’t kill the people nor submit them to starvation, and tries to solve some of their problems in an equitable way.  You could also say that this good governance makes rules that create only the incentives to be in a higher mind-set, and it abolishes those rules that create incentives to be exploitative.  Rules have both rewards and punishments, but as per a couple sentences above, they’re not killing people nor suppressing them.  And equitable means, for-everyone.


Then we have to admit, How do you get an enlightened governance before there is a higher consciousness?   The answer is simple, same with the being/consciousness conundrum.


They are not two separate things.  They arise together.  Even “together” is wrong, because they-are-not-two-separate-things.  Let’s say they are two windows, looking through one window you see enlightened-governance.  Looking through the other window you see expanding-consciousness.


If you are a believer in “Things” as primary, and not processes, you probably cannot get this, nor ever will accept it.


D.  You ask for my opinion, “if production belongs to the community, is that socialism”?  “Community” is a collective noun that has no existence without its parts, the individual humans, those that participate, and those that run it.  The problem arises with, who are those who run it, and do they run it transparently?  Maybe they do?  If it is really big, there are some holes that they may overlook.


The way I describe (and my understanding), of Mondragon, is that they have created incentives that continually promote a higher consciousness.  And it works.  Why couldn’t it work in the larger society?


There seems to be certain necessary parameters, and basic small size may be one of them.  Exactly how they have gone beyond that smallness and scaled up, I have not investigated.  It is an umbrella organization with hundreds of productive units.


E.  Now I’ll ask you a question:

Were the Soviet Leaders of a higher consciousness?

Did they create positive incentives that promoted a continuously higher egalitarian behavior?

Were any of their repressive measures justified? 

And under what criteria are those justifications made?


Thanks for this discussion.


Hello, Richard,

Thank you for your answer. Of course, this philosophical question about the primacy of matter (being) or consciousness is eternal. And we will probably never find an answer to it. The materialists, to whom the Soviet communists belonged, believed that being was primary. That is, the better a person lives, the higher his consciousness becomes. Their goal (in any case, the first of them) was to build a state where people were supposed to live better and better in material terms. And they were ready to achieve this goal at any cost, even at the cost of violence with those who disagree. I believe that this was also the reason for their atheism and denial of the teachings of the Lord, whose first commandment was Thou shalt not kill. And in this regard, their consciousness was not high at all. Who knows, maybe in their development they did not manage to reach the highest form of consciousness in such a short period of time. Or maybe, over time, for many top leaders, the idea of ​​their own material well-being has become more important than the idea of ​​reaching higher consciousness through well-being. Most likely, for this they did not have enough intelligence and education (like Khrushchev)

Irina, and thanks again

65-V. Katasonov on E. Macron, J. Attali and, finally, what the Jewish financiers of the Rothschilds want


64-V. Katasonov that covid-19 hysteria is a multi-purpose operation


63-About the “historical truth”. Continuation.


Start in an article with the same title.

62-About the “historical truth”. Continuation.


Start in an article with the same title.

61-Capitalism is the ability to turn power into capital and vice versa. Under socialism, all this is a crime.–eto-vozmojnost-realizovyvat-vlast-v-kapital-i-naoborot-pri-socializme-vse-eto-iavliaetsia-prestupleniem-60dd3cd6df4f653213fd5e7e


60-V. Katasonov about 7 billion extra people and that capitalism will be replaced by a new “slavery” according to the scenario of the world backstage


59-“It’s easier, there is hope”: 30 years ago, Gorbachev tried to save the USSR in Novo-Ogaryovo


58-In response to Irina’s articles by Andrey Fursov

was finishing another project so I did not read them for a couple of days.  Do they say too much?  Are they dismissed as a conspiracy theory?  Let me describe the layers of world events using the analogy of CoVid.

  1. The outer layer might be the woman on the street, “Oh, you are not wearing a mask, you’re endangering the health of us all.Please obey the rules or we will have to call the authorities.”


  1. Second layer, “is this an epidemic?”Let’s look at all of the reports.  Where are the exaggerations?  Who is dying, and is it more than last year?  How many doctors say yes, how many say no, how many say maybe so? It’s fascinating to inspect the object that we find.  But this is only a tool for something.


  1. OK, that’s the tool, but who is using (or abusing) the tool?What are their objectives, what can they get out of it?  Everyday politicians are not going to become billionaires.  They can’t join the club.


  1. So then who is behind those who are using it.The deep state, (or the deep NO-STATE.). Those who want to destroy all sovereignty.  They’re purposely mixing up everything, preparing people for What?


  1. Then why are they destroying so much of their own economies?What is the sense of it?  For 100’s of years they were destroying someone else’s society.  Is financial capitalism so much more lucrative, that industrial capitalism can just be blown away?


  1. Oh . . . Capitalism no longer can function in today’s world, (but why), so somebody moves it aside and fights for who will control “post-capitalism”.What will it look like?  You and I will definitely be crushed.

Fursov may be discussing #5 and 6.  We seem to be stuck on #2 and 3.  What are we missing?

Capitalism can be defined as a complex social system that ensures the constant accumulation of capital (development over time) and its expansion, which allows maintaining and increasing the rate of profit (its spatial characteristics), and which at the same time limits capital in its integral and long-term interests. Without this limitation and its means in the form of the state, civil society and its structures, political parties, formally representing various strata, systems of mass education, etc. – without all this, capital left to itself, it would gobble itself up, along with society, and along with the biosphere.

The age-old dynamics of capitalism was such that it always needed non-capitalist zones. Every time the world rate of profit dropped, capitalism tore off a part of the non-capitalist zone and turned it into a capitalist periphery – a zone of cheap labor and a source of cheap raw materials and a market to buy our cheap goods. The world rate of profit was restored, and then increased altogether.  The non-capitalist zones have practically been abolished, all used up, now capitalism has nowhere else to dump its contradictions.

Large Capital must resolve these contradictions, and go beyond them: the realization of its interests, as a rule, requires constant violation of the borders (and often – the laws) of their country and other countries. Best remedy for falling profits in the past was to start a big war. Sell bullets, destroy everything, and then restore profits for the next 20 years while rebuilding.

In the age of nuclear weapons, that won’t work.  And most of the non-nuclear powers have already been wrung out.

All over the world, political parties have long turned into administrative-show-business structures of the ruling stratum.   Turns out capitalism is not a pair of “capital – state”, but a triangle “capital – state – supranational structures, (of world coordination and management).”

China is not an alternative development option to capitalism, it is built into it, and therefore its goal is only to expand its zone of control, and wait for the maximum weakening of the United States.

What are the steps to transform to the next (?) system?

a). “To stamp out cultural optimism of the sixties” That was the cultural and psychological background of the counteroffensive of financial capital against industrial capital.   It’s an internal battle – in an excess of democracy in the West itself.   It is proposed to introduce a certain dose of social apathy into the masses and to explain that along with democracy, experience and “high status” (which can also be translated as “seniority”) are of foremost importance.  And democracy itself is not so much of a value as a political technology.

b).  The powerful weapon is the – ethnic. They applied it in 2015 in the form of a “migration crisis”.  The racial crisis of Black Lives Matter was also introduced into Europe, but it couldn’t take off.

c).  Of course you can make various attacks on the basis of human rights, and gifting “democracy”.  That’s getting old I think?

d).  In real politics there can be no friends. There are only allies and interests.   It is necessary to comprehensively study the modern world: first, ourselves; secondly, our enemies; thirdly, our neighbors.  We are entering the period of the terminal crisis of capitalism without truly adequate science either about it, or about Russia, or about the West, or about the East, or about the world as a whole!

e).  To understand the modern world and to respond to its challenges, it is necessary to develop a new theory, fundamentally new knowledge. We are still mainly rewriting (commenting on) second-rate Western economic, political science and sociological theories and continue to destroy our own higher education.  Basic science in the field of social science has already been destroyed. It turns out to be a kind of “roadside picnic” with the obvious prospect of becoming a “picnic in the trash heap”, into a game on the “field of miracles” in the Land of the Fools.

Globalization started as the criminalization of the world economy, and its operators became, in the words of O. Markeev, “globalists before globalization”.  Now there are completely different forces, a much more serious conflict is unfolding. We are talking about a fight within the top of the world capitalist class, about a fight for a post-capitalist future.  The struggle of ultra- globalists with their installation on the stateless financial and corporate electronic-digital world aka “the concentration camp”, and the globalists with their course of preserving the state (hence their struggle for sovereignty, but with what ends)?

Today the Russian Federation is in a failure and in a dead end (a failed dead end). Are there any forces visible that can bring her out of this impasse? No.  Any Institutions? No.  The situation is similar to that of the 1560s and 1920s.  Soviet legacy will be almost completely consumed: industry, agriculture, housing and communal services, communications.  Everything will fall into disrepair, since in recent decades nothing new has been created, and the old has been eaten away.  Present-day Russia is the exposed layers of defects of several epochs of Russian history all at once.  The Russian Federation is a futuro-archaic society.  The armored train of the next Russian revolution rams the borders of the twenty-first century with its forehead, and the tail cars are still dangling at the junctions of the nineteenth century.

Even the Russian Federation of oligarchs are not something single.  Rather, it is a set of clan structures of a corporate and regional type, which have different interests and which are guided by the outside world, and not so much by states, but by individual corporations, clans, family unions, or even individual families.  Putin is only a symbol of this contorted system, and can only move within its prescribed bounds.  Who will be the main source of “accumulation” for movement into the future – the population, or the corrupt officials and “businessmen”?  The time for palliatives is over.

In the context of the struggle for the future, only cohesive societies can survive, let alone win. those in which a relatively low level of social inequality and in which, no less important, the top and bottom share the same values and goals.  You need to be strong in unity, which is achieved on the basis of social justice and a single value system.

Nuclear weapons alone are not enough for success in the 21st century. You need a powerful organizational weapon, and a no less powerful cognitive weapon.

The sufficient condition is an imperious will, which does not allow you to sit on the defensive forever and make excuses, but forces you to attack! We need a real picture of the world because it is the most powerful weapon in psychohistorical warfare.

I consolidated 8 Fursov articles in a pdf for your review, here it is attached.

Andrey Fursov 8 articles


57-Ukrainian school team named after Hitler


56-Population of Russia by year in one table

The Russian Empire and the Russian Federation are two incomparable things. After the revolution of 1917, the Russian Federation no longer included Poland, Finland, Central Asia and other parts of the Empire.

These are statistics on the population of the Russian Federation (in imperial times, part of the Russian Empire)

The table contains information about the population sizeRussian Federation ( RSFSR), information for each year, mainly as of January 1. The information is collected from open sources.

YearPopulation size
189767 473 000
1926100 891 244
1928103 185 200
1937104 932 000
1939108 377 000
1940110 098 000
1941110 988 000
194697 547 000
194798 509 000
194899 159 000
1949100 252 000
1950102 067 000
1951102 945 000
1952104 587 000
1953106 715 000
1954108 430 000
1955110 537 000
1956112 266 000
1957114 017 000
1958115 665 000
1959117 534 315
1960119 045 800
1961120 765 599
1962122 406 795
1963123 848 406
1964125 179 206
1965126 309 100
1966127 189 098
1967128 026 196
1968128 695 994
1969129 378 809
1970130 079 210
1971130 563 363
1972131 304 497
1973132 069 024
1974132 799 355
1975133 633 900
1976134 549 101
1977135 503 754
1978136 455 076
1979137 550 949
1980138 126 600
1981138 839 197
1982139 603 792
1983140 529 786
1984141 582 615
1985142 539 000
1986143 527 861
1987144 783 723
1988145 988 334
1989147 400 537
1990147 665 081
1991148 273 746
1992148 514 692
1993148 561 694
1994148 355 867
1995148 459 937
1996148 291 638
1997148 028 613
1998147 802 133
1999147 539 426
2000146 890 128
2001146 303 611
2002145 166 731
2003144 963 650
2004144 168 205
2005143 474 219
2006142 753 551
2007142 220 968
2008142 008 838
2009141 903 979
2010142 856 536
2011142 865 433
2012143 056 383
2013143 347 059
2014143 666 931
2015146 267 288
2016146 544 710
2017146 804 372
2018146 880 432
2019146 780 720
2020146 748 590
2021146 171 015

55-The struggle of global elites for a post-capitalist future

The year 2020 has turned into a lot of troubles for the world. A new type of coronavirus epidemic has swept across all continents, causing the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the main world power-the United States-is mired in unrest. Andrey Fursov, director of the Institute of System and Strategic Analysis (ISAN), academician of the International Academy of Science (Innsbruck, Austria), told his opinion about how the international system of relations is changing under the influence of current events and what place Russia can take in the new world in an interview with the Institute of Russian Strategies

The struggle of global elites for a post-capitalist future, image #1

RUSSTRAT: Andrey Ilyich, speaking about the international situation, it is reasonable to start with the most burning topic – the coronavirus epidemic. Observers interpret what is happening in different ways. In your opinion, is the response of states justified by the epidemiological situation? What role does the political factor play here? Or are these deliberate manipulations, attempts by the “deep state” to experience certain types of influence?

– As Comrade Stalin taught, if a certain accident has serious political consequences, then you need to take a very serious look at it.

The fact that there is a certain epidemic with deaths is obvious. The fact that all this does not pull on a pandemic, even in purely quantitative terms, is even more obvious. Most of the measures to combat the alleged pandemic are clearly redundant. WHO, which declared a pandemic, is an organization with a bad reputation for corrupt officials and crooks. A few years ago, she already tried to intimidate and blackmail the world, promising millions of deaths from swine flu.

At that time, it was not possible to concoct a pandemic; there was an investigation; several WHO leaders were expelled in disgrace, but the job was done: corporations associated with WHO earned $ 18 billion. In 2020, as in 2013, there were hysterical forecasts of millions of deaths, but this time almost all states joined the WHO as if on command, signing up for the “new dress of the king” and sacrificing sovereignty or what was left of it.

Moreover, Johnson and Merkel began to sow panic themselves, shouting about the inevitable millions of victims. A statesman does not have the right to behave in this way, he must instill confidence in his fellow citizens. By the way, the Russian Federation “signed up for a pandemic” when there were only two dozen cases in the country.

In 2020, everything in the world turned out more organized than with the “swine flu”, because they had made solid preparations in advance: in October 2019, “exercises” were officially held to combat the global coronavirus pandemic.

It seems that we are dealing with a global scam that is unfolding in the form of an induced mental epidemic and pursues both economic (profit: medical equipment, masks, gloves, vaccine) and, to an even greater extent, socio-political goals, which should be discussed in more detail.

The crisis of 2008 drew a line under the “fat years” of the world economy. They were associated with the looting of the former socialist camp and allowed us to postpone the terminal phase of the systemic crisis of capitalism for a decade and a half, which was predicted in the early 1980s in the United States by groups led by A. Gellman, R. Collins and B. Boehner, and in the USSR by P. Kuznetsov and V. Krylov. The crisis of 2008 was flooded with money, which by that time had already ceased to perform the five main functions of money, i.e. ceased to be money.

The crisis did not go away-the boiler was simply covered with a lid, which over time began to be thrown up more and more, and in 2018-2019 the situation became more and more critical. Usually in the history of the capsystem, such situations were resolved through world wars, but in the current world-industrial and stuffed with weapons of mass destruction of various kinds – this is extremely dangerous. The only zone where you can try to “frolic” in this way is Africa, but this does not solve the problems of the capsystem.

And then, like a joker from the sleeve of a cheater, turned up (turned up?) coronavirus. In a number of respects, it played the role of an ersatz war: a number of measures were taken around the world that were so unprecedented (both in scale and in the degree of excessive inconsistency with medical reality) that they can be compared with wartime measures. This:

– the closure of state borders, the termination of international, and in some cases interregional transport links;

– the introduction of house arrests and temporary detention under the guise of so-called “self-isolation”, i.e., in fact, the suspension of the constitutional rights of citizens with a special defeat in the rights of the elderly under the guise of caring for their health (at the same time, those who had previously optimized/destroyed the health system, which primarily affected the elderly, suddenly took care of;

– stopping the work of entire sectors of the economy with an obvious probability of their destruction;

– the establishment of strict measures of social and spatial control over the population (QR codes, video surveillance and other “charms” of what is called surveillance capitalism – “surveillance/control capitalism”: almost according to Foucault: to supervise and punish);

– formation of the contours of a new stratification in accordance with the freedom of movement and independence from spatial and video monitoring;

– teaching the population to strict control by the authorities, to submission (wearing masks and gloves, despite their meaninglessness; I’m not talking about who makes what money on masks and gloves; the same applies to the future vaccine); in fact, social training;

– the implementation “under the sauce” of the “pandemic” of a number of projects that are fundamentally important for digital globalists, which have encountered resistance; first of all, this is distance education, which kills education as such (“Gref’s dream”).

This list can go on, but the essence is clear. However, it seems that something went wrong for global planners at the very beginning of May. The processes affected the interests of a certain part of the ruling strata in various countries, and the “emergency workers” faced resistance from “normalizers”, if I may say so, “chemists”, who strongly disliked “emergency alchemy”.

Even then, in an interview, I said that we should expect the second move of the “alchemists from the emergency”, namely, the creation of a certain movement in the wake of the psychic epidemic, which should expand and deepen the effect of coronapsychosis. I thought that it would be some kind of ecological (or with an ecological lining) movement in the spirit of Thunbergobesy.

I was right with the movement, but I was wrong with the “besie”: the movement arose, but not on an ecological, but on a racially-social basis, “floydobesiya” – Black Lives Matter (BLM); the whole country – the United States-was covered by chaos, with an eye to spreading the BLM movement to Europe, at least to the West. The result is chaos in the United States.

RUSSTRAT: How does the picture of increasing control combine with this chaos that is happening now in the United States? Many view the riots in the context of a head-on clash between Democrats and Republicans. But at the same time, both are often considered as two factions of the same global governance club. Do you assume that American events are inspired from a third center, for example, from London or from somewhere else?

– The world is much more complicated to be managed from one center, whether it is London, New York or (conditionally) Shanghai. In addition, we need to forget about the Democrats and Republicans as party structures. The party form of political organization has outlived its time, as has politics itself.

All over the world, parties have long turned into administrative-show-business structures of the ruling stratum. Where politics in the strict sense of the word did not exist, as, for example, in Russia and China, “parties”, whether it is the CPSU, the CPC or what replaced the CPSU in the Russian Federation, are not parties, this is something else. Moreover, in the Russian Federation, even this something else is agonizing with the fading of the post-Soviet era.

This is especially evident in the attempts to create new “post-Soviet parties” instead of the old ones. They are initially destined for the fate of” (under)powerful disabled children”, whose bargaining position in relation to the authorities will be much weaker than that of the Communist Party or even the LDPR, most often performing the function of”Nanai boys” for the authorities.

In the United States, under the guise of “Republicans” and “Democrats”, there is a struggle of completely different forces, a completely different, much more serious conflict is unfolding. We are talking about a struggle within the top of the world capitalist class, a struggle for the post-capitalist future, for who will cut off whom from this future and in it.

Simplifying the situation somewhat, this conflict can be defined as the struggle of the ultra-globalists with their attitude to a stateless financial and corporate electronic-digital world, aka a concentration camp, and the globalists with their course to preserve the state (hence the struggle for sovereignty), modernized industry, and consequently – ensuring certain positions of the partially declining working and middle strata; at the same time, the state is subordinate to both the IMF and the World Bank, but, most importantly, continues to exist.

There is no state in the world of ultra-globalists – it is a world of powerful corporations like the East India Company or territories – enclaves-neo-Venice; a world inhabited by people, and in fact-biorobots without national, racial, religious and even sexual differences. Both Obama and Clinton are ultra – globalists; today the face of ultra – globalism is Hillary Clinton, who was aptly dubbed Bastinda in LJ (the evil sorceress from the Purple land of winkies in The Wizard of the Emerald City).

During the four years of his presidency, Trump managed to break a lot of what the ultra-globalists were building: the transatlantic partnership, the trans-Pacific Partnership, America’s financing of WHO, etc.

There is no need for illusions: Trump fulfills, and inconsistently and indistinctly, the will of a certain segment of the world, primarily the American capitalist class. Objectively, the ally of this segment is a part of the Western European elites with right-wing attitudes – Steve Bannon is working on them now.

The anti-state aspirations of ultra-globalists until recently had a strict restriction: before dismantling the same USA, it was first necessary to dismantle the Russian Federation and the PRC; the USA is not just a state (the last US president as a state was Nixon), but partly a state, partly a cluster of TNCs, the iron fist of all globalists-both moderate and ultra.

However, with the so-called digitalization, it has become possible to reset or, at least, significantly weaken at the same time the entire “big three” states that are still somehow, albeit inconsistently, in the “one step forward, two steps back” mode opposing ultra-globalism.

RUSSTRAT: In what way?

– Now there is a lot of talk about e-government, about a “digital state” that primarily controls social networks. Even such a term appeared-netocracy (net – “network”).

The “digital state” (quotation marks, because in the strict sense of the word it is not a state, it is a different form of power) exists partly next to the usual, institutional-hierarchical, partly (and for the most part) it is built into it – formally in order to increase efficiency, optimize processes. Essentially-for its destruction. Since networks are essentially supranational in nature, “digital statehood” is a global power.

As Z. Bauman noted, the capital (and, I will add, everything else) that has turned into an electronic signal does not depend on the state from which it is sent, on the states whose borders it crosses, and on the state to which it comes. Global digital power is being built over the state of the Modern era in the same way as the latter (it was for him that Machiavelli coined the term lo stato) was built over traditional local and regional power structures in the XVI–XVII centuries, zeroing them in the organizational and power relation.

In the conditions of the triumph of the Figure, if it takes place, the old state of Modernity, in principle, can not be destroyed until the end – it will remain a shell on which you can write off flaws, or even something like a trained bear in a circus.

Global “digital power” is almost an ideal form for the so-called “deep state”. Here you just need to clarify. Firstly, it is not a “deep state”, but a “deep power”, since the state is a formalized thing, and the so – called “deep state” is not. Secondly, we need to talk about “deep states”, they exist in all the largest countries of the world, that is, about the structures (exactly, in the plural) of deep power (SGV).

The process of registration of the SGV is the 1960s-1980s. It is connected with the appearance of offshore companies, the financialization of capitalism, the development of transnational corporations, to which part of the special services and part of the state apparatus were largely reoriented – while formally both remained in the civil service.

The control over drug trafficking and the illegal part of the trade in weapons, gold and precious metals, raw materials, in other words, the criminal global economy, became an autonomous source of SGV. Globalization started as a criminalization of the world economy, and its operators became, in the words of O. Markeev, “globalists before globalization”.

Apparently, the SGV was also formed in the Soviet Union (a triad: segments of the KGB/then GRU, party nomenclature and the shadow economy supervised by them, primarily in Georgia, Armenia, the Baltic States, in the south of the RSFSR and in Ukraine).

As a matter of fact, perestroika as the legalization of shadow capital and the transformation of power into property is mainly her handiwork, a process carried out by her in cooperation with both the CCS of the largest states and closed supranational structures of the capsystem (and not such as the notorious Bilderberg Club, but with much more serious ones – Cercle/”Circle”, Siècle/”Century”, etc.), and with these states themselves.

To what extent the “Soviet SGV” has been preserved as an independent player, and to what extent it has integrated into the political and economic structures of the modern world is an open and not the most interesting question: completely different forces play a decisive role in the struggle for the post – capitalist world future, and these are certainly not “Republicans” or “Democrats”. They are at best shadows of real players.

RUSSTRAT: Is it worth waiting for a conflict similar to the American one in the European Union? Many predict the continuation of centrifugal trends. Is it worth waiting for the collapse?

– We saw performances in France, the Netherlands, partly in the UK and Germany in support of the BLM, but the process did not go ahead. The BLM did not turn out to be a global movement, so perhaps the coronabesie and floydobesie will be followed by the third move of the ultra-globalists, if not for the demolition, then for the dismantling of the old world. We’ll wait and see.

As for the European Union, it was an artificial entity from the very beginning-and this is despite the fact that after the destruction of the Roman Empire, constant attempts were made to restore a united Europe. The first attempt of this kind was the empire of Charlemagne, which de jure collapsed in 843. After that, attempts to unite Europe developed along two lines – the Guelph and the Ghibelline.

At the end of the XI century, a conflict developed between the Holy Roman emperors of the German people (the Hohenstaufen dynasty) and the popes of Rome. The Guelphs were those who supported the popes, representing mainly the aristocratic families of Northern Italy and Southern Germany; the Ghibellines supported the emperors, representing mainly the popular middle (burgher) and grassroots strata.

After the defeat of the Hohenstaufen, the projects of European unification can be conditionally divided into “Guelph” (mainly “aristocratic”) and “Ghibelline” (mainly “democratic”). The European unions that Napoleon and Hitler tried to build were Ghibelline with a small aristocratic “bitterness”. The current European Union is a Guelph project implemented under the American-Masonic “all-seeing eye” and to a large extent thanks to the destruction of the USSR.

Once F. I. Tyutchev noticed that with the advent of Peter’s empire, the empire of Charles in Europe is impossible. And indeed, it was the “flank state” (L. Dehiyo) that historical Russia (although in alliance with another “flank state” – Great Britain) broke all attempts to recreate the Carolingian “central” empire, whether by Napoleon, Wilhelm II or Hitler.

It is significant and symbolic that the European Union took shape simultaneously with the destruction of the USSR – the “avatars” of the empire of Peter I. At the same time, however, Western Europe has swallowed something alien to it, something that it is unable to digest, and we know what happens as a result of indigestion. Eastern Europe in its current state, on the one hand, and the problems of Western European integrators (“the greed of the fraer ruined”), on the other, are the results of this indigestion.

It is absolutely clear that there is a European Union for those who, as one Gogol’s hero would say ,are “cleaner, sir” – this is the Carolingian core, and for those who “went out for a walk”. The Carolingian core is a serious danger for both ultra-globalists and moderate globalists in the United States.

They are trying to weaken it as much as possible with the help, on the one hand, of the pro – Atlantic part of the Western European elites, whose interests are served by the stupid and self-satisfied Brussels bureaucracy; on the other hand, of the so-called “young Europe”, in which the Polish leadership is most servile.

However, against the Carolingian core, the ultra-globalists and the United States (here their interests coincide, although not completely, but according to the principle of “Euler circles”) have a more powerful weapon – ethnic. They applied it in 2015 in the form of a” migration crisis”, formally provoked by the Atlanticist servants of Globozapad and Globamerica, who are intensively turning Europe into a post-West.

For some reason, there were many young healthy men among the “unfortunate” migrants, and the “rapid flow” itself gave the impression of being well managed by hidden leaders. The most important thing for the planner is to prevent the bloc of China, Russia and Europe with a German core from becoming something like a continental bloc “à la Haushofer”, only with China instead of Japan.

RUSSTRAT: What should Russia do in such circumstances? You have repeatedly pointed out that no one will accept representatives of Russia into the world elite either. What should those who make decisions in Russia do in such conditions, how to ensure security and sovereignty, strengthen Russia’s status as a world power and expand its zones of influence?

– Practice shows that those whom Disraeli called “the masters of history”, i.e. the world elite, consisting of British, American, Western European and Jewish elites, will never put Russians at the same table with them on equal terms, whether it is autocratic Russia, the USSR, and even more so the Russian Federation. Rather, there will be Arabs, Indians, Chinese or Japanese.

At the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, the stupid Soviet leadership fell for the Western bait-a deception in the form of detente (detente) and connection to global projects through the Club of Rome. They naively believed that if the USSR was a superpower with nuclear weapons and the second economy of the world, its rulers would be allowed into the world kalashnikov row, the leaders of the USSR zealously joined the projects of the main enemy:

– by creating the eurodollar (the Moscow People’s Bank as one of the main banks of the City of London in the 1960s), they participated with the Rothschilds: directly – in creating an unregulated global financial market, indirectly-in creating an invisible British Empire, which would later destroy the USSR together with China;

– by playing “in oil” – with the Rockefellers.

These tactical successes laid the foundation for the loss of strategic historical initiative in relations with the West and, ultimately, the destruction of the USSR.

Thus, the first thing that representatives of the ruling elite of the Russian Federation need to remember, especially the part of it that is ready to make peace with the West on any conditions, i.e. to capitulate, surrendering anything and anyone, is the fate of Ostap Bender on the Romanian border. From the recent past – the fate of Boris Berezovsky.

The second “memorization” is as follows. In the conditions of the struggle for the future, only cohesive societies will be able to survive, not to mention win, that is, those in which there is a relatively low level of social inequality and in which, no less importantly, the upper and lower classes share the same values and goals.

A house divided in itself will not stand. A classic example is the rotten late-Russian empire, so beloved because of the class proximity of the current “ilitka” of the Russian Federation. One push was enough, and the wall collapsed, as the young Ulyanov-Lenin warned the tsarist gendarme at the time.

Ergo: oligarchic regimes are doomed. If the population in them is the “food resource” of the top that is unable to ensure development, then they themselves and this top are the “food resource” for the “big fish” of the capsystem. Here is such a food chain, according to Zabolotsky: “A beetle ate grass, a bird pecked a beetle, / A ferret drank the brain from a bird’s head, / And distorted faces with fear / Night creatures were watched from the grass.”

In order not to become a terrified nocturnal creature of the modern world and throw the post-WEST in the face of Ilyamuromets “you will choke, Idolishche”, you need to be strong in unity, which is achieved on the basis of social justice and a single value system.

When you ask what to do in the current circumstances of Russia, I have a counter-question: which Russia – the Russia of oligarchs or the Russia of hard workers? These are different countries.

Moreover, even the Russian Federation of oligarchs is not something unified (it is enough to carefully read the recent interview of O. Deripaska). Rather, it is a set of clan structures of corporate and regional type, which have different interests and which are oriented to the outside world, and not so much to the states, but to individual corporations, clans, unions of families or even individual families (for example, someone-to the Windsor family).

This once again puts the power-social unity at the forefront as a factor not so much of victory as of survival in the struggle for the future (perhaps victory in these conditions is to fall last, crushing the enemy to death), and the unity of both the ruling stratum with the people and within the ruling stratum.

Nuclear weapons alone are not enough – for success in the XXI century, a powerful organizational weapon and an equally powerful cognitive weapon are needed – a real picture of the world based on new knowledge about the world and man. In this regard, there is no need to be “shy” – we need to take its best practices from the West, if, of course, it is necessary. The West was ready to learn from the Russians.

In the early 1950s, US President Truman held a meeting with consultants of the newly created RAND Corporation, among whom were, in particular, John von Neumann and Edward Teller – they need no introduction. So, von Neumann, a recognized leader of the intellectual community of the United States, said that the secret of the strength of the Russians is not in nuclear and chemical weapons, but in the presence of absolute organizational weapons created by Lenin – this is a “new type of party”.

After the meeting, the task was set: to study the phenomenon of the” party of professional revolutionaries “and to prepare a secret report” Organizational weapons ” (declassified in 2005). This weapon was directed against the USSR. In the West, the bourgeoisie generally assimilate Marxism quite well. Gramsci threatened the top: “We will take your children”, i.e. reformat them. It didn’t work out. And the CIA in the 1960s reformatted young people, directing them as the new left against the left.

George Foster Dulles, Arnold Toynbee, Jacques Attali were admirers of Marx: in their opinion, he formulated the idea of a world government, but, as Attali noted, the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat, will implement it. And how do the stagnant and vulgar-dogmatic “Marxist-Leninist doctrine” of the Suslov bottling look against this background, on the one hand, and anti-Marxism and anti-Sovietism (the latent ideology of the influential part of the upper ranks of the Russian Federation) of our current “Palestinians”, on the other?

In the West, the elite studies Marx, Marxism, Lenin, Bolshevism-and, above all, from a practical point of view. “RF-ilitka” turns up its nose at all this, defiantly ignoring the 100th anniversary of October, the 150th anniversary of Lenin, the 200th anniversary of Marx. And, of course, Marxism, unlike the elite institutions of the post-West, is no longer studied here. It is logical: peripheral natives are not supposed to have knowledge with secret potential.

Over the past half century, a lot of socio-political changes have taken place, new types of organizational weapons have been invented, the Cold War has ended, the experience of which, like the experience of the USSR phenomenon, is not conceptually or theoretically meaningful either here or in the West. It is necessary to create a new organizational weapon on the basis of new theoretical knowledge, today Stalin’s “Without a theory, we are dead, death, death!”sounds superactual.

RUSSTRAT: In general, in your opinion, what will the political landscape look like in the conditions of the end of the post-Yalta world and the formation of a new paradigm of international relations?

– Today, the world is changing so quickly that only trends can be predicted for a relatively long time. As Allen Dulles, a big fan of Kipling’s “Kim”, said (in a free translation), a person can be confused by facts, but if he understands the trends, he can not be deceived.

The future is being formed before our eyes. Time is now so condensed that the past instantly flows into the future, compressing the present almost into a “singularity point”. At the same time, however, there is a deception of the historical point of view: since the line between the future and the past is almost erased, the past-future continuum is perceived as a continuing present. As a result, the same reality, as in the scrolling of a kaleidoscope, turns out to be either a long-lasting present, or a world of the past and the future without the present!

This is a very difficult and difficult situation to predict. Taking into account this complexity, I would venture to say that in my opinion, the future has already come in two zones of the modern world. This is, firstly, China with its system of social rating and electronic control, which organically falls on the three-thousand-year history of China and, as it were, completes it, completes it.

Secondly, this is Africa – the world of postcolonial neo-archaism, extending beyond the enclaves belonging to TNCs. This is also a complete world in its own way, in it the dreams that the Czechoslovak travelers (and, I think, scouts) I. Ganzelka and M. Zikmund wrote about at the end of the 1940s have disappeared and reality has triumphed, which will be more terrible than the” Heart of Darkness ” by J. Conrad: This is rather a picture depicted in “Lontano” and “Congo Requiem” by J.-K. Grange.

As for Latin America, the United States, the European Union, Russia and the Muslim world, the future has not yet been determined here; here is an extended present, Present Continuous, which, however, at any moment can shrink into a point that shoots the future.

Much for the United States and for the world as a whole will depend on the American elections. The collective Bastinda, through the mouth of the Clintonian, has already called for the forceful removal of Trump if he does not recognize Biden’s victory, i.e. for Bastinda, the senile Biden has already won and she has nowhere to retreat. In case of victory, Bastinda will launch an all-out offensive on many fronts, including the intra-American one. One of the main directions will be Russia, and then the “sleepers” will wake up.

We almost certainly cannot influence the American elections, but it is not only possible, but also necessary to correct the situation in the country. To meet the danger, having the “fifth column” behind them, they will be worse than Mamai, their own-it is unacceptable. However, if the “fifth column” is a part of the power itself, its shadow, then such power is doomed: sooner or later the shadow will cease to know its place.

Source —


54-Capitalism, anti-capitalism and the fate of the world by Andrey Fursov

The life and death of the most mysterious system in the history of mankind and its antipode. Article two

To better understand how the world came to the current state of degradation and destruction, it is necessary to at least briefly highlight the main stages of the history of the capitalist system, their differences from each other.

The genesis (not to be confused with the early stage — as Hegel said, when a thing begins, it does not exist yet) of capitalism falls in the middle of the XV — middle of the XVII centuries, conditionally 1453-1648, i.e. for most of the third “dark ages” of Europe. Genesis is the time when a new historical subject forms a system and with its help forms himself; as soon as he gives up the palm of demiurgy to the system, the genesis is over, the early stage begins. Such capitalism lasts from the 1650s to the 1780s. This is pre-industrial capitalism, and the main operators of the world and domestic markets are not only and not so much the bourgeois as landowners, monarch-aristocratic families, etc., outwardly seeming to be “remnants of feudalism”; in fact, these are phenomena of the post-feudal era of the mid-XV-mid-XVII centuries.

In the last quarter of the XVIII century, three revolutions — industrial in England, political in France and spiritual (philosophical) in Germany-started the mature phase of the capsystem, which lasted until the 1910s (conditionally “to taste” – 1914 or 1919). During this time, having survived the structural crisis (“watershed”) of 1789-1818 and having reached the operational historical expanse, capital (ism) acquired not only an adequate industrial production base, but also formed its “immaterial” entourage: power, ideological, national and other forms. Through the Masonic bourgeois revolutions (they were illuminati in their ideological essence), the bourgeoisie of the West turned into the main operator of the world market and became a Capitalist with a capital letter, the Main Bourgeois, either pushing aside the masters of the early capitalist era, or, more often, compromising with them. The ” Masonic revolutions “were bourgeois in results and goals, but their striking force was not at all the bourgeoisie and not the proletariat, but hired workers of the pre — capitalist type, small merchants and artisans-just those strata over whose heads the waves of bourgeois progress were supposed to close, the revolution was their”death roar”.

The victory of the tricolor revolutions meant the nationalization of Freemasonry and the completion of the ascending line of its development. In the “long fifties” (1848-1867), which began with the social revolution in the Far West of Eurasia and the” Manifesto of the Communist Party “of Marx and Engels and ended with the coup in the Eurasian Far East (the “Meiji Restoration” in Japan) and the first volume of Marx’s “Capital”, the European world-system dropped the hyphen and really turned into a world system — the only one, with Great Britain as the hegemon and the Anglo-French West as the core. If there can be several world-systems, then the capitalist world system can be only one. It is no accident that two other world systems, besides the European one-the Russian and the Chinese — almost simultaneously became objects of Anglo-French aggression and, through the Crimean and the Second “opium” wars, were turned into the semi-periphery and periphery of this system, respectively. It was at the second stage of its development that capitalism gained maturity, its system — integrity, or, as a Marxist would say, it turned from a mode of production into a formation. The” long fifties ” are marked by a sharp spatial expansion of the world of capital — Europe seems to be experiencing its XVI century for the second time, Marx and Engels wrote about this.

The “August Cannons” (B. Tuchman) of 1914 heralded the end of the second, mature, stage of the development of capitalism. Having survived the structural crisis of the 1890s-1910s, capitalism has entered a late stage of its development, which is coming to an end before our eyes, and it is difficult to say how many decades — one or two — it (and capitalism with it) has left. The late stage of the capsystem, like the late stages of most systems, is marked by wars, a brief moment of “blooming complexity of secondary simplification” (K. Leontiev), mass movements of the lower classes (“uprising of the masses”) with their temporary success, the counterattack of the elites (“the uprising of the elites”), which gradually develops into the dismantling of the system.

Since the mid-1970s, late capitalism has been entering a period of crisis. For him, this is a structural crisis, for capitalism as a whole — a systemic one. The destruction of the USSR and the socialist camp with their subsequent looting allowed us to postpone the crisis for a decade and a half, but in 2008 it appeared, and in 2017-2018 the terminal stage became apparent. The year 2020, with its coronation and the “official” announcement by the world elite of the zeroing of the former history and — de facto-the former, i.e. capitalist, system, only fixed this with a bold line. A systemic crisis, especially one at the terminal stage, is at the same time the beginning of the genesis of a new system, some features of which are already discernible, others cast a shadow, and others are amenable to calculation — but this is a separate topic.

Despite the fact that at all stages of the development of capitalism, its systemic political and economic laws play a decisive role, the ratio, combination and subordination of their economic and political components were different at different historical stages. The difference between the early and mature stages, on the one hand, and the late one, on the other, is especially obvious. In the first two, economic laws famously governed political ones, only occasionally adapting to them. It turned out differently with late capitalism.

First, by the end of the XIX century, the world was divided, the last chord of the division was the “scramble for Africa” (scramble for Africa). Further expansion in space, without which the normal development of capitalism is impossible, no longer required wars of the” core “of the capsystem with the” weaklings “of the periphery (they were almost all “bent over” anyway), but a clarification of relations within the “core” itself (the British Empire and republican France, aka the colonial Empire, against the German Empire) and the “core” — with the semi-empire represented by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires. This was an inevitable scenario for capitalism, which had entered the stage of imperialism.

The World War of 1914-1918 recorded that from now on the military-political factor will be the engine of the development of the capsystem, and the mechanism of development itself will be as follows: the war destroys, erases part of the military-industrial complex of the “core” and semi-periphery, and their post-war recovery becomes the engine of the development of the world economy for two decades, i.e. almost for the lifetime of an entire generation. In the 1920s and especially in the 1930s, it was the restoration of the Soviet and German economies, their breakthrough with the help of American and, to a lesser extent, British capital, that not only pulled the world economy out of the crisis (and allowed many to prepare for a new war), but also became the basis for its development. Similarly, the restoration of the Soviet, German, Italian and Japanese economies destroyed by the war in 1945-1965/1975 gave rise to four post-war “economic miracles”, respectively, and led to unprecedented economic growth during the period that the French, with the light hand of Jean Fourastier, called “the glorious thirty years” (les trentes glorieuses).

Secondly, the political factor worked in a different way: the very existence of almost the entire twentieth century of systemic anti-capitalism in the form of the USSR, and since the turn of the 1940s-1950s-the socialist camp, forced the bourgeoisie to “bend” the economic laws of capitalism by state-political methods, giving it an uncharacteristic social appearance.

Thirdly, the twentieth century was the time of the” uprising of the masses”, the 1920s-1960s/70s are the worldwide” era of the common people”, characteristic of most of the later stages in the history of all systems. In late capitalism, this general rule was influenced by the pressure of industrial capital on financial capital at the core of the capsystem, the logic of the struggle of Western plutocracies against Nazism and fascism, which required the mobilization of the democratic potential of bourgeois societies, and, of course, the existence of the socialist camp and the presence of a historical initiative in its hands until the mid-1970s.

It is significant and symptomatic that by the mid-1970s, the “economic miracles” ended simultaneously, the “uprising of the masses” was exhausted and the “uprising of the elites” began (K. Lash), well, the USSR lost its historical initiative, having entered a structural crisis. It was at this time that the world elite seriously thought about dismantling the capsystem. Her actions developed in three directions. Within the framework of the first, two main tasks were solved.

First. The world elite tried to slow down industrial growth and scientific and technological progress. In this case, financial capital again came to the fore, the economic positions of the working class of the core, the part of the middle layer connected with the state sector were undermined, and the state itself was weakened in the face of banks and transnational corporations. The” thought factory ” that justified the processes of gradual deindustrialization of the core was the Club of Rome (1968), created on the initiative of the Rockefellers. Already in the first report to the Club of Rome with the characteristic title ” Limits of growth “(1972), the concept of” zero growth ” was put forward, i.e., the inhibition of economic growth by political means in the name of the struggle for the preservation of the natural environment. The essentially neo-Malthusian report also set goals for reducing the world’s population and consumption.

To implement the Neo-Malthusian program of the Club of Rome, it was necessary to solve two tasks. The first is the creation of an alarmingly pessimistic background and mood instead of the almost unrestrained optimism of the 1960s. In this regard, the Tavistock Institute, located in the south of England in the gloomy Dartmoor marshes, where the drama of Conan Doyle’s “The Hounds of the Baskervilles” was played, was given the task of “cleaning out the cultural optimism of the 1960s” (to stamp out cultural optimism of the sixties); in the same direction, the change of science fiction to fantasy worked. This was the cultural and psychological background of the counteroffensive of financial capital against industrial capital. The results were not slow to affect: already in the 1980s, financial capital took revenge on industrial capital. In the same Great Britain, as the author of the bestseller “The Establishment” O. Jones, who is often called “the new Orwell”, noted, the Thatcher establishment personified the victory of financial capital over industrial capital. Moreover, Thatcher herself constantly showed disdain for industry and industrialists by her behavior. If she always tried to attend the conferences of City bankers held several times a year, then she either ignored the congresses of the Conference of British Industrialists or pointedly remained silent at them. The oaky “Maggie” generally had little control over negative emotions, whether it was in relation to industrialists, ordinary people or Queen Elizabeth. It was the relationship with the latter, or rather a faux pas (a false step) with Anthony Blunt( the revealed fifth of the Cambridge “five”), a relative of the queen, that drew a line under the political career of a” philistine”, as Kim Philby and not only him called her.

The introduction of e-commerce has further strengthened the position of financialism, encouraging its rampage. Similar processes, although somewhat differently, went on in the Reagan USA. However, even there, the industry, as the same Jones noted, began to rot, the growth rate of labor productivity in industry decreased, the number of breakthrough inventions and innovations decreased, especially compared to the flurry of such in the first half of the twentieth century. A mobile phone, the Internet and a personal computer are, in fact, all that the era of the “elite uprising”can boast of.

The second task of the first direction was more difficult: the neutralization of the USSR and, if possible, the involvement of the Soviet elite in the global projects of the Club of Rome, the implementation of which objectively deprived the Soviet Union of historical initiative, and then of prospects. The Soviet elite took a bite, and it ended after a decade and a half with Gorbachev’s rule.

The second direction of the main blows in the unfolding counteroffensive of the world elite was the growing pressure on the working class and the middle layer of the core. Thatcherism in the UK and Reaganomics in the US became concrete forms: “planners” used these “strategies” to worsen the economic and political positions of target groups. The middle layers of the semi-periphery fared even worse: in the 1980s, the West demolished the middle layer of Latin America and the most developed countries of Africa, such as South Africa and Nigeria, focused on the public sector.

As well as the inhibition of industrial and scientific-technical development, the “uprising of the elites” had an ideological justification. It was provided by a new structure created in 1973 (again under the auspices of mainly the Rockefellers) — the Trilateral Commission. At her request, in 1975, three authors representing and symbolizing the United States (S. Huntington), Europe (M. Crozier) and Japan (D. Watanuki) prepared a report “The Crisis of Democracy”. It argued that the main danger to the political system of the West (read: to preserve the power and privileges of the North Atlantic elite) is not the Soviet Union, not an external factor, but an internal one — an excess of democracy in the West itself. In this regard, it was proposed to start introducing a certain dose of social apathy to the masses and explain that along with democracy, experience and “high status” (seniority — can also be translated as “seniority”) are also important, and democracy itself is not so much a value as a political technology. The class meaning and content of the document are obvious: it was an ideological artillery preparation for the counteroffensive of the elites, for their revenge on the common people, social revenge for half a century of his success.

The third direction was connected with the world stronghold of the common people — with the USSR. Without its neutralization, the implementation of the first two directions with all their tasks was extremely difficult, if at all possible. The world elite offered the Soviet Union several “attractors” (in fact, traps):

1) cooperation in the field of ecology at the planetary level;

2) joint implementation of global process management (global governance);

3) organization of the rise in oil prices through the conflict (Arab-Israeli) in the Middle East;

4) “lunar deal — – recognition by the Soviet leadership of the success of the first American “lunar landing” in exchange for a number of financial and economic preferences;

5) the policy of “detente” (detente, détente) is a respite, necessary primarily for the United States, which found itself at the turn of the 1960s — 1970s in an extremely difficult economic and political situation.

As the Russian economist A. Salomatin convincingly showed, in 1968 the United States ceased to be an economically self-supporting complex (this also allowed financial capital to go on the offensive against industrial capital-the correlate of the elites ‘ offensive against the masses). In other words, the United States lost the economic race to the Soviet Union, hence the initiatives of the Club of Rome and the “detente”. I emphasize: it was not the USSR that won, but the United States that lost. However, the Soviet leadership did not realize this fact, and the part of the nomenclature that was interested in integrating into the capsystem and the agents of Western influence that always acted as its ally did everything to obscure it. As Salomatin wrote, at that time there was no brilliant accountant like Stalin in the Soviet leadership. However, just an experienced accountant would have been enough, but there was no such thing in the Brezhnev leadership. But the Chinese leadership found it.

The Chinese appreciated their chance immediately. By the end of the 1960s, the British had already made good progress in creating an invisible financial empire via Singapore and southern China. One one hand, however, the Chinese have not forgotten the humiliation of the “opium” wars and treaty ports, on the other hand, they are not fans of putting all their eggs in one basket. Taking advantage of the ahoy situation of the Americans, they extended their hand to them: “You do not have enough labor resources, and we have a lot of them; so give us advanced technologies — we will do everything!” To earn the trust of the United States, China had to arrange a provocation at Damansky (1969), and ten years later (the Americans were “swinging” for a long time) to play the play of the three-month war with Vietnam. For the United States, the PRC was important not only economically, but also politically-as a “card” that can be played against the USSR. The result: the United States is investing in China, where Deng Xiaoping’s reforms are starting as a means to” magnetize ” American capital.

It was clear to any attentive observer: over time, the United States will get out of the predicament and go on a counteroffensive (as A. E. Vandam (Edrikhin) wrote:” Only friendship with the Anglo-Saxon can be worse than enmity with him”), so we had to, if not “drop” them, then constantly lose our breath. However, the Soviet leadership believed that nuclear weapons and oil were such weighty factors that they would ensure a respectful attitude towards it from the North Atlantic elites, and they would let the Soviet nomenclature at the world table on an equal footing. This was a colossal mistake. However, behind this mistake were the well-fed short-sightedness of that part of the Soviet elite, which sought stability (“stagnation”) not only in the country, but also in the world, and the conscious course of those who wanted to “enter the West”.

The basis of this desire of the first and second, which led to the fact that the Soviet leadership answered the bourgeoisie to their proposals “yes”, were serious social, power and ideological (“ideological”) changes in Soviet society, primarily in its system — forming element-the upper and middle segments of the party nomenclature and the KGB.

The essence is as follows. Being the negation of capitalism in the line of production relations, the USSR, “real socialism”, as a production basis had the typologically same system of productive forces as capitalism — industrial, only less qualitative, despite all the achievements. In order to transform from systemic anti — capitalism into post-capitalism (what the official ideology called “communism”, and the Strugatskys called “The World of Noon”), three tasks had to be solved:

1) to create a fundamentally new management system as a necessary condition for creating a new production system that surpasses the industrial-capitalist one in its productivity;

2) to create a fundamentally new, more powerful and at the same time cheaper than the gas-oil energy system;

3) to ensure a high level of military-technical protection against an external enemy (“imperialist environment”) in the process of implementing the first and second tasks.

Did the USSR in the mid-1960s have the possibility of successfully solving the three tasks mentioned above and making a breakthrough into a post-capitalist future? Had.

In the first half of the 1960s, under the leadership of Academician V. M. Glushkov, a Nationwide Automated System (OGAS) was created. It converted the entire document flow into an electronic form (“information society”) and brought the old-style Soviet planning, which was faced with an insurmountable complexity of the economy, onto cybernetic rails. OGAS opened the way to a breakthrough in post-industrial development.

At the same time, a group of scientists under the leadership of I. S. Filimonenko completed work on the creation of a hydrolysis plant that carried out cold thermonuclear fusion (CTES). The implementation of this project allowed us to switch to cheap energy, which “closed” the oil industry as expensive and unnecessary (goodbye, Rockefellers, Rothschilds and everything-everything-everything).

Finally, in the mid-1960s, under the leadership of the Soviet aircraft and space designer V. N. Chelomey, such a breakthrough in military technology was made, which, when implemented, left the United States “offside” for many decades, if not forever. We are talking about the PAACRK system (underwater autonomous automated container missile systems); the offensive and defensive system “Sunset” (meaning the sunset of the United States), it is also “Shoe” (an allusion to the famous Khrushchev speech at the UN); the Space-252 maneuverable interceptor satellites, the Almaz manned reconnaissance and combat platforms, and much more.

However, one of these projects, promising a leap into the future and the victory of socialism on a global scale, turning from anti-capitalism into post-capitalism, was not implemented. It was blocked in its interests by the nomenklatura as a quasi-class group formed in the 1930s-1950s on the basis of industrial anti-capitalism and its place in the international division of labor (i.e., the place of anti — capitalism as a system in the capitalist system, in its world market) and striving to preserve its position — i.e., power and privileges-which the transition to post-capitalism would undoubtedly change. However, about everything in order.

As for the OGAS, the higher nomenclature realized with a quasi-class skin gut: if this system is implemented, it will have to move, “technocrats” will appear next to the “party democrats”, and many levers of power may be in their hands. In other words, in the case of the implementation of the OGAS, what Stalin wanted to achieve by political means in 1952 could happen on a scientific, technical, industrial basis — to move the party apparatus away from the management of society, leaving it with ideology, propaganda and recruitment, and move the “center of power” to the Council of Ministers.

The Western, primarily American, elite was no less frightened of the Soviet elite. Russian Russians predicted that if they fully introduced the OGAS before 1970, they would leave the United States behind forever, the administration of President Johnson created the SRC group (to stop Russian/Red code—. The defamation of Glushkov and OGAS began both in the West and in the USSR. It was constantly said that the OGAS is too expensive, and therefore it is not worth putting such a burden on our economy. Echoes of this argument are still found today. Glushkov did not deny that OGAS is a very expensive project. However, if we take into account that about 30-40% of the USSR budget, to put it mildly, was “lost”, and the OGAS made the administrative and economic system transparent (this in itself scared the economic nomenclature — you can’t cheat), then the savings of these funds would more than cover all the costs of the OGAS. But, alas, the quasi-class interest turned out to be stronger, and by 1970 the OGAS was put on the brakes. The Americans could breathe a sigh of relief.

At the beginning of 1967, the commission of the Central Committee of the CPSU recognized the results of the work of Filimonenko’s group as an outstanding achievement in the field of physics, medicine and biology, and six months later, a new commission of the Central Committee closed the research, banned Filimonenko’s work on the XTYAS and seized technical and economic documentation. The project was not just put on the brakes, but hacked. The part of the nomenclature that was already involved in the international oil trade worked, lived with a premonition of the prospects of future profits and managed to denigrate the idea of the KHTYAS in the eyes of the Brezhnev leadership as impossible. Special services from different countries, acting under the guise of scientists within the so-called Pugwash movement, also played their role. It is a paradox, but de facto secret carriers from the kaplager and the socialist camp gathered annually for an open discussion of the problems of nuclear energy, and Filimonenko with his KHTYAS turned out to be a bone in the throat of this “international”. Until now, there are publications of either idiots, or, on the contrary, interested persons who understand the essence of the matter, who are trying to expose Filimonenko as someone between a crank and a charlatan. He firmly touched some structures, disturbed their “rookery”.

The developments of V. N. Chelomey were also not implemented. For personal reasons, as well as interdepartmental competition, they were ruined by the narrow-minded D. F. Ustinov, who was actively helped by Yu.V. Andropov. Opponents of Chelomey (well, the agents of Western influence, of course) took advantage of the” detente ” to block the introduction of breakthrough Chelomey military equipment. The arguments were simple: why do we need all this if we are negotiating with the United States on arms limitation? In 1969-1972, work on almost all of Chelomey’s projects was suspended, technical documentation was transferred to other design bureaus and partially lost.

The chance of a breakthrough in the post-capitalist future, in the victory over capitalism, was not just missed, the highest nomenclature deliberately rejected it, preferring integration into the world market, i.e. into the capitalist system. In this regard, the part of the nomenclature that was already functionally involved in the capsystem along such lines as the trade in oil, gas, and diamonds acted as the backers. It should be noted that the part of the nomenclature included in the capsystem through trade, albeit indirectly and functionally, but acted as a transfer link in the exploitation by Western capital of that part of the workers of the USSR who worked in areas that create a product primarily for foreign trade. Thus, certain segments of the Soviet nomenclature and the KGB segments serving it turned into a functional element of the Western (world, supranational) corporatocracy and were interested in expanding contacts with the West, i.e. in integrating the USSR into the capitalist system. These segments were quantitatively small, however, firstly, as Einstein said, the world is not a quantitative concept, but a qualitative one; secondly, although the trade in raw materials did not play such a role in the export of the USSR as in the Russian Federation, and it is not worth exaggerating its economic significance, its political role and significance were great, and those who carried it out and provided it along the special services line, sharply increased their power potencies and opportunities in the system. Is it necessary to say that these people wanted to “live like in the West”?

The contradiction of the Soviet segment of colleagues-co-exploiters of Western capital was as follows. Functionally, they partially acted as an element of the capitalist corporatocracy, while substantively, in terms of social content, they were the nomenclature (the dominant group) of the anti-capitalist system. This contradiction had to be resolved, and as part of the higher nomenclature and the USSR were integrated into the capsystem and the nomenclature turned into a quasi-class (these are two sides of one process) the probability of an anti-socialist solution to this contradiction increased both objectively and systematically, and subjectively, i.e. the subject of the implementation of this option was strengthened and the anti-capitalist subject itself was weakened in the face of the West. And the West felt it. It is no coincidence that in the second half of the 1970s, politicians of a fundamentally new type were promoted to the first roles in the Western states: Giscard d’Estaing, a protege of the Trilateral Commission, Jimmy Carter, and others, focused not so much on dialogue as on pressure against the USSR. Well, Thatcher and Reagan were already in the queue. The USSR continued to tread on the spot. In foreign policy, this trampling plus excessive senile pacifism led to the interception of the historical initiative from the USSR by the West in the mid-1970s.

It is a paradox, but the moment of interception was the formal victory of the USSR — the Helsinki Conference of 1975, when the West, in fact, officially, albeit with some “exceptions”, recognized the Yalta system. The Trojan horse of the Helsinki Agreements was their “third basket”. It assumed the free exchange of ideas, people and goods as the cornerstone of guarantees of basic human freedoms. Therefore, since the mid-1970s, the West has received the legal right to officially put pressure on the Soviet Union that signed this “basket” for non-compliance with certain points. Brezhnev’s hopes that the recognition of the Yalta peace would outweigh “all this nonsense” of the “third basket” turned out to be the country in a decade and a half.

There are three types of attractors: upward movement — progress, horizontal movement-stagnation, downward movement-regression. The Soviet nomenclature of the 1970s chose horizontal (planar) the attractor that dominated primarily in the frames. The main problem of horizontal attractors is their fragility, since the movement always looks for a” ladder ” either up or — more often-down. The so-called perestroika became a grassroots attractor for the USSR, for the Soviet nomenclature, which turned into the destruction of systemic anti-capitalism, the socialist camp and the USSR. In its place in the 1990s, a clan-oligarchic system appeared-then you can add “to taste”: comprador, criminal, corruption — system, abbreviated — coKe (the big “K” reflects the “three in one” listed above), which today is clearly experiencing severe arthrosis, but this is a separate topic, we go back to the 1960s — 1980s and ask ourselves: why not only the USSR was destroyed, but the whole world changed the upward dynamics to a degradation-destructive one, the first “berries” of which we are trying it today in the form of a coronabesium–and whether it will still be. The answers to these questions are largely related to the dynamics and dialectics of the relations between capitalism and anti-capitalism in the world system, the West and the USSR.

The October Revolution, unlike the February Revolution, occurred contrary to British-French interests. Theoretically, the West was supposed to strangle the USSR in the 1920s, but in practice, weakened by the war and torn by contradictions, it could not do this. In addition, the intensity of the class struggle at home did not allow the bourgeoisie to “raise their shoulder” about the USSR. In the 1930s, the systemically anti-capitalist USSR had already become necessary for both the Americans and even for Russia’s constant existential enemy, the British. Both of them were forced to invest in the USSR by the world crisis of 1929-1933. At the same time, the Americans had an additional reason. In 1929, the director of the Bank of England, Montague Norman, closed the British Empire (25% of the world market) from the outside world (i.e. from the United States), and this desire of British capital, primarily the Rothschilds, to strangle the main beneficiary of the First World War became one of the main causes of the global crisis. After that, the main task of the United States was the destruction of the British Empire. The Third Reich was chosen for the role of the terminator, which was then to be crushed by the Stalinist USSR. And after the war, the United States was going to dictate its will to all the weakened parties.

Trade with the capitalist West, which the USSR actively joined in the 1930s, by definition could not be equivalent, since it sold raw materials to the USSR. Non-equivalent trade means the exploitation of the population of the country that is located on the raw material “site”. Consequently, the part of the Soviet population that created an export product turned out to be indirectly exploited by Western capital, and the nomenclature acted as a transfer link. However, firstly, unlike tsarist Russia, the funds received by the country did not go into the pockets of grand dukes, capitalists, landowners and priests, but worked for the benefit of the Soviet people as a whole, to strengthen the country’s defense capability (therefore, the USSR won the Great Patriotic War, and tsarist Russia lost the First World War). Secondly, as soon as in 1937 the USSR achieved military-industrial autarky from the capitalist world, the raw material component of exports, and with it indirect external exploitation, decreased and systemic anti-capitalism sharply narrowed the zone of indirect capitalist exploitation.

In 1938, the Munich agreement, which should date the beginning of the Second World War (paradoxically, this is confirmed by W. Churchill), was an attempt to create a protoNATO for the destruction of the USSR by German forces. However, Stalin outplayed the British first of all with the Soviet-German treaty, which they (and the West as a whole) still cannot forgive him, and the war went on a different “course”.

During the war, the USSR was needed by the allies. The situation changed after 1945, when the United States, having an atomic bomb, planned to “bomb” the USSR into the stone age, but soon the Soviet atomic and then hydrogen bombs (there is information that the first test of a hydrogen bomb was planned for March 5, 1953, but Stalin’s death postponed it for almost six months) cooled their ardor. In this regard, at the very end of the 1940s, a course was taken for an indefinite struggle to destroy the USSR (the Liote plan), the first results were supposed to be summed up in 50 years — in 1999, but they were managed 10 years earlier.

The course towards the liquidation of the USSR was a strategic and long-term task of the West, but in the medium term, the zone of systemic anti-capitalism, i.e. the non-capitalist zone, was necessary for the functioning of capitalism, primarily industrial, both for political and, most importantly, for systemic and economic reasons. By negotiating with the Soviet Union, the West could solve some of its problems in the Third World, especially since the USSR clearly gave preference to its specific state interests over the interests of, for example, the national liberation movement in the Third World (the classic case is the story of the Tricontinental structure that did not materialize in the mid-1960s). Yes, and about the communist and workers ‘ parties in the West, the bourgeoisie could conduct a dialogue with the USSR.

In system-economic terms, the presence of a non-capitalist zone, even an industrial one, was, although with reservations, tactically beneficial to industrial capitalism, more precisely, industrial capital. Moreover, since the Stalinist times, the Soviet leadership has objectively acted as an ally of industrial capital in its opposition to financial capital. This “idyll”, however, came to an end in the mid — second half of the 1960s. First, the post-war “economic miracles” of industrial recovery have ended, and, just as before the First and Second World Wars, the problem of the need to expand the zones of domination of industrial and economic complexes has arisen. Only now, unlike in 1914 and 1938/41, there were not several, but two, and, firstly, they were fundamentally different social systems with fundamentally different ideologies and world projects; secondly, both had nuclear weapons. Therefore, the military option, especially after the experience of the Caribbean crisis, was almost impossible.

The problem of expanding the industrial zone was much more acute for the industrial capital of the West than for the USSR. The further development of industrial capitalism in the West, with the ever-increasing threat of overproduction of goods, required the deindustrialization of the rest of the world, primarily the socialist camp, especially the USSR and the GDR, but it was impossible to start with the socialist camp. Therefore, under the guise of fighting for the environment, the West proposed an economic program to actually slow down industrial growth “in the interests of humanity” to the whole world and, above all, to the USSR. This was done through the line of the Club of Rome; the proposal was enthusiastically accepted, especially by the part of the Soviet elite that sought to “enter the West”. Of course, the West was not going to immediately, in the short term, destroy the USSR as an industrial and economic (military-industrial) complex, it was impossible. But in the long-term project of the future global world, industrial socialism (or even more so post-industrial) should not have existed at all — it should have been absorbed and dissolved in the global world dominated by the West; the program of the Club of Rome preserved a highly developed core only in the West.

If for the industrial capital of the West, systemic anti-capitalism was tactically acceptable in the short term, although this acceptability became increasingly tense in the 1970s, then for (increasing as industrial capital weakened) financial capital, on the one hand, and for the growing strength of the corporatocracy, on the other, for their world — global in its essence — systemic anti — capitalism was not needed at all, it should not exist, and if not in the short term, then at least in the medium term (10-15, at most 20 years).

In other words, as a result of the changes in the capitalist system that took place in the 1970s (plus or minus 2-3 years), systemic anti-capitalism-from the point of view of these changes and the forces that embodied them — lost its right to exist. And this happened just when the Soviet nomenklatura refused to make a breakthrough into post-capitalism. First, it began to preserve anti-capitalism, which, despite the status of a superpower and excellent economic indicators of the 1970s, has systematically and historically worked its way not only in the country, but also in the world; a new era was beginning, and only the transformation into post-capitalism not only allowed the USSR to survive, made it adequate to it, but turned it into a pioneer and master of the future. Secondly, the top of the nomenclature strengthened the integration of the USSR into the capsystem: the global-ecological bait was followed by a political bait, and the Soviet nomenclature also swallowed it.

In 1982, an apparently insignificant event occurred in the United States, but, as often happens in history, a very important event with far-reaching consequences. After being elected president of the United States, R. Reagan decided to check how accurate the CIA’s forecasts regarding the prospects for the development of the USSR were. They argued that the economy of the USSR, despite all the difficulties, is developing on an upward trend and by the end of the 1990s will reach very high economic indicators. Similar forecasts were given by Israeli intelligence. Reagan ordered the creation of three analytical and predictive groups under the leadership of physicist M. Gell-Mann, founder of the Santa Fe Institute (SFI); sociologist Randall Collins, associated with the Bush family; B. Bonner. The groups that worked independently of each other, after a few months, gave almost the same results. They predicted a powerful crisis that was supposed to shake the capsystem, coming in two waves. The first — in 1987-1988, the second, much more powerful, with tangible political consequences throughout the Western world – in 1993-1994.

According to forecasts, the economy of the socialist camp had to come out of the crisis with less losses than the capitalist one: in the first case, production was reduced by 10-12%, in the second — by 20%. Analysts predicted that in the wake of the crisis, communists (by themselves or in alliance with the “left”) would very likely come to power in Italy and France, left — wing Laborists in the UK; powerful Black riots were predicted in the largest cities of the United States. Of course, we should not forget that the communists of Italy, France and Spain were still communists-masoned “Eurocommunists” (it is symbolic that the general secretary of the Italian Communist Party, Enrico Berlinguer, was the son of one of the most prominent Freemasons in Italy); however, Reagan and the company were frightened by the coming to power of even such forces against the background of the United States experiencing not the best days.

Since receiving the forecasts of the three groups ,the “final solution of the Soviet question” has become the No. 1 task of the Reagan administration, a wide range of its allies and those forces that stood behind it. But this final solution could not be achieved by military means from the outside, the USSR could only be weakened from within-economically, politically, culturally and psychologically. This could be done only by changing the socio-economic system of the USSR, and already on this and only on this basis turning it into what the Russian Empire was at the end of the XIX — beginning of the XX century — into an underdeveloped country, a raw material appendage of the core of the capsystem (the West), dependent on it technologically, financially, ideologically and culturally. Already in the second year of Reagan’s presidency, the NSDD-75 “US relations with the USSR”directive was prepared in a top-secret mode in the amount of 30 copies. It clearly stated the goal: not the destruction of the USSR, but the change of the socio-economic system. In particular, it was said that the main means of changing the Soviet system should be to facilitate the economic operations of the party nomenclature and the KGB on the world market and provide technological assistance to the Soviet economy.

The calculation here is clear: foreign economic operations carried out by a certain segment of the party and GB nomenclature increasingly integrated the top of the USSR into the capsystem and thus undermined the Soviet system from within; technological “assistance” was carried out primarily to those segments of the Soviet economy that were in close contact with the West and whose development blocked the real development of the USSR; well, the super task was the strengthening of crisis trends in the Soviet economy. Thus, in 1983, the West and the United States switched from the policy of external influence on the USSR (“containment”, “local conflicts”) to the strategy of internal system decomposition of the enemy, i.e. they transferred military actions to its territory, only military actions were of an organizational nature. At the same time, it was not about the geopolitical destruction of the USSR, at best — about reconfiguration: to begin with, “the USSR minus the Baltic States and something else”. It turned out differently, and this is due, on the one hand, to the fact that other forces in the West actively intervened in the process, on the other — and this is the main thing — the Soviet factor played a role, the actions of those forces inside the USSR that had no intention of destroying the country, but set the task to change the system (and it turned out “they wanted the best, but it turned out as always”). Thus, their task and the task of the Americans formally coincided-formally, since the Soviet “segment” was not going to turn the USSR into an underdeveloped country dependent on the West. However, it happened differently: the “Westerners” turned out to be smarter, stronger, more sophisticated. And, of course, “chance, God is the inventor”, whose role increases dramatically during systemic and structural crises, chance is in a certain sense their regularity. The problem of the coincidence of the tasks of forces on different sides of the system barricades will be covered in the next article, and now it makes sense to note the fact that pessimistic forecasts for capitalism were made at the same time and on the other side of the ocean, in the Soviet Union.

Their authors were Vladimir Krylov and Pobisk Kuznetsov. Now we can only guess whether these forecasts were prepared directly for Yu. V. Andropov and how familiar he was with their texts. Krylov saw a vector in the imminent increase in US pressure on the USSR. Kuznetsov clearly pointed out that the economic mechanism of capitalism in 1993-1995 would lead to the fact that the number of dollars in the world economy relative to one kilowatt of electricity would reach the boundary limits, which would generate hyperinflation. This meant that by the end of the twentieth century, the capsystem would be in ruins. The ruins did appear, but they were the ruins of the social system. By the way, as far as I know, P. Kuznetsov considered the only chance of the West (capitalism) to be saved by the economic seizure of the COMECON countries (first of all, of course, the USSR) as markets for selling products and pumping out cheap raw materials. However, the economic seizure, I will add, required the political (systemic) surrender of the USSR and the establishment, in fact, of external control; the Yeltsin regime became the way to solve this problem.

Fig. Vasily Prokhanov “Emanation No. 7”.

Source —


53-About the benefits of knowledge of statistics and history

From 1922 to 1953, 4,060,306 people were convicted under political articles, of which 799,455 people were sentenced to the highest penalty.

This is not the “impressionism” of the “GULAG Archipelago”, but documentary data obtained and verified by researchers of the Russian Federation and the United States.

Thus, we are talking about less than 2% of the population. Is it a lot or a little? For me, 0.002 is a lot. But these are emotions. An objective scientific approach requires comparison, and then the situation becomes clearer. For example, compare the number of peasants who died during the famine of 1931-1932 in the poor USSR, and the number of Americans who died-now, 80 years later, the United States is forced to admit-from hunger during the Great Depression of the early 1930s in rich America. This is 4-5 million. In addition, political articles were often “sewn” in the USSR in cases when the authorities did not want to admit the facts of major theft of their representatives (the people’s power cannot steal from the people) and other non-political crimes of its representatives that compromise it. But the main thing is not even in this, but in another.

The de-Stalinizers write down during the years of “Stalin’s repressions” and the period when Stalin was not the number 1 person in the country. So, in 1921-1922, the power in the RSFSR was in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, in 1923-1925, No. 1 was Zinoviev, in 1926-1928 — Bukharin. Yes, Stalin’s position was constantly strengthened in the 1920s, during the period of the alliance with Bukharin, he was stronger than during the triumvirate with Zinoviev and Kamenev, and yet he formally became No. 1 only in 1929, defeating Bukharin’s team. But only formally, because even in 1932, as the Ryutin case showed, Stalin could not single-handedly decide how and whom to repress, even if these “whom” were planning his overthrow. The situation changed only in 1935-1936, i.e. from the 32 years of “Stalin’s repressions” it is necessary to immediately subtract 14 years, most of which were carried out by the internationalsocialists, the guards of the cardinals of the world revolution Lenin and Trotsky, pushing them, Stalin created a power. A communist, but a power, and not a zemsharny republic, he built a country, and did not create a world revolution.

About the benefits of knowledge of statistics and history, image #1

But even with the Stalinist period, not everything is so simple. The historian Yu. N. Zhukov, on the basis of extensive historical material, convincingly showed all the ambiguity of the essence of the so-called “Stalinist repressions”. During the work on the new constitution, Stalin proposed to introduce a provision on alternative elections into it. This was sharply opposed by the ” regional barons “(Khrushchev, Eikhe and others) and “heroes of the civil war”, who were afraid that the people would choose a “counter” – representatives of the intelligentsia, priests, former White Guards, etc. Stalin’s proposal was passed by the” Stalinist “Politburo, but in order to fully insure themselves, the “barons” and “heroes” decided to launch a preemptive strike against those segments of the population that caused them the greatest fears. The main “slaughterers” were Khrushchev, who later, in retirement, admits that his hands are up to the elbows in blood, and Eikhe. Faced with the consolidated resistance of the elite, which he could not overcome, Stalin reacted in two ways:

1) passively-where he could, he reduced the planned scale of repression;

2) actively-launched repressions against the elite, who began mass terror (“go, poisoned steel, according to the destination”, you wanted terror — you will get it).

Thus, in the so-called “Stalinist repressions” of 1937-1938. (since the end of 1938, the repressions have been on the decline, the “Beriev thaw” begins — about 20 % of the repressed are returned from prisons and camps) there is not one Stalinist “layer” (no one denies this, but the historical truth is much more complicated), but several: the anti-Stalinist mass, behind which the nomenklatura stood, defending its group positions, and Stalin’s own as a reaction to it. In addition, within the framework of both “layers”, a significant part of the repressions is associated with clarifying the relations of various enkavedesh clans with each other (this issue is well covered by L. Naumov and others). Russian Russians, who tried to turn Russians into firewood for a land fire, who told the Cossacks and poisoned Russian peasants with gas, and this further narrows the scope of the Stalinist “part” of the repressions, the victims of which were many of those who began these repressions in 1936-1937, those who raped the country in the 1920s, who sought to turn Russians into firewood for a land fire, who told the Cossacks and poisoned Russian peasants with gas.

“De-Stalinizers-2011” wail: repressions have fallen on the best. Who are the best? The Zinovievs, the Karus people? Eikhe, Postyshevs, Tukhachevskys, Yakirs? Repression fell on those who woke up the Russian famously. As N. Korzhavin noted in the poem “Naivety”, “and the year thirty-seventh came to them simply as a bribe, not as a punishment.” The Russian sovereign Soviet-patriotic (for the first time they started talking about Soviet patriotism in 1936; in the same year they stopped celebrating November 7 as the First Day of the World Revolution), the answer to the internationalists came twenty years after the revolution of 1917. and ten years after Stalin’s turn from the world revolution to the Soviet power.

The de-Stalinizers say the main thing: the best for them are the heroes of the 1920s, the heroes of the Lenin guard (read: the oligarchy) and the team of Trotsky, under whose influence Lenin was in the last two years of his life. It is precisely in the era of the rule of the cosmopolitan-Bolshevik oligarchy, the zemsharniks, the world revolutionaries with their NEP that today’s “liberals”-the heirs of the Trotskyists and Zemsharniks — would like to return. Yes, today’s “liberals” are the right-wing heirs of the left internationalists/globalists and their objective allies from the Finintern — the right-wing globalists, so to speak, the right-Trotskyist bloc, stretched out in time.

The link between today’s cosmopolitan ” liberals “and left — wing internationalists is the sixties, who dreamed of returning to the times of” Leninist norms “and” commissars in dusty helmets ” — the very ones who destroyed the Russian people and to whom this people adequately responded in the 1930s. The Sixties are a reactionary utopia of Soviet society, the ideological formalization of a partial return to power under Khrushchev of those whom Stalin purged from this power; we are talking not so much about specific people, but about ideological heirs focused on the “internationalization” of Russia, on “universal” (read: Western) values, who admired the West in principle, no matter whether it was revolutionary or counter-revolutionary. Significant, though different figures are Yevtushenko and Julian Semenov. It is also significant that both, according to knowledgeable people, had Andropov’s personal phone number, whose coming to power was prepared by “liberal internationalists” (in this regard, the ideological shifts in Soviet culture in the second half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s are very indicative, which in many ways loosened the ground for the beginning of the preparation of the dismantling brigade of Soviet society from the mid-1970s).

It is significant that the “all-men”, whether they are world-revolutionaries-zemsharniki or today’s ultra-liberal de-Stalinizers, do not like Russians. Russian Russians do not want to be the raw material for their progress (well, they do not want to climb into the oven themselves — their consciousness is not modernized), and for the fact that Stalin leaned mainly on the Russians, ousting the international Socialists from power and driving them to zero. Of course, Stalin was never a Russian nationalist, as some zealots try to portray him, so to speak, out of an excess of feelings, sir. Russian Russian nationalism, whether it was Ukrainian, Georgian, Jewish or Russian (it is significant: the main event of the late 1940s was not the later inflated “struggle against cosmopolitans”, but the “Leningrad affair”, whose defendants were suspected of intending to create a Russian Communist Party in the RSFSR, i.e., in Russian nationalism).He was an imperial sovereign who saw danger in any nationalism, whether it was Ukrainian, Georgian, Jewish or Russian (it is significant: the main event of the late 1940s was not at all the “struggle against cosmopolitans”, but the “Leningrad affair”, whose defendants were suspected of intending to create a Russian Communist Party in the RSFSR, i.e. in Russian nationalism). A lot more was planted on the “Leningradka” and put to the wall than for “kowtowing to the West”.

At the same time, being an imperial socialist, Stalin understood that the project of a Red World system, an alternative to capitalism, with its own world market, with the complete displacement of the backstage from the Soviet leadership, could be implemented only with the active support of the power-forming people, i.e. the Russians. Hence, the course towards the “nationalization” of communism and its integration into Russian history, which has been quite obvious since the mid-1930s;

an even more decisive step was taken during the war. During the time of the ex-Trotskyist Khrushchev, there was a noticeable rollback-revenge, however, firstly, not to the end — after all, a decade and a half of real Stalin’s rule, despite a number of mistakes, inconsistencies and forced compromise actions of the leader, could not pass without a trace. Secondly, the Brezhnev team slowed down this process in its own interests — the official “internationalization” /cosmopolitanization of Soviet communism was slowed down (but as subsequent events showed, it was not stopped).

The emphasis, especially after the Czechoslovak events, was placed on the state-patriotic aspects of the development of the USSR — but it was made indistinctly and inconsistently, which, among other things, made it easier to formalize Gorbachev. Nevertheless, it was precisely this state-patriotic turn that the sixties, dissidents and a certain part of the nomenclature, including the pro-Western-commercialized segment of the KGB, whose agents, “blind” or “sighted”, they were (“Andropov line”), could not forgive Brezhnev. The Brezhnevites also did not allow the USSR to be modified in a quasi — capitalist way-this process remained limited to the shadow part of society, however, it captured an increasing part of it and pushed the situation in the direction of changing the places of the owner and his shadow. This process was especially accelerated by the “Kosygin” reforms, “detente” and a sharp jump in oil prices.

And this restriction of the “liberalization of the economy” by the shadow zone could not forgive Brezhnev either ,the “perestroika” who had already come to power with the idea of changing the system: first ,the “NEP”, and then the capitalization of the USSR. So, historically, Stalin and Brezhnev, despite all the differences and incompatibility of these figures, were in the league of “bad”, and Lenin, Khrushchev and, of course, Gorbachev — in the league of “good” heroes (heroes-shadowy, thieves, traitors and bourgeois). It is not by chance that I am talking about the difference between Stalin and Brezhnev and their models of” real socialism”, since the Brezhnev model is a negation of the Stalinist one, and its triumph means the almost complete de-Stalinization of Soviet society that occurred in the late 60s,” proud and pot-bellied”, as accurately and succinctly sung in the song”Lube”.

From the book by A. I. Fursov — ” Forward to victory! Russian success in retrospect and perspective. Fourth edition, expanded”.


52-Chinese roller coasters. About the ups and downs of the Middle Kingdom


51-Why the USSR? Why Stalin?


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

Thank you Irina for posting this. I think about this issue a lot. And I’m glad that you are making Andre Fursov’s work available in English.

Personally, I find it shocking and disgusting that people in the Russian Federation at the highest levels disparage Lenin and Stalin, make outrageous claims such as Lenin was not a statesman, or that he weakened Russia, and even call Lenin’s Tomb “the Mausoleum”…As if the very name Lenin should not be spoken!  They’re too ashamed to even show Lenin’s tomb on Victory Day!

As we’ve noted elsewhere, Soviet culture as seen in its movies has greater depth than current Russian movies. And don’t even talk about current Western movies!

Well, thanks again for posting this thought provoking article, and look forward to more.


Stalin said one visionary phrase. “I know that when I am gone, more than one tub of mud will be poured on my head, but I am sure that the wind of history will dispel it all.” It is obvious to me that Russian society is at the final stage of pouring mud on Stalin’s name. And this phase is close to the end. More and more people, even those who were born already in modern Russia, are turning their view to the times of Stalin and would like to return them back. 30 years of wild capitalism in Russia exposed people who is who and what is what. Unfortunately, we also have a saying. We do not store what we have, when we lose it then we cry


50-Andrey Fursov: “The battle of global elites for a post-capitalist future has begun”


The anti-globalists have already disappeared from the scene; the struggle is between globalists and ultra-globalists

49-Notes on the Famine of 1932-1933. Part two. Harvest


Start here
In disputes about the famine of 1932-1933, one often has to face the fact that the overwhelming majority of “debaters” are not even aware of elementary figures. Although, it would seem, here is the great Yandex and here is a mountain of reference books with official data. So we will do their work for these people, and we will bring these data together in one small table.

YearGross yield (million tons)Yield

(c / ha)


(million tons)

Export(million tons)Gross minus of the billet
193368,4 / 89,8**6,7 / 8,8**23,31,68645,1 / 66,6

* Including 0.26 million tons of purchases.

** The first figure is data published in statistical reference books after 1956. The second is data published before 1940.For more information on this topic, see here.

Sources: National Economy of the USSR for 70 years (Jubilee Statistical Yearbook). Finance and Statistics, M. 1988, pp. 208, 210; Socialist Construction of the USSR (Statistical Yearbook), TsUNKhU Gosplan of the USSR, M. 1936, pp. 280, 336, 342-343; Agriculture of the USSR, 1935. Yearbook, Moscow, “Selkhozgiz” 1936 p. 215; Foreign trade of the USSR for 20 years 1918-1937. Statistical collection. I / O International Book. Moscow, 1939 P. 35 .

48-Famine of the early 30s in the USA and the USSR


47-7 sanctions in history that the United States applied against Russia and the USSR


46-Western sanctions against the USSR. The dossier


From the economic blockade by the Entente countries of Soviet Russia to the sanctions imposed against the USSR by the Ronald Reagan administration


45-The United States refused to accept gold from the USSR. This is the cause of the holodomor.

They just demanded grain, which was not there, from the starving country instead of gold, which was abundant. That’s the whole trick



To understand what is happening now in Venezuela, read about what the Anglo-Saxons did in the USSR in the 30s of the last century.

The Golden Blockade

Famine in the USSR in the 30s was organized by the United States

Let’s look at the chronology of events. 1929, the civil war has just ended in Russia, and the first five-year plan (i.e., the restoration of industry and economy) begins.

The West is still preparing to strangle Soviet Russia economically, without military intervention. The first step to this was taken in advance – this is the refusal to accept gold from the USSR. This makes Russia extremely sensitive to the supply of its raw materials abroad, which is now the only source of currency entering the country.

After the expulsion of Trotsky from the USSR, the West strikes again: An embargo is imposed on the import of Soviet goods to the West. In fact, the export of timber and petroleum products, that is, everything that pays for the supply of Western cars for the destroyed Soviet economy, is prohibited.

We look at the dates: the first five-year plan begins in 1929, the United States imposed an embargo in 1930-1931, and a similar decree was issued in France in 1930. On April 17, 1933, the British Government declares an embargo. That is, first the West refused to accept gold as payment from the USSR, then everything else … except grain!

This behavior of the West looks illogical. At this time, the Great Depression is raging there (it began just in 1929). In the United States, there is an overproduction of products (including and especially grain), the government destroys grain in huge quantities, and immediately accepts grain from Russia as payment for its machines – instead of gold, oil and other raw materials much more needed by the United States.

Even more stupid are the British-in those years, the USSR was the main customer of British machine tool builders in 1932, 80% of machine tool exports from England went to the Soviet Union – and the British leadership did everything possible to make these deliveries impossible, refusing to accept not only gold as payment for machine tools, but also wood, ore, coal and oil that England so much needed. Everything-except grain, which the British could buy much cheaper in the United States. [ But it was more important to stage a famine in Russia in order to blame the Soviet authorities for this ]

Thus, the Stalinist leadership of the USSR is faced with a choice: either refusal to restore industry, that is, capitulation to the West, or continuation of industrialization, leading to a terrible internal crisis. If the Bolsheviks take grain from the peasants – there is a very high probability of starvation, which, in turn, can lead to an internal explosion and a shift of power. No matter what Stalin chooses, the West still wins.

Joseph Vissarionovich and his entourage decide to go ahead.

In the summer of 1929, the collectivization of agriculture began. The state collects grain and sends it to the West, but not at all in order to starve part of the country’s population, but because there is no other option for paying for equipment supplies. Stalin’s only hope is for a new harvest. It turns out to be small – there was a drought in the country. The USSR cannot buy food either for gold (the gold blockade) or for foreign currency (because of the embargo it is not available).

Attempts are being made to urgently import grain from Persia, where they agree to accept gold. But the authorities do not have time – a catastrophe happens. The one that is now called “Holodomor”in Ukraine.

In 1932-1933, a lot of people died, and only after that (!) the West was once again ready to accept oil, timber, and precious metals from the Bolsheviks. Naturally, in 1934, grain exports from the USSR completely stopped.

The famine of 1932-33, carefully organized by the West, did not produce the desired result: the Bolsheviks retained power. They continued to industrialize. Economic measures did not work – Stalin restored the country at any cost.

Military measures remained. And, surprisingly , it was in 1933 that Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, openly writing about his aggressive goals in the boundless Russian plains.

From these historical data, it becomes clear that the famine in the USSR in the 1930s was organized by the West, and mainly by the United States, in order to overthrow the existing power in the USSR.

They succeeded in killing millions of people, but they did not overthrow Stalin. I had to raise Hitler to try to crush the Russians at the hands of the Germans. But that’s another story.


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

This is an extraordinarily valuable and surprising historical fact I had not encountered. Thank you, Irina


Where are the figures which would make this story more credible.  Are there copies of the embargo documents?  It should be easy enough to know what the total Russian harvests were in those years.  Neither do I have these total harvest figures, but I do have these numbers:

The state’s procurements of grain rose from
10.8 million tons in 1928 and
16.1 million tons in 1929 to
23.3 million tons in 1933.

I don’t have numbers for 1930, ’31, ’32.  These procurements were mainly to feed the cities, and for export too.  The difference in figures meant that there was less and less bread for domestic consumption in the village.  If I guess at procurement like this:

30 – 18 million tons then exports 27%
31 – 20 million tons then exports 25.5%
32 – 22 million tons then exports 8%

That’s of procurements, not of total harvest.

Here it is again: During the first five-year plan 12 million tons of grain was exported;
in 1930 – 4.8 million tons exported;
in 1931 – 5.1 million; in the unprofitable year
in 1932 – 1.8 million tons were exported.
in 1934 – 1 million tons
(By comparison, tsarist Russia exported 9-10 million tons of grain per year before the war.)

Without total harvest I can’t determine what percentage was exported for these years.  My data for the years don’t match up with procurement either.  So I can’t get a full perspective, although I made a guess above.

In 1933-1935, the authorities were able to achieve the fulfillment of the grain supply both in the whole country and in each republic, krai and oblast. After the famine of 1932-1933, grain exports were reduced, and from 1934 they did not exceed 1 million tons per year. At that time they began to resort to additional state purchases of agricultural products at procurement prices, which were 25-30% higher than the planned. This additional volume of grain procurements increased
from 4.1 million tons in 1933
up to 13.6 million tons- in 1934.

Until the end of the second five-year plan, these purchases amounted to 15-16% of all grain supply of the collective farms.

The turning point in the countryside and the improvement of the food supply of the urban population was mainly determined by the expansion of the supply of machinery to agriculture. Before the revolution almost half of the land in the country was cultivated by the plough (horse). By 1928 the plough was replaced by the iron plough (10% of the arable land was tilled by the plough), there were 25 thousand ploughs in the country.

With tractors only 1% of the arable land was cultivated. By the end of the first five-year plan 22% of the arable land was cultivated with tractors, by the end of the second five year plan – up to 60%.  The supply of the village with machinery was carried out through machine-tractor columns (the first was formed in September 1928 in the Azov district of the Don from 18 tractors to serve two collective farms and one land society) and mainly through MTS (Machine Tractor Stations).

By the summer of 1930 158 state and 479 cooperative MTS’s were organized.  During the first five-year plan 154 thousand tractors, including 94 thousands of domestic made tractors were supplied to agriculture (in 1923-1924 only 13 tractors were made in the USSR). At the end of 1934, agriculture had 281 thousand tractors, 31 thousand combines, 34 thousand trucks, and many other complex agricultural machines.

I repeat, I don’t have the important figures on grain export percentages, but I would like to see them.


44-With more data does the relationship between Western embargoes and the Holodomor become clear?

  1. We’re told in the article that the west (USA) would only buy grain from the USSR during the period.And that this extra grain depletion caused the famine.  This is all the extra data given to us after my request.


In July 1930, the United States accused the USSR of dumping (deliberately lowering the prices of its goods) in the supply of matches, coal, asbestos, manganese and other goods to the United States and introduced protectionist measures (import duties, etc.).  presumably on matches, coal, asbestos, manganese?

Due to Dumping

In 1931. The United States has banned the import of Soviet lumber from four areas of the European part of the USSR – the Kola Peninsula, the Karelian Autonomous Republic, the Northern Region, and the Zyryanskaya Autonomous Region – due to the fact that forced labor of prisoners was used in these regions.  (not all lumber.)

Due to Forced Labor

As a result of anti-dumping measures, the total turnover (buy and sell) of Soviet foreign trade fell from 1.6 billion rubles in 1930 to 1.5 billion in 1931. The embargo against the United States was lifted after the official establishment of Soviet-American diplomatic relations on November 16, 1933.  Soviet exports during this period also decreased from 812.7 million rubles to 636.1 million rubles.  (Not sure of the period, maybe in 3 years?)


On October 3, 1930, France accused the USSR of interfering in its internal affairs, in particular of financing the subversive activities of the Communist Party. As sanctions measures, a system of licensing Soviet goods was introduced, which led to their rise in price and loss of competitiveness. In the same year, similar measures against Soviet products were introduced by Yugoslavia, Hungary, Belgium and Romania.  Restrictions on trade with France were lifted in 1931 due to the denunciation by the French Parliament of the decree of October 3, 1930.  I Don’t know about the purchases from Yugoslavia, Hungary, Belgium and Romania.

So the French tariffs didn’t really affect the famine, they were before.


In March 1933, the Soviet authorities arrested several British engineers working on the construction of power plants in the USSR, on charges of espionage and sabotage.  In response, on April 26, 1933, Great Britain imposed an embargo on the import of various types of grain, cotton, timber and petroleum products from the Soviet Union until the release of its citizens.  On July 1, 1933, British citizens were released and sent home, mutual sanctions were lifted.

They wouldn’t buy grain as part of the embargo, so that didn’t really affect the famine either.  Kind of on the tail end of the famine.


  1. What about the harvest?There are two ways to calculate it.
  2. First you sample different agricultural zones and determine a yield per hectare. (Running 6 – 8 tons per hectare). Then you determine the number of planted hectares.  Even that may be unsure.
  3. The other way is called “barn harvest”. It is totally accurate, but comes a year or more later. The differences are the losses.

“losses of grain from the moment of ripening of the loaves to the end of harvesting and threshing, such as: crumbled grain, grain in the ear left during harvesting on stubble, grain left in straw and chaff during threshing and screening, grain losses during mating, hoeing, skirding and transportation of grain from the field to the current before weighing, as well as for losses as a result of human actions: mowing grain in the field for horse feed, unaccounted for feeding it on currents, cattle and poultry, spending it on public catering and theft.  Theft is like selling to hoarders and speculators.

Roughly speaking, the barn harvest is only that part of the crop that was brought to the storage site.  As a rule, sabotage, theft, weather conditions, and the machinations of the West have to be considered.  These are the % of exports using the Barn Harvest.

YearGross yield (million tons)
YieldExport (million tons)Export %
(c / ha)of harvest
193250.1 / 69,97,01.7283.45%
193368,4 / 89,86,7 / 8,81.6862.46%

The famine was between 1932 and 1933, so the ’32 exports were 3.45% of the harvest.  The 1933 export would have been after the fact, but further reduced to stop the famine.

  1. We’re lucky to have data on total exports.I have both tons and Rubles for the first year and only tons thereafter.  But I used the 1930 prices just so I can compare the value of “apples and oranges”, the different sectors.
1930thou ruble1930 price1931sales at 19301932sales at 19301933sales at 19301934sales at 1930
thou tons1930per thou tonthou tonsprice/1000tthou tonsprice/1000tthou tonsprice/1000tthou tonsprice/1000t
R x 1000
cow oil thou10.546,0474,38530.9135,51030.9135,51037.2163,13837.5164,454
sunflower oil2.73,1491,16622.225,8923540,82013.415,62821.725,309
can fish/crab40.4117,0952,89826.977,96717.450,4322263,76511.433,042
iron ore45216,65737111941,23734212,60350918,75834212,603
x thousandx thousandx thousandx thousandx thousand
Total exports3 billion3,055,770export rubles2,792,8962,554,2372,508,8902,262,563
% exportsfrom grain28.88%33.52%12.56%12.41%6.31%

Here were see 1930 – 1931 exports 3 billion and 2,8 billion (Rubles).  The US Dumping and forced labor embargoes were already in effect. Grain sales are 29% and 33% of gross.

1932 total exports were down to 2.5 billion, but that was totally due to reduced grain sales, not from more embargoes.  Grain sales were 12.56 % of gross.  That grain sale was 3.45% of the harvest.  Doesn’t seem excessive, but it must have been in the face of the shortages.

1933 exports held steady, no decrease from embargo and same reduced % grain export.  By now they were pulling out of the famine.

1934 exports again reduced, but also due to reduced grain sales.  Other items reduced some (petroleum), a few increased as you can see.

  1. Conclusion:It’s not clear that embargoes caused famine.  I don’t see that in the data.  It is said that the west wouldn’t sell grain for gold?  Iran would, but by the time they figured that out it was all over.  The US embargo was lifted in November 1933, but the 1934 exports don’t show any rebound.

This is the “extra data’ that we were kindly offered.  See what you make out of it.

Do I want to double think about every article?  NO.  But I hope to find articles already grounded in solid figures.

I’ll add a screen shot chart just in case the above gets dis-aligned.


But here I see one, in my opinion, a significant moment. The West (USA) did not buy grain from the USSR. They accepted only grain as payment for their mechanisms, equipment, engineering staff, etc. Grain was payment, although it could and should have been gold.

And most likely, since payment in grain for goods was actually barter, and payment for grain was not received in foreign currency, these transactions were not reflected in the list of imported goods.

But these are my conclusions, I am only an economist, I know little about foreign trade operations


43-Grain exports and imports to the USSR in 1931-1933

Import and export of grain to the USSR in 1931-1933 (Monthly)(tons)



January90 89423 54596 71189 603300 753
february202 89736 02492 15039 459370 530
March194 13521 00151 82318 395285 354
april67 46882 45714 6398 559173 123
May102 95371 55710 12921 830206 469
June30 04836 7911 81413 93382 586
July113 01724 85510 57918 496166 947
august561 15563 93694 39357 206776 690
september482 416135 782220 30358 589897 090
october377 211183 654199 18533 561793 611
November163 638220 60275 94814 840475 028
december113 125208 62196 20512 583430 534
January60 43265 40256 31713 535195 686
february21 23263 70335 8371 938122 710
March2 77990 73720 638273114 427
april6 18430 6467 7691 17445 773
May176 690056 672
June02 77426403 038
august26 271010 83720037 308
september138 67961 030107 995101307 805
october87 49726 76760 4471174 712
November128 23428 02457 3140213 572
december66 16941 63651 9680,3159 773,3
January31 72612 20932 37418276 491
february6 80420 15111 4181438 387
March6 18427 64413 72016 09063 638
april1 0104 6571 6697 39014 726
May8413 72602613 836
June02 38102262 607
July30997001 027
august54 3896 33745 46640106 232
september167 01024 59599 9740291 579
october150 2614 839188 18714 681357 968
November159 63515 911102 52012 503290 569
december184 54127 40484 46132 436328 842

“Foreign trade Up Reference on changes in the share of aircraft deliveries to the USSR from the United States and England in 1941-1944 March 26, 1945 “


42-Review of exports of the USSR during the famine of 1930-1934.

According to statistics on Soviet exports in 1930, the volume of grain exports Grain became the main export item, accounting for about 30% of the total volume, and amounted to 4.76 million tons in the amount of 882,404 thousand rubles. Further: cow oil – 10.5 thousand tons in the amount of 46047 thousand rubles; sunflower oil – 2.7 thousand tons in the amount of 3149 thousand rubles; canned fish/crab – 40.4 thousand tons in the amount of 117095 thousand rubles; timber – 7.4 million tons in the amount of 743461 thousand rubles; furs – 3155 tons in the amount of 336559 thousand rubles; petroleum products – 4.7 million tons in the amount of 687888 thousand rubles, coal – 1043 thousand tons in the amount of 31050 thousand rubles; manganese ore – 769 thousand tons. 57851 thousand rubles; iron ore – 452 thousand tons. in the amount of 16,657 thousand rubles, flax – 78.4 thousand tons in the amount of 133,609 thousand rubles, etc.

1931: grain – 5.05 million tons; cow oil-30.9 thousand tons; sunflower oil-22.2 thousand tons; canned fish/crab-26.9 thousand tons; timber-2.76 million tons; furs-2964 tons; petroleum products-5.2 million tons, coal-1000 thousand tons, manganese ore-742 thousand tons, iron ore-1119 thousand tons, flax-79.8 thousand tons, etc.

1932: grain-1.73 million tons, cow oil-30.9 thousand tons; sunflower oil-35 thousand tons; canned fish/crab-17.4 thousand tons; timber-5.68 million tons, furs-3107 tons, petroleum products-6.1 million tons, coal-920 thousand tons, manganese ore-416 thousand tons, iron ore-342 thousand tons, flax-82.5 thousand tons, etc.

1933: grain-1.68 million tons; cow oil-37.2 thousand tons; sunflower oil-13.4 thousand tons; canned fish/crab-22.0 thousand tons; timber-6.28 million tons; furs-3500 tons; petroleum products-4.8 million tons, coal-1011 thousand tons, manganese ore-655 thousand tons, iron ore-509 thousand tons, flax-88.0 thousand tons, etc.

1934: grain-0.77 million tons; cow oil-37.9 thousand tons; sunflower oil-21.7 thousand tons; canned fish/crab-11.4 thousand tons; timber-6.48 million tons, furs-3278 tons; petroleum products-4.3 million tons, coal-1169 thousand tons, manganese ore-737 thousand tons, iron ore-342 thousand tons, flax-96.3 thousand tons, etc.

It is worth recalling that the peak of mass mortality occurred in the winter of 1932-33. Most professional historians estimate the total number of famine victims in the early 1930s at at least 7 million. The fall in the gross grain harvest with the beginning of collectivization and dekulakization was 40%. In 1930, 83.5 million tons of grain were harvested, in 1931 – 69.5, and in the following 1932 – 50.1 million tons. Livestock also fell by about 30-40%, and in Kazakhstan by all 95%.


41-The League of Nations was created with the money of Tsar Nicholas II – Why was Nicholas II destroyed



A little bit about everything Why was Nicholas II destroyed 07.05.2014 Konstantin 15 comments/ 39991 What happened in Russia during the October Revolution. Who and why destroyed the Russian monarch Nicholas II. Two versions that exclude each other. In one part of the history of the League of Nations and the gold of Russia, in the other-the oil market. The US Federal Reserve system is almost entirely owned by Russia in the person of Nicholas II The looting of Russia began during the reign of Tsar Alexander II of Russia. In 1876, the Rothschild billionaires entered into an agreement with the Russian Tsar to store Russian gold in Spain. Gold was laid in the mountains of Spain in the amount of 47,800 tons. 19 people were identified as the custodians of this gold in Spain by the Tsar of Russia. One of theThe Rothschilds, became a financial manager in the tsarist treasury. The Rothschild clan keeps all the documents for this gold in the state of California in the USA and is actually the owner of this gold until now. Nicholas IIIn 1904, the Group of representatives of 48 states (G-48) at a secret meeting in Paris approved the Procedure for creating the International Financial System (IFS) and the World Source of Money Supply. The Russian TsarNicholas II, in agreement with the leaders of other states, decided to create the League of Nations (now called the UN). To improve trade relations between the two countries, it was decided to create a single global Financial Center with its own currency on the basis of the League of Nations. To create the “gold pool” of the League of Nations, Russia, through the banker of the House of Romanov Edward Rothschild, contributed to the “authorized capital” of the World Financial System (IFS). 48,600 tons of gold were delivered to the United States, which was sent to the Fort Knox storage facility. With this delivery of gold to the United States in 1904-1912, Russia acquired the rights to assets in the Gold Pool in the amount of $ 52 billion in gold. But the Rothschilds deceived Nicholas II, the Emperor of Russia. After he took out gold to support the new world currency, the Rothschilds forced US President Woodrow Wilson, who financed his election campaign, to transfer their private ownership of the Federal Reserve System (FRS) along with the gold of the “Gold Pool”. Who will now be surprised by the dishonesty of the United States! League of Nations “left with a nose” In 1912, HSBC Bank issued 12 Liberty Bond certificates, transferred to the President of the United States, which in 1913 were deposited in US FED system banks. / The Federal Reserve Act was signed 2 days before Christmas 1913. President of the United States Woodrow Wilson in exchange for funding his election campaign, with the Rothschilds and thereby deprived the United States of political independence. The FED was created — a private Rothschild enterprise created back in 1910, during a secret conference on Jekyll Island, which included all the main US banks and banks of other states. A huge share (88.8%) of participation in the Federal Reserve System (FRS) and in the share of the World’s Source of Money Supply belongs to Russia. And only 11.2% — 43 international Beneficiaries. Receipts in the amount of 88.8%, which have the Security Code 1226, correspond to the International Code of the Geneva Register of the Permanent Representative Organization 14646 ACS HQ / PRO 14646 ACS HQ/, the Supreme International Committee of the League of Nations / later-the UN / are under the control of the Rothschilds and were transferred to the family of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II, in 6 copies. The annual return / Interes/ on these deposits was fixed at 4%, included the “LIBOR rate”, and denoted the annual interest rate for using the Gold Deposit. What could Russia get The LIBOR rate was to be transferred annually to the state and the representative who pledged the gold. But this was not done by order of the Rothschilds, who unleashed the First World War because of this. This rate, instead of being transferred to Russia, was deposited annually in the World Bank’s X-1786 account on 300,000 accounts in 72 International banks accounted for in the World Bank’s operations. For each invoice, 3 signatures were identified, of which only one was correct. The accounts are registered by 8 committees: AK-1, AK-2,…, AK-8. The resources listed in these accounts are the property of the IFS /G48 / holders and have separate accounting from the dollars in circulation. Those authorized to execute the Issue are determined by the United Nation International High Committee of the Financial System. These institutions are the FED (provider of financial instruments) and the Treasury Department Washington D.C. (Collector of financial instruments based on the resources of the World Bank’s X-1786 account). The family of Tsar Nicholas II feels the danger All these documents confirming the 48,600 tons of gold pledged to the Federal Reserve from Russia were deposited by Tsar Nicholas II’s mother, Maria Feodorovna Romanova, in one of the Swiss banks. But only the heirs have access to it and are controlled by the Rothschild clan. Initially, all the gold certificates belonging to Russia, Emperor Nicholas II, left for the storage of the vmch. Grigory Yefimovich Rasputin, as the most Spiritual Orthodox person at that time-hieromonk. The Rothschilds gathered a whole Masonic conference at which it was decided to physically destroy Grigory Efimovich and steal his gold certificates. This operation was led by Samuel Hoare, a resident of British intelligence in Russia and part-time representative of the British General Staff at the Russian General Staff. Rasputin was lured to Yusufov’s house. At this moment, the apartment of Grigory Efimovich on GorokhovoNicholas II and the Federal Reservey 20 was thoroughly searched, turning everything upside down. But the certificates were no longer there, because, vmch. Gregory, anticipating his demise, handed them over to the Tsar. And he, in turn, left them in the custody of his Godson Pyotr Nikolaevich Dolgorukov. Then, copies of the gold certificates were distributed by the Royal Family among the family members and hidden in different places. But in fact, their access to the reserves of the League of Nations was no longer possible, no one would allow it. The Rothschild clan managed the capital of the former Russian Royal Family for 99 years, while the treaty on the creation and formation of the Federal Reserve was in effect and the world currency was the US dollar. This clan also managed the capitals of the USSR and the Russian Federation. They were also in Federal Reserve accounts that were taken out of Russia in the early 20th century under the leadership of the Rothschilds. Second version: Nicholas II began to interfere strongly with the Rothschilds, for which he was destroyed History of relations betweenRussia and the Rothschilds began in the late 18th century. Russian Empress Catherine II refused to send the British King George III a punitive expeditionary force (20 thousand Cossacks) to suppress the uprising in the colonies. This request was answered by Prince William I of Saxony, who provided mercenaries for 8 million pounds paid in treasury papers. Its manager, A. M. Rothschild, accepted the securities at a discount, which he appropriated. Thus began the rise of the Rothschild family to the heights of financial power. The Rothschilds early 20th century The main task of the Rothschilds in Russia in the 19th century was to establish control over the oil fields in Baku. And this result was achieved, which was facilitated by the results of the Russo-Turkish war-Russia received Batum. However, this was preceded by a very serious behind-the-scenes struggle, to which our country, paradoxically, had almost nothing to do. In fact, initially England was categorically against it. Peter Shuvalov, who on behalf of Alexander II conducted secret negotiations with the British government, reported to the emperor about the existence of a secret Anglo-Turkish treaty. “If Batum, Ardagan, Kars, or any of these places are held by Russia,” the document read, ” England undertakes to help the Sultan defend Turkey’s Asian possessions by force of arms. Batum remained with Russia In fact, the Russian autocrat was quite ready to agree to leave Batum to Turkey. But suddenly, contrary to all expectations, the British still agreed to transfer it to Russia. It wasn’t until many years later that it became clear that there really were two powerful forces behind the scenes of these diplomatic maneuvers. These are the Rothschild banking house in Paris and Rockefeller’s American oil company Standard Oil. The Rothschilds needed to ensure that Batum, in any form, would fall under Russian jurisdiction, while Rockefeller tried to prevent the Rothschilds from entering the Caucasus. But it ended with the fact that on August 25, 1878, the Russian army under the leadership of Prince Svyatopolk-Mirsky entered Batum. And so, since 1886, the French banking house “Rothschild Brothers”, which bought shares of the Caspian-Black Sea Oil Industry and Trade Society, began to take an active part in the development of the oil industry in the Caucasus. But first, he had to face serious competition, since the Nobel Brothers ‘ Oil Production Partnership was registered in Baku back in 1879. However, the rivalry was not very long. Taking advantage of the fact that lending in Russia was carried out at the rate of 6 percent per annum, the Rothschilds issued loans at 2 to 3 percent. Thus, by 1888, this family had already acquired almost half of all the cars of the Transcaucasian Railway. A significant number of small and medium-sized enterprises were made dependent on themselves, and large quantities of Baku oil products were concentrated in their hands. From that moment on, the Rothschilds began to establish full control over the transportation of petroleum products for export. The usual pattern, from century to century Events unfolded according to a proven scenario. The Rothschilds have traditionally lent “cheap” money to small Russian oil producers in exchange for guarantees to buy the oil they produced at favorable prices, enough to make the business of the Nobels who built the Baku-Batum pipeline unprofitable. By the way, it was eventually built (including thanks to the dynamite invented by Alfred Nobel) and even put into operation in 1889, but this did not help to win the fight against the Rothschilds, who had huge financial resources. As a result, Baku oil almost completely fell under the control of the Rothschilds, and Russia became the largest oil supplier in the world after the United States. In 1900, Baku’s oil fields in Russia produced more crude oil than in the entire United States, and in 1902, Russia accounted for more than half of the world’s oil production. 1918 The Rothschilds ordered the Bolsheviks under their control to kill Tsar Nicholas II and his family. It was important for them to show that the murder of the entire family, including women and children, is something that will happen to anyone who tries to cross the road of the Rothschilds.




40-How the USSR saved American engineers during the Great Depression


In the first decade of Soviet power, our country was firmly caught in the grip of an economic, scientific and technical blockade by Western countries that tried to strangle the young republic. At the same time, the Great Depression was gaining strength in the United States, putting the entire population of the country, including engineering and scientific-technical personnel, on the verge of survival and starvation. In this situation, the real salvation, both for Soviet Russia and for the engineering staff of the United States, was the beginning of the NEP, in which a huge number of American engineers were invited to the USSR. In the grip of an economic blockade In order to attract educated labor from abroad, the Soviet government allowed the creation of joint-stock companies with the participation of foreigners. By the end of 1924, there were 40 state-owned joint-stock companies and 47 private ones in the country, twelve of which were attended by foreign finance. In terms of cooperation and economic assistance to Soviet Russia, the United States, Germany, and Britain stood out. At the same time, it is interesting to note that communication between the USSR and Western countries was not limited to a narrow economic sphere – highly qualified, technically competent specialists poured into the Soviet republic in a rapid stream, who provided invaluable assistance in restoring and modernizing the industry destroyed during the Revolution and Civil War. A trip to Soviet Russia, which paid well for foreign specialists, turned out to be for American engineers the very straw that a drowning man grabs. To save qualified engineers and workers from starvation, the US government decided to send them to work in the USSR, including to create the foundations of the Soviet military-industrial complex. First of all, these were tank and aircraft factories. Moreover, many American industrial companies moved their production to Soviet Russia. The benefits to both sides were unmistakable. The Soviet Union acquired the latest military technologies with a unique opportunity to train its own specialists from American engineers and mechanics, and specialists from the United States retained their qualifications and received decent wages. Foreign concessions Many of the foreign companies purchased concessions, supplied new equipment, and hosted Soviet trainee engineers. Statistics show that by 1929, 40 American firms were operating in the USSR, while the United States officially recognized the USSR only in 1933! Moreover, historians estimate that in the 1920s up to 95% of Soviet industrial enterprises received foreign technical assistance, thanks to which Soviet Russia was able not only to restore the national economy after the First World War and the Civil War in the shortest possible time, but also to enter the leading industrialized countries of the world. In particular, manganese mining flourished under the “Chiatura manganese concession” with the American group of A. Harriman. During the NEP from 1921 to 1928, the government received more than 2,400 concession offers from the United States, Germany, England and other countries. Saving Russia It is no exaggeration to say that Moscow became a safe haven for many emigrants from the United States during the Great Depression that raged there. More than a hundred skilled workers from the Ford plant in 1921-1922 established, and in fact created, a new production facility at the Moscow Automobile Plant. American trade unions helped establish the central office of the Russian-American Industrial Corporation, RAIC, in Moscow, which took over four of the largest textile factories in Moscow and six in Leningrad. In total, more than 10,000 Americans arrived in Soviet Russia in the first year of NEP alone. One of the first US businessmen to set up their own production facilities in Soviet Russia was the Hamer family: father Yuli and son Armand. Moreover, Armand Hamer had already visited Soviet Russia a year before the introduction of NEP, meeting with V. I. Lenin. According to the historical chronicles, they became friends. Subsequently, throughout his life, Armand Hamer served as a mediator in many negotiations between the leadership of the USSR and the United States, always defending the interests of the socialist state. During the NEP, Hammer was the first American to open the famous pencil factory in Soviet Russia, about which Mayakovsky wrote ” … Hammer’s pencils are good.” With the help of American specialists, the Goujon metallurgical plant was restored in the shortest possible time, which became world-famous under a new name – “Hammer and Sickle”. Real heroism was shown by the international staff of the Red Proletarian factory for the production of metalworking machines, which was restored in cold buildings during the harsh winter of 1921/1922. Thanks to foreign workers and engineers, the country literally rose from the ruins before our eyes. If in 1920 the famous American science fiction writer and passionate admirer of Soviet Russia, H. G. Wells, argued that the country could not rise without outside help, then just a few years later foreign heads of state visited an industrial exhibition in the USSR and were amazed by the possibilities of Soviet industry and science. Moreover, having risen from the ruins of domestic enterprises, in a short time, capturing up to 30% of the total world turnover of machine tools and machines, they themselves began to place large orders at US enterprises. According to statistics, up to two-thirds of the industrial production of the United States and Canada in the thirties of the twentieth century was loaded with orders from the USSR, which largely smoothed out the consequences of the Great Depression that engulfed all of North America.

On my own behalf, I will add that many American specialists did not want to return to the United States, especially, excuse me, black and colored people. Their descendants still live in Russia and feel themselves Russian.


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

I’d have to look it up, but somewhere I researched and wrote that there was in fact widespread starvation during Depression USA and hundreds of thousands, if not millions died, especially in poor, rural areas.

It is ferociously censored, refuted and denied in the Big Lie Propaganda Machine.


Jeff:  I have read some where that during the GD the death rate in New York reached ten percent, probably in New York timees in recent years.




There is still no consensus in Russian society and there are disputes about the reasons for the collapse of the USSR. We are trying to answer the age-old Russian question – who is to blame and what to do? Here is one of the opinions. One can disagree with some things, although basically the role of the leaders of the USSR, starting with Khrushchev, reflects the opinion of the majority.


38-The woman called to ask Putin when all the Russians will return home – there are many of us in Ukraine and we are all waiting


Why does no one stand up to defend the Russians living in Ukraine? Voices in their defense are nowhere to be heard.


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

Please, colleagues, as for the allegation “The collapse of the USSR … was a consequence, and the reasons lie in the strategic mistakes of Stalin and the Bolshevik Party”, please do begin with the beginning and  read “A Brief History of the Commuhist Party of the UdSSR” and then watch out for Grover Furr’s work (Montclair University) and Kurt Gossweilers publications (former Academy member of the GDR, a lonely voice but base on factual studies from first hand on “Revisionism”). Gossweiler, born 1917 was a soldier, forced into Hitler’s army, an economist by training. He took the first occasion of running over to Soviet side, got himself prisoner of war. Lived in a Soviet camp, became witness of treason from all side even among war prisoners. Eventually he was allowed to teach there within a re-education program. When released, he decided to go to the GDR, although his home town was Stuttgart in the FRG (WEST Germany). He eventually habilitated in history on a comprehensive piece on the German Bank and published a lot on fascism …

With warm regards


“A Brief History of the Communist Party of the USSR” had several editions and was edited during the carved periods of the existence of the USSR.

The first version of the History of the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks (VKPb) came out in 1938. It was the Stalinist version. Then, in the 1960s, it underwent editing from the point of view of Khreshchev’s ideology to condemn Stalin’s personality cult at the 20th party congress. In the 1980s, the History of the CPSU was published in a new Brezhnev edition, which somewhat softened the ideology of Khrushchev, who by that time was also repeatedly criticized.

For a deeper understanding of the criticism with which Khrushchev tried to overthrow Stalin’s authority, one should study his report at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, which proclaimed the personality cult of Stalin. I will not dwell on the reasons that prompted Khrushchev to dispel the alleged cult of Stalin’s personality. I will only note that these were, among other things, Khrushchev’s own crimes, which he blamed on Stalin, which Furr Grover perfectly revealed in his book “Anti-Stalin meanness”


37-American oligarchs came after the Cuban Communists


36-Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 400 of July 2, 2021 ” On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation”


35-The destruction of the USSR began in 1953

Once again about Khrushchev and one more link to the historical channel.


34-Elimination of planning under Khrushchev, 1955-1964. Supplement to the article “Economy of the USSR 1929-1955


The beginning of the dismantling of the Stalin’s socialist economy in the USSR. If someone is interested in this topic, then I will send 2 more parts


33-The level of crimes is clear even without declassified archives


Dear Jeff:

That’s a good article! I’m glad that SOMEBODY else is doing this work!

Warm regards,

Grover Furr

32-Vladimir Putin’s article ” On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians”


31-Why was Khrushchev’s wife considered a Bandera


Nikita Khrushchev’s wife Nina Petrovna was remembered by the people as a modest woman with an ordinary appearance. The Soviet “first lady” looked particularly unprofitable next to the elegant Jacqueline Kennedy. However, few people know that this Ukrainian peasant woman was not at all as simple as it seemed at first glance. Some researchers believe that it was on her initiative that Khrushchev released the Bandera nationalists from the camps in 1955. Is it true? Nina from Zakerzonye Nina Petrovna Kukharchuk was born in 1900 in the village of Wasiliv, now located on the territory of Poland, in the Lublin Voivodeship. This East Slavic region called Kholmshchyna was included by Ukrainian nationalists in the so – called Zakerzonya-the extreme western part of the Ukrainian ethnic area. Being a peasant by birth, Nina Kukharchuk received a good education and knew several languages (Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, French, English). After the Soviet-Polish war, she briefly held an important position in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Eastern Galicia. In 1922, Nina Petrovna went to study in the USSR, where she met the young communist Nikita Khrushchev. Soon the girl became his life partner (although the marriage of the Khrushchevs was officially registered only in 1965). Eyewitnesses claimed that in everyday life Nikita Sergeevich could even be called “henpecked”. Nina Khrushcheva herself, in The Widow’s Diary (published in Sergei Khrushchev’s book “A Pensioner of Union Significance”), admitted that before the war she “knew about all the plans and experiences” of her husband. It is likely that its influence on Khrushchev’s political activities remained significant in the following years. Khrushchev and the Nationalists First of all, historians see the” hand ” of Nina Petrovna in those issues that concerned her fellow countrymen from Western Ukraine. In the lines of Khrushchev’s memoirs dedicated to Bandera, one feels respect for them: “The OUN * did not stop at self-destruction in the name of achieving their goals… We fought our enemies not only with arrests and trials, but also by explaining the harmfulness of such a path. At that time, the Carpathian Mountains were practically inaccessible to Communists. Behind every rock, behind every bush, you could expect terrorists.” Khrushchev’s rise to power coincided with the early release of Ukrainian collaborators who had been sentenced to 25 years in prison under Stalin. We are talking about the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet issued in 1955 “On the amnesty of Soviet citizens who collaborated with the invaders during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”. Thanks to this amnesty, 20 thousand active Bandera members returned to their homeland, of which about half settled in Lviv. “It is quite possible that this idea itself came to N. S. Khrushchev through his second wife Nina Petrovna Kukharchuk, “says historian Yevgeny Spitsyn (quoted by Literaturnaya Gazeta). The researcher refers to the fact that from the very beginning of married life, Nina Petrovna “began to sculpt Nikita Sergeyevich “schyrigo ukraintsya”: from that time on, he began to drink gorilka and go in vyshyvanka. Counterarguments Yet the extent of Khrushchev’s “Ukrainization” seems somewhat exaggerated. The 1955 amnesty could have been dictated not by sympathy for Bandera, but primarily by pragmatic considerations of the Soviet leadership. After the Great Patriotic War, the GULAG was regularly “stormed” — not least because of the Ukrainian nationalists who were the instigators of the camp uprisings. As for Nina Khrushcheva, the notes that she kept after her husband’s death refute the version that she could sympathize with the nationalists. Yes, Nina Petrovna liked to watch the performances of the Ukrainian ensemble Slavutich on TV. However, she closely followed the achievements of culture and other peoples of the USSR, for example, rejoiced at the success of dancers from the republics of Central Asia. Nina Khrushcheva had a wide reading range, and Ukrainian writers are hardly mentioned in her notes. Instead, she quoted Shota Rustaveli, Sergei Yesenin, and Samuil Marshak – a very uncharacteristic circle of authors for the secret nationalist. * — the organization is banned in Russia Timur Sagdiev


30-Stalin and the “fifth column”. Part 1. Bribe takers, embezzlers, corrupt officials.


I did not correct all the inaccuracies of the automatic translation, there are too many of them. For a fundamental understanding, in the Russian language the word “bread” is called both the bread itself and the grain of wheat and rye, since they go to the production of bread

In this text, the word “bread” means grain


29-From a CRRS fan (with lots of comments from Irina and the CWG),

Today I read the interview you did with Grover Furr again.

You asked Grover for example the question:


Maybe we can say that the beginning of the end of the USSR started when Stalin died and Mr. K became premier.

  • How was this allowed to happen?

I think it was possible because there were still too many traitors, infiltrators, in the Soviet Union at that moment and the Soviet Government gave these people too much freedom I would say and in one way or another, the CIA was able to infiltrate in the SU, perhaps you already read these documents.

It wouldn’t surprise me if mr. K was a CIA agent… In one of the documents the CIA wrote:

”It seeks to devise a plan of psychological operation as one part of a comprehensive program for the exploitation of Stalin’s death and the transfer of power to new hands in order to make real progress toward our national objectives.”

Unfortunately the CIA succeeded but… with Putin now Russia is going in the good direction I would perhaps call it: socialism with Russian characteristics.

That’s just something I wanted to share with you.

Comments from China Writers’ Group,

Yes, Martin,

Mao smelled a turncoat rat in Mr. K. He was an excellent judge of people.

I had not seen these CIA docs before and am sharing them with my China Writers’ Group, which has a strong interest in the USSR and Russia.

Thanks, Jeff

We in Russia believe that it was Mr. K who started the collapse of the Union. And it seems that he understood the long-term consequences of his actions when he decided, albeit illegally according to the laws of the USSR, to annex Crimea to Ukraine.

Brezhnev after Mr. K tried to restore what was destroyed by Mr. K. But, unfortunately, Brezhnev was not Stalin. He stabilized the destruction for a while, but was unable to stop it or fix it. All subsequent rulers were some too old, and some young and zealous liberals like Gorby. And Judas, who sold his Motherland for 30 pieces of silver.

And we must also pay attention to the wife of Mr. K Nina. In old age, during a trip to the states, she gave the impression of an old grandmother. But in her youth she was more active than Mr. K, and more educated, spoke foreign languages. And it seems that she was a Ukrainian nationalist. With her submission, Khrushchev pardoned the Bandera murderers in Ukraine, who were caught and convicted under Stalin. Now their descendants are spreading nationalism in Ukraine. One of these descendants is the former President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk, who was a member of the youth organization OUN UPA.


There was a lot of intrigue that brought Khrushchev to power.  But I wouldn’t think that you will find it in any purported CIA document.


From the very first days after Stalin’s death a struggle for political leadership began. The main rivals in it were L. P. Beria, G. M. Malenkov and N. S. Khrushchev, who were in Stalin’s inner circle and were involved in unfounded repressions.  Beria relied on the security agencies, Malenkov’s base was the national government, and Khrushchev’s was the party apparatus.


The power was not in Krushchev’s favor as judged by the salaries of state security commissioners at the district level were four times higher than those of the secretaries of the district party committees. The best dachas in the elite village of Uspenskoye near Moscow belonged to ministers, not Central Committee secretaries. 


Khrushchev said to Bulganin immediately after Stalin’s death: “If Beria gets the state security, it will be the beginning of our end”.  Despite the fact that Malenkov was considered the number one figure in the country’s leadership immediately after Stalin’s death, Beria actually began to play the leading role. He proceeded from the assumption that the main link in the post-Stalin society should remain the security services, and he began to nominate his proteges to head them. On March 19, 1953, Beria proposed to replace the heads of the Interior Ministry in all republics of the Soviet Union, 12 autonomous regions, six territories and 49 regions of Russia. The new executives in their turn replaced the personnel at the middle management level. The security services had a decisive say in any promotion or transfer of party, state or economic cadres. Such activity could not help but arouse the wariness of Beria’s colleagues in the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Party.


It was pointed out that there were 2,526,402 prisoners in penitentiaries, prisons and colonies, of whom 221,435 only (8.8%) were especially dangerous state criminals (spies, saboteurs, terrorists, Trotskyites, social revolutionaries, nationalists, etc.). It was proposed to release from prison convicts sentenced for up to 5 years for official, economic, and some military crimes, regardless of their length of imprisonment. The Supreme Soviet issued a decree “On Amnesty,” under which more than a third of the prisoners were released. In reality, more than a million people were released and around 400,000 cases were halted.


The investigations testified to Beria’s intentions to find the perpetrators of all the falsifications in these mass imprisonments.  Investigating the background to all of these cases would have posed a great danger to Malenkov. The idea of “collective leadership” threatened to collapse with new purges along the lines of the 1930s.  On June 17, 1953, unrest began in East Berlin, and Beria was fully absorbed in restoring order there. This facilitated the organization of a united front against Beria.  


With many other trumped up charges, including that he did actually collect incriminating documents on the other leaders, they couldn’t let him live.


Well to cut it short he was arrested, finally tried and then shot on December 23, 1953.  So his attempted purge was foiled in a very dangerous way for him.


Khrushchev’s positions strengthened. On August 8, 1953, G. M. Malenkov made a speech at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, expressing his views “on the urgent tasks in the field of industry and agriculture and measures for further improvement of the material well-being of the people”. He proposed a drastic increase in the production of food and consumer goods by increasing capital investment in the light and food industry, as well as by increasing the procurement prices from farms for meat, milk, chaff, potatoes and vegetables, reducing taxes (by half) and compulsory supplies from the collective farmers’ subsistence farms.


The speech had a huge resonance, and the name of the chairman of the Council of Ministers became very popular. It seemed that “no one would be able to threaten Malenkov’s dominant position in the near future. This was also the forecast of the U.S. intelligence services. However, the stumps were wrong. Conservatives in the Central Committee found Malenkov’s promises excessive (simply put, “demagoguery”). They saw no way to fulfill them. Sympathies turned out to be on the side of N.S. Khrushchev – the more moderate course he proposed seemed to be preferable.


On September 3, 1953, the Plenum of the Central Committee established the post of the First Secretary of the Central Committee, to which Khrushchev was elected. In November, at a meeting on personnel matters, he managed to win the favor of numerous and influential members of the party apparatus. G. M. Malenkov, speaking at this meeting, began to lament the rebirth and impossibility of renewing the country without renewing the Party apparatus. Khrushchev interceded, reminding that “the apparatus is our backbone.” The response to these encouraging words was a long round of applause.


The Beria trial greatly weakened Malenkov’s position. Khrushchev, by giving Ukraine a kind of gift in the form of the Crimea, transferred from the RSFSR in January 1954 on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, significantly weakened the bitterness of the Ukrainians losses from Stalin’s repressions with his (K) participation, and gained new powerful supporters in the leadership of the Ukrainian party organization and secretaries of regional party committees, who had a significant number of votes in the CPSU Central Committee.


In March 1954, G. M. Malenkov made yet another “gaffe”. He said, at the pre-election meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, that a new war with modern means of warfare would lead to “the death of world civilization”. Thus he incurred the wrath of Molotov and other conservatives. Malenkov was accused of the fact that his statement did not help to mobilize public opinion for an active struggle against the criminal designs of the imperialists and might give rise to sentiments of hopelessness and the uselessness of the efforts of the peoples protesting against the imperialist plans. 


“The blunder” was corrected by Khrushchev’s speech. “If the imperialists try to start a new world war, it will end in the collapse of the whole capitalist system,” he corrected Malenkov, repeating almost word for word his “politically correct” speech of November 6, 1949. At that time they were told that “not we but the imperialists should fear war”; if they start World War III, it “will be a grave not for individual capitalist states but for all world capitalism.”


Malenkov was “finished off” by the December 1954 trial of the top leaders of the MGB accused of fabricating the “Leningrad case”. He was heavily compromised as one of the organizers of the reprisals against the “Leningradites”.


And Thus, Khrushchev was the last man standing.


(Did he need America’s CIA to finish off these two opponents?). What did they have to do with it?


eternal searching for individual heroic or demonic leaders only occupies those of us with more time than the majority of humanity…whether capitalism was the creation of jesus, henry ford, king george or adolph roosevelt, that system is destroying more people than ever in the past and the earth itself in the process…some people play greater roles than others in power positions but they persist in great part because too many of us are seeking individual demons-heros…the cia is a powerful shop at the mall and its sales director is more important than you or i, in the way that a janitor is more important than you or i for keeping a toilet clean  but when the toilet is backing up and threatening to bury all of us in a tsunami of shit, he, she or it is not our major problem but the system creating the threatening waste certainly is…china was and is forced to go capitalist and so was and is russia…that’s a much bigger problem no matter whether the cia got to stalin or donald trump is coaching xi.


28-Soviet Man: how history changed the mentality of Russians


27-Colonel-General Boris Vsevolodovich Gromov – Commander of the limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan 1981-1988


Colonel General Boris Gromov spoke about the withdrawal of Americans from Afghanistan Military observer “KP” Viktor Baranets asked the commander of the limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan (1987-1989) and the Hero of the Soviet Union to answer a few questions Victor BARANETS SUBSCRIBE SHARE COMMENTS (37) The US military load armored vehicles during the evacuation from the territory of the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan. Photo: REUTERS – Boris Vsevolodovich, recently it became known that the Americans quietly left the airbase in Bagram, without even warning the local chiefs. Before boarding the planes, the lights were turned off at the airfield. Why is this happening? – They are fleeing from Afgan, as they entered. On the sly. They are clearly afraid that the Taliban * will kick them in the head. The Americans called the Afghan army their ally. Allies don’t do that. The US is leaving both the Afghan government and its army to their fate. Afghan soldiers with items left by the American military during the evacuation from the Bagram airbase. Photo: REUTERS – And how did the withdrawal of our troops in February 1989 fundamentally differ from such an American withdrawal? – The whole world knew that we were leaving. This was ordained in Geneva. The main thing is that we did not run, as the Americans are running now, but left with dignity, with battle banners unfolded. The Afghan military and political leadership was notified in advance of the order of our exit. Boris Gromov in the editorial office of Komsomolskaya Pravda. Photo: Mikhail FROLOV – How do you assess the current situation in Afghanistan and what awaits this long-suffering country? – The situation is extremely difficult. The Taliban are taking over more and more provinces. Central authority hangs by a thread. The army scatters or goes over to the side of the Taliban. If Kabul does not enter into negotiations with the Taliban, the country will face a severe crisis and a new bloody civil war. We must immediately sit down at the negotiating table with the Taliban and agree on the “rules of the game.” What should be the power in Afghanistan is the responsibility of the Afghan people, representatives of various political and religious organizations. – Rumors are already in full swing that the Taliban, after seizing power in Afghanistan, will climb into neighboring republics to establish their own rules there … “The Taliban are not such fools or adventurers. Why would they climb on other people’s guns and machine guns? And they do not have such powerful armed formations. The Taliban need to gain a foothold in power. And to climb into neighboring countries with their own orders – to make enemies for yourself. Medical equipment abandoned by the Americans at the Bagram airbase. Photo: REUTERS – Soviet troops were in Afghanistan for 9 years and 2 months, the United States and its allies for 20 years. What have we and they achieved? – We came to Afghanistan, as they say, not only with a gun, but also with bread. The Soviet Union provided tremendous economic assistance to Afghanistan, built factories, factories, schools, and power plants. And this despite the fact that representatives of dozens of countries fought against our army together with the Mujahideen! Our army constantly participated in hostilities. The Americans and their allies, all these years, almost constantly sat in bases and in fortified garrisons. They have not built or created anything in Afghanistan. But with them, drug smuggling increased tenfold. All this caused the most negative attitude of the Afghan people towards the Americans and their accomplices. * The Taliban and ISIS are recognized as terrorist in Russia and are banned Read on WWW.KP.RU:


26-5 indecent facts about Alexander Solzhenitsyn that are not usually advertised


25-Satanovsky demanded to return all Estonia to Russia: Money paid


Another former republic of the USSR does not have demarcation borders with Russia and runs into a so-called return occupation, if they call the time in the USSR an occupation. Russia will have to return their lands back. Don’t be surprised


24-After checking the chromosomes, the Ukrainians turned out to be Russians. Professor Klesov — about DNA genealogy


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

However true, if Cain and Abel, or Jacob and Esau are any indication, brother has turned against brother before.


23-No age restrictions. Proven effectiveness of vaccinations for the elderly


22-The Parliament said that Russians in Ukraine no longer have part of their human rights


21-“Coronavirus is cool!” In the US, a year of silence about dangerous experiments


20-Bi-bi-si: secret documents about the passage of a destroyer near the Crimea were found at a bus stop


19-“We need to return everything to Russia before reaching the Dnipro River. What you came with, so that you can stay!”


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

My, how times change! Everything is upside down and backwards.


The background of my picture is the Black Sea.  Photo taken in 2019 on the boardwalk at Yalta.

Jeff interviewed me on my trip, connection and experiences with Russia.  I just got my 3 year visa renewed, but I am not optimistic that I will be able to return anytime soon.  Since I am covid vaccine “hesitant” I may never get out of Florida, which is open thanks to Governor DeSantis.


I have a 3 year visa and an aeroflot plane ticket voucher, since my flight in 2020 got cancelled. Consular section tells me entry into Russia is not possible, and another contact I know said that it is almost impossible to get into Russia now.

I saw a news item that they may loosen up, but that remains to be seen. Between Covid and rotten relations with the US and EU, my sense is that Russia has had a belly full of Western Bullshit for now. And we friends of Russia suffer with the guilty.


18-The Chinese didn’t let the Yankees into their space station? Not a fact. But-the truth


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

Congress would never permit American government agencies outside of the State Department to collaborate with China in any way. This is codified into law. Not just one law, but a host of laws, and executive orders. So this article is just wishful thinking from our Russian friends.

Or is it? I can see how various American interests would desperately love to be part of this project for reasons other than scientific.


17-Deng Xiaoping: reforms that made China “Great”


16-The US Federal Reserve is 88.8% owned by Russia, represented by Nicholas II


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

I have actually seen quite a few ancient certificates circulating in China, usually shown by people looking for support to pursue their claims in all kinds of courts. Needless to say, they’re worth a fantastical amount in modern currencies. These certificates are usually issued by governments which have long expired, with no way to ascertain whether such a transaction was legally authorized in the first place, whether the gold/silver had been conveyed, if the goods had been assayed by a trusted third party showing satisfaction upon receipt, or if the ‘loaned’ goods had been insured and what were the sureties, without even considering the legal responsibilities and warranties specified in an agreement if any, and what would be the jurisdiction on which the parties can rely in the event of a dispute, as well as the survivability of the beneficiaries. In fact, just proving the authenticity of the certificates would cost a fortune, and it would still be contested. I have met not a few people asking me to help. I can tell you now that even if I can trust the veracity of the certificates, which I cannot, I find the legal standing of these pieces of paper rather flimsy. Perhaps if you can prove that the certificates are authentic, you can sell them as collector’s items, but there are really a lot of them in the market. I’ve seen reams of certificates, most of them looking suspiciously new, from people claiming to be descendants of the original holders.

We’ll have to remember that the ROC under Chiang Kai-shek had issued gold certificates when they made it illegal to own gold. A lot of people who exchanged their gold for these certificates got shafted. Hyperinflation soon turned the gold notes into toilet paper. Since Chiang took all the gold to Taiwan, who is responsible? How about the first Republic of China under the control of the Beijing warlord Duan Qi-rui. They certainly issued a ton of promissory notes. Both the Duan and Chiang governments were legitimate governments recognized by international organizations and Western powers. Who should pay for those notes? It turns out that if you trust someone without proper security, you are responsible for trusting the wrong person. If the USD turns to toilet paper tomorrow, who are you going to sue? You don’t own anything that you cannot defend or hide. As for why a powerful sovereign at the head of the largest empire on earth (Russia) that had destroyed the army of Napoleon would trust its national treasure with a young country at war with itself (America) or a weak country at the fringe of Europe (Spain), we may have to assume that the Tsar didn’t think much of 48,000 tons of gold (damn, I only need one ton). We may never know. After all, if I was contributing to 88% of a pool, I’d definitely want to be the boss, and the minor partners would have to trust me, not the other way around. Otherwise, I’ll want surety which is worth a lot more than 48,000 tons of gold. I guess the Tsar was not a good businessman.


Actually, in the coming 5 or 10 years, what will be the difference between these ancient certificates and the current American bonds ?


Good question Frans as to Uncle Sam’s bonds. It could be in 5 to 10 years and the dollar will be doing a Zimbabwe nose dive.

I have searched for hours several times and still have not found what countries central banks have zero or near zero gold backing that also pump out fiat as per the Federal (Express) Reserve. I read a few years ago that Singapore SGD has some degree of gold backing – but that too is far from clear. Any info and links would be very much appreciated …

I’ve been reading David Teacher’s 2017 edition Rogue Agents – the Cercle.

As with Sterling and Peggy Seagaves books and many others – Rogue Agents also really requires jotting down some notes to remember even just the most glaring points.

This has a more concise overview:  Meet Le Cercle – Making Bilderberg Look Like Amateurs    4th November 2017


Ultimately, you don’t own anything that you cannot defend or hide.

Check out the British crown jewel Koh-i-Noor. It once belonged to an Indian sultan who proudly showed it to the British envoy pretending to bear gifts from Queen Victoria. It was actually a spying expedition preparing for a land invasion. What did they say about fearing the Greeks who bring gifts? Of course, the giant diamond, bane of man, had been plundered from someone else and had changed hands many times before. Good luck to previous owners trying to get it back.


Even if 100% true – as likely as western civilization (?) being a human rights organization – so? Have we heard that the universe was actually created by a jewish banker from Liverpool???


I think this historical discovery is extraordinary.

In this very informed people group, I don’t need to remind that Lionel Walter Rothschild (1868-1937) is the brain behind the Fed scam. (Eustace Mullins, Ezra Pound, G Edward Griffin, Antony Sutton, MS King…)

If 88 % of the initial funding were from the Russians & some amount from the Chinese…

And let’s not forget the US income tax started the same year the Fed was created, 1913…

Well, well, well, well… for me , this creates some form of solidarity between 3 great people (by alphabetical order : Americans, Chinese & Russians) against the looters. It’s quite exhilarating for me !!!

The Russians of course, gave the most as usual. This  evokes the 27 millions Russians who died in WW II for the victory of civilization; they’re always the greatest heroes  !

再 见 ! Quan

15-FSB shows video of British destroyer and warning fire

The Russian military recorded the British destroyer Defender crossing the border of Russian territorial waters near Crimea in the Black Sea and repeatedly called for a change of course, but the ship did not leave this area, according to a video of the crew of the patrol ship distributed by the FSB.


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

The commander ordered to open warning fire and exclude hitting Defender.


Well, of course the British, who have throughout their history, supported fascist oppression, would side with the Kiev regime, supporting it militarily and not recognizing Crimea as Russian.

Indeed, the UK has always hated Russia. Churchill’s cynical opportunism allowed the USSR to do the hard work saving him from the tender mercies of Hitler. Ever since it’s business as usual…destroy and plunder Russia.


14-The British called the shooting at a British destroyer in the Black Sea a defeat


13-“We can repeat it,” thought the British sailors, following the coast of the Crimea. They couldn’t…

Comments from China Writers’ Group,

This burly man is the Minister of Defence of England. It was with his blessing that a British destroyer invaded Russian territorial waters today. “This morning Defender was making a planned crossing from Odessa to Georgia via the Black Sea,” British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said. – According to the usual practice for this route, the ship followed an internationally recognized traffic separation corridor. Defender followed “the most direct and internationally recognized path between Ukraine and Georgia.” “The United Kingdom does not recognize Russia’s claims to Crimea and will continue to adhere to the international consensus that Russia’s annexation of Crimea is illegal,”he said. Thus, recognizing that provocations will continue in the future, especially when 35 more NATO ships are pulled up, going to the Sea Breeze exercises in the Black Sea.

Our pilots and border guards were not too lazy to load the guns and hang bombs. And after a warning fire, four bombs were dropped along the course of the English ship, so that the British sailors would have no illusions about their fate if they did not turn off.

They swerved. But the British minister denies this. And the BBC correspondent, who happened to be on board, said:: “We have just finished crossing the territorial waters of the Russian-occupied Crimea. This was a deliberate move on the part of the Royal Navy ship Defender, which is going to Georgia. The command says that he was traveling along an internationally recognized sea route.” And also, Jonathan Beale says: “At times, a Royal Navy destroyer was escorted by more than 20 Russian aircraft, and there were warnings from Russian Coast Guard ships.”

But even in the early morning, the Russian Embassy in the United States said:: “The Ukrainian-American Sea Breeze exercises increase the risks of unintentional incidents in the Black Sea, so it is important to abandon them,” and how they looked into the Black Sea water.

One of the reasons for this provocation, analysts believe, is the unexpected, albeit very relative rapprochement with Russia of some Western countries. And of course, the authors of this action in the Black Sea counted on even tougher actions of Russia, for which they loaded on board the “witness”, an Air Force correspondent who, out of fear, managed to count 20 combat aircraft of the Russian Air Force.

In the evening, news came that Merkel and Macron expect to invite Putin to the EU summit, which is obviously not included in the plans of many Western countries, including England and the United States.

So, this summer, we run the risk of witnessing even more disturbing events…


What I wish happened was for the ship to be electronically disabled and stuck offshore, requiring tugboats to drag it out. Or at minimum, a repeat of the Donald Cook event in 2015.


I think that for Russia one of their absolute red-lines is to protect their national border.  They have a strong memory of being invaded and decimated — it is their history for 1000 years.  Mobilizing an army on a nation’s border, as NATO (sic) has done, is an act of war.  IMO, Russia will go to war if NATO puts one foot inside it.

Why does NATO do these provocations?  It is not as if Crimea is some disputed island*.  It has been part of Russia for almost as long as the existence of the USA.  For NATO (sic) to be in the Black Sea with warships is as if Russia, China and Iran had ‘war games’ in the Gulf of Mexico.

The US people have no national security issue in the Black Sea.  Or in the Baltic states, Ukraine, Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, for that matter.  Do the US people really want to go to war over Crimea?  For the Russia people, Crimea is a vital national security concern.

*The US is wrong to be stirring up hostility over disputed islands in the South China Sea, too.


12-Latvian politician reacts to the statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation on the genocide in Pskov region


11-The Ministry of Defense published documents about the beginning of the Great Patriotic War

On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Russian Defense Ministry presented the section “The Day on which the Blitzkrieg Crashed”, dedicated to the courage of soldiers and commanders of the Red Army in the first days of the war.


10-Robbery of the Soviet Republic by the Entente

The Entente countries appropriated more than 600 tons of Russian gold. According to the most conservative estimates, the total economic damage caused by the intervention in Russia exceeded 100 billion rubles. royal gold rubles.


Comments from China Writers’ Group,

The tragic of the USSR is a lesson learned and wake up call to the CCP about the danger of fully complying to the crusaders demand.

Thank you for this history unknown to naive Americans who ‘only spread freedom and democracy’.

It’s noteworthy that the US only recently stole Russian diplomatic property in the US. And as far as I know, Putin and Lavrov have not made a precondition of the return of the stolen property as a precondition for the return of the Russian ambassador, or any of the other items up for discussion. How can they allow this?


9-Residents of the Ukrainian-controlled part of Donbass have declared their readiness to leave for the DPR and LPR


8-7 reasons for the Bolshevik victory in the Civil War


7-How did the Bolsheviks win the Civil War?


6-Who helped the Bolsheviks seize power in 1917


Comments on the three above articles (from the China Writers’ Group),

I cannot say anything about the attitude of the Belarusians to reunification with Russia. But in case of denunciation of the Belovezhskaya agreements, a referendum is not required. The Belovezhskaya Agreements of 1991 were signed in spite of the popular vote on the preservation of the USSR. The majority of the population voted to preserve the USSR. And Yeltsin, Shushkevich and Kuchma secretly signed this agreement on the collapse of the USSR. And it was illegal. Of course, Ukraine will not participate in the denunciation, but it is enough that Russia and Belarus will do it.

As for the anti-Putin-minded youth, there are those in Russia as well. Basically, these are those who are encouraged to protest by Navalny and Nexta, that is, people are under the influence of foreign propagandists who are paid for by the West. This is, of course, a problem. But there are very few of them. And that young man who lives in the west and shows anti-Putin dissatisfaction, so they left there because of their dissatisfaction. Let them stay there, I hope


Thank you, Irina. Really fascinating background.

That would be something else if Belarus merged with Russia. But, do the majority of Belarus citizens want this? Crimea was easy, since 95% of the people voted to join Russia.

Of course, Ukraine would refuse to do so.

I also agree with Eric. Almost every young Russian I’ve met outside the country is anti-Putin.


On my own behalf, I will add that even now in Russian society there is no consensus about the revolution of 1917, about the civil war of 1918-1921. Some regard these events as a blessing (and such are the majority), others are on the contrary (mainly, they are the descendants of those who lost their wealth, had to emigrate from the country or the modern nouveau riche who enriched themselves after the collapse of the USSR)


I completely agree that without the solution of the national question the USSR could not have been created. In addition, it is wrong to accuse Lenin of the “bomb” planted under the Union in the form of an unresolved issue of national territories. In fact, Lenin was “to blame” only for the creation of Ukraine, which had never existed before. Although the Ukrainians do not appreciate this. However, Lenin himself died in 1921. And the agreement on the creation of the USSR was being prepared and signed by other people after his death in 1922. It is obvious that Lenin did not have enough time to think over all the nuances and foresee all the consequences.

I will express my thoughts on why Putin sometimes makes such statements. It’s like a red herring so that they don’t guess ahead of time what is planned to be done, and could not interfere. But for me the beginning of the transition from liberal to state capitalism is obvious. More and more state corporations are being created. And even 10 years ago, there was a tendency to refuse state participation in business.

The fact that Putin recently openly said that Russia is no longer going to tacitly tolerate anti-Russian attacks from the former Soviet republics that have taken over Russian territory means that something is being prepared here too. The press began to discuss the issue of denunciation of the Belovezhskaya agreements, in which 3 republics participated – Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Russia and Belarus are ready to withdraw from these agreements. This means the restoration of the borders of the USSR, the legislation of the USSR and the secession of the republics from the USSR in accordance with the treaty on the creation of the USSR in 1922. That is, the revision of the borders


The West has played on nationalist sentiments in the former Soviet space, so that most people I have met from Belarus, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, not to mention former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland seem to have a visceral hatred of the USSR and now Russia.

I keep telling them to stick with Russia, they’ll be far better off, than if they allow themselves to be swallowed by the West, but they don’t believe me.

A young Ukrainian I met recently complained about Russia being a ‘rude country’….even though the US overthrew his government!!

My sense is that had Lenin NOT given people that option, the USSR would have lost the Civil War in the first place. It pains me that Lenin gets such a bad rap nowadays, as does Stalin.

The Western propaganda and corrosive skepticism of Russians has turned them against their own history, at least among some younger Russians I have met.

While Russians dismissed the news as lies, as I observe history from an objective Westerner’s point of view, most of what I see in Russian films is correct. (Operation Unthinkable, the role of Alllen Dulles, etc.)


It’s all about the national question. The question of the right of nations to self-determination was one of the decisive issues both during the revolution of 1917 and subsequently during the formation of the USSR. The division of the state along ethnic lines (first 4 and then 15 national republics) was quite voluntaristic. Under the agreement on the creation of the USSR of 1922/12/22, the republics were part of the USSR with their territories.

However, among them there were many who did not have their own territories. And they were allocated a part of the territory of Russia. For example, Kazakh, Tajik, Turkmen USSR. Initially, they were all one republic. Subsequently, they were divided and transferred, for example, to the Kazakh USSR a part of the Russian Orenburg region.

They did the same when Ukraine became part of the USSR. Ukraine was given 3 regions of primordial Russia – Sumy, Kharkov and Lugansk, and later the Crimea.

Part of the territory of Russia was also given to the Baltic republics etc.

But when everyone lived in a single state, the administrative boundaries of the republics did not bother anyone. It all started after the collapse of the USSR. According to the same agreement on the creation of the USSR, the republics were to secede from the USSR within the territories with which they entered. But they all came out, taking with them parts of the territories of Russia, which they received as a gift from the USSR. This is where the pitfall laid by Lenin during the creation of the USSR, about which Putin spoke. Most likely, Lenin did not take seriously the possibility of the collapse of the USSR.

And nowadays, as soon as Russia raises the question of returning its ancestral lands, the former republics raise a howl about annexation and aggression. But the process has started. I really hope that Putin will see it through to the end


There is an American leftist who said, “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired”.

It’s always been about class war. 80% of the people of Russia were sick and tired of being starved, exploited and then sent to fight for the people who were starving and exploiting them. Da?

As for the National question, Putin said that Lenin essentially betrayed Russia by giving territories the right to secede.

According to the article you provided, Irina, the USSR and its subsequent achievements were impossible with people feeling they weren’t being coerced. So Putin got it exactly backward, according to this article, as I see it.

I still don’t understand the attacks on Lenin and Stalin, except for ulterior opportunistic motives.


5-American invasion of Russia (


4-Civil war and military intervention of 1917-1922 in Russia – RIA Novosti, 03.03.2020


3-“Putin in the US presidency!”: the West discusses the interview of the Russian leader – RIA Novosti, 16.06.2021


2-In Kiev, they declared the impossibility of implementing the Minsk agreements in their current form

Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Oleksiy Danilov said that it is impossible to implement the Minsk agreements in their current form. This is reported by RIA Novosti.

A source: Reuters

The official believes that it is necessary to work with the Minsk agreements, because there are no others, but Kiev cannot fulfill them in their current form.

We will not denounce them, we need to work with the Minsk agreements, there are no others. But we must understand that we cannot fulfill them in the form that we have.

Alexey Danilov

On the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin after a meeting with the head of the United States Joe Biden in Geneva called the implementation of the Minsk agreements the only commitment of Moscow in Ukraine.

Earlier, the Ukrainian government prepared a plan to contain the “aggressive policy of Russia”, and recommended that the NSDC approve it in its current form. The authorities propose to focus on intensifying dialogue with allies who will support Ukrainian initiatives at the international level.

1-SJR assessed the behavior of American journalists at the meeting between Putin and Biden – RIA Novosti, 16.06.2021



Do your friends, family and colleagues a favor to make sure they are Sino-smart: 


About me:
Bitchute videos:
Brighteon videos:
Sound Cloud:
Stitcher Radio:
Vurbl audio:
Websites: ; ;


Line App/Phone/Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp: +33-6-12458821
Skype: live:.cid.de32643991a81e13
WeChat: +86-19806711824

Why and How China works: With a Mirror to Our Own History



JEFF J. BROWN, Editor, China Rising, and Senior Editor & China Correspondent, Dispatch from Beijing, The Greanville Post

Jeff J. Brown is a geopolitical analyst, journalist, lecturer and the author of The China Trilogy. It consists of 44 Days Backpacking in China – The Middle Kingdom in the 21st Century, with the United States, Europe and the Fate of the World in Its Looking Glass (2013); Punto Press released China Rising – Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations (2016); and BIG Red Book on China (2020). As well, he published a textbook, Doctor WriteRead’s Treasure Trove to Great English (2015). Jeff is a Senior Editor & China Correspondent for The Greanville Post, where he keeps a column, Dispatch from Beijing and is a Global Opinion Leader at 21st Century. He also writes a column for The Saker, called the Moscow-Beijing Express. Jeff writes, interviews and podcasts on his own program, China Rising Radio Sinoland, which is also available on YouTubeStitcher Radio, iTunes, Ivoox and RUvid. Guests have included Ramsey Clark, James Bradley, Moti Nissani, Godfree Roberts, Hiroyuki Hamada, The Saker and many others. [/su_spoiler]

Jeff can be reached at China Rising,, Facebook, Twitter, Wechat (+86-19806711824/Mr_Professor_Brown, and Line/Signal/Telegram/Whatsapp: +33-612458821.

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in deniner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读


Wechat group: search the phone number +8619806711824 or my ID, Mr_Professor_Brown, friend request and ask Jeff to join the China Rising Radio Sinoland Wechat group. He will add you as a member, so you can join in the ongoing discussion.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
The buck stops with YOU. If you don't share this, who will?