The Unlearned Lessons of the Collapse of the People's State and the Social Justice Society
It is fashionable to be against the state. It is even more popular to seek to occupy the place of prosecutor in the self-appointed court of history, castigating shortcomings and revealing mistakes. Well, it's almost a tradition to feel nostalgic for the greener grass and taller trees that passed in summer. Sometimes it even leads to openly ironic collisions, when both those who nostalgic for the Emperor with the crunch of a French roll and those who are worried about the bygone times of the USSR find themselves in the same ranks and with practically the same slogans.
And only the lazy does not touch the topic of trampling on social justice now. Any talk about the real successes of the country and steps to improve the life of its population immediately triggers an appeal to the Soviet legacy. Almost always in the same vein: the Soviet Union was a people's and socially just state.
In this regard, I would like to take advantage of a convenient moment and recall, as it were, not quite a round anniversary, nevertheless, the date very clearly shows how much the Soviet people appreciated state social justice in fact.
palace coup. The special governing body created by them was called the State Committee for a State of Emergency, which subsequently predetermined the name of the entire event, which later entered history, - the putsch of the State Emergency Committee.
Although, of course, calling it a coup is wrong. In fact, there was an attempt by a group of officials to seize control of the state machine strictly within its bureaucratic apparatus. Which is precisely what is usually called a palace coup.
But now we are not talking about semantic subtleties. Another thing is much more important. For all the rich nostalgia for the times of social justice and a truly people's state, few people think about the obvious contradiction. It is customary to scold the people who destroyed the USSR as traitors to the Motherland and in some places even almost foreign spies. But at the same time, people who tried to rebel against them are carefully avoided by the same critics. Even openly pro-communist ones, although it would seem that they are simply obliged to elevate the members of the State Emergency Committee to the category of holy martyrs. But no. Why?
Promotional video:
Looking into your own reflection in the mirror, you have to admit - because it's a shame. And also because the country was not a people's and socially just country in fact. In slogans, yes, but in reality, all of its property did not belong to the people. Who decided where and which plant should work? What to extract, how to use the result? People? Yes, never. Everything was determined by the administrative bureaucracy, which by the time of the decline of the USSR had split into clan groups and fiercely competed for control over resources within the state.
And what about the people? And the people lived according to the principle that what is not mine is ours, and everything that is ours means nobody's. And since nobody's, it means to pinch off a piece of nobody's personally for yourself is "the ability to live", which employees of the Department for Combating theft of Socialist Property (OBKHSS) only interfere. That is why, although some of Gorbachev's decisions, like Prohibition, were disapproved of, the very idea of dividing what was common between specific owners, on the contrary, enjoyed massive support.
How everything will turn out later did not interest practically anyone. It was assumed that everything good that is now will certainly remain unchanged. Plus, pretty much all sorts of buns will be added to it as soon as “we stop reproaching the freeloaders,” which all neighbors immediately began to perceive as such. Including - for the common people's state. Stop feeding Moscow. Stop letting all sorts of rogue from the provinces into the well-fed capital. Stop letting the impoverished RSFSR plunder our rich republic (enter its specific name in the place). And so on and so forth.
And then suddenly these putschists from the Emergency Committee. They said the words are certainly beautiful, but at the level of ordinary perception, the picture was drawn unambiguously. Retrogrades from the top leadership of the Communist Party wanted to play back everything. First of all, in the field of sweet dreams, in which most have already seen themselves as something like rich Parisian rentiers. Nobody supported them. They also breathed a sigh of relief when, on the 20th, it became clear that the putschists had no luck.
Now, almost three decades later, the Soviet Union is remembered only by its good sides. Pensions for everyone, stable prices, sausage for three-twenty, guaranteed vacations, rationed work hours, and a clear sense of general well-being. When I was choosing my future profession after school, I knew very well at which plant after graduating from the Minsk radiotech I would work, with whom, with what salary, and when it would be possible to queue up for an apartment.
And what, for example, in the same Volgograd, where our relatives lived and to which we sometimes went to visit, people happily stood in lines for offal, which not every housewife even took pets in Vilnius, it was imperceptibly forgotten. And not only this. You can talk for hours about the impression of the glorious city of Kondopoga, where our construction team was sent to work. Just one example. To impress a local girl, it was enough to invite her to a cafe and order fried potatoes. This is because the climate did not allow it to be grown on site, it had to be transported from far away, like fresh tomatoes or peaches. To a student of a Minsk university, this seemed like something outrageous.
But who remembers all this today? That's what the Soviet Union represented the second half of the total world of the planet - yes. This is much nicer than the current only 1.6 - 2% of the world economy.
What is it all about? Besides, dreams are the main driver of any change. Making mistakes can ruin even the world's leading economies. Moreover, it is precisely on these mistakes that geopolitical opponents are trying to play. The history of the collapse of the USSR is not something particularly unique. The Eastern European limitrophes and the entire Middle East fell exactly on the same rake. But it doesn't make it any easier for us.
Russia does not have guaranteed resistance from this infection either, no matter how hard you try to rebrand the modern Leninist image. The Soviet people sold their homeland for a loaf of sausage and fashionable jeans. Not because he really had nothing to eat, but because of total lack of ideas. And also the inability to appreciate what was available. Combined with a progressive greed for others. To expensive "like in Germany", salaries "like in America", and siesta "like in Spain." And all this is a despicable "scoop".
However, practice shows: the absence of a positive idea that forms the perception of the world always leads to the formation of an ideological void, which is very quickly filled with ordinary consumerism, the more unbridled, the deeper the ideological vacuum. It is impossible to build a strong state on it. And all the more to expect any kind of sociality from him.
An attempt to fill the current ideological void of the state-forming idea with fairy tales based on Soviet people's happiness makes no sense. If only because even to the people of that time, the Soviet order did not seem popular, and the current generation will flee from them at the slightest opportunity. And everyone, including the protesters against the oligarchs themselves.
These are the lessons. Judging by the popularity of nostalgia for the Soviet era, it still remains unlearned. Alas.