Кто владеет информацией,
|9 dec 2016|
Fedoseev Ilya 27.06.2006
Putin as personality, to all appearances, is absolutely not interesting. Usual small fry Akaky Akakievich and thats all.
Putin (to be more precise putinism) as social event is much more interesting. Not without reason (actually starting already from the year 2000) so many authors are engaged in studying of this phenomena. It looks like these authors are read there is a demand for them.
Dictatorship Is Needed
To follow its roots we need to go into deep into the history practically till the year 1917. So, as a result of revolution the power of the Soviet was established in the country in other words the direct dictatorship of the public lower masses. It looked like a many centures hope for the City of the Sun came true at the end.
Unfortunately, reality made its corrections immediately. It turned out that the
The choice was scanty: either to die or industrialize in a very short time. The secon variant, unfortunately, demanded to refuse from the Soviet democracy then it seemed that that should be done only for a time.
As a result starting already from the 20th the dictatorship of the Party Machinery headed by Stalin was established in the country. What is the purpose I am telling these well-known things? Here you are th reason.
The dictatorship of the Party Machinery was, certainly, an evil but the evil that was neccessary by that time. Much worse was another thing: the fact of the dictatorship establishment was not declared aloud.
According to the official propaganda in the power of the Soviet existed in the country the power of the working people.Thus as there is no problem, there is nothing to be solved.
As a result already to the 30th an opinion was widely spread that the words socialism and Soviet power meant what citizens of the
A Kind Tsar
It helped to strengthen Stalins cult of personality. Indigencey was set up as virtue, Stalins dictatorship the measure that was forced and necessary was showed off as the norm. Socialistmonarchycameoutofit.
All-mighty leader made decisions for all and in all cases the rest had to follow their own business. As soon as personal Stalins features were really not ordinary, that system gave magnificient results. But, firstly, after 1945 (and after Stalins death) th dictatorship of the Party Machinery was kept in inviolability (that was, generally, logical: who could dare to part with such immense power of his good will?) Thus it existed practically to the very ruin of the
The Soviet power exiated, but it was no longer the power. Besides, in the public perception appeared mythical image of Stalin which as all such images had nothing in common with reall Iosif Djugashvilli. Its necessary to stress that that image was of folklore origin in comparison to Lenins which was worked out by an official propaganda.
Revolutionist and bolshevik Koba became in the perception of the mass in wise and powerful tsar who was thinking the days and the nights about his nation, pressed all foreign enemies by his figure, all criminals, bandits and conspirator shotand left to rot in gaol and didnt let simple people to be treated badly. The factories and collective farms were growing under him and the army was so mighty! He knew everything and thought for all. Certainly such tsar never ever existed. But what sense it makes arguing if PEOPLE did believed that he existed? They not only believed, but also hoped that some time when the life would be too hard Stalin or somebody resembling him would appear in the country. He woud appear and sacrify everybody.
Stalin in the Soviet (and postSoviet) mythology repeated the destiny of Attila, king Artur and Friedrich Barbarossa.
Putin went (to be more precise he was led) to power as the realization of the dream about new-born Stalin (to the end of 90th it seemed that the populace of our country couldnt hope for something else). Hard, authorative and totally peoples tsar this role was played off by ex-chekist from the beginning. It should be said that he played it not badly one cant say he has no dramatic talent.
However its not so difficult to be a good actor if the whole propaganda state machinery helps you. Without any doubt Putin doesnt resemble at all Stalin in his policy neither real, not mythical. The policy he hides under an image Stalin-old chap. By the time he is sucessful in it, though worse and worse.
To Dethrone the Impostor
What is the way to ruin the phenomenon under the name Pseudostalin is a disputable question. Certainly, one can try to explain to people that the authority (the matter is not only in one Putin) in reallity doesnt like the image it shows to them. One can help, but... If theres any sense to do it having no hold on TV, newspapers, radio, the army of polittechnologies? The authority has all these that means that the chance that we will be heard is insignificantly small.
Another possible way is destruction of the initial image. In other words its necessary to finish with the hope of people in a kind king. One should appeal not to the renewal of Stalin under somebodys name but to the establishment of the power of Soviet.Its clear that technically this way is not easier than thefirst one (radio, TV and other things are still in the hands of the authority) but it can lead to the success much quicker. People will benefit from this way. Today its not possible to name more harmful myth than the myth about Stalins return.
© 1998-2016 FORUM.msk