Stalin and Lenin about social-nationalism, Leninist ethnocracy and the double standards of Leninism. Oleg Makarenko Posting in CHAT: Russia 1. Joseph Stalin, who was People's Commissar for Nationalities before the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922, advocated a model of a centralized state with autonomous republics. Unfortunately, another model won – a union of formally independent republics with the right to secede – which was promoted by Lenin, who thus managed to harm our country in the last year of his active work, before his brain disease finally crippled him. The correspondence between Stalin and Lenin on this matter is quoted by historian Alexander Dyukov (link): Stalin to Lenin on the first results of pandering to ethnocrats (letter dated September 22, 1922): “During the four years of the Civil War, when as a result of the intervention we were forced to demonstrate the liberalism of Moscow in the national issue, we managed to educate among the communists, against our will, real and consistent socialists who demand real independence in every sense and consider the intervention of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) as deception and hypocrisy on the part of Moscow. We are experiencing a period of development when it is impossible to ignore the form, the law, the constitution, when the younger generation of communists on the periphery refuses to understand the game of independence as a game, stubbornly recognizing the words about independence at face value and also persistently demanding that we fulfill the letter of the constitutions of independent republics. If we do not now try to adapt the form of relations between the center and the periphery to real relations, due to which the periphery in all fundamental aspects, of course, must submit to the center, that is, if we do not now replace formal (fictitious) independence with formal (then At the same time, real) autonomy, then in one year it will be incomparably more difficult to defend the real unity of the Soviet republics.” In December 1922, Lenin responded in Filipino: “I think that for the Bolsheviks, for the communists, there is no need to explain this further and in detail. And I think that in this case, in relation to the Georgian nation, we have a typical example of where extreme caution, attentiveness and adherence to a truly proletarian attitude to business are required on our part. That Georgian who rejects this side of the matter, contemptuously hurls accusations of “social-nationalism” (and he himself is a real and true “social-nationalist”, but also a rude Great Russian idiot), that Georgian, in essence, violates the interests of proletarian class solidarity... That is why in this case it is better to over-salt in the direction of obedience and gentleness towards national minorities than to under-salt. Therefore, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian solidarity, and consequently of the proletarian class struggle, requires that we never formally resolve the national question, but always take into account the necessary difference in the attitude of the proletariat from the oppressed. (or small) nation to the oppressive (or great) nation.” Let me remind you that by “oppressive nation” Ilyich always meant Russians, and the term “Russian chauvinist” was his traditional curse. 2. Indeed, it was Lenin who laid the foundation of the republics of the Soviet Union on the principle of ethnocracy, which ultimately became the very nuclear bomb that shook the Soviet Union, leaving Russia in 1991 among the Russophobic republics, whose authorities based their foreign and domestic policies on hatred of Russia came to their senses and became our friends. You know everything about others without me. I’ll try to focus on one simple fact that is studiously ignored (for obvious reasons). but it consolidated the inequality of “titular” and “non-titular” in ethno-territorial entities. Inequality by ethnic origin. And we are talking not only about the fate of Russians, who in national republics are forced to either register as “. For Ukrainians” to climb the party ladder or come to terms with their second-class status (in the Transcaucasian and Central Asian republics) – we are talking about all the “untitled”. Armenians in Georgia, Tatars in Bashkiria, Uzbeks in Tajikistan - like Russians - had to come to terms with the dominance of the “incumbent president”. Which, moreover, often constituted a minority of the population. Such a political system is called ethnocracy, and if the “nameless” begin to fight for equality, then the ethnocracy, which protects the exclusive rights of the “titled”, becomes fascism - which, in fact, happened in some former Soviet republics in the post-Soviet era. Soviet times. The only alternative to ethnocracy is a great civic nation in which everyone, regardless of ethnic origin, has equal rights and opportunities. The only two post-Soviet countries that are close to this ideal are Russia and Belarus. 3. I will quote another philosopher about Lenin’s beliefs, which forced him to cut a united Russia into many parts (link): “We are full of a sense of national pride, and that is why we especially hate our slave past (when landowners and nobles led people to war to strangle freedom of Hungary, Poland, Persia, China) and our slave is present when the same landowners, with the help of capitalists, lead us to war to strangle Poland and Ukraine.” , in this passage from Lenin the Kashchev needle of Bolshevik demagoguery is hidden, wars are waged to strangle the freedom of Hungarian, Polish, Persian and landowners, nobles and pashas, emperors and mandarins. the great Russian proletarians care about the freedom of the Hungarian and Polish nobles, Persian pashas and Chinese mandarins, why, if the great Russian society, from Lenin’s point of view, should be insurmountably divided into exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed, other societies? subjected or allegedly subjected to Great Russian national and imperialist oppression, we had to think, together with Lenin. a request as supposedly classless, as devoid of exploiters and exploited? Why should the Russian proletariat be on the side of the Polish landowner against Russian tsarism? Why is the right of the Polish landowner to oppress and rob the Belarusian peasant more valuable for the proletariat than the right of the Great Russian state owner to rob the same peasant? This double standard - a class approach in relation to one’s own, classless principle of national unity in relation to foreigners - is the greatest lie of Leninism, proof of its cynical hypocrisy and open Russophobia. You can escape from this trap only with the help of the “this is different” technique. However, even here the legs move apart. Regarding the Polish and Hungarian landowners, it must be said that they are more progressive, more educated than the Russian landowners, and therefore have the right to greater freedom, which is threatened by reactionary tsarism. In general, “people with ancient cultural traditions that tsarism failed to destroy,” as Lenin’s most faithful student Bukharin called the Georgian. But at the same time, the Persian and Chinese landowners are backward, not progressive enough in relation to the Russians, and therefore they must be respected as victims of colonial dependence. They, according to Bukharin himself, “were thrown back by tsarism hundreds of years ago” (that is, before Chernyaev, Kaufman and Skobelev, Central Asians lived in the 19th century, and the Russian Empire threw them back in the 15th century). ). , apparently prohibiting slavery). In general, whatever one may say, the Russian landowners turn out to be not progressive enough to have the right to oppress the Poles, and too progressive to be excused for oppressing the Chinese. I think it's called "it's your fault I'm hungry." Let me also remind you that when comparing Russians and non-Russians, Lenin usually came to the conclusion that non-Russians are excellent, and Russians are evil, non-peaceful and by their nature incapable of anything good. Here, for example, is a typical story about Bismarck. Lenin writes that the unification of Germany is a “progressive historical cause,” and the unification of Russia is the senseless “violence of Russians over other peoples”: “It may be objected to us that, besides tsarism and under its wing, there is another historical one. Great Russian capitalism arose and strengthened in strength, leading progressive work, centralizing the economy and uniting vast territories... Let us even assume that history decides the case in favor of Great Russian great-power capitalism against one hundred and one small nations. However, in this case, first of all, it is not our business, not the commercial democrats (not to mention the socialists), to help Romanov-Bobrinsky-Purishkevich strangle Ukraine, etc. Bismarck did in his own way, in the Junker way, a progressive historical work... Moreover, Bismarck promoted economic development by uniting fragmented Germans who were oppressed by other peoples. And the economic prosperity and rapid development of Great Russia require the liberation of the country from the violence of the Great Russians against other peoples - our fans of truly Russian almost-Bismarcks forget this difference. Oleg Makarenkohttps://dzen.ru Source link Source link
от
bonabo
135123
от
bonabo
150138
Why there won’t be enough oil money for everyone, “free” Turkish gas and the lifting of US banking sanctions. Oleg Makarenko Posting in CHAT: Russia 1. The Zen channel of a petroleum engineer's blog explores the myth that Russians could live comfortably on oil and gas income if they weren't fleeced by "greedy officials" (link): Oil and gas leasing is one of the sweetest things in Manila. dreams of our compatriots who love freedom. They firmly believe that Russia is the richest country in the world in terms of resources, they simply steal everything from us, so the people get nothing. And now we receive a colossal amount of money, we just need to divide it equally - and everyone will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in American bills, and then we will definitely live. And they cite as an example the countries of the Persian Gulf, where this rent is expected to be paid. Sometimes very decent amounts appear; they say that every Arab from these places receives many thousands and thousands of dollars into his personal account, sometimes their amount reaches an incredible 30 thousand dollars a year. But I am an old cynic, a skeptic and an unbeliever, so I will take the trouble to understand this issue. First, let's start with oil production in general. Russia is one of the leaders in oil production in the world. We are second in its production after the USA. But we must proceed from the fact that in this world it is not absolute, but relative values that rule. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account not the amount of money received from the sale of a resource, but its distribution per capita and unit of territory. Let's take what we have the most in the world - natural gas. Our country contains in its depths 50.279 trillion cubic meters, 24.38% of the world's reserves. Let's compare with Turkmenistan, which ranks fifth in terms of reserves - 12.177 trillion cubic meters, 5.91%. Based on the area of the country, it turns out that per 1 square kilometer of area we produce 2.94 million cubic meters of gas. Sounds impressive. Let us now recalculate the reserves of Turkmen gas to the area of Turkmenistan. But it turns out that there are 19.89 million cubic meters of gas per kilometer of this country’s territory! 6.67 times more. What if we compare it with Qatar, whose area is only 11.86 thousand square kilometers and gas reserves are 23.846 trillion cubic meters? It turns out that per kilometer of Qatar's area there are more than 2010 billion cubic meters of gas. If we take oil exports, Russia exports 1.6 tons of oil per person per year. Norway produces 15 tons per person per year! Do you understand the difference? Almost ten times more. According to this indicator, it ranks second in the world, ahead of both the UAE and Saudi Arabia. What can I say, neighboring Kazakhstan exports only 67.7 million tons per year versus 227.6 million tons exported from Russia. And at the same time, per capita there are 3.4 tons, more than twice as much. As you can see, we produce a lot of oil. But if we distribute it per capita and unit of area, it will be several times less than in most countries that produce it in export volumes. Therefore, there will not be that much money per person. The population of Russia in 2019 was 146.7 million people, 3.81 tons of oil per person per year. The average density of Ural oil floats, for calculation we will take the average of 0.87 g/cm3. Thus, 27.54 barrels of oil were sold per Russian that year. The average dollar exchange rate in 2019 was 64.61 rubles, and the average price of a barrel was $63.59. Simple arithmetic tells us that in 2019, Russians received $776.43 or 50,165 rubles from oil sales. The amount, as we see, is not impressive, and we are talking about money received without taking into account the cost of oil and the profitability of the company. Someone has to organize it, maintain it and try to make it work, which of course they will want to pay for. And as a result, the income will become even less, I think, no less than a quarter, or even a third. If we take our country’s oil and gas revenues for 2022 with a record profit of 12.4 trillion rubles, then the equal distribution among citizens was simply “incredible” money - 82 thousand rubles for the year. 6.8 thousand rubles per month. And this is a third of all income, another two-thirds can be distributed - but the question will arise, how will our country exist? After all, in Russia our citizens also receive a share of income from oil and gas. Just in a different form. We do not give money into hands, but redistribute it in other ways. Approximately the same system exists in the Gulf countries. Contrary to urban legends and stories, no one gives money there as an annual fee. But there are deductions (about $200 per month) per child per month, which he receives with interest upon reaching adulthood. The state pays for higher education, and not just at home. Gives a wedding gift and helps pay the mortgage. He does not give an interest-free loan, as they say in sweet posters, but pays part of the interest, because the other is paid by the person himself to the Islamic bank. We have approximately the same system in all types of preferential loan programs. Some of our money goes into the National Welfare Fund... Which is spent during a crisis to soften the blow. Part of the funds goes to social services - payment of pensions, maternity capital, preferential mortgage programs, etc. Here everyone can get an education for free, but this is a huge expense. 2. And here is an analysis of the myth that Turkey supposedly provides free gas supplies to its citizens, and gas-rich Russia “cannot afford it” (link): About a year ago, in the second half of April, all newspapers and blogs literally thought that the chains are broken. The reason for this was the promise of the populist Turkish presidential candidate Erdogan to distribute free gas to the Turks. This was timed to coincide with the commissioning of another “Gazprom killer” - the Sakarya field on the Black Sea shelf. what can you say? Firstly, the deposit's reserves are not so large. In addition, we are talking about general, non-recoverable reserves, of which there are always fewer, because it is simply impossible to extract the entire resource. Secondly, the figure only sounds impressive to the average person. But in fact, this is not Yamburg or Urengoy with their multi-billion dollar reserves. According to the classification of gas fields, it is classified as large. Not a giant, not a supergiant, just big. In Russia, before the latest events, an average of 64 billion cubic meters of gas was produced per month (!!!). Sakarya's reserves would be enough even for 8 months of such exploitation. But the pipe from one well (others were not drilled) was installed last year. And at its opening, Recep Teyp Erdogan promised that next year the Turks will receive gas for free. This caused a wave of joy among the Turks and indignation among us. Everything is as usual (screenshot 1, screenshot 2). People who know how to think and master mathematics even at an arithmetic level understand that making a promise does not mean getting married. And if it went somewhere, it means it ended up somewhere else. Firstly, the gas supplied through the first stage of the gas pipeline will not be enough to supply the Turks with gas. It supplies only 10 million cubic meters of gas per year, that is, no more than 0.35 billion cubic meters. But only about 15 billion cubic meters are required annually for domestic needs. Secondly, who will pay for all this? Of course, the Turks will pay for this attraction with unprecedented generosity. As it turned out in practice, no one is going to supply gas to the Turks for free for a whole year. And it was decided to allocate only 25 m3 of gas per household per month. Let's face it - it's not enough. Also, this only works in homes that have gas. There are an absolute minority of these in the country; the majority use gas cylinders with a mixture of propane and butane. They don't get anything for free. But that's not the main thing. Immediately after the elections, the state gas pipeline company BOTAŞ made a gift to the “dear Turks” - it significantly increased the cost of gas for homes - by 30%, and for generation - by 16%. At the same time, gas tariffs for industry immediately increased by 40%. Something tells me that the cost of good shows with free gas is more than worth it. And in January of this year there was another price increase. According to the new tariffs, tariffs for the population increased by 25%, for the industrial sector - by 50%, for electricity producers - by 15%. In six months, an increase of 55%. Erdogan could give fifty cubic meters of gas for free with such a rise in prices, they would also pay off well and easily; 3.…
от
bonabo
4937
Chinese films. Oleg Makarenko Posting in CHAT: Russia A non-obvious fact: the communists tormented China for less than 30 years, from 1949 to 1978. In 1949, Mao Zedong won a long and bloody civil war, driving Chiang Kai-shek's army to Taiwan, and already in 1978, the wise successor, the Great Leader Deng Xiaoping, stopped the terrible experiment, turning China towards healthy capitalism. This period is well represented in the Chinese film To Live (1994). The action begins in the 1940s, in a still normal society, and then for several decades the scriptwriters drag an honest Chinese family through all the trials sent from above: expropriation of carpets, blast furnaces in every yard, persecution of educated people, etc. . The film turned out to be historical, and therefore scary. But still, it has a fundamental difference from destructive nonsense like our “Leviathan”: the film “Live” shows kind and decent people who try to remain that way even under communism. In total, I've watched about 25 Chinese films recently, mostly from this list (link), compiled by film critic Alexei Khromov. As it turned out during the viewing, my views on good cinema are fundamentally at odds with the opinion of the compiler of the list. So if both I and the original creative director liked the film, we can reasonably hope that you will too. By the way, remember the name Gong Li: she is an actress who has appeared in many of the films I mention below. Let's start with films that I don't recommend wasting time on. Firstly, The Wandering Earth (2019) mod seemed more like a tech demo to me than a full-fledged fantasy. Everything flashes like on TikTok, everything is too banal and too fast. Plus: good CGI and a heroic Russian cosmonaut, which is too little to fill a two-hour movie. I also don’t recommend “Sniper” (2021): there seems to be nothing to complain about, but after watching it there is a lasting aftertaste of wasted time. Finally, I do not recommend the famous “Chongqing Express” (1994), the plot of which can be characterized by the classic slogan: “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” It's clear why Quentin Tarantino liked the film. Why anyone else should watch this movie is beyond me. Another thing is the action movie “Killer” (1989). It’s filmed naively simply, like in Doom or a similar computer game, but there is a plot and characters. In any case, I won't recommend either "Killer" or the weird movie "Under the Hot Sun" (1994) because they didn't touch my sensibilities, and because there's no specifically Chinese taste: film execution. could easily have been transported to Mexico or Poland. Secondly, I do not recommend films about the Japanese occupation and especially films about the Nanjing tragedy. Yes, the Japanese behaved like real monsters during World War II, and the Chinese remember this well. However, looking at all these horrors is difficult: for a non-Chinese, it might be wiser to read the Wikipedia article about the Nanjing Massacre and leave it at that. I would especially like to mention the film “Devils at the Door” (2000), dear to Western critics. This is an arthouse in the bad sense of the word, so I would not release this film outside of festivals for my own audience. If you do decide to watch one of the films about the Nanjing Massacre, I recommend Flowers of War (2011). It’s also scary, but still shot with talent, and in color, and not in the monochrome tones usual for the theme of war crimes. I was also impressed by the epic “The Battle of Chosin Reservoir” (2021) - it is already about the Korean War, so the emphasis is on the heroism of the soldiers, and not on the cruelty of the occupiers. Third, I advise you to avoid watching the much-lauded film Farewell My Concubine (1993). In my opinion, the film would have been better titled “Brokeback Opera”: it deals with the suffering of minorities in traditional China, the film also contains elements of hard BDSM and several suicides. The icing on the cake: it is the only Chinese film to win the Golden Bough at Cannes. Now about the films that were useful for me to watch. Some of the films listed below fascinated me, others bored me, but together they gave me a lot of new knowledge and impressions about China, so that now I look at our glorious neighbor with completely different eyes than before the video began. marathon For example, did you know that there are harems in China too? Not improvised sirs, like those of Russian landowners of the 18th century or the chairmen of Soviet collective farms, but real, official harems? The film Light the Red Lantern (1991) is about exactly this: 1920s, provincial Chinese feudal lord, four wives of different ages who naturally form a “tight-knit group of women.” “City 24” (2008) is about a more recent time, about the Chinese analogue of our rapid nineties, when huge communist giant factories closed, leaving employees thrown out into the cold without a livelihood. This particular film takes place on the remains of an airline in Chengdu, which local authorities have decided to demolish to build a luxury apartment complex in its place. Our fans of the Soviet Union are outraged by such stories, while the Chinese, on the contrary, consider the closure of unprofitable and inefficient factories a reasonable step, since it created an excess of cheap labor, useful for the economy. By the way, you can put aside your handkerchiefs while watching: the film is presented as a documentary, but specially trained actors tell touching stories. “Thirst” (2007) is a colorful drama about the personal lives of revolutionaries and counterintelligence officers during the Second World War. For a romance to attract attention, there must be some kind of barrier between lovers: here it is, and one that sparkles. Another high-profile relationship drama is In the Mood for Love (2000). This is Hong Kong, 1960s, a story of two entangled hearts. It was beautifully shot, despite the fact that life in Hong Kong at that time was poor. The film is too long for my taste: it had to be cut three times. At the 44th minute there is an Easter egg, a Russian word on the clock. If I were asked to choose an educational film that would take the viewer by the hand through major periods of modern Chinese history, I would choose Earthquake (2010). The family story begins in 1976, in a town of poor cyclists, and ends in the 2000s, in a rapidly growing rich land of opportunity. I would call the film an excellent example of healthy patriotic propaganda, if not for a characteristic feature: one of the film’s heroines settles in Canada. This is a big problem in China - many people consider it normal to emigrate to Canada for a full life, leaving China behind as an insignificant, dirty collective farm where you can work, but you cannot live. The Chinese authorities are trying to fight the scourge of cosmopolitanism, but victory is still far away. Rural China in the 1980s is depicted in Qiu Jiu Goes to Court (1992). It's hard for me to define the genre of the film, but the court battle was interesting to watch. It is strange to realize that at that time some Chinese had already launched satellites into space, while others were still living on the subsistence economy of the 19th century, and that to move between different eras it was enough to travel a short distance on a bicycle or. by bus. You probably know the films with Jackie Chan without me, “Drunken Master” (1978) and “Drunken Master 2” (1994). The plot about the first drunken master is a classic of the river-lake genre, that is, the genre where well-choreographed battles of skilled fighters unfold against the backdrop of a “historical” landscape of uncertain antiquity. The main villain in The Drunken Master is as colorful as those in the best Westerns, but I'm not enough of a movie buff to say with certainty who influenced whom. “Drunken Master 2” is already about English villains and trains, an important part of the history of real China. If Chinese directors hate the Japanese, they simply don't like the British - and for good reason. Here I should make a big digression, describing in detail how Chinese films differ from Hong Kong ones, but I, perhaps, will limit myself to a small remark: Hong Kong returned to its home port only in 1997, so its film. the industry was significantly different from the “mainland”. Fighting can also be found in the film “Ip Man” (2008), about the teacher Bruce Lee. It looks quite fun, even if the viewer is indifferent to kung fu. Part of the plot is dedicated to the Japanese occupation, but this time the writers softened the past, without massacres and the like. The film, among other things, explores the Chinese concept of loss of face from several angles. “House of Flying Daggers” (2004) – again rivers and lakes, that is, a fictional Chinese Middle Ages, very beautiful costumes and unexpectedly Russian nature. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) - the same thing, only with the romanticization of suicide, to which Roskomnadzor would probably react…