Поиск по этому блогу



воскресенье, 16 августа 2015 г.

Filipp Bobkov: Soviet Trotskyists killed Khrushchev and Gorbachev

  Philip Bobkov: USSR destroyed Trotskyists and GorbachёvHruschёv Khrushchev - is not finished Trotskyist avoid reprisals only because of his close acquaintance with the wife of Stalin. Gorbachev - a protege of Suslov and Andropov did not, as is commonly thought. He, too - a Trotskyist. This was in an obscure interview said the former deputy chairman of the KGB and the chief persecutor of dissidents Philip Bobkov.
One day in late January 2007 I got a call Philip Denisovich Bobkov, whose name I knew but did not know him personally. He was head of the Second Chief Directorate of the KGB (counterintelligence). Since 1967 - deputy head of the newly created Fifth Chief Directorate of the KGB (the fight against dissidents - BT), soon - the head of government. He worked with Yuri Andropov. Since 1982 - the deputy, then first deputy chairman of the KGB. I invited him to the university. February 1, 2007 we met and talk with the permission F.D.Bobkova was recorded on tape and presents the reader with a few cuts. "

These words prefaced the publication in the Journal of the Moscow University for the Humanities "Knowledge. Understanding. Ability "(2007, №2) Igor Ilyinsky. The author was the rector of the university, and during the Soviet era served as party secretary of the Higher Komsomol School and other partocratic positions.

The interview is a good example of Soviet-spetssluzhbistkogo mindset on both sides (today it is called "imperial conservatism" with elements of "spiritual braces"). What is remarkable, and Ilyinsky, Bobkov and still are a part of the top of the current system and to a large extent - its transponders.
Following a reduction in their conversation about the role of personality in the recent history of the country:
Ilyinsky. The leadership of the USSR was not the view that the Cold War - is a real war. There was opposition to the program and plans. There was no coordination of staff or structures that would be the war as something organized. Moreover, deliberately leaving from these problems.
Bobkov. An important role was played by the International Department of the Central Committee headed by Secretary of the CPSU Ponomarev. But he, strengthening ties with the Communists of various countries, withdrew from the Chinese Communist Party has not taken a firm stand in the fight against revisionism, and became noticeable variations in the estimates of the communist movement and among the comrades working in the department of the Central Committee of our Party.
That's at least a question. In 1967, the KGB created a fifth control. In the country since 1957, almost every year the riots occurred. Usually it began with clashes with police. Severe cases have been. Smashed police stations and often district Party.
When you create a fifth operation, the first thing we did - analyzed the causes of the riots. Dali proposal to the Central Committee. We started to work for yourself. And eliminate those disturbances. In all the years after 1967 in the USSR there were one or two such cases. This is to say that it was possible to resolve any problem in the country. If you do, it turns out.
Ilyinsky. We must understand that was not enough, frankly, insane. We lost intellectually.
Bobkov. Leonid Brezhnev happened here what trouble ... Basically, it was a clear head. Of course, he was not a great theorist. But he was a good organizer. In his first years, he actively took over the case. And if it was to continue.
But what was his trouble? In the first stage, when he became General Secretary, he naturally corrected what was under Khrushchev. Then a wave of rumors that he comes back to Stalin, that is the line to return to Stalinism. It did, of course, constrained to some extent, because the Central Committee were people who at one time actively fought against Stalin.
And when he has become a sick man, he was not allowed to leave. And because he really wanted to go, not just to ask from the Politburo. But he was surrounded by old men who knew that if he leaves, then they followed him. And this whole team began to turn their business. And they have created a situation where not given opportunities to enter the leadership of the young. Close all the way. We started with Shelepin became clean of all those who came from the Komsomol. Sevenfold, and not only him, also removed.
The errors were in the behavior of the "young". I remember a lot of us on this subject said the first secretary of the Central Committee of Komsomol Pavlov Sergei Pavlovich, and with himself Sevenfold. I told them: "What are you doing? You see what happens? Are you going to drink for companies and the "Iron Shurik". Why are you doing ?! You behave modestly against the Shelepin. "
Of course, Shelepin, if he would have the head of the Communist Party, would have made our life a little differently. Shelepin was an interesting man. He was one drawback, which suffered from the KGB. He succumbed to the very, very much to do as like Khrushchev. He worked under him. This was evident. Perhaps behaving otherwise it was not worth for the future. But in the long term Shelepin could justify the role of leader of the party and the state.
Bobkov. And most importantly, we are moving away from Marxism. Departing from the state ideology. After the death of Stalin, ideology practically remained only in quotes that were selected for the report. A thoughtful about what to do and how to do, based on this ideology, did not play a decisive role.
Ilyinsky. This means that began to lose spiritually. After all, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism still gave people some spiritual support. Sami then our "leaders" after Stalin's ideologues were not. Their worldview was defined literacy and outlook of those assistants, which they themselves select. I knew some of them. Pretty gray, mediocre people without convictions.
Ilyinsky. And who is Nikita Khrushchev in your view?
Bobkov. My idea of ​​Khrushchev ... I had a very good friend. He was an elderly man who was older than me by 20 years, he headed the department of philosophy at one of the Moscow institutes. Old Bolshevik. And we had a conversation with him.
Khrushchev took the first secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee with Ukraine. It is 1951. At that time we went to talk to him. He said to me: "What's happening? After all, I, together with Khrushchev voted for the Trotskyist resolution in 1921. I was then expelled from the party. And still not restored. Khrushchev after me three more voted for the Trotskyist resolution. And now he is a member of the Politburo. How is it possible
Why did Khrushchev preserved? I think because Khrushchev and his wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, Stalin studied at the Industrial Academy. They were friends with her. Khrushchev visited at dinners with Stalin. Hope invited. When she shot herself, that Stalin may have remained in the memory of feeling to Khrushchev, as close to the hope of man. And Khrushchev had not been touched in all these Trotskyite affairs.
That is my feeling. Why am I talking about this? Because, if we look at what did Khrushchev, when he came to power, it is, in general, Trotskyist option.
First. This is a very active work on elimination of collective farms. Consolidation of farms. The transformation of the collective farms into state farms. This is what the Trotskyists had: the villagers have to go through the "working pot". Khrushchev actively started doing. As a result, individual animals were all cut. Household plots have all been selected. And the people were left with nothing. If earlier the farmer was difficult to live on a workday, he even helped his own potatoes and vegetables. And in this case and that it lost. He began to give some 20 rubles per month. This village.
Now take the party. He divided it into a working and countryside. In fact, it was the elimination of a single Communist Party: the party and the party industrial village. The two parties. This immediately pushed the people.
These steps that Khrushchev gave Trotskyist spirit.
But Khrushchev's achievements in restoring the rule of law in the country, the condemnation of Stalinist repression is necessary to appreciate not detract made them at the head of the party.
Ilyinsky. I'm still on the other - that of a man thought little. Take a lot of regulations have been many plenums TSKKPSS and sausages were not. People do not care how high the ideological objectives pursued power.
Bobkov. Properly speaking. And here again we return to Khrushchev, again to the Trotskyists. As Khrushchev behaved in international politics? After the clash between Stalin and Trotskyism was on what grounds? When Stalin took the helm of the party (and before that he repeatedly asked to remove his release from the post of general secretary, but he was not released), when he saw that he had been entrusted with this responsibility, it is the question put forward? The question of building socialism in one country. What does this mean? It was a rejection of the Trotskyist idea of ​​the world, the permanent revolution. The first encounter with Trotskyism was on this ground.
And when he came, Khrushchev, in his foreign policy, he essentially became to realize the idea of ​​world revolution. Socialist countries - is one thing. But he became more broadly. Africa, Asia, Latin America. Sausages are not enough, and we have built stadiums in Indonesia, arming different countries for free. What for? If this money is invested in the needs of our people, we would have lived much better.
We have repeatedly raised the issue about this. The most difficult situation is when Khrushchev broke off relations with China in 1956. It was a strategic, severe mistake. But this - Trotskyism. And he's brought to these effects.
Ilyinsky. But Andropov ... He was in the parish of Gorbachev's supremacy?
Bobkov. It was a lot of talk. Andropov had treated him very carefully. And when the Yuri sick, Chebrikov told me that they talked a lot on the subject of what Gorbachev should not be. He did not see it the first figure.
He pulled Suslov. Since Suslov also Stavropol. Before Gorbachev, Secretary of the Central Committee on Agriculture was a fist. Also from Stavropol. He died with his fist. Gorbachev - it Suslov idea, he introduced her.
See what Gorbachev did. Instead of farming, relying primarily on the ground, he began to create agrogoroda, agricultural industry. He took all the agronomists, specialists from state and collective farms, they moved to the district center. So what?
He created not complex and, above all, bureaucracy collected. I build houses and gathered all there. He almost withdrew, bled all the science and all the experts he has chosen, in the district centers transplanted.
(This is also an element of Trotskyism)
Of course, a great role played by the people who were with him. This, above all, of course, Yakovlev - in ideological terms. Well, the trouble is, of course, it was in the fact that among those who actively went through restructuring, there were people who drew Andropov. In this case I am referring to Ligachev. In personnel matters Ligachev played a very bad role. He helped Gorbachev around, taking care of the country's development. And the shots that pushed Ligachev, of course, played a negative role, tooSource: politikus.ru- --------------------------------------------01.07.2012 - Kazakov responsible Koryagin basically
Sergei Korjagin, June 27, 2012 - 14:46 wrote: "Invasion of the Marxists in the Russian I equate to the invasion of the Mongols or the Nazis. The trouble is, all that Marxists, unlike the Nazis, not expelled from Russia, they roam freely around the country. Let the walk, but not hooligans. "... That is - a typical example of "theorizing" on the principle of comparing "left" ear to the "right" ... the heel! And at the same time demand of respect to his thinking people ... "of the theory."It is something not at all accidental, as author completely "no idea" what "utopia" and "utopia" - is nothing but as a category of the theory of knowledge, and did not curse any. And they are connected with scientific maxims as historicism, materialism and logical "concrete."... As for the "revelations utopianism" in relation to Russia and Russian history, you should be aware that it is something (= utopia) in the "abstract" and composed. In the 20th century, important to emphasize, and collided with each other, the two antagonistic approach. Namely: 1st: Russia ... for revolution. And 2: Revolution - for Russia.
The first one is called "Trotskyism" (+ date of his species built, in the end, the current reality of the so-called "law of Russia"). And the second - is Russian Communism, it - domestic or Marxism (in the language of "the history of the Communist Party" as an academic discipline), "Bolshevism." The first utopian (cl-but "abstract"), in the worst sense of the word. (His motto: "Russia should ...). The second - is historical and therefore materialistic, words-but learned and genuinely patriotic. (His motto: "Communists, forward!") Why? Yes, because it comes from the concept of self-value and self-integrity of Russia, not because of some, it is the existing and preassigned "scale" ...Today, he suffered an unprecedented defeat, very similar, however, to "The Wedding in Malinovka." The first degenerated into outright cannibalism, demagogically hide behind the "anti-communism", "anti-Sovietism", "anti-Stalinism" psevdogumanizmom and pseudo-patriotism and supposedly "capitalism."For him also cover "anti-utopian" - this is too much!Consequently, the conclusion: no such "Marxism" in the country freely and does not "walk"! According to her freely and triumphantly walks day Trotskyism. Practicing the ancient principle of "Russia for ..."... Incidentally, Hitler, like S. Korjagin, "innocently" confuse one with the other. Referring to Russian hegemony over Trotskyism - "Marxist domination." That is the same here, confusion possessed Adolf and laid the basis for its decision of December 1940 that England, as an enemy of the German people, "while still" wait, and at first, you need to de, to deal with the enemy of mankind - Marxism, which , say, the Russian people "had" finally surrendered ... So, to attack the USSR.During his sophistry and antihistoricism he, after all, and paid. But why Sergei Karyagin confessing the same "theory of knowledge" as the Fuhrer, it nourishes its scientific and journalistic pathos altogether undeserved, anti-Hitlerism ?!That is the question!Epistemologically more correctly he ought to begin their texts about this: "As between Bolshevism and Trotskyism is no difference, we Adolf Hitler believe that ..." And hereafter and inspiration ...Alexey Kazakov,Members of the Working Philosophy Clubthem. Joseph Dietzgen.Source

Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий