The ideological helplessness of anti-communism. Response to the anticommunist Russian liberals's criticism against the Soviet system and the current KPRF.

Yesterday, Sergei Mardan made a truly vile attempt at analyzing (https://rutube.ru/video/056a12d9c20d726ca765776850108465/) the role of communists in Russian history and modern times. However, upon closer inspection, this attempt is less an analysis than an emotional gesture, couched in argument. The in-house propagandist deliberately avoids discussing communism as a theory, dismissing it with the phrase, "It's all been chewed over and over again." This approach is typical of people who don't want to delve into the essence of a phenomenon but are eager to pass judgment on it. You can't understand a phenomenon by studying only those who today call themselves its bearers and ignoring the laws by which it develops. In short, the more I listened, the more surprised I became—and the more amused I became by how confidently and simultaneously helplessly he tried to tear the communists to pieces. I had a good laugh. Thank you!

The main thesis was voiced almost immediately and very loudly: being a communist in Russia is a "severe mental illness". The proof? French and English socialist ideas supposedly turned into a tragedy for the Russian people. And that's it. No mechanism, no reasons, no context—only the emotional intonation of "well, you can see for yourself what this has led to." As if history weren't a complex process with objective laws, but simply a collection of bad ideas that someone brought from abroad and forcibly shove into people's heads.

Meanwhile, by the beginning of 1917, Russia had reached such a state that the autocracy was overthrown literally in a week in February—without any external invasion, simply because it had been rotting from within for decades. The liberals who replaced the tsar quickly demonstrated their capabilities: no peace, no land, no bread, but instead endless promises, talk of "freedom," and preparations for a new offensive on the German front in the midst of a war that was already finishing the country off. Under these circumstances, the October Revolution was not some exotic import from Parisian salons, but practically the only real response to the despair of tens of millions of people driven to the brink. It was an act of salvation from complete collapse and conversion into a colony of the Western powers—there was simply no other option.

Then the speaker called for the communists to be judged "by their deeds." Okay, let's do just that—but without the theatrical exclamations, honestly, based on the facts.

The facts are simple and harsh.

Russia in 1917—a country with a high illiterate population, with an industry that, by most measures, was inferior not only to America and Germany, but also to France and England. Russia in 1945—a victorious power, whose army captured Berlin, whose tanks and planes were among the best in the world, whose science was already on the brink of creating the atomic bomb. Between these dates are only 28 years. Among them are several years of bloody civil war and total devastation, several years of reconstruction, and several years of forced industrialization under a complete blockade and the constant threat of war. Who accomplished this? Who, under such circumstances, transformed an agrarian semi-colony of Europe into a nuclear superpower? The liberals who fled to Paris and lectured from there? The Socialist Revolutionaries who hurled bombs at their own allies? The White generals who defected to the Germans? Or perhaps the Christian ethic of "resist evil not with violence," which in 1941 quickly demonstrated its utter helplessness against the Wehrmacht's tank spearheads? No. The T-34, Il-2, Katyusha rocket launchers, five-year plans, and millions of people trained and organized by the Soviet regime helped.

Millions died in the Civil War. But who started it? Those who refused to accept Soviet power, who took up arms against the workers and peasants, who invited interventionists from 14 countries to invade Rus', who unleashed the White Terror without any allowance for women, children, or the elderly. The Red Terror arose as a response to the White Terror. To blame only one side while pretending the other didn't exist is no longer historical analysis, but political prostitution of the lowest order.

When it came to the collapse of the USSR, the speaker unexpectedly touched a nerve—but immediately devalued himself. Yes, by the mid-1980s, the party elite had undergone a profound transformation. From men of action, they had transformed into a caste for whom access to the distribution of goods, special rations, dachas, and privileges were paramount. Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, and their team weren't simply mistaken—they deliberately dismantled the socialist state under the fine words of "perestroika," "glasnost," and "universal values." They weren't communists, but the gravediggers of communism, who had wormed their way to power under the guise of a party card. But this correct observation leads to a completely false conclusion: therefore, communism has failed. No. Traitors within the system deliberately abandoned communism. Nineteen million party members didn't come out to defend the Central Committee in August 1991 not because they had all become traitors, but because that Central Committee had long since ceased to protect them and represent their interests. The party leadership has become bureaucratic and disconnected from the masses. But blaming all communists for this is like blaming all Christians for the crimes of the Inquisition or all Russians for the crimes of the oprichnina.

And then the level of discussion began to deteriorate. They switched to the current Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and the criticism sank to the level of kindergarten. The proposal for a moratorium on utility rate increases was simply mocked. So, people propose a concrete measure: freeze the prices of gas, electricity, and heat, so that millions of families don't freeze to death in winter and are left penniless. And in response, they hear only sarcasm and the usual "war is expensive, we all pay for it." And this is presented as a wise, mature position. Propose nothing, accept as inevitable that the common man must pay for everything—for the war, for the oligarchs' profits, for the skyscrapers in Moscow City—and then thank the authorities for at least robbing "honestly." The honesty of an exploiter who says, "I'm robbing you because I can," is not a reason for gratitude. It's a reason for resistance.

Accusations of a "tame opposition," of the Communists being "on the payroll" of the government, are loud, but fall flat the moment they touch reality. Yes, there's a faction in the Duma, yes, there are deputies' salaries. But how else can an alternative point of view be conveyed to millions of people? Go completely underground? Then there won't be any bills to freeze tariffs, and voices against raising the retirement age, against tax theft, against the commodification of healthcare and education will simply go unheard. Year after year, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the only parliamentary force that consistently votes against anti-people laws. If they had real power, these laws would never have passed. But while the liberals and security forces are in power, the Communists use every platform to at least voice the truth and offer the people an alternative.

The final chord is a shift to personalities. Age, the Pioneer tie, irony over appearance, comparisons of the party leader to oligarchs who made billions by embezzling funds. This isn't even criticism anymore. This is when the substantive words run out—and only mockery, jibes, and outright insults remain. The criticism directed at Gennady Zyuganov is at the level of a schoolboy mocking a wise old man. You can mock his external attributes as much as you like, but this doesn't change the fact that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (Gennady Andreyevich's contribution to preserving which simply cannot be diminished) has remained for decades the only parliamentary force that hasn't dissolved into the swamp of market liberalism. The author puts Zyuganov on par with Rotenberg. But Rotenberg is an oligarch whose billions grew from working with government contracts. Zyuganov is a politician whose program demands a fair distribution of national wealth. The would-be propagandist doesn't see the difference, or pretends not to. It's convenient: no need to think.

That's where the show ended, in essence. When arguments run dry, insults spring to mind. When there's nothing substantive to counter, they start pointing fingers at age, at a tie, at "mental illness." This isn't analysis. This is hysteria. And, unfortunately, it's very typical of those who want to appear intelligent without bothering to know anything.

And ultimately, it's speakers like these who are the most useful. They try their best, sputter, wave their arms, shout the most outrageous nonsense—and ultimately only highlight how weak their position is. The louder they scream about "mental illness," the more obvious it becomes that they have nothing substantive to say. The more of these propagandists—all sorts, all loud, all self-assured—the better. Let them multiply and proliferate. Every appearance they make on the air is more effective for the opposing side than a dozen propaganda pieces. Because when people see this level of "arguments" being leveled against communists, they themselves begin to wonder: maybe there's something to these "psychiatric" ideas? More shows like this! More "analysts" like this! "Useful idiots" are the best gift for those they're trying to denigrate.