Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Lenin and Stalin and cultural-historical analogies.

 

I want to devote this release to some reasonings connected among themselves by figures of Russian revolution - Lenin and Stalin. As somebody sayd: “Stalin, certainly, successor Lenin, but also Lenin, somewhat, is successor Stalin”. Really, “Uncle Jo” has replaced Lenin in a role of the chapter of the Soviet state, however, the Lenin cult inherited Stalin (after 20 congresses of Communist party). Lenin - the demiurge of an epoch of creation of the world from chaos. Stalin - an epic image, time of great wars and victories.

Reasoning the first. Two types of the person.

There is a curious story of one Japanese writer “Bull sumo”. In it is told, how a certain journalist, wishing to lift circulation of the newspaper, wants to organize a new mass show. It learns, that in one settlement there is a little-known entertainment - “bull sumo” when two bulls behave similarly to sumo sportsmen. The journalist rents stadium, gets bulls and all other - but at turning point it is raining, spectators do not come also the newspaper incurs losses. The protagonist is not broken, it prepares for new action, but the author lets know, as the future plan waits failure. The journalist, at all efficiency is too intense, too "is a fan of business", and is fixed on it.

Sense of this story is opposition of two types of the person. As though on periphery of a plot the author throws one more image of the old rich man easy concerning to problems of a life, not afraid to shift business on subordinates (though completely not trustful), representing contrast to the thesis - " if want, that work has been made well, make its itself ".

Lenin and Stalin just also are bright representatives of both these types of the person. Lenin was a fan of deal (not for people - for Deal), it experienced, was nervous, and, finally, has died before term. Stalin argued approximately so - business is entrusted to someone from the device - that let and worries. Therefore he has lived full term at not so good health.

Reasoning the second. Attila.

Sokurov's films: "Moloch", "Taurus"... Hitler, Lenin, Stalin... What to do, it is an author's cinema. Will tell, the author responds to topic of the day (though exposures of the Soviet past have died down years for eight before shooting these films). But it is necessary to work is more thin, more artly, not in a forehead. Here imagine hypothetical film "Attila". He was Huns ruler, Stalin of the fifth century. Its opponent, the Roman-German commander - Mussolini and Hitler's certain connection. At last, both Roman empires, Western and East are analogy of Anglo-American allies.

Here to you, by the way, and the Balkans (Attila’s campaigns on the south), and fights on Rhein and in Gallia, intrusion into Italy. And death of the leader of Huns after which fast crash of its empire has followed.

Stalin's death has marked itself the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire. The agony proceeded forty years, but the destruction was inevitable.

Reasoning the third. An aggravation of class struggle.

Stalin said about the increasing of “class struggle, as approaching communism”. This thesis was criticized. Really, it was meant, that alongside with economic progress, in the Soviet society there will be also a progress moral - say, that, after such moral improvement, we to each other shall seize drinks (at that, as classes antagonistic will not be).

Well, than approach communism has ended, all of us know. So in this sense the thesis of “the Second Leader” was not too far from a reality. But the given problem means also other aspect - religious. Stalin studied in seminary, and though has not ended her, spiritually, partly, was formed in its walls. And good acquaintance to “Revelation of Apostle John” - the Apocalypse was completely natural for it. The Apocalypse speaks, that the heaviest and terrible period for mankind will be eschatological - "doomsday", “Terrible court”, etc.

The similar tradition exists at ancient Scandinavians ("Ragnarek"), Ob Ugrians, and, probably, has got the Iranian origin. Apostle John prophesied to us about intrusion of unprecedented peoples - “Gogh and Magogh”, wars, invasion of an iron locust, etc. In the ending on a stage “the infernal Trinity” - the Devil ("Dragon"), the Beast and Antichrist leaves. Antichrist tempts people and becomes universal tsar. But there is “the Second coming” Jesus Christ who expels the Antichrist and establishes an empire of rithteous persons. Through one thousand years, however, Antichrist rushes into the world of people again, but again he will defeated, and, already together with a devil, he will throw in boiling lake.

Frashegird is Apocalypse of Zoroastrians mythology. Sacred text says that it will be a terrible winter and all wolves will meet together and will merge in one vast Wolf. All snakes also will merge in on vast Serpent (we see a resemblance between Zoroastrian and Scandinavian mythologies) will tear his chain. Then, will Ahura Mazda, great warrior Keresaspa will revive and will put a dragon final defeat. On divs and sinners the stream of the fused metal will be spilled.

Thus, we see that the main horrors will take place in the ending of history for she was thought ancient at all as linear progress and as a drama mystery with catharsis ("clarification") in the ending. There is similar concept by Daniel Andreev in an epilogue of his “Roses of the World” - after the long period of board of the Rose of the World - the spiritual organization, people will be pulled to evil. There will come the most terrible period of human history.

As if to absence of class antagonism during transition to communism it is necessary to recollect Lenin's words "we should struggle resolutely with drunkards, idlers and counter-revolutionaries" from which it is visible, that, under ironical remark Solzhenitsyn, the First Leader saw the main danger to the Soviet authority from drunkards, and counter-revolutionaries "crowded somewhere in the third number".)

From here a reasoning the fourth and last. Problems of drunkenness.

In general that fact is interesting, that the Soviet authority struggled against drunkenness so resolutely (but soviet people more drank than more struggled). Up to 1917, drunkenness was convicted only by revolutionary democrats and to them sympathizing, but the government welcomed consumption of strong drinks by simple people (for health it is useful, and receipt to treasury).

The Soviet authority in spite of the fact that vodka money made very important receipt to the budget, indefatigably struggled with drunkenness before the most own death. It is possible to explain it sectarian character of the given authority in Russia which though it was leveled, nevertheless has not been overcome up to the end. Sects aspire to struggle with those or other natural human propensities to which, conditionally, it is possible to attribute and love to drink. This all the same old idea of improvement of human breed having, by the way, not one only minuses but also plus, for our life keeps on effort.

Alex Fantalov.

 

Chairman Mao Tse-tung.

Menu