This is my article about the economic distortion of the picture of the past came out today in the “Free press”
21 Aug 2016 – 25 years of the collapse of the August 1991 coup. What do we know and understand today about these events?
As I wrote in a previous article (“there is a new default or development?”), time we have the opportunity to see great from afar, but the opportunity to take advantage of the fact that witnesses are less and less, plus more themselves direct participants and witnesses of the events over time change their attitude towards him and, as a result, completely forget their own vision of the situation then. Anyway, all live their lives, not politics, and because mass view of our common political past to a vague. Hence, we can impose through the media and new models of perception of events to shift the focus and generally distort the past to rewrite history to suit current political situation.
The paradox and difficulty of the current privlastnye promoters that direct heirs of those who destroyed the Soviet Union, want to take advantage of natural people nostalgic for the Soviet past, and as destroyers to imagine someone else. Task, agree, difficult, but, let’s face it: people try and even the kind of handle it.
How wonderful is that?
Consider this example of key messages in light of the anniversary of the August 1991 coup – the establishment of the State emergency Committee (emergency Committee).
AS WHITE TURNED INTO BLACK
The first is the mix of events: the coup (putsch) and six months later the Belavezha agreement, which the leaders of the three republics dissolved the USSR.
The promise of the second representation of the putsch and the coup as an attempt to save the Soviet Union or even to “save socialism”, while at least a hint, and then direct the prosecution of all who resisted the coup and defended the legitimacy that they, like, destroyed the USSR (and socialism).
The promise of third – conscious tangling mass of ideas about the events of 1991 and 1993 in order to create the appearance that a successful anti-constitutional coup was made by some “Democrats” in August 1991, and the consequence were all the events that now cause the rejection of the people: unfair privatization, mortgage and credit auctions, the destruction of its industry, the delivery of the strategic position of the country to the West and the limitation of economic sovereignty, the impoverishment of people, destruction of education and health, etc. it is the current government from harmful “Democrats-the breakers somehow separated, speaking, on the contrary, like the force that corrects the mistakes and crimes of the “Democrats”, the guardian of the eternal values of statehood, concern about the territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Let’s consider all three messages in order.
VICTORY OVER THE COUP – NOT THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION
First. It is worth remembering that neither the coup (putsch), nor is it lose yourself again in no way meant the preservation or, on the contrary, the collapse of the Soviet Union. Sociological research on this topic back in those heady days, of course, nobody did, but based on my personal communication attitude of people remember and it is absolutely certain that most of the defenders of the White house (Moscow) and Lensovet in St. Petersburg, in any way for the destruction of a single country is not performed. The only exception is the question about the possibility of independence of the Baltic republics. In General, as for any dissolution of the Soviet Union in principle was not the question.
And after the collapse of the coup was called the Congress of people’s deputies of the USSR and reformatted the Supreme Council (not “dispersed”, wrote one of the authors of “SP”, and re-elected the legitimate Congress of people’s deputies of the USSR), with the inclusion of representatives of the parliaments of the Union republics. This was due to the fact that the elections of 1990, which elected the deputies of the Republican higher authorities, was carried out as absolutely free, but the preceding elections the allied Congress were free of limited – range artificial filters and direct delegation thirds of the deputies under the quota system from public organizations significantly distort the will of voters. The consequence of this was the situation when the legitimacy of national parliaments in the eyes of the citizens was drastically higher than the legitimacy of the Federal Congress and the Supreme Council.
Pay attention: it’s such a dissonance, when Central governments are less credible for citizens than their regional or local first and a very dangerous premise to the possibility of collapse of a single country.
In contrast, re-election of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in the autumn of 1991, with explicit delegation of representatives of the Republican Supreme Soviets – it was our attempt to somehow legitimize the Union legislature to restore its credibility and, thereby, to strengthen the allied centre, and therefore the Union itself.
But…
…in the first days of the new Congress, we are faced with a problem: the Ukrainian leadership forbade his deputies to go to the Union Convention (Baltic deputies also did not come, but this, of course, a threat to the Soviet Union in no way was ). It was a serious problem, but it could be solved, if not another problem more serious.
WEAKNESS OF THE HEAD OF STATE AND THE ROLE OF PERSONALITIES WINNERS
The key problem was the fact that after the defeat of the coup hero and bearer of legitimacy in the eyes of citizens was not returned to the legitimate President of the USSR Gorbachev (and even elected to not publicly, but only to Congress), but the leaders of the resistance to the coup, first of all, the President of Russia Yeltsin – elected in the same year, popularly, and even with a convincing advantage over competitors.
In this situation, too much depends on these specific individuals.
What could Gorbachev? Only one thing: to admit that I handled the situation, they have lost credibility immediately and offer to hold early presidential elections (and then early elections of the legislature) – the scale of the entire USSR. And then send all the power resource, which was still in his hands, not to preserve his personal power (which would be mass condemnation), but to preserve a unified country to hold nationwide elections of the President of the Soviet Union and then the new Parliament. He do so, most likely, would have received in these actions enough popular support and people, and power structures.
But Gorbachev didn’t.
What could make Yeltsin?
Could try, together with the leaders of the Union republics, to agree on a new, more legitimate in the current situation the Federal center about the mechanism of its formation, powers, maybe some kind of interim structure during the transitional period. That if he was interested primarily in maintaining a unified country.
But Yeltsin didn’t. Quickly realized that the shortest way to his personal sovereignty lies in the further discrediting of not only Gorbachev personally, but the Union of the centre overall, the weakening of the centre through a variety of sabotage and then the separation of Russia from the USSR, and thus, the dissolution of the USSR.
But this is – after the collapse of the coup, gradually, within six months after it.
THE ROLE OF THE “SWAMP” IN THE HISTORY
As for the destruction of the Soviet Union, I repeat, this will be more to say on the anniversary of the tragic events of December 1991. In the meantime, in relation to the events of August 1991, have to repeat what has been said over the years repeatedly. The primary responsibility of the Congress of people’s deputies of the USSR, all of us, then the deputies, that in the days of the coup, the Congress even not gathered and took all power for themselves. And thus finally lost legitimacy and the trust of the people, have ceded the authority of the highest authorities in the country to those who used it later to the destruction of the country.
Let me remind you: the Congress consisted of 2,250 deputies, but ideological factions were only two: “the interregional Deputy group (MDG – advocated democratic reform, it is desirable not to be confused with the current oligarchy), which consisted, in particular, and I, and later encountered a group of “Union”, which consisted of the now known, for example, Viktor Alksnis, deeply respected by me. Every two or three hundred deputies. The rest (more than a thousand deputies!), sorry – “swamp”. That is, technically, “the highest organ of state power,” but acting solely on the go-ahead from the Kremlin.
Pay attention: I would like to change a state policy – there was nothing to make the appropriate decisions by Congress, including to remove Gorbachev and to elect a President someone more responsible and capable. Including, even … to legitimize the coup. But…
…but the go-ahead from the Kremlin is not received.
And the question that I always put in relation to the present is quite a degenerate and degraded parody of a democratic system: if tomorrow a new coup, the current Duma (now elected) and the Council of the Federation at least try to gather yourself?
AGAINST THE COUP – FOR MY COUNTRY
Parse the second message. Despite the fact that one of the theses of the emergency Committee was the preservation of the Union, for what, like, a coup was organized, however, against the emergency Committee were not supporters of the country’s collapse. As from the thesis of the emergency Committee on the need to combat corruption it is impossible to conclude that corrupt officials came to the area, defended the White house in Moscow and Leningrad city Council in St. Petersburg.
And after the defeat of the coup most of my friends and comrades, including ordinary engineers, doctors, teachers, military, etc., were confident that they gained the victory over the supporters of the “feudal-bureaucratic” system, but not over the unity of the country. And not over the supporters of socialism in the modern sense – as a priority of social interests over the greed of capital.
Generally, in order to understand what we then seemed then coup, and the organizers should try that situation to the current.
It is no secret that we have established already a “tradition” put in the second post in the state of man is obviously useless and therefore (in the view of the ruler’s number one), in principle, not able to challenge the leader. That they have up there like, “safety.” Gorbachev was like Yanaev, Vice – President, who became head of the emergency Committee.
And now imagine that the current President is locked up somewhere in a favorite them of Sochi, and on behalf of any “State Committee for the salvation of Russia” is the present second person, otherwise, has long been like a clown in public opinion is not considered (this is my value judgment in the publication of a cropped version – approx. ed.). And all those beautiful words “cast in granite”: the preservation of the unity of the country, the fight against corruption, devotion to some ideals… I. at the same time, banning political parties and restricting basic civil liberties (of those that still remained).
Can you believe that?
Complete the hypothetical picture of that next to the head of such a hypothetical “state Committee for the salvation of Russia” sat someone who in your view is responsible for that you just performed on you is extortionate and even mocking operation, for example, the current Chairman of the Central Bank. And it is a member of the emergency Committee, Prime Minister Pavlov then literally just held a monetary reform, in which (attention!) representatives of some public organizations have decided how much old money available on hand to change to a new particular individual citizen…
You like like?
Another thing is that in defense of the Constitution and the current legitimate government today, you will most likely not play. So it’s not because I don’t have to speak but because confidence has long been generally there anyone. Including, unfortunately, has no faith in their own strength.
And then the faith people had.
So is it possible now to condemn those who, a quarter century ago, came out to defend the Constitution, the law, their country and their choice? Especially from some weird people covering the fact that they have nothing to tell people seriously, never-ending “Swan lake” on all channels, and even with trembling at a press conference hands…
OLIGARCHY – THE HEIRS PERVOROTA 1993
And the promise of a third. It is not necessary to agree with deliberate obfuscation and confusion of the events of August 1991 and September-October 1993. As I noted above, the tragedy of the situation after the 1991 coup was that too much was dependent on specific people, first of all, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. And both were not up to par: one is ambitious, but weak and indecisive, the other strong and, as it turned out, such a quintessential power-hungry and irresponsible that was ready for the sake of personal power to bury a great country. But it became apparent later. All that relates to the actual destruction of the Soviet Union – the case of the November-December 1991, which on the eve of the tragic anniversary of these events, there will be a time to discuss.
Now it is important to note: initially, the entire Congress and Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR completely trusted hero of the resistance to the coup (1991) Yeltsin, meekly ratified the Belavezha accords on the dissolution of the Soviet Union (only Sergei Baburin, on behalf of a small group of MPs spoke at the meeting against than, from my point of view, forever inscribed his name in history) and even gave the President unprecedented additional powers. However, seeing what happens by the spring-summer 1992, the MPs began to speak out against the policy of destruction of the national economy, the predatory privatization, and generally pursued socio-economic policy. By the fall of 1992, the confrontation escalated, and by the spring of 1993 had already become irreconcilable. Which led to dramatic outcome – bloody coup already Yeltsin and his team in September 1993, he then unleashed his hands and for putting the strategic interests of the country to the West in exchange for support of the coup, and for the really predatory privatization, and for mortgage-credit auctions, and for the looting of the budget and the construction of the GKO pyramid, culminating in the 1998 default, and to usurp control of the media, which allowed then to transfer power to his successor.
That is, once again, destroyed the domestic industry privatizers, the organizers of the fraudulent credit mortgage auctions, the master state financial pyramids, and a blatant looting of the state budget, the creators of the parasitic banking and financial system that is strangling our national economy – it does not “Democrats”, including opposing in the 1991 coup (putsch), but the direct participants and beneficiaries of unconstitutional and anti-democratic coup in 1993 – that there was a dividing line. Although the current government – the direct heirs to the coup in 1993, in their quest to escape from any democratic control over them, it is very convenient to write off all the things for which they are responsible and their predecessors-usurpers, with some “Democrats”. In order to discredit in the eyes of the population and even the very idea of democratic public control over the government.
