Russia is completely different, you begin to realize past events. And the question arises again: was it possible to reform the society within socialism? Now I am confident: it was possible and it was necessary and only within the framework of socialism. And in order to justify this statement, it makes sense to return to the concept of socialism.

For the purity of the analysis, we turn to the beginning to its definitions in the West.

In the wording of the American academic encyclopedia, it sounds like this: socialism is "society, proclaiming equality, social justice, cooperation, progress, individual freedom and happiness achieved on the basis of social property, as well as based on a system of public or state control over the production and its distribution. "

In the American textbooks published until 1990, about the first theoretics of socialism was written in such a way: the socialists believe that "it would be unfair that the owners had so many economic power to give or not to give a job work, to establish a salary and opening hours in Own interests, and manage all types of work in society in the interests of private profits. Everything, accordingly, they question the value of private entrepreneurship, leaning in favor of some public property to the means of production - banks, factories, cars, land and transport. All rejected (Ass. - did not like) rivalry as a leading principle and put forward harmony, coordination, organization and association. "

In another work for students, the English historian emphasizes: "The heart of communism, its driving force for Marx, as well as for Lenin, was their deep ethical desire for social justice, to equality between man and man in the sense of the absence of discrimination based on gender, race, colors Skin and class. Marx and Lenin did not oppose one country else, and talked on behalf of the oppressed groups and classes around the world, and this versatility, without any doubt, was the main factor in ensuring their influence. "

Of all these definitions and interpretations, you can see how western scientists above Gorbachev and its then ideological assistants in understanding the essence of socialism, although they add to it elements of communism. To some extent, this mixing for Western sociologists can be considered apologies, since the confusion in the concepts of socialism and communism arose in the middle of the XIX century. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the substitution of socialism with communism becomes conscious in anti-communist propaganda after World War II, especially in the United States. In particular, he was constantly inspired: communism implies prosperity and well-being for all citizens, and see, they say, for "communist states", for example, USSR or PRC: Where is prosperity? After 1991, such a substitution of concepts allowed the West with the victorious delight to sober about the "collapse of communism". It is clear that communism could not suffer collapse, since he did not exist anywhere. The defeat suffered socialism, not communism, and not everywhere. In the PRC, he continues to develop successfully.

So what is socialism? If you drop its national specifics, then socialism can be defined as the form of organization of the Company, in which the main means of production and land belong to the state; It also organizes planned management of the economy and distributes products of labor in accordance with the principle: from each by the abilities, everyone according to work. - The wording to pain is familiar to everyone according to Soviet textbooks. In modern formulation, socialism is called society, which in the denominator dominates state ownership of the means of production along with others, including private. In Numertel, socialism involves the form of political power aimed at the realization of the interests of the entire population.

The forms of power depend on the culture, geography, geostrategic position, history, psychology and thinking of the nation, as well as from a particular historical moment. Despite the diversity of forms, socialism is, first of all, the power that ensures the participation of each member of society in socially-pleasant labor. Consequently, with socialism, each personality - anonymium is part of the whole society and, that is especially important, society itself cannot do without this part, without each individual. From an ethical point of view, this means that socialism is the concern of the state about all citizens, ensuring the most pressing needs of their citizens (work, housing, medicine, education and food), and the reference responsibility of all citizens in front of the state. built on another principle; It provides a mechanism for the activities of all citizens on an individual basis in response to the unquestionless obedience of citizens to the law and the rules of the Company, designed according to the principle of the jungle (strong survivors, the weak dies). Under socialism, the level of welfare of all members of society depends on the wealth of the state; With capitalism, the wealth of the state does not have a direct effect on the well-being of all citizens. Their wealth or well-being depends on their own success in the field of private entrepreneurship. The driving force during capitalism is profit, regardless of how it is achieved.

The driving force of socialism is the justice and equality of its members.

There is an objective contradiction between justice and equality, the depth and the degree of resolution of which is just determining the forms and various stages of the development of socialism.

It is extremely important to allocate another thing to which V. Vernadsky drew attention. "Socialism, he wrote, - there is a conscious phenomenon, and all the power and its entire meaning is in the manifestation of consciousness in the folk masses, in their conscious participation in the surrounding life" 246. This means that if the trajectory of capitalism is largely determined by objective laws of the market, then socialism develops on the basis of the focused activities of all its members, aware of their strategic goals and constantly corrective ways to achieve them. In other words, the process of development of socialism is more subjectivated and therefore it is more vulnerable, since any wrong turn can move this movement from the right path. That is why in the development of socialism, the leaders of the party, the state, governments are much more important than during capitalism. There, the system works for itself, here, under socialism, the system is manageable, it can be given any trajectory, to carry out any, in the interests of the socialist state.

It is known that the theory of socialism was created by Marx and Engels in the depths of the class bourgeois society. This forced them to pay attention to the problems of the revolution and the form of its proceeding on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, the subsequent development of Marxism went on two ways: the European, social democratic version and the Russian, Bolshevik version. The foundations of the first option laid F. Lassal, and then, so to speak, on a Marxist basis, they were reworked by E. Bernstein and K. Kautsky. As a result, the Markov Theory of Socialism (Communism) was transformed into a social-democratic theory, deprived of the revolutionary spirit and its nucleus - the teachings on the dictatorship of the proletariat. In England, the model of the Fabian society was more popular, the theorist of which was Sydney Webb. It was adjacent to him, by the way, famous writers - Herbert Wels and J. Bernard Shaw. From the very name - Social Democracy - it was clear that the supporters of this option were given to democratic institutions, especially in achieving socialist purposes. The idea was that their achievement is possible without revolutions, without a broom of the bourgeois state, but by evolution within the bourgeois state. By the way, did anyone think, why did one part of people think about the social reformist ways to reform society, the other - to the radical revolutionary forms of change? The answer is extremely simple. Those who have that lose (accumulation, power, property, privilege) will prefer to "fight" in parliament, those who have nothing to lose ("except its chains") will choose barricades. That is why neither the Zyuganovsky Central Committee nor Podberezkin with all the leadership of the NPSR will not go to the barricades. They have something to lose.

Lenin at one time extremely sharply opposed the Social - democratic forms of struggle, against, as he called, the revisionist version. Especially at that time went from him K. Kautsky. However, it should be recognized that this option in Western Europe has worked. Elements of socialism, in various states and on different scales, can be found in any country of the West as from the point of view of ownership forms and from the point of view of social guarantees of workers. Naturally, all these conquests were achieved not only by parliamentary debates, but also a rather acute strike struggle of workers, especially at the beginning of the century, then before the Second World War, as well as powerful workshop demonstrations, hoped throughout Europe in the 60s. After a certain closure in the 70s - 80s, from the mid-90s, the workers again have to demonstrate their combat readiness to keep their social guarantees at a certain level achieved in previous periods. With all this, speaking of the conquests of the Social - Democracy, it is necessary to constantly remember that in a considerable degree, and maybe in decisive, they were achieved thanks to the existence of the Socialist Soviet Union. After temporary defeat of socialism in the USSR / Russia, it is possible, many achievements of workers in the West will be cut or eliminated. There is such a tendency, for example, in the same Canada.

Also draws attention to another curious fact. Social democratic socialism after the Second World War began to attach a huge meaning of the concept of freedom. At first glance, it looks strange, since many Russians seem to be that it is in the West of these freedoms at least debund. In reality, in this "free society", a person is in such a dense interweaving of regulatory rules, to overcome which is in the state of rare units like the mentioned B. Sorez. Western democracy has a lot of restrictions that conflict with freedom of individual. According to the leaders of Social Democracy in England, it is solved only under socialism. So, one of the ideologues of the working party of Great Britain Tony Krosland argued: "Socialism is the desire for equality and the protection of freedom, while it is necessary to keep in mind that until we are really equal, we will not be truly free. "

In my opinion, this wording is fundamentally contradicts the difficulties of capitalism, since capitalism does not imply equality in principle. But such a statement of the issue is notable for what is recognized: under capitalism there is no equality or freedom.

But the main thing is why I touched the plot of social democracy, this is what social democracy could only work in the West by virtue of the age-old traditions of democracy. These traditions determine the culture, thinking and behavior of the American - European. Although, as already mentioned, in different degrees and in different ways in various countries of the West.

A completely different picture in Russia

Lenin not only retained, but also strengthened the Marx concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a tool for the capture of power and as subsequent, based on the historical specifics of Russia. Once - then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the leader of the working party, Clement Etley very accurately noticed that "Russian Communism is an illegitimate child of Karl Marx and Catherine". He is right in the sense that after Petrovskaya Russia never knew democracy as a form of government, and the Duma after 1905 did not play any role even from the point of view of the interests of the bourgeoisie (why it took the bourgeois february revolution).

And if, in the basic part, Russian socialism on the form relied on state ownership of land and means of production, then its adequate part from the very beginning was authoritarian forms: from the dictatorship of the proletariat through the dictatorship of the personality to the dictatorship of the party-economic asset.

The first version of the dictatorship made it possible to seize power and keep it in the interests of the wide sections of the Russian population in the performance of the main tasks of socialism. The second option allowed us to withstand a hostile environment, crush the inner explicit and potential opposition, and finally, to win the largest war in the human history. The third option, after a short quasi-democratic thaw, by the end of the 70s led to the degeneration of socialism, both in the base and in the superstructure, led to absolute discredit of socialism in the eyes of the population, since its fruits used mainly party-economic nomenclature and trade mafia ( Lenin, by the way, was very afraid, no matter how "the speculator did not take over the socialism"). The State of the Latestrianne period actually stopped performing the main socialist function - care for the needs of citizens. It led to the fact that citizens had to rely on themselves. And the greater the degree of assistance to himself, the closer this socialism rolled to capitalism. Conversely, the more the capitalist state cared for its citizens (through a social guarantee system), the closer this state was approaching socialism (Scandinavian countries and Canada). In the USSR, socialism as a political and economic system was reborn into society, according to its structure and functions resembling Western capitalist societies. To some extent there was a convergence, but not by virtue of interaction, but by virtue of internal development, which is universal in the world.

What kind of, such as society are we talking about this quotation? "The developed industrial society is a society in which the technical apparatus of production and distribution has become a totalitarian political apparatus, which controls and managing all parties to life, free, as well as working time, critical and positive thinking." Does it apply to socialism? Or to capitalism? Herbert Marcuse, who wrote it in 1965, had in mind Western capitalism in his American execution248. But such a description can be attributed to the Soviet society with full right, say, the 70s. It is natural, because The USSR in those years lost its socialist essence.

Socialism and the future of Russia

Let's go back to the current moment. Let us ask three questions themselves:

1. After the defeat of socialism in the Soviet Union, does he have a chance to revive again?

2. If so, is the society built on the socialist basis, to pull out the country from the bog, in which she drove capitalism?

3. If again, yes, is it capable of a society for further accelerated development, not inferior to the pace of developed capitalist countries? I will try to answer these questions.

It is easiest to answer the first question. The most amazing thing that socialism never disappeared from us and did not disappear. Why? The People's Artist Lyudmila Zaitseva is responsible: "Communism is our Russian ideology, our national ID, our lifestyle. This is a community, to the highest degree of close and necessary to our people." And with her all major Russian scientists and philosophers agree, some of which are called the phenomenon of communism - socialism in other words of the type of Cat. But no matter how none call this phenomenon, it existed at the dawn of the emergence of the Russian state - a kind of early desiccional socialism - up to Peter, and after Peter in the form of late soda socialism. Socialism did not go anywhere during the development of capitalism of the second half of the XIX century, and during the period of the emergence of imperialism of the beginning of the XX century. He remained in the Khrushchev - Breast-old years, remained at Gorbachev, there is now. I mean socialism in the consciousness of most Russian people, which determines the type of culture, thinking and behavior. This phenomenon is forced to recognize even American authors D. Erin and T. Gustafson, who are in one of the best works in modern Russia in the West ("Russia in 2010 and what it means for the world") with extreme regret they write: "Although the ideology of communism has come No, socialism continues to live in the minds of people. ... Many still belong to the suspicion of private property, especially to Earth. Many Russians are still preferred to think with groups and are suspicious to individualism. This market (in counterweight to black and barter) Even alien to their life experience, and they continue to hope to solve their problems on the state, they are more hostile to private property privileges than achieved in the public service. "

Such a statement means that the Russian in any social - political system retains communal, socialist qualities. If we exclude the early forms of the community organization, only in the current century, in the period from 1917. Until the mid-50s, the sustained and basic structure corresponded to the socialist ulike of Russians. Due to this correspondence and there was a colossal leap in the development of the Soviet Union. Thus, to achieve again of this compliance, it is necessary to restore the socialist superstructure with the base adequate to it. It is quite natural that the shape or type of socialist superstructure and the basis in the present conditions will differ from the variants of the period of Lenin and Stalin. And to determine these forms must be facing the country and the nature of the contradictions that must be solved at the moment.

You can write about today's problems infinitely, although in fact, if they are generalized, there are only two problems. The first: Russia fell into dependence on the Western world, losing the feature of an independent state. This manifests itself in the fact that she has lost control over its economy, internal and foreign policy. The second problem: the current ruling class in the face of the president and the government was not able to carry out reforms, and this inability pounds the country is increasingly and deeper into a strategic bog with the inevitable collapse of a single state to regional enclaves independent of the center, but increasingly dependent on foreign capital .

These two major problems generate a whole block of contradictions, among which the following are needed: Contradictions between:

Russia and the western world;
- the ruling class and the main part of the labor population of Russia;
- center and regions;
- comprador bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie;
- Socialist malfunction of most Russians and forms of power and economy.

All these contradictions are antagonistic and therefore can only be solved based on a tough and power policy. At the same time, the power policy does not necessarily mean the destruction of the "opponent", although it does not exclude it. First of all, it means a tough requirement for one or another opponents to be modified in accordance with the interests of Russia and its population. But if these requirements are not standing, any "opponent" will ignore them, continuing to act in favor of their interests.

Given the catastrophic state of Russia, the revived socialist superstructure should be tough and decisive in defending the interests of the country's labor population.

We want this or not, but one of the specifics of the Russian path lies in strong state power dominating democracy with its parliaments and laws. Attempting to balance the three branches of the authorities, to "like them," will constantly generate the struggle against all. Only strong state power can end the process of further decay of Russia.

It is necessary to take control of all strategic raw materials and strategic industry. But the same state should free themselves from retail trade, services of services and from burden to engage in medium and minor enterprises. This is the case of private traders.

Mass leakage currency through private and half-party banks should encourage the state to take these banks into their own hands, at least those who do not participate in industry.

This type of control simplifies the system of relations with regions, regions and edges. They, deprived of concerns about strategic raw materials and industry, on the one hand, lose the center of the center of the center, on the other, are completely free in the activities of stimulating the local industry on a public or private basis. The latter requires only "tribute" in the form of a rigidly fixed, but gentle tax.

Consequently, at first, the Russian economy should be concentrated in the hands of the state with extremely rigid functions of control and regulation, including in the market sphere.

I want to emphasize, the power must be tough, but this stiffness should be addressed only against the enemies of socialist Russia and the interests of the majority of the country's population. If the power starts to work on himself or a narrow layer of the Lord, it will mean its rebirth, and in this case it should be reset. The mechanism and procedure "discharge" of such power should be carefully painted in the country's constitution.

The experience of socialist construction in the USSR showed that socialism can pull the country from any crisis situation of the most extreme type. Therefore, I am sure that socialism pulls out of the crisis and the current Russia. I have no doubt here. But the previous experience showed that socialism does not behave very well, so to speak, in peaceful periods of development. And as evidence, we constantly reduced the facts of the backlog from the West on labor productivity, in terms of the level and quality of life, in technical and technological spheres. In other words, how to respond to the third question: whether socialism is able to compete with developed capitalism, providing society the same charms, which has a resident of Western countries. This simple question cannot be a simple answer. We'll have to deploy it.

Firstly, when we were within the Socialism system as a leading development trend (1917--1953), our state was ahead of all countries in terms of growth of all macroeconomic and social indicators. After 1953, we fell into pseudo socialism, and then in Pseudo capitalism, which sharply reduced the pace of development of the country. Our socialist essence was without frame sustained-based supports, which, without behaving, destroyed leaders-marasmatics. In other words, the competition with Western capitalism was not socialism, but a parody of him, actually one of the worst options of capitalism. Secondly, Western capitalism developed and develops to a huge extent due to exploitation of the Western Third World, which could not afford real socialism. It is necessary to constantly remember: the entire market world of Asia, Africa and Latin America with colossal damage for themselves is "plowing". The result of "cooperation" with the West for most countries of the third world is tens of millions of unemployed, hungry, beggars. Thirdly, our socialism will have to begin almost from scratch again, from the economy, as it were, twice destroyed by the Patriotic War, while the West "in acceleration".

Thus, if we soberly look at things, even with the socialist form of the board, we will not be able to catch up with the West at the average level of well-being in the medium term. Too far back the current reformers were driven. But if the current capitalism is preserved, then this gap will increase. Socialism is able to reduce it, including due to the cutting of the current income of the current top of the ruling class. Socialism has developed a mechanism for the redistribution of state and society revenues in order to meet the natural needs of each member of society. This is the main advantage of socialism to capitalism. The reverse side of this advantage - a person stops thinking about the bread and tomorrow, as it happens now during capitalism. He draws his energy to the development of the spiritual and creative potential of his personality, encouraged and highly measured by the team and society as a whole. This type of personality relationships and society in which the kindness, trust and dignity of personality is the norm of public morality, is ensured by the genetics of socialism.
Up

Of the 39 independent states of Europe, the socialist and social democratic parties operate in 35.

Social democratic parties are available in 29 countries, socialist - in 19, although not always under such names - in the UK, for example, the carrier of social democratic ideas is the Labor Party, in Italy - left democrats, in Norway - the working party. A non-socialist socialist movement in Greece is an expressive of socialist ideas in Greece, in Poland - the Union of Democratic Left Forces.

The differences between the socialist and social democratic parties are traced mainly through distance diffraction from radical political flows. Along with the Social Democratic Party of Austria, Germany, Denmark and others, the Socyntherent includes both socialist parties of Belgium (Flemish and French), the Socialist Party of Luxembourg, the Norwegian Working Party, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, Socialist Party of France and Portugal. At the same time, the Social Democratic Party of Portugal and France did not associate themselves with this organization.

Are not equivalent to the position of socialist and social democratic parties within countries where they exist. In Austria, Social Democrats is the largest parliamentary opposition party, in England and Sweden - the ruling parties, in Germany and Denmark - members of the ruling coalitions. Socialists rightfully rule in Greece, in Spain, they are only the second one by the opposition faction of the parliament. Social Democrats constitute the largest parliamentary and government party in Denmark, but in Iceland, they do not enter the government or in parliament.

A similar situation in the Italian socialists, which all the time combine or disconnect with someone. In France, socialists are represented in parliament only in the Union of a number of small parties. None of the Parliament, nor into the government does not include the sociality of the Netherlands, but in the portugal of the Socialist Republic - the basis of both branches of power. The same positions at the Social Democrats of Finland and Switzerland.

The last decade was noted by the emergence of new ones, and in some cases the revival of the socialist and social democratic parties in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in the Balkans. In Albania, on the basis of the former communist, the Socialist Party was included in the Government. Together with her, the Social Democratic Party arose, which made a bet on the intelligentsia. The Socialist transformed the Communist Party in Bulgaria. At the same time, the Social Democratic Party was restored there, which joined the Socyntherent, but not in the government, could not enter into a parliament. Socialist - the second in numbers - the party was formed in Hungary, but did not enter the government, becoming a parliamentary opposition party.

Sewing political forces went to Poland. The Social Democratic Workers Party dismissed, but an union of democratic left forces arose, which was the second largest parliamentary faction. In Romania, a socialist part of labor arose at the Commodity site and the Social Democratic Party included in the government. The Social Democratic Party has restored in the Czech Republic, which formed the government and the leading parliament faction. (In Slovakia, at this time, the left democrats formed on the site of the Communist Party of Left Democrats were included in the government coalition).

The Social Democratic Party became the largest fraction in the parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Socialist Party arose in Macedonia. At the same time, a Social Democratic Union has emerged at the Commodity Place, which formed the second largest parliamentary faction. The Social Democratic Party was formed at the site of the Communists in Slovenia. In the Allied Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia and Montenegro), a social capital appeared on the site of the communist, which took the second largest place in parliament. In Croatia, the Social Democrats made their way to parliament only in the coalition with a socio-liberal party.

Reformation of political forces proceeded in the republics of the Baltic States. The Social Democratic Party is restored in Latvia. The party was adopted in the Socintern, but not in the government, nor in parliament did not enter. In Lithuania, in order to be in parliament, Social Democrats had to form a coalition. Estonian Social Democrats also went along the path of unification (in the party moderate), which ensured them entry into the government.

In general, we can say that in Europe there was a strengthening of the positions of socialists and social democrats. Socintern series replenished slightly (Social Democratic Party of Bulgaria, Latvia, the Czech Republic), which seems to be generated by unacceptability for many of the liberal ideas preached by the Organization. But the waste of Europe from the radicalism of the Communists is undoubted.

Today, even among the philosophers, few of those who correctly understand the essence of the evolution of mankind. What to say about people far from philosophy. However, if there is at least one person who owns the truth, there is hope that other people will also be able to know her.

Modern Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin In his recently published article, the "Thin Cold Revolution" gave a hint, as he sees the course of the evolution of mankind. He is sure that the revolution that occurred in Russia in 1917 was predetermined and carried out not only by people who are eager for change in society, but also by the powers of nature. Dugin wrote: "Such was the will of our Earth. She was fulfilled, and we have nothing to grunt the faces from the bloody madness of our ancestors. All right they did. Yes, bloody, yes, overly, yes, too. But otherwise it was impossible. We justify all the excesses, I do not regret anything. They (\u003d we) were obliged to do what they did. They (\u003d we) could not otherwise. And we will have to do everything again. And just, not looking at the price, as then. If we want to be Russians, stay Russian, become Russian ... "
To a large extent, in my opinion, A. Dugin is right, and I will explain why.
He is right as the fact that higher forces were involved in revolutionary transformations in Russia, and in the fact that in the near future Russia really expects a new great shock. The latter can be called anything: the next revolution, the largest folk riot, the new Great Patriotic War against foreign invaders, and the like.
Today it is important to understand everything that this upcoming shock is the same inevitability as the arrival of spring after winter, like a change of night and day. Who at least minimally comprehected the laws of nature, the fact that life on earth is not a process autonomous, it does not happen by itself, and the person is not at all king of nature. It was the monstrous misconception of militant boots.
The person is only an integral part of the wildlife, in which the main acting force is the spirit. The very spirit, about whom the Messiah Christ said, he is God. ( "God is a spirit, and worshiping him must worship in the spirit and truth" (John 4: 24)).
Mahatma India has long been explained by periodically emerging shocks in sociums in this way: ("Agni Yoga").
This is true both in relation to a separate personality and in relation to any community.
Let's ask for a question: why the century ago in Russia one could happen to a series of revolutions?
Is it just because this really wanted Marxists-Jews?
There is no way. The latter was only a concomitant factor - a detonator of the social explosion.
100 years ago, the Russian empire could accumulate so much internal problems and contradictions that in it, as if in a steam boiler, began to sharply grow internal pressure. People who lived in the Russian Empire were felt that the society in which they live - not fair, and he needed high-quality transformations.
There was a clarification of the population, which was 82.5% rural. An formed was only a small part of society.
The most terrible scourge of Russia was legalized slavery, with whom the empire lived for many centuries and which was canceled not further as 150 years ago, and, by no means for the goodwill of the king. To go to this pitch of Tsar Alexander II forced circumstances - beginning "peasant unrest". Because this shameful phenomenon was called "serfdom" in Russia, did not change its essence. In fact, it was one of the forms of slavery. The slave-owned landowner could sell his fortress to another landowner, he could kill any serf, who had no punishment for it, except to pay a fine to the state treasury.
Well, the most important thing - a religion was dominant in society, which wore the name of Christ was not right, was adapted by the clergy for the slave-owner system and had a slave-owner god at the head. According to this religion, all subjects of the Russian Empire were called "slaves of God", despite the fact that the Bible contains such words of Christ, the words of Christians said to his student: "You are my friends if you fulfill that I command you. I do not call you slaves, for the slave does not know what Mr. Him does; But I called you friends, because I told you everything I heard from my father ... "(John 15: 15).
At the same time, the church did not give the subject to the suggestion of the correct idea of \u200b\u200bthe main acting force in nature, the Holy Spirit. Church believers preferred Vitievato to tell people about the spirit only in one case, when they retell the biblical fairy tale about the immaculate conception of Mother Jesus Christ - Mary. The Holy Spirit itself was described in the form of a pigeon - a nice bird well.

These factors: the monstrous lie spreading the obscurantic of church and reigned in society the terrible social injustice pushed the Russian people to the fact that in 1917 he went on revolutionaries-jeads, which in need promised to all their followers of "Golden Mountains": freedom, equality and fraternity.
As you know, instead of the promised, these fans of the devil brought the death of millions of compatriots, ruin and hunger to the Russian people. The main executioner of the people of Russia was then Labes Trotsky (Bronstein), who served as a global sionism on the physical destruction of the Russian Empire.

Russia's revival occurred thanks to two geniuses - Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. The first was the theoretical state of the socialist state in the ruins of Russia - the world's first states and peasants, the second - ingenious practitioner, embody Lenin ideas in life. Stalin became a foreman of socialism. Thanks to his talent, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was built.
What did socialism of the Russian Empire gave socialism? First of all, the total illiteracy of the population was liquidated in the shortest possible time. Everyone could learn completely free on anyone and become anyone, at least workers, at least academician. In parallel and the industrialization of the Soviet Union was carried out in parallel and the industrialization of the Soviet Union.

With all his advantages, a strong and powerful state, built under the leadership of Stalin, could not be fully fair and full. It could not be such because it was a perpetrator to replace the false religion in the Russian Empire, a militant atheism came.
By separating the Church from the state, the Communist Party of the USSR made his bet on the upbringing of morality in a person, on the awakening of his conscience, without explaining at the same time the nature of the conscience, not the discontinuity of the secret that the human conscience has a direct connection with the spirit that managing nature.
So, guided by conscience, Soviet people had to build their relations with other citizens in the socialist state.

On these principles, the USSR state could have existed indefinitely for a long time, if in him, along with people, their antipodes did not live - people without conscience.
I united in the "Wolf Fly", people without honor and conscience were able once secretly sophisticated to ruin the state built by the people under the leadership of Stalin. It happened 38 years after the death of the great leader.

Incredibly, but the fact: the last president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev today is openly, not being taking advantage, tells everyone that he went to the highest level of power in the country only with one goal - to destroy the socialist state, destroy the Communist Party and bring to Russia the value of the West.
That is this Juda at the seminar at the American University in Turkey.
"The goal of my life was the destruction of communism, unbearable dictatorship over people. My wife fully supported me, who understood the need for this even earlier than me. It was to achieve this goal that I used my position in the party and the country. That is why my wife pushed me all the time to ensure that I consistently occupy an increasingly higher position in the country. When I personally met the West, I realized that I could not retreat from the goal. And to achieve it, I had to replace all the management of the CPSU and the USSR, as well as guidance in all socialist countries ...
I managed to find associates in the implementation of these goals. Among them, A.N. Yakovlev and E.A.Shevardnadze, the merits of which in our general business are simply invaluable.
The world without communism will look better. After 2000, the epoch of the world and universal prosperity will come. But the world still keeps the power that will slow down our movement to peace and creation. I mean China ... "(Newspaper "USVIT" ("Zarya") No. 24, 1999, Slovakia).

For those who have passed after 2000, 11 years old, as I see, the world did not better. On the contrary, in the power in Russia again, as in 1917, the Jews were established - confessing the faith in the diazole of Jews-Zionists. They put the most direct participation in the collapse of the USSR and created in Russia oligarchic power. The result of their board was the fact that in Russia we again have devastating, poverty, hunger, high mortality, millions of children-unprovers and abandoned on the arbitrariness of the fate of old people.

Of course, this is a clear overcast in the system of relations between society and the human control of the spirit. And if you consider that the USSR was destroyed by no honor and conscientious by people through the betrayal of the last leader of the state, contrary to the will of the people, then today it is safe to say that Russia is treated again to return through the shock on the path of socialism as the most equitable form of citizens' coexistence.

Of course, it will be another socialism, more equity due to the admission of all people to the knowledge of the highest forces governing nature.

In September 2011 I had a chance to write the book that Vang prophesied for. "The Fiery Bible", which gives the reader an elementary idea of \u200b\u200bthe spirit, managing nature, was born in less than a month. She immediately was put up with me on the Internet, and now for two months she is distributed free of charge in Russia. I am sure that time will come, and people will be read throughout the world. So the real prophecies come true.

The second prophecy I want to tell about, was made by Joseph Stalin before the beginning of World War II in 1939. It has been preserved in the archive of the USSR Ambassador in Sweden Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai.
Here it is.
"... Many of the affairs of our party and the people will be perverted and deceased primarily abroad, and in our country too. Zionism, fading to world domination, will be cruel to us for our successes and achievements. He still considers Russia as a barbaric country as a raw materials appendage. And my name will also be excavated, slander. I will send a lot of atrocities. World sionism will strive to destroy our union, so that Russia can never rise. Power of the USSR in the friendship of peoples. The edge of the struggle will be aimed primarily on the gap of this friendship, the separation of the outskirts from Russia. Here you have to confess, we have not done everything yet. There is still a large field of work. With a special force, the nationalism will raise the head. For some time it will give up internationalism and patriotism, only for a while. There will be national groups in nations and conflicts. There will be many chiefs - Pygmeni, traitors within their nations. In general, in the future, development will go more complex and even mad paths, turns will be extremely steep. The case goes to the fact that the East will be growing. There will be sharp contradictions with the West. And yet, no matter how important events develop, but the time will pass, and the views of new generations will be addressed to the affairs and victories of our Socialist Fatherland. Year after year will come new generations. They again raise the banner of their fathers and grandfathers and give us tribute to all. They will build their future at our past ... "

Very soon - on December 4, 2011, elections will be held in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation VI convocation.

Because of which party will gain the largest number of votes, will depend on whose hands will power in the country.

In the time that remained before the elections, the party of power is "United Russia" - it is not bent to go to the frank bribery of voters, as its leadership understands - their time leaves. Give your voice in the election for "units" - get 1,500 rubles! "So yesterday in the city of Hero Murmansk in the shopping center" Pearl "there was a brisk purchase of the votes of the electorate.

October 24, 2011 Mayor of the city of Izhevsk and member of the Unified Russia party, Denis Agashin, during a meeting with representatives of veteran organizations, not taking advantage, said that the financing of these movements would be continued only if their representatives would give their votes to the State Duma Over the party of power.
Veterans filmed this blackmail on the camcorder and posted a roller on the Internet. This video is. "That's terrible!", - Veterans of Izhevsk are outraged.

It's not a horror yet, I want to notice. This horror will begin in the party of power, when she sees that on December 4, the votes of Russia will give in favor of the Communist Party of Russia, and the Communists will win in the elections, the most who once betrayed the President M. Gorbachev and his gang.
Since the party of power is "United Russia" - it does not exist in itself, but with the support of the West and by its pointer, then the options for the development of subsequent events may be somewhat, and the worst of them is the world war.
Already today, all global media voiced the news that Israel plans to start a war with Iran in December and in this case, the United States will support Jews.
It seems to me that the beginning of this event is directly related to the results of elections in Russia. A number of sources in the media argues that the war will not limit the territory of Iran. The likelihood of all developed countries in the New World War is very high.

On this occasion, on October 18, I wrote an article "The third world want to unleash. Jews must become her arsonists and firewood at the same time. " I posted it here:
I have started my new article with philosophy and with an explanation that a person is only a small part of the wildlife, in which the main existing force is spirit.
And I have not known the statement by Mahatm India: "The world is lost happiness, for happiness in the spirit. Thousands of spirits should experience misfortune, for otherwise, how do they come back? "

Considering the Iranian's intention voiced above, to unleash the war with Iran in December, which the West, of course, will try to expand to the scale of world war, in the hope that it will write down the entire astronomical debt of the United States, not only elections are waiting for us ahead.

A high probability that the harsh test is waiting for us all. To stand in it, we are simply obliged to solve everything as one, and start living on conscience and in the truth in the freaks with the Spirit, as Christ. Then it will only be happiness. There is no other option for us. "Such will of our Earth, - Posted about this, the philosopher Alexander Dugin, - They (\u003d we) were obliged to do what they did. They (\u003d we) could not otherwise. And we will have to do everything again. And just, not looking at the price, as then. If we want to be Russians, stay Russian, become Russian ... "

In the people for socialism? - People for socialism! Analysis of the results of one sociological survey

The "Left Front group" drew attention to the reference to the results of one survey of the Levada Center, conducted on January 27-30, 2012. The results turned out to be so interesting and unequivocal that I rushed to the comment within 15-20 minutes. Nor recording on the wall nor my comment Did not cause special interest in the "Left Front group". However, my comrades in the party of workers of Russia considered the analysis of interesting and recommended to deploy it into a full-fledged post by providing links to key data. Perform the received instruction.

Since you do not want to copy the tables in the post hard and overload the text, I presented a tablet data in the form of graphs. For comparison with the original material, the graphics are numbered and signed as the corresponding tables. For convenience, the results are connounced in several blocks, the procedure for consideration of which differs from the procedure for placing tables in the materials of the Levada Center.

Economic system (Table 2)

Here the results are the most obvious. If in July 1992, the majority of respondents preferred private property (obviously, it is in mind private property for the means of production) and market relations, then in January 1996 (after 4 years of reforms), as a priority, people called the state planned economy. During the 21st century, more than half of the respondents did a similar choice. It is worth noting that in this matter the preferences of the majority of the people and the current "left" (from the left front to the Communist Party, from Udaltsov and Zyuganov to Baranov and Limonov), tasty for small and medium-sized businesses, divergety.

Political system (Tables 1, 3, 4)

IN table 1. A comparative assessment of various political systems is provided. In essence, these are proposed three: Soviet, Western and existing survey in the country. Until 2008, the changes in the number of supporters of the first two are in antiphase to the third. After the crisis year, the trends are somewhat replaced. If the increase in the number of supporters of the Western political system, together with a sharp decline in the number of supporters of the existing fully fits into the former pattern, the number of supporters of the Soviet system continues to decline and in January 2012 is inferior to the preferences of "Westems". In 2012, preferences were practically equal - all three options were in the range from 20 to 28%.

Further (Table 3) The authors of the survey introduced a new alternative - state of a special device and ways of development. At the turn of the "zero-tenths" it is this new one, the unprecedented political system has been supported by the majority of the population. She is consistently inferior to Western, and Soviet (sustainable third place).

IN table 4. Attempt to fill in specific content "SPECIAL Russian Way of Development". Results are grouped in 3 blocks. Minimum values \u200b\u200b(in most cases in the range from 5 to 10%) received: a) the answers like "difficult", "not heard", "I don't think"; b) obviously fantastic options (№4 and №5), sharply opposing the interests of power and citizens; c) the variant of the "precipitated fortress" (No. 6). According to the latter, it should be noted that the growth of pseudopatriotic hysteria for the year from 5 to 11% is the undoubted "merit" of the guardians of all stripes.

Unconditional preference for respondents (from 34 to 41%) only one of the proposed options was used - No. 2 - economic development of the country, but with greater concern for people, and not about the profits and interests of "Life owners". In connection with such a pronounced priority, as well as in connection with the unequivocal preference on the economic system (see above), one definition was immediately remembered - the definition of socialism, given V.I. Lenin in the work "Tharing up the catastrophe and how to deal with it" ( PSS, T. 34, p. 192). "Socialism is nothing but a state-capitalist monopoly, faithful to the benefit of all the people and standing at the capitalist monopoly." In this way, Under the "special Russian path", the majority in our country implies socialism!

Why then in the answers to direct questions received such a low result for the socialist state? Yes, because the current "left" pseudocommunist-Trotskyists demonstrate the terry anti-Sovetchist, focusing on the alleged exposure of "bloody Stalinism", "class of bureaucrats and working aristocracy", "administrative and command system", "state capitalism" and "barracks of socialism". You can congratulate them - such "exposures" achieved the result. At least in relation to the image of the "socialist state of the type of USSR". What an image has nothing to do with real socialism, nor with the real union.

Democracy and trends in the country's development (Tables 5-7)

Key signs of democracy (Table 6) Russians consider: a) equality - an option of response №2 and b) People's control over the authorities - Options 2, 3, 6. In 2012, they voted from 35 to 40% of respondents. Only 26% noted such a sign of democracy as free and alternative elections. From this result it becomes clear why the slogan "Honest Elections!" Not finding wide support. Well, in the last place turned out to be a fairly exotic demand for the inviolability of personal life.

It should be noted the key misapplement of the questionnaires in Table 6. They did not allocate such an aspect of democracy as direct management of the people of society. People and power are artificially divided. This, on the one hand, reflects the dominant dependency position of the majority in relation to power (hero, leader) and, on the other hand, contributes to the formation of such a position.

In assessing the country's development trends (Table 5) The decline in the feeling of chaos, which was dominant in the second half of the 90s, was pronounced. This trend is replaced, according to some, the development of democracy, according to others, is the formation of authoritarianism, dictatorship. The number of first increases faster than the second: from 8% in June 1995 to 35% in January 2012 against 8 and 19%, respectively.

In general, the assessment of the presence of democracy in the country (Table 7) According to most of the respondents, restrained optimistic: rather, there is, but still not finally approved.

Signal of political forces (Table 8)

From the current political forces, three are the greatest sympathies: the Communists, Democrats and the Party of Power. After a burst of interest in 2000, the indicators of the Communists and Democrats are decreasing, and the government is growing. And the performance of the Communist Party fell faster than the Democrats. The growth of sympathies for the party of power can be explained not only by economic stability, but also, that is unexpectedly, the democratic course of the course conducted (see the previous section). As a result, in 2007, the Communist Party in the number of sympathizers gave way to the party of power. A splash of political activity in the early 10s was most reflected in the democrats. In 2012, they got into the leaders of this triple, collecting 21% of the votes of respondents. Communists from 15% were in the tail. In general, the indicators of the three considered political forces were leveled out, which reflects the objective of their condition - on a key issue (support for the benchmark at the expense of the state) between the "Communists", the democrats and the part of the power of discrepancies.

Sympathy for the rest of political forces are within the limits of a statistical error. Therefore, the moaning of the centrists - "Appleers" for dishonest elections does not have any reason.

The greatest sympathy scored the option "None of the existing forces". Antipathy to political parties and movements are steadily experiencing at least a third of Russians. There are several aspects. First, this is a feature of national psychology expressed in ignoring power. More about referring to the RUSSIAN series. Secondly, these are the features of the movement of vast masses of people. A significant part of the time most people are in a calm state in which "not before politics." These periods of tranquility are replaced by the times of the tectonic movement, when the "Great Some" begins to speak clearly. Apparently, it is now that time comes. Thirdly, despite the growth of activity, the people among the current political forces do not see the one that in the key question would reflect the interest of its majority.

Conclusions.

1. Most of the country's population in matters relating to the arrangement of economic and political life, choose the socialist path. The best way preference to the people reflects the Leninist definition of socialism: "socialism is nothing but a state-capitalist monopoly, facing the benefit of all the people and exhausting to be a capitalist monopoly." Historically this definition corresponds to the RSFSR / USSR 1917-1987.
2. Currently, there are no political parties from the well-known public commits (organizations, movements), whose software installations in key moments would reflect the choice of most people of Russia.
3. A serious problem is currently dominant in the society of subjective and idealistic views on the story, which contributes to the formation of a dependent position by the type "Here to choose an honest president, and it will build socialism."
4. The priorities of the Communists are currently:
- the creation of a party, the batch of workers of Russia, which the main goal will put the implementation of the course chosen by the majority of the people, the course for the restoration and development of socialism;
- Explanation to people of the obvious fact that every simple person is a genuine Creator of History, and not on a pawn in the element spontaneous game;
- the most severe and intransigent criticism of the pseudommunist anti-Soviet rhetoric of the so-called "left".

The question is not to build socialism as a paradise in a separate country. The question is to restore and develop socialism as a condition for the survival of our country. Because the alternative to socialism is only one - the next victory of the bellows under the banner of "democracy". The result will be total robbery on Libyan scenario and a new collapse of the country.

On socialist and social democratic parties in Europe

Of the 39 independent states of Europe, the socialist and social democratic parties operate in 35.

Social democratic parties are available in 29 countries, socialist - in 19, although not always under such names - in the UK, for example, the carrier of social democratic ideas is the Labor Party, in Italy - left democrats, in Norway - the working party. A non-socialist socialist movement in Greece is an expressive of socialist ideas in Greece, in Poland - the Union of Democratic Left Forces.

The differences between the socialist and social democratic parties are traced mainly through distance diffraction from radical political flows. Along with the Social Democratic Party of Austria, Germany, Denmark and others, the Socyntherent includes both socialist parties of Belgium (Flemish and French), the Socialist Party of Luxembourg, the Norwegian Working Party, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, Socialist Party of France and Portugal. At the same time, the Social Democratic Party of Portugal and France did not associate themselves with this organization.

Are not equivalent to the position of socialist and social democratic parties within countries where they exist. In Austria, Social Democrats is the largest parliamentary opposition party, in England and Sweden - the ruling parties, in Germany and Denmark - members of the ruling coalitions. Socialists rightfully rule in Greece, in Spain, they are only the second one by the opposition faction of the parliament. Social Democrats make up the largest parliamentary and government party in Denmark, But in Iceland, they do not enter the government or in parliament.

A similar situation in the Italian socialists, which all the time combine or disconnect with someone. In France, socialists are represented in parliament only in the Union of a number of small parties. None of the Parliament, nor into the government does not include the sociality of the Netherlands, but in the portugal of the Socialist Republic - the basis of both branches of power. The same positions at the Social Democrats of Finland and Switzerland.

The last decade was noted by the emergence of new ones, and in some cases the revival of the socialist and social democratic parties in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in the Balkans. In Albania, on the basis of the former communist, the Socialist Party was included in the Government. Together with her, the Social Democratic Party arose, which made a bet on the intelligentsia. The Socialist transformed the Communist Party in Bulgaria. At the same time, the Social Democratic Party was restored there, which joined the Socyntherent, but not in the government, could not enter into a parliament. Socialist - the second in numbers - the party was formed in Hungary, but did not enter the government, becoming a parliamentary opposition party.

Sewing political forces went to Poland. The Social Democratic Workers Party dismissed, but an union of democratic left forces arose, which was the second largest parliamentary faction. In Romania, a socialist part of labor arose at the Commodity site and the Social Democratic Party included in the government. The Social Democratic Party has restored in the Czech Republic, which formed the government and the leading parliament faction. (In Slovakia, at this time, the left democrats formed on the site of the Communist Party of Left Democrats were included in the government coalition).

The Social Democratic Party became the largest fraction in the parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Socialist Party arose in Macedonia. At the same time, a Social Democratic Union has emerged at the Commodity Place, which formed the second largest parliamentary faction. The Social Democratic Party was formed at the site of the Communists in Slovenia. In the Allied Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia and Montenegro), a social capital appeared on the site of the communist, which took the second largest place in parliament. In Croatia, the Social Democrats made their way to parliament only in the coalition with a socio-liberal party.

Reformation of political forces proceeded in the republics of the Baltic States. The Social Democratic Party is restored in Latvia. The party adopted in SocinternBut neither in the government, nor in parliament entered. In Lithuania, in order to be in parliament, Social Democrats had to form a coalition. Estonian Social Democrats also went along the path of unification (in the party moderate), which ensured them entry into the government.

In general, we can say that in Europe there was a strengthening of the positions of socialists and social democrats. Socintern series replenished slightly (Social Democratic Party of Bulgaria, Latvia, the Czech Republic), which seems to be generated by unacceptability for many of the liberal ideas preached by the Organization. But the waste of Europe from the radicalism of the Communists is undoubted.

ITAR-TASS
5.04.02

Communists in Europe: the Communist Party of Portugal turned out to be the most resistant

Zhuao de Almeida Diash (João de Almeida Dias)

What happened to the most traditional communist parties in Europe? Which of them entered the union with other left, and who still resists alone? Here are their main theses, alliances and election results.

Before talking about the communist parties of other countries, it is important to note the following information about the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP): in the entire euro zone, the party headed by Zheronimo Sousa (Jeronimo Sousa) has the largest number of votes compared to their colleagues in other countries. This state of affairs is maintained for several years, but the parliamentary elections on October 4 reaffirmed it: the PCR managed to score 8.25% and get 17 seats - the highest figure since 1999.

In Europe, after PCP, the second batch of the Communists with the greatest number of votes is the Greek KKE from 5.6%. The Communist Party of Britain is popular: in the May elections, a little more than a thousand voters voted for it in the UK. Next door to Portugal, in Spain, since 1986, the Communist Party commends the elections to the coalition with the combined leftists - as in the case of the RSR, which since 1987 participates in the elections together with the "green" in the coalition of democratic unity (CDU). We will get acquainted in order with some of the PCP comrades in Europe.

In addition to PCP, among those European communist parties that still retain the ideological matrix of Marxism-Leninism, it is Greek KKE that demonstrates the greatest electoral success. In the last parliamentary elections on September 20, confirmed by Syryz's victory, she won back in January of this year, the KKE turned out to be a fifth party in terms of the number of voice-acquired votes - 5.6%.

The Communist Party of Greece functioned underground until 1974, when the Greek ultra-right dictatorship came an end. Since then, this party exists on legal grounds and never lost its representation in the Greek Parliament. It was recorded in June 1989 - 13.1%, when she spoke in the elections in the coalition with the left SynaPismos - which later became one of the political forces formed Siriza.

The times of coalitions for KKE seems to have passed after the collapse of the Soviet Union - precisely then, after this turning historical moment, the Greek communists lost voices. Since then, the voting results have stabilized by 5-6% - although in May 2012, under the leadership of Alek Papariga (Aleka Papariga), the first woman, who, at the head of the party, reached a peak of 8.5%. Currently, the Secretary General of KKE is Dimitris Koutsoumbas. Kke stands for the exit of Greece from the euro and the European Union, as well as from NATO.

On the site of the party, accessible in several languages, you can read the passage, well illustrating the enthusiastic rhetoric KKE:

"Not the consequences of changing the balance of power, we must be more demanding primarily to ourselves. We should show more strictness to not only consolidate and consolidate what we have already achieved, but also to switch to a more dynamic phase of the counterattack and strengthening forces. We do not bend under the burden of difficulties and do not ignore them. We objectively accept our duties, without any embellishment or nihilism. "

Kke has one representative in Brussels, in the United European Left Group - there is a PCP and the Portuguese left block.

France. Together on the left front

The French Communist Party (PCF), although continues its offline activities, recently participates in the elections under the brand of the left front (Front de Gauche). In the PCF coalition, the most largest batch (in 2011, according to L'Express, it consisted of 138 thousand activists), but in the foreground of the coalition there is no one else as the leader of the second largest political force, the left batch (9 thousand members). We are talking about Jean-Luc Mélénchon (Jean-Luc Mélénchon), the former TROCKIST teacher and the Minister of Professional Education in the Government of Lionel Jospin (Lionel Jospin), which in 2008 decided to leave the Socialist Party of France to establish the left batch. In the 2012 presidential election, Melanchon became the fourth, gaining 11.1% of the votes. One of his promises was to establish a 75 percent tax of those whose one-year earnings exceeds 1 million euros.

Until 1994, PCF consisted by the owner of the daily newspaper "Yumanit" (L'Humanité), which since then is a formally independent edition, meanwhile providing access to their pages with all the ideologically close part of the directions. As in Portugal, in France, the Communists traditionally hold a holiday with concerts, discussions and rallies, whose name refers to the newspaper. Feast "Semite" (Fête de L'Humanité).

The left front is represented in the European Parliament four deputies in the United European Left group.

Spain. Away from podemos

As in the case of France, the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) since 1986 participates in the elections in the combined left coalition (Izquieerda Unida). Although the latter covers other political forces - such as the Republican left or open left-handed leaders of the United Leishers have always been the PCE General Secretaries, which, according to 2009, consisted of 12558 members and is the largest party in the coalition. Currently, she is headed by Alberto Garzón.

(The case of PCE in everything is identical to the PCP, which since 1987 performs in the elections in the coalition with "green", forming a CDU. Like the Spanish united left, in CDU, it is also the Communists who have a lion's share of parliamentary seats: 15 deputies against two from the party " Green ").

Coalition - yes, but not to such an extent to unite with Podemos from the European political family to which the Portuguese left block belongs. After several months, during which it seemed that both parties went on rapprochement on the eve of the parliamentary elections scheduled for December 20, 2015, the unimportant Podemos results were caused by cooling. The separation was confirmed after the meeting of two sides, each of which eventually spoke of "folk unity", despite the lack of unity between them themselves. "We regret that Podemos closed the door for folk unity," Garson said.

"We continue our work aimed at change, and regret that there are those who prefer not to join (...). Our goal is clear: to build folk unity, "says Podemos statement.

The combined lefties have 4 deputies in Brussels, also in the United European Left group.

Great Britain. Fog Korbin?

When two parties are confused by one on the other, most likely, none of them is distinguished by a special force. This situation has developed in the UK in relation to two parties called communist: Communist Party of Britain (Communist Party of Great Britain).

In July, the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Britain is more than two, whose newspaper (although unofficially) is Morning Star, Robert Griffiths (Robert Griffiths) announced his support for Jeremy Corbin, even before he was elected as the head of the Labor Party. "Only Jeremy Corbin stands for the taxation of rich and capitalist monopolies, for investing in public services, and not for their privatization, for the construction of more social housing, for the return of energy and railways to the state, for the denial of anti-union laws and weapons of mass destruction - expensive, Amoral and useless, "writes Griffiths.

The confusion began when another Communist Party (PCGB) was charged with the introduction of its activists in the ranks of the Laborians, so that they voted for Corbin in elections to delegates. Only these accusations also spread to PCB. Griffiths did not slow down to clarify that the Communist Party is by no means his communist party. "This is a little stupid, a little reminds" Life of Brian, "he said, comparing the situation with the film of the comic group Monti Pioth.

At the parliamentary elections in May 2015, PCB received only 1229 votes. PCGB participation did not accept.

Nevertheless, the British Communists exist not only in these parties. Inside the Labor Party itself there is a Marxist fraction, the so-called Marxists of the Labor Party (Labour Party Marxists).

"Our main task is to turn the labor party into the working class tool and international socialism. To this end, we are ready to reunite with others in search of the unity of the left, both inside and outside the party, "read in the list of the main provisions of this group.

Germany. Revival Stati?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the Germans, but even this, it seems, not enough for the German Community to gain genuine importance for the country's policies. The last time the party was presented in the Bundestage in 2008, when Crystel Vegan (Christel Wegner, a member of the German Communist Party, but chosen on the list "Left" (Die Linke) was excluded from the party fraction after it made it in the invocation of calls for the return of political police Times GDR:

"I think that if a new society was created, we would again need to organize [such a statement], in order to protect the country from the reactionary forces trying to destroy the state from the inside."

It is in Die Linke that the main German left forces are concentrated (in general, the name of the party speaks for itself). The party was formed in 2007 and absorbed various forces left the second largest party in Germany - Social Democratic, including dissidents of the latter. In addition, it included old members of the Party of Democratic Socialism (the successors of the Socialist United Party of Germany, the political force on which the Dictatorship of the GDR) was entered.

In the last parliamentary elections in Germany in 2013, Die Linke received 8.2% of the vote. The party has seven deputies in the Brussels European Parliament and has become a source of inspiration for the Portuguese left block, when that in 2012 decided to make a choice in favor of two co-chairs - the two-headed manual models.