24 Answers

  1. I think that intelligent people in the question mean softer, not too bloodthirsty people.

    The Soviet system and the USSR itself were founded by force and were based on violence. But under the influence of world public opinion and with the development of Soviet society, it became impossible to destroy people by the millions. Khrushchev, who came to power, was already shot piece by piece, so the people perceived him as a buffoon. Brezhnev no longer shot political opponents, but exiled them or sent them to a mental hospital. The degree of violence decreased, and under Gorbachev, fear disappeared. The power of the CPSU was covered with a copper basin, and without this bond, the Union collapsed much faster than it was created

  2. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, etc. were ordinary government officials who were used to looking at the world from the window of an official car. Why the author attributes any special intelligence to them is unclear.

  3. Oh, who are the intellectuals there? Iosif Dzhugashvili-militant terrorist, three classes of a parish school; Malinkov – from the workers; Khrushchev – from the workers; Brezhnev – from the workers; Chernenko – from the workers; Andropov-this is generally a dark horse. Even the first and last names are made up; Gorbachev is a machine operator. Where are the intellectuals? Solid lumpen hegemon.

  4. We cannot write off the race for indicators and the degradation of the educated people. We saw that everything was being done somehow and continued to do the same. The priority was theft, bad work, loafing in businesses, making false commitments, getting the right things, but not working for the sake of acquiring them, because there was nothing to buy and nowhere to go.

  5. Because the state built by the Bolsheviks was organized on the principle of a criminal gang. members of the party protected all production facilities, taking all the profits received to the general store.

    Anyone who resisted was killed…

    State agencies were controlled by the party

    Of course, as soon as they tried to stop holding on to the blood, everything collapsed

  6. Who was more intelligent there is a difficult question.

    But the fact that in a multinational country the government should be more rigid is understandable.

    In nation-states, all others were destroyed at the creation stage, so in a more or less homogeneous society, there are fewer opportunities for division and internal confrontation.

    In the empire, nationalism and religious strife must be kept in check at all times. Otherwise, the state will not survive. The more lenient the government, the more impudent are those who are trying to divide the state.

  7. And who was more intelligent than Lenin?) Progress or regression in a country depends (to a certain extent, of course) not on the degree of intelligence of its leader, but on his literacy in the functioning of the state.

  8. counter question:

    and who, after Stalin and Lenin, among the leaders of the state named the USSR was an intellectual? and in what, I hesitate to ask, generation?

    this is a significant time.

    and two is another question:

    and what is an intellectual and how is “more intelligent” and “less intelligent” measured? give a definition and a unit of measurement, and then we'll see who fits that definition.

    let's measure the faces.

    Yes, yes, polizemerim.

    and … do not forget to compare the entire galaxy of revolutionaries (the vtch of Dzerzhinsky, Beria, Voroshilov, Plekhanov and many others) by this measure of intelligence with the composition of the last Soviet Central Committee.

    you will discover a lot of interesting things for yourself.

    still, maybe it is… that one? would you like to reformulate the question in the opposite direction?

  9. I don't know how you define the “intelligence” of Soviet leaders… but if you think from the point of view of origin, then the most “intelligent” was Lenin, because he comes from a noble family, and the rest are ordinary people. Another thing is that there was the peasant Dzhugashvili, who, not sparing counter-revolutionary elements, built socialism in a single country for the sake of our bright future, and there is Misha “Envelope”, who learned such a nickname back in Stavropol for taking bribes, and then, becoming the first and last president of the USSR (without introducing free elections), destroyed it!

  10. Here I am surprised by such questions, what does “more intelligent” mean? Smarter, more thinking, more knowledgeable?

    How can I evaluate it? Funny… For example, there is a writer who doesn't know much about mathematics, and there is a mathematician who last studied literature as a student. Do you think one of them is more intelligent?

    Author, how did you determine the level of intelligence of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev? How did you compare them?

  11. I do not agree with this statement of the question in principle!

    Khrushchev was definitely more cultured than Brezhnev (whose authorship is attributed not only to the “stagnation” but also to the “golden age” of the power of the USSR (70s and early 80s)). And Gorbachev, despite a good education, was definitely NOT cultured enough for the late 80's.

  12. The reason for the collapse is not in the intelligence of the leaders, but in their deep incompetence. The gateway to the influx of such intellectuals to the leadership of the country was opened after the assassination of Stalin.

  13. In the SSR, since 1917, in principle, negative selection was established, when only the most incompetent and unprincipled scoundrels could break through to power. But in a total dictatorship, there is no other way, there is no competition, no social elevators, everything is determined only by the ability to lick the higher-ranking ass.

    Faina Ranevskaya described the situation well then:

    “If a person is smart and honest, then he is non-partisan.

    If smart and party-minded, then dishonest.

    If he is honest and partisan — then he is a fool.”

  14. This happened because of the glasses.all these people wore them.a critical mass of diopters accumulated,and they also began to wear hats.that's right-trouble doesn't come alone.so somehow.

  15. What is characteristic in this question is that intelligence refers to the common context of the philistine image of the intellectual's perception.

    While the intelligentsia is an emerging class (according to Marx) as a natural result of the high development of the culture of social relations in bourgeois society at the end of the period of developed capitalism and the transition to early forms of socialism. For example, the same Marx assigned the final formation of the intelligentsia in society as a mature civic position of some of its representatives-about 300 years from the moment of the rudiments of the first, early stage of capitalism.

    The intelligentsia is a part of civil society that bases its worldview on the principles of humanism, moral and moral scientific criteria of kindness and mercy. Characterized by a high degree of decency and civic consciousness built on the basis of intellectual activity. Everything else in the descriptive signs of intelligent thinking will be the result of education.

    For example, in Russia, the phenomenon of intelligent thinking was studied by the philosopher Gustav Shpet, who devoted a 300-page monograph to this topic. Based on the socio-historical analysis and method, he found that at the beginning of the 19th century, the rudiments of an early form of intelligentsia had just appeared in Russian society, a small group of carriers of this form of worldview consisted mainly of scientists in the humanities, philosophers, historians, and philologists. Also, within the class class, this form of worldview was given to a small number of representatives. Thanks to a high level of material well-being and rich informative and comprehensive education.

    This group, oddly enough, had a very significant impact on their environment through creative products: poetry, literature, educational manuals(educational literature), journalism, and also quite active public activities.

    By the way, by the way, it was the representatives of the nascent early form of intelligentsia who were the driving force that formed the basis of the golden age of Russian culture. And also, it was the representatives of the early form of intelligentsia who gave our culture the era of the Silver Age.

    So, let's sum up. If we remember the slogans of the proletarian dictatorship, then the intelligentsia, even if not in the essence characteristic of this class, was the sworn enemy of the working people, and therefore was subject to extermination and extermination.

    As for the Soviet “intelligentsia,” let us look at the beginning of this answer and at how such a class and such a self-consciousness generally appears in society.

    Resume – don't look for it where it doesn't exist.

  16. Who was the most intelligent person in power after Lenin? Is that Andropov? None of them has left a good scientific work in the field of sociology/economics. Even 16 volumes of Stalin's opuses are co-authored articles and speeches at congresses/plenums. They are not what to write,… they couldn't talk without a piece of paper.

  17. A person cannot be more or less intelligent. The blue dream of an intellectual is to arrange his life without working.

    Two old school friends meet – one a hard worker, the other an intellectual. The hard worker asks: “Where do you work?”. The answer is “Yes, I don't work anymore, as I got a job two years ago.” There were too many people who got a job in the Soviet Union.

  18. “The more you forbid, the more you will have to allow later. The number of meaningless bans was such that an attempt to cancel led to the breakdown of all nuts. The Soviet Union was defeated by forces that were worse than the Soviet Union, the forces of entropy, disintegration, nationalism, egoism, and enrichment. The Soviet Union probably could have been reformed, although more and more people say that it could not have been reformed. You see, who wants to, finds ways; who doesn't want to, finds reasons.

    There are many reasons why the Soviet Union could not be saved. Perhaps one of these reasons was the general moral decline, very deep. Brezhnev, indeed, sat out a lot. Maybe in 1962, under Khrushchev, something else could have been saved if Novocherkassk had not been shot. Maybe something could have been saved in 1968, although I believe that the situation was already irreversible. Maybe in 1975 it was possible to save something on the wave of detente, but in 1985, probably, it is no longer possible. I said that it was enough to print Gumilyov to make the country collapse. Who would have thought it? ” (Dmitry Bykov)

  19. And since when do lawyers not belong to the intelligentsia ? True, lawyer Kerensky's country fell apart , but lawyer Lenin put it back together ! And later the country was assembled by lawyer Putin .

  20. Is Gorbachev an intellectual? His speech in a narrow circle was half of a mat. In this respect, Yeltsin was a cut above him, who never cursed. Take the manner of Mikhail G. to all, even to strangers, he addressed YOU. If you take the works that the leaders wrote themselves and that are still read in the world today, then these are Lenin and Stalin. I don't believe anyone has ever read Khrushchev or Gorbachev

  21. And what signs of intelligence are present in Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Gorbachev ? And the modern RF gopota in general has nothing in common with the concept of intelligence; they don't even know the concept of such a thing.

  22. I really want to get a documentary confirmation of the validity of such a “conclusion”. Which has zero confidence. Probably, the author of the question was impressed by the red diploma of myakhanizator (not a typo). Tady oops.

  23. Because when Stalin came to power in the USSR, the power of police structures was established, whose interests contradicted the real democratic transformations in the USSR.

  24. Chekhov turned over in his grave on this question. Where did you find the intellectuals in power in the USSR? And why is it “after Lenin”? Just starting with Lenin.

    Beginning with Lenin, the leadership of the USSR was made up of people who can be classified as intellectuals only in the sense that they did not engage in physical labor in their lives, but this is a very weak definition of intelligence.

    The Soviet government fought the intelligentsia as best it could. Because the intelligentsia – not all of them, of course, but only the best part of them, who were aware of their destiny and followed it – raised questions about the morality of communist disenfranchisement, about humanity, about personal dignity, about the rights of people, about freedom – topics contrary to communist cynicism.

    Lenin and Stalin organized mass repressions, giving instructions for the physical extermination of people. Lenin brought the country to destruction just 4 years after the Bolshevik coup, which required the restoration of the capitalism he overthrew to revive it. And what's intelligent about it?

    During the nearly 30 years of his savage dictatorship, Stalin turned the country into a prison, which even his associates were horrified by, who decided to start converting it at least into a barracks.

    But the more the prison was redone, the less clear the original plan became. Nothing worked without prison. It's either prison or normality, and normality is capitalism.

    It was not the country that was falling apart, but the inhumane system and its basic idea that a person can and should be deprived of everything-rights, property, life-for the sake of a fictional utopia.�

    The only one who could be classified as an intellectual there was Gorbachev. He formulated an intelligent response to the Soviet problems: it is impossible to continue living like this, the system must be changed.

Leave a Reply