Yes, the right to freedom of speech is a great achievement of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Indeed, such a right contributes significantly to the political and economic development of the state. I understand this well due to my age, experience serving in the Soviet Army, and my status as a historian. I have lived from the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat to the era of “decaying capitalism” and understand the importance of freedom of speech. A Soviet Army officer, having subordinates, was obliged to explain to the personnel, including the officer corps, the external and internal policies of the state. Political classes were held with all personnel for two hours twice a week. For the officer corps, classes on Marxist-Leninist training were conducted according to a specific program. Thus, the army’s leadership was obliged to be well-versed in the politics of the party and government.
The information war against socialist Russia, against the USSR, began from the moment of their formation. And, in my opinion, we were losing from the very beginning. We did not have a picture of the true attitude of the peoples of these countries towards us, towards the world’s first state of workers and peasants. In 1941, I was 11 years old, and I was convinced that German soldiers, these workers dressed in military uniforms, would not fight against us based on the slogan: “Workers of all countries, unite.” It turned out they fought, and not only the German proletariat but the proletariat of all Western and Eastern Europe. And they fought fiercely. And we, based on the reports of our press, considered the proletariat of these countries our brothers.
The information war against the USSR, after the war, unfolded with new force. What we hear and see today, how neo-fascism is unfolding in European countries and no one condemns them, they insult the monuments to military leaders, fighters of the Red Army, and this is even encouraged by the leaders of European countries, there is no need to be surprised or outraged. The beginning of all this filth lies in the post-war years. We believed that we were liberating them from the fascist yoke. They, however, regretted that fascism failed to defeat the world’s first socialist state, and it turned out the other way around. For them, fascism is closer and more understandable than socialism. And here it’s not about socialism. European countries, without exception, hate Russia. They sought to establish relations with Russia as with any African country. Let’s analyze the history of relations between European countries and Russia. Only animosity, enmity, hatred. Take the year 1812. No Bolsheviks, no socialism. Russia saves Europe from the international bandit Napoleon. Russia deserves this victory at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, at the cost of our cities and villages ravaged by Napoleon. And what? The fruits of this victory are appropriated by European countries, and for Russia, zero benefits. I think that Russia is also to blame for Europe’s condescending and contemptuous attitude towards us. We are too soft on them. At the end of the war, did we take contributions from those European countries whose troops were part of the armed forces of fascist Germany and killed our people, destroyed our cities and villages? No. We limited ourselves to Germany. And with that, we still provided all kinds of assistance. That’s why they sit on our heads. We should treat others as they treat us. And we are all polite and gentle, as now we all try to help Georgia, Ukraine, the Baltics. My firm opinion is that those who declare us enemies should be treated as enemies, and no one should be pitied. Only then will these dwarfs respect us.
All these countries that joined the so-called socialist camp, the "Warsaw Pact," in reality, all aspired to break away from our union. I remember very well that during the existence of the socialist camp, very serious crisis situations constantly arose in almost all the countries that were part of the socialist camp. But, since there was no freedom of speech in our country, we learned about all this from enemy voices that conducted combat operations on the fronts of the information war around the clock. And we constantly lost on this front because we did not have freedom of speech, democracy. Of course, one could understand the Soviet power. Freedom of speech would have destroyed Soviet power even earlier. Yes, life was bad under Soviet rule, and not only the power itself was to blame. We survived the revolution, the civil war, and had to transform from a backward agricultural country into a mighty industrial power capable of withstanding and defeating fascism, which was preparing to destroy us. And this had to be done in a very short historical period. All this required resources, and no one gave them to us. And all this we did at the expense of the inhumane exploitation of our people. There was no other way out. If it were up to me, I would erect a monument to the unknown peasant and the unknown worker of the thirties of the last century. It was their selfless labor that saved our country. And during World War II, all of Europe tried to inflict as much damage as possible on the Soviet Union. And we did not even take contributions from them. That's why we lived in poverty. And in the press, everything was fine. And this absence of freedom of speech played a cruel joke on us. Rumors, suspicion, distrust of the press, and from there, distrust of the government. I think that the absence of freedom of speech in the 60s of the last century created an entire stratum of intelligentsia that later seriously undermined the foundations of Soviet power and helped destroy the USSR. The Twentieth Congress of the CPSU and the ban on the publication of the Gulag in the USSR prepared the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In other words, both democracy and freedom of speech can save or destroy a state. It all depends on the goals set by both the proponents of freedom of speech and the adherents of democracy. For democracy also breeds dictators. Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev were chosen by the most democratic means. And what's the use? What good have they done for the people? Yes, early Putin seemed to try to do something. He saved Russia from obvious collapse. But personally, I do not consider this a particular merit. The people chose you to save the country from all kinds of dangers. Saving the country is the duty, the obligation of the president. But why does the president allow that for 7 years now, the people become poorer every year? Why are there so many billionaires in our poor country? Explain to me why in a country where there are hundreds of millions of arable land, millions of hectares of forests, a huge number of rivers, lakes, seas, inexhaustible sources of minerals, there are 22 million poor people? Mr. President! Lately, you have been quite sarcastic about the Soviet period of our life. In the Soviet period, you received a free university education and prepared to become president. Then we did not have 22 million poor people. I would advise the president to better study the experience of state management by Soviet power. Why then was such massive robbery of the Russian people not allowed, and the government, the Supreme Soviet, did not consist of citizens of foreign subjects? Interestingly, they criticize the cult of personality and actively create a cult of personality. A disgusting TV program has been created: "Moscow Kremlin Putin." TV programs start with Putin and end with Putin, to show how healthy he is. So, should we keep him because he is healthy!? But we, the ordinary people, are quite tired of him. It’s time for Vovochka to leave. One must leave the ring before getting knocked out.