Marxism-Leninism and Christianity: the Successes of the Communist Government in Russia

Barinov Nikolai Nikolaevich Protoiereus, Elder of the Temple in honor of the Holy Royal Martyrs, Ryazan Eparchy of the Russian Orthodox Church 390020, Russia, Ryazanskaya oblast', g. Ryazan', P. Dyagilevo,, ul. Moskovskoe Shosse, 65 B o.nikolaos@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

This work continues the author's research on the topic of comparing the theory and practice of Orthodox Christianity and Marxism-Leninism and their compatibility with Orthodox Christianity ^{[7] [8] [9] [10]}. It is considered precisely according to the teachings of the K. Marx – V. Lenin line, as the foundations of the state system of the USSR, although it has undergone significant transformations in the course of history. This study is also a kind of continuation of the work of the VDS professor, the Holy Martyr John Rapture, on this issue from the position of Orthodoxy ^[17]. He wrote his work in over a century ago. At that time, many socialist and revolutionary theories were still being created. After 1917, the Bolsheviks put them into practice in Russia. Therefore, it is now possible to consider the use of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism in theory and practice in comparison with the teachings of Orthodox Christianity. In addition to the Holy Scriptures, the Orthodox Church, unlike other currents of Christianity, is also guided by Orthodox Tradition, part of which is the teaching of the Church fathers. Their judgments formed on the basis of consensus patrum are especially important. Therefore, their opinions are also considered in the article. The paper analyzes the works of V. Lenin and his closest collaborators. Numerous historical sources are also used. The most important excerpts from them, which may be of interest to the reader, are given verbatim.

There are many works by various thinkers on the question of comparing Christianity and Marxism-Leninism and socialism in general. A meta-analysis of them is given in the author's previous articles, where you can get acquainted with it and where it is shown that the topic is relevant ^{[9] [10]}. Due to the large volume of this article, it is not given here. Many modern politicians debate (sometimes quite acutely) on the topic under study ^{[59] [67]}. The subject of the study of this work is the study of the methods of conquest and strengthening of the power of the Bolsheviks and the successes of Russia under their leadership. In the author's previous works, these issues were not considered in detail. The extreme urgency of studying the Orthodox understanding of the historical and philosophical aspects of society, including under communist rule in Russia, is also due to the fact that almost 70% of its citizens profess the Orthodox faith ^[18]. Although many of these people are of little church, nevertheless, a significant, probably even a large part of the Russian population understands the life of society in the Orthodox way. The study of the Orthodox and broader Christian view of these issues has not only scientific, but also practical value. It will help to avoid social upheavals in the future and, perhaps, even civil wars when making important decisions concerning the life of society. Moreover, in case of coercion to violate the laws of God, the Church has the right to refuse obedience to the state (Acts. 4, 19), as already mentioned in the author's previous work ^[8]. The relevance of the work is also confirmed by the fact that attempts are currently being made to combine the teachings of Christianity and communism on a scientific and philosophical basis ^[9]. Therefore, it is necessary to study how justified these attempts are. The main method of research is a comparative analysis of historical documents, works of theorists of communism and the teachings of Orthodoxy. In many cases, a theological evaluation of these sources is carried out, which is absolutely necessary in theological work.

1.       The victory of the armed uprising of 1917Rebellion against the authorities from the point of view of Orthodox Christianity is a sin, i.e. a crime (Rom. 13, 1).

Accordingly, the methods of seizing power in Russia by the Bolsheviks themselves were anti-Christian ^{[16, pp. 101-103]}. V. Lenin, with the help of various criminal elements, replenished the Bolshevik treasury ^{[17, p.13] [6, p. 249]}. To participate in demonstrations, the Bolsheviks bribed people with money ^{[56, p. 118]}. The "leader of the proletariat" behaved accordingly ? G. V. Plekhanov accused him of stealing party funds ^{[56, p. 227]}. The Bolsheviks also "signed sworn promises of loyalty to the tsar upon joining the State Duma," which they were not going to fulfill ^{[46, pp. 579-580]}. Later, according to the Socialist revolutionary V. M. Chernov, V. Lenin also violated the "Soviet oath", since he violated the oath to obey the Constituent Assembly and "became a liar who stole the people's trust" ^{[6, p. 379]}. From the point of view of Orthodoxy, perjury is a great sin. Christ said: Depart from me, you damned, into eternal fire (Matthew 25:41) According to the 64th rule of Basil the Great, the perjurer is punished for 10 years. The Scripture says: A thief is better than one who constantly tells lies; but both of them will inherit destruction (ad –Auth.) (Ser. 20, 28). Based on the information provided, V. Lenin and the Bolsheviks fit both of these concepts.

Some of the information given is taken from the memoirs of the head of counterintelligence of the Petrograd Military District B. V. Nikitin. In his memoirs there are some discrepancies with the data of his boss P. A. Polovtsov. But the latter was a significant figure of Freemasonry, so you can hardly trust his information. (For the reasons for this distrust and Freemasonry in general, see the author's article ^[10].) In addition, many of B. V. Nikitin's information received documentary evidence, including according to the testimony of the English General A. W. Knox. Therefore Yu . Yemelyanov quite objectively considers the memoirs of B. V. Nikitin a valuable historical source ^{[26, pp. 120-121, 124]}.

A. A. Arutyunov supports some dubious historical versions, for example, the authenticity of Sisson's documents, so in this work only quotations from historical documents are taken from his book. But a lot of information about the criminal methods of the Bolsheviks, cited by A. A. Arutyunov, is confirmed by their sources. For example, in the correspondence of M. F. Andreeva there is a letter to her by L. B. Krasin (1908), where he writes about the preparation of deceiving a rich widow in order to marry her and take away her money for the party ^{[6, p. 249]}.

So, by criminal anti-Christian methods, the Bolsheviks came to the success of the 1917 coup. From the point of view of social psychology, V. P. Buldakov characterizes the outburst of mass inhuman violence of the revolution as "human psychopathology", "one of the forms of social insanity", "hysteria of civilization" ^{[12, pp. 10, 217, 514]}, which corresponds to reality.

To explode inside Russia, during the First world war, the German authorities took Vladimir Lenin and his accomplices in a sealed train through Germany. E. Ludendorff wrote: "By sending Lenin to Russia, our government assumed a special responsibility. From a military point of view, this enterprise was justified, Russia had to be knocked down" ^{[2, p. 37]}. W. Churchill spoke about it this way: "The Germans threw Lenin into Russia in the same way as you can send a test tube with typhus or cholera pathogens so that its contents poison the water reserves of a huge city. And their plans were realized with amazing accuracy" ^{[51, p. 352]}. One of the heads of German intelligence in Stockholm telegraphed to the German Foreign Ministry: "Lenin's arrival in Russia is successful. It works exactly as we would like it to" ^{[3, p. 38]}. W. Churchill wrote in 1919: "Lenin... with demonic force began to tear apart all the institutions on which the existence of the Russian state and the Russian people depended. Russia was defeated" ^{[51, p. 352]}. And again: "Fate has treated Russia mercilessly. Her ship sank when there was no more than half a mile to the harbor (i.e., when victory and peace were very little left.? Author)" ^{[96, p. 183]}. There are facts that in our time allow us to consider it proven that V. Lenin and his accomplices were not only financed by Germany, but also in the literal sense were German spies. Moreover, here we do not cite references to Sisson's documents and other sources that are in doubt.

Russian agents in Switzerland found that on 12/28/1916, V. Lenin, "looking around, entered the German embassy," i.e. tried to remain unnoticed. He stayed there for more than a day and spent the night there (!). ^{[19, p. 150]}. This allows us to conclude that the Germans solved issues of extreme importance with him. In the collection of the Russian military agent in Copenhagen, Major General S. N. Potocki, the original telegram to Colonel Brant has been preserved: "The German government, wishing to bring Germany out of a difficult situation, at all costs wants to make peace with Russia. For this purpose, he expels Social Democrats from neutral countries to Russia. Payment is a lot of money" ^{[3, p. 39]}.

The report of an agent named "Navigator" is kept in the archive of the Hoover Institute: "After the Berlin meeting of the Russian maximalists (agents of the German General Staff), headed by Lenin and Parvus (A. Gelfand — Auth.), all business, organizational work and relations with Russia, in order not to compromise the Bolsheviks, were conducted only from the Stockholm headquarters. Russian Russian Bolsheviks, but later, in view of a number of revelations that appeared in Russian newspapers about the activities of the Russian Bolsheviks... with the consent of the German General Staff, their headquarters was moved to Copenhagen and one of the accomplices of Parvus, the Social Democrat Radek, became its head. <...> Lenin ... is in Finland and is engaged in agitation work for the proclamation of Finland's independence (i.e. betrayal of Russia for the destruction of the state ? Auth.). Furstenberg-Ganetsky remained in Stockholm to lead the remaining Bolsheviks there. The last victory of the extremists in Petrograd is a consequence of the work of the above-mentioned group, as well as its superbly organized connection with Russia… Very many of the members of the above—mentioned organization continue in Russia and now their criminal work against the Motherland... Kollontai, Rakovsky, Lunacharsky, Zinoviev, Trotsky and Kamenev-all of them are definitely in the service of the German General Staff... for intelligence purposes. Through their organizations, with the active assistance of a part of the "Bolsheviks", our enemies had and have very important information about the movements of troops and others..." ^{[19, pp. 151-152]}.

Another report of the Navigator says that "the leader and head of the Geneva group of Bolsheviks Pavel Lebedev", who "was one of the main accomplices of Lenin, Lunacharsky and Zinoviev ... met with the first secretary of the German consulate Hoffmann, from whom he received a lot of money and a list of persons with whom he was to meet in Stockholm and from they should have already received instructions about their activities in Russia" ^{[19, pp. 151-152]}.

One of the channels of financial assistance from Germany were J. Ganetsky and K. Radek (Sobelson), who received money for the revolution from Parvus (A. Gelfand), who, in turn, received it from the German government for subversive work in Russia ^{[26, pp. 125-127]}. The Bolshevik apologist A. Kolganov admits that Parvus presented to the Reich Chancellery in March 1915 a document entitled "Preparation of a mass political strike in Russia". In it, he proposed to undermine Russia from within, relying on national separatist and radical socialist organizations, including the Bolsheviks. He had connections with Ya. Ganetsky, who was in contact with V. Lenin. Further, as A. Kolganov tries to present the case, the facts end, "there were no facts of Parvus's connection with V. I. Lenin" after 1905 ^{[38, p. 185]}, and everything else about German gold is a "web of lies and slander" ^{[38, p. 200]}. Let's try to destroy this "web of lies and slander" and establish the truth.

V. Lenin stated: "Every literate person knows or can easily find out that there is no question of any absolutely political or other relations between us and Parvus ^{[47, vol. 34, p. 6]}. But K. Alexandrov, who conducted research in the Russian archives of the USA, provides additional evidence of V. Lenin's direct connection with Parvus. The fact that his article was published in a white emigrant magazine does not at all reduce the reliability of his information. Rather, on the contrary, it is the constant use of lies and slander as a tool for achieving their goals by the Bolsheviks (which is repeatedly shown in this article) that makes their argumentation dubious and biased. According to K. Alexandrov, the commandant of the Torneo station intercepted telegrams addressed to Parvus. They contained the phrases: "The work is progressing very successfully", "we hope to achieve the goal soon, but materials are needed", "send more materials", "be careful in your communication". Two sworn graphologists conducted an examination and identified the author. It turned out to be V. Lenin ^{[3, p. 37]}. This information is confirmed by B. V. Nikitin ^{[56, p. 110]}. A. Kollontai was involved in the chain of transmission of these messages. A Lurie leaving her dacha was detained with a letter addressed to Parvus from V. Lenin, in which the latter begged the addressee to "send more material" ^{[26, p. 128]}. At that time there was complete freedom of the press in Russia, and there was no need to send printed materials in secret. V. Lenin was not engaged in business. It is also unlikely that V. Lenin, encrypted with the word "materials", asked to send more secret espionage instructions. This is complete nonsense, even for a spy. One thing remains. Money ^{[56, p. 110]}. That is, as can be seen from the above materials, V. Lenin had direct relations with Parvus, and the statement of V. Lenin analyzed here is a lie. From the Christian point of view: A false witness will not remain unpunished, and whoever tells a lie will perish (will end up in hell – Auth.)(Prov. 19, 9).

But it would be best to expose the "web of lies and slander" in the words of V. Lenin himself. Through the newspaper "Worker and Soldier" (Nos. 3 and 4 of July 26 and 27, 1917), he stated: "It is a vile lie that I had relations with Parvus... Ganetsky had money affairs with Parvus, but we had no money with Ganetsky ^{[47, vol. 34, pp. 30-31]}. But three months before that (April 12, 1917) V. Lenin wrote: "To Comrades Ganetsky and Radek... dear friends! So far, nothing, absolutely nothing: neither letters, nor packages, nor money have been received from you ... ^{[47, vol.49, pp. 437-438]}. That is, E. V. Lenin had relations with Ya. Ganetsky and expected him to send money and packages, although, according to his statement, he allegedly had with him there were no cases.

In the newspaper "New Life" on July 11 (24), 1917, V. Lenin declared: "They implicate the commercial affairs of Ganetsky and Kozlovsky, without citing a single fact...And not only have we never taken any direct or indirect part in commercial affairs, but in general we have not received a penny of money from any of these comrades either personally or on the party" ^{[47, vol. 34, p. 6-7]}. And earlier (April 21, 1917) V. Lenin, who allegedly did not receive "a penny" from the "named comrades", wrote to Ya. Ganetsky: "The money (two thousand) was received from Kozlovsky. Packages have not yet been received ... it is not easy to establish business with couriers, but we will still take all measures. Now a special person is going to organize the whole business ^{[47, vol.49, pp. 437-438]}. That is, the Bolsheviks had already begun to receive money and were setting up channels for their delivery. Therefore, it was V. Lenin who was the master, in his words, of "vile lies." Later, according to the image of his actions, a powerful censorship and propaganda machine will be created in the USSR, which will drown grains of truth in a sea of deception ^{[5, p. 104, 109, 112, 115-116, 258, 260, 311] [27]}. Soviet propagandists will "not hesitate to lie and distort the facts, because they are insensitive to calls for the preservation of human dignity" ^{[44, p. 185]}. This, too, can be called the success of the Marxist-Leninist government, only completely anti-Christian. Christ said to the Pharisees: Your father is the devil; and you want to fulfill the lusts of your father... for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Based on the analysis, what Christ said refers to V. Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

One can partially agree with A. Kolganov, who considers it untrue that the October Revolution is the result of the "Parvus conspiracy" ^{[38, p. 200]}. Probably, Parvus alone did not play a major role in it, although he provided her with great assistance. But today it can be quite definitely stated that the defeatist activities of the Bolsheviks and their preparation for the seizure of power in Russia were financially supported on a large scale by Germany, including through the Parvus—Ganetsky—Sumenson—Kozlovsky—Ulyanov line ^{[3, p. 38]}. Russian counterintelligence collected material denouncing V. Lenin and the Bolsheviks in connection with the Germans, but the Petro-Soviet forbade the publication of this data ^{[26, p. 128]}. According to E. Sumenson's checkbooks, counterintelligence established that some payments to M. Kozlovsky reached 100 thousand rubles . ^{[2, p. 38]} E. Sumanson was arrested, but released on bail soon after. American historian S. Lyanders denies the encrypted nature of the correspondence between E. Sumenson and Ya. Ganetsky, but he acknowledges the fact that Germany financed the Russian revolution, which is confirmed by the archival data of the German Foreign Ministry ^{[26, p. 132]}.

In 1915, Parvus received the first million rubles from Germany to prepare for the revolution in Russia. S. Lyandres believes that Parvus probably financed the Bolsheviks through his own agents ^{[26, p. 132]}. On January 23, 1916, the German envoy in Copenhagen informed the Chancellor that Parvus "returned to Copenhagen after three weeks of stay in Stockholm, where he met with Russian revolutionaries… The sum of 1 million rubles placed at his disposal was immediately sent, has already been delivered to Petrograd and is being used for its intended purpose" ^{[19, p. 149]}. Counterintelligence established that E. Sumenson had a million rubles on her account in a Siberian bank. Quite possibly, it was the same million Parvus. On the eve of the revolution, about 800 thousand rubles were withdrawn from this account ^{[56, p. 116]}. Hence the conclusion that revolutions without "Nuland cookies" (powerful financing) have little chance of success.

There is a highly authoritative testimony of E. Bernstein, a German Social Democrat who worked in the archives of the German Foreign Ministry. In the newspaper "Forverts" he stated: "Lenin and his comrades really received huge sums from imperial Germany — something over 50 million gold marks" ^{[19, p. 225]}. He called it Lenin's "unscrupulous political adventure" ^{[19, p. 223]}. E. Bernstein's article provoked protests from German Communists who accused him of slander. To this he publicly replied that "most of all I would like to submit this case to the international investigative committee." However, there were no interested parties to arrange proceedings and file a lawsuit against him ^{[19, p. 11]}.

E. Ludendorff, in an interview with the newspaper "Freie Presse", said: "... the revolution in Russia is not an accident, but a natural and inevitable result of our waging war... This is the fruit of our victory" ^{[72, p. 267]}. Thus, the successes of the Bolsheviks in seizing power in Russia and conducting defeatist agitation in the army with German money cannot be called anything other than a betrayal of the Motherland. The Plekhanov newspaper "Unity" wrote: "Hey, you passengers of the German state-owned train! Do not interfere with the Russian army to defend Russia!" ^{[2, p. 38]}.

O. Chernin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria-Hungary at that time wrote: "In recent days I have received reliable information about the Bolsheviks. Their leaders are almost all Jews with absolutely fantastic ideas, and I do not envy the country they rule. But, of course, we are primarily interested in their desire for peace… The German generals, who, as is well known, head all German politics, have, it seems to me, done everything possible to overthrow Kerensky and replace him with "something else." This "other" has now taken his place and wants to make peace, therefore, it is necessary to take the bull by the horns ..." ^{[72, pp. 422-423]}.

Expecting the Bolsheviks to end the war, Germany continued to finance the Bolsheviks even after the October revolution of 1917. The German envoy Lucius sent a telegram to Berlin to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the adviser of the Department of the German Foreign Ministry, D. von Bergen, who was in charge of organizing subversive work in Russia: "Please send 2 million from the military loan for the agreed expenses." It was November 9 , 1917. Then another 15 million marks were allocated "for political propaganda in Russia." ^{[72, p. 259]}. Instructions from Berlin on May 18, 1918 to Ambassador Mirbach read: "Please use large sums, since we are interested in the Bolsheviks surviving, at your disposal are the funds of Ritzler. If you need more, please telegraph how much..." ^{[72, p. 307]}. Many documents confirming the betrayal of the Bolsheviks and their financing by the Germans, collected by Yu. G. Felshtinsky, can be studied in the book "Germany and the Revolution in Russia. 1915–1918. Collection of documents" ^[19]. The sources cited in this article and their analysis are quite enough to clearly and clearly prove that the success of the Bolsheviks in seizing power in Russia was achieved, including at the cost of betrayal of the Motherland and espionage work for the enemy. Without German funding, the Bolsheviks would hardly have been able to stay in power, and perhaps even seize this power.

2. Brest PeaceThe Bolshevik leaders understood that the refusal to make peace with the Germans would automatically mean the refusal of financial assistance, which they began to constantly receive from Germany after coming to power, and this would inevitably lead to their downfall ^{[72, p. 275]}.

Therefore, the next major "success" of the Bolsheviks was the signing of the Brest Peace. V. Lenin generously repaid his sponsors. According to the Brest Peace, the Bolsheviks gave a huge part of the territory of the Russian Empire to the Germans. In fact, this huge concession to the Germans was made by V. Lenin, who broke the disagreement of the majority ^{[72, pp. 286, 297]}. The delegates of the Seventh Emergency Congress of the RCP (b), who approved the Brest Peace, were not acquainted with the text of the treaty, V. Lenin concealed that Russia had lost territories with a total area of 780 thousand square kilometers with a population of 56 million people, where more than a quarter of all railways, a third of the textile industry were located, almost three quarters of metal was smelted, almost 90% of coal was mined. Russia has lost more than a quarter of its agricultural land ^{[72, p. 298]}. General A. Budberg wrote in his diary: "It's just stupefying what price the Bolsheviks are paying for giving them the opportunity to seize power over Russia; after all, even if we had directly lost the war, the conditions would not have been worse and more shameful" ^{[72, p. 286]}. This is also recognized by many modern historians: "The main motive for accepting these humiliating conditions was the desire to preserve their power over Russia at any cost..." ^{[21, p. 104]}.

Christian teaching also calls for peace: "... war is a terrible thing for those who undertake it without need, without truth, with a thirst for self—interest or dominance that has turned into a thirst for blood. They bear a heavy responsibility for the blood and calamities of their own and others. But war is a sacred matter for those who accept it out of necessity — in defense of truth, faith, and the fatherland" ^{[87, p. 481]} — this is how St. Filaret (Drozdov) expresses the Orthodox teaching about war. St. Theophan the Recluse explains why it is necessary to defend the Motherland: "They fight for the love of their own, so that they are not subjected to captivity and violence by the enemy. What did the French do in Russia? And how was it not to fight with them?" ^{[74, p. 208]} As can be seen from these quotes, the Brest Peace, when vast territories of the Fatherland were given to the invaders, when millions of people living on them were occupied, cannot be called in any way consistent with Orthodox Christian teaching.

This world was popularly called "obscene" ^{[21, p. 104]}. Even in the RCP(b) itself, the majority was against the shameful peace. This led to extraordinary statements by some Bolshevik leaders. V. Lenin demanded immediate acceptance of German conditions, threatening that otherwise he would leave both the government and the Central Committee ^{[72, p. 294]}. L. Trotsky demanded the adoption of a decree on the execution on the spot of anyone who would call for an armed struggle against the German occupation ^{[68, p. 427]}. On his orders, the head of the Baltic Fleet naval forces, A.M. Shchastny, was shot. The "crime" of A.M. Shchastny was that he did not comply with L. Trotsky's order to prepare the fleet and naval structures for destruction and surrender them to the Germans, according to the Brest Agreements, A.M. Shchastny was a very important and dangerous witness that the Bolsheviks were and are in collusion with the German government to the detriment of Russia's interests. 182-184]. In addition, he divulged a secret telegram from L. Trotsky and E. Behrens dated May 21, 1918 about a monetary reward for those who would blow up and sink ships if necessary ^{[55, p. 115]}. From the point of view of Orthodox Christianity, A.M. Shchastny performed a feat, and the leaders of the Bolsheviks committed a crime. K. Nazarenko's attempt to justify the shooting of A.M. Shchastny by L. Trotsky's desire to "establish discipline" is certainly untenable. He himself quotes the words of L. Trotsky that it was not about the crimes of A.M. Shchastny, but about the Bolshevik "power that wants to exist", i.e. by any means ^{[55, p. 115]}. Moreover, the state prosecutor N. Krylenko (shot in 1938), noted that although the death penalty was abolished, but on the basis of "revolutionary legal awareness" the tribunal can sentence A.M. Shchastny to execution ^{[5, p. 217]}. This is one of the countless glaring facts of lawless "socialist legality".

V. Lenin wrote that "in all imperialist countries, the proletariat must now wish defeat to its government" ^{[47, vol. 26, p. 287]}. But the proletariat "had to" only in the imagination of V. Lenin and the like. Nowhere except in Russia (under the influence of V. Lenin) did the proletariat support the defeat of their countries in any significant way. And if, as a result of the conclusion of the Brest Peace, Germany managed to defeat the Entente, the occupation of vast territories of Russia by the Germans would be final.

The bulk of the population, even mortally tired of the war, could not reconcile their love for the Motherland with the utopian ideas of the Bolsheviks and quite rightly perceived the Brest Peace as a betrayal.  Here, for example, are excerpts from a letter to V. Lenin from a simple worker, a member of his party: "Comrade Lenin! I am a devout Bolshevik. If you are an honest person, you should publish my questions in the nearest number of Pravda:

1.       Who destroyed our army?

2.       Who preached the fraternization of our soldiers with the Germans?

3.       Who constantly shouted at all rallies and at the top of their voices that the German people would not allow Wilhelm to attack Russia?

4.       Who was constantly shouting at the top of his voice that our attack on the Germans would be a knife in the back of our German comrades?

5. Who, finally, not too long ago read a lecture at the Modern circus under the title "Defense of the country or self-defense of the working class"? (Probably excerpts from the work "The State and the Revolution" about the abolition of the army. ? Auth.)

I know in advance that you will not print these questions of mine...we workers have now perfectly understood you, Trotsky, and all your comrades. Long live the Soviet power, but not yours!" ^{[63, pp. 56-57]}

Soviet historian L. Spirin justifies the conclusion of the "obscene peace" by the fact that "Soviet Russia did not have the strength to resist the German army at that time" ^{[75, p. 18]}.  However, he "modestly" does not mention that the Bolshevik authorities had previously ordered the complete demobilization of the army and opened the front to the Germans, although the latter openly declared the beginning of the offensive ^{[72, p. 291]}. Moreover, the main "merit" in concluding this shameful peace with Germany belongs to V. Lenin, who broke the resistance of the majority ^{[72, p. 294]}. This once again confirms the betrayal of the Motherland by the Bolshevik leaders.

V. M. Chernov, the leader of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, wrote in an open letter to V. Lenin: "You predicted earlier: "The counter-revolutionaries will do anything to disrupt the Constituent Assembly. If necessary, they will open a front for German troops to do this." You know what happened after that. You disrupted the Constituent Assembly, and you also opened the front to the German troops" ^{[6, pp.375-377]}. The dispersal of the Constituent Assembly elected by the people was in fact another military coup staged by the Bolsheviks. And working for the enemies of Russia was a common practice of the Bolsheviks. As V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, V. Lenin's closest collaborator, confessed to G. V. Plekhanov, they received assistance from Japan even during the Russian-Japanese war. Japanese agents also helped to distribute Lenin's publications in Europe ^{[19, pp. 146-147] [17, p. 13]}. And during the First World War, the Bolsheviks advocated the defeat of the Russian army ^{[72, p. 291]}. Such activity cannot be called anything but a betrayal of the Motherland. From the point of view of Christianity, the traitor imitates Judas, who betrayed Christ. After the Bolsheviks had shot a peaceful workers' demonstration in support of the Constituent Assembly, authorized by them, V. M. Chernov rightly likened V. Lenin's actions to the Judean Kiss "an eternal example of moral falsehood and hypocrisy" ^{[6, p. 379]}.

W. Churchill wrote: "In one fell swoop, the Bolsheviks deprived Russia of two desirable things – peaceful life and victory in the war: victory, which was already in the hands of the country, and peace, which it so desired to find. What was rightfully hers was stolen from Russia. Victory turned into defeat. And the life of this country turned into a long and painful battle (first in the Civil War, and then in decades of mass terror ? Ed.)" ^{[51, p. 99]}. To the opinion of W. Churchill, we can add that if there had been no revolution of 1917, the Entente would soon have defeated the Germans, peace would have come and, probably, fascism and the Second World War would not have happened at all. But history does not know the subjunctive mood.

Patriarch Tikhon declared: "The peace that has now been concluded, according to which entire regions inhabited by the Orthodox people are being torn away from us and given over to the will of an enemy alien in faith ... will bring great damage and grief, and incalculable losses to the fatherland… Alas, the words of the prophet are justified: "they say: "peace, peace!", but there is no peace"... The Church cannot bless the shameful peace concluded now on behalf of Russia. This peace, forcibly signed on behalf of the Russian people, will not lead to fraternal cohabitation of peoples. There are no guarantees of peace and reconciliation in it, the seeds of malice and misanthropy are sown in it. It contains the germs of new wars and evils for all mankind" ^{[83, pp. 64-65]}.

Saint Tikhon was right. The Brest Peace caused the disintegration of Russia in the form of the formation of the most diverse (white, red, green, nationalist, etc.) new independent governments throughout the country ^{[90, pp. 318-324, 327, 386]}. The Brest Peace subsequently caused the invasion of the Entente, which supported the supporters of the war with Germany in Russia. The Brest Peace became the main cause of the Civil War — the whites fought for a united and indivisible Russia, against treacherous agreements that tore away vast territories from the country ^{[92, p. 367]}. (But this also became one of the reasons for the defeat of the white movement, because the newly formed nation-states were afraid of losing independence and did not help the white armies to win, although they were against the Bolsheviks). The Brest Peace caused a split in the camp of the revolutionaries themselves and was the main reason for the armed uprising of the left SRS (probably it was not an uprising, but an attempt to redirect the course of the Soviet government to break the Brest Peace, because having passes to the Kremlin, they did not even try to arrest the Bolshevik government ^{[68, p. 433] [61, p. 398-399]}). But this led to their removal from power and the beginning of one-party rule, to the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks ^{[75, pp. 18-21]}. W. Churchill wrote: "I don't think that a party is synonymous with democracy, because the fewer parties there are, the more violent they become" ^{[51, p. 581]}. Given the "morality" of the Bolsheviks ^[7], in relation to the RCP (b), these words of W. Churchill can be called fair.

3.       Victory in the Civil War3.1. The Path of Terror

Before considering the next success of the new government, it is necessary to dwell on the situation that developed in Russia at that time.

The position of the Bolsheviks became very precarious. In addition to this, food shortages began to be felt. Advisor to the German mission K. Ritzler wrote: "Famine is coming upon us, they are trying to strangle it with terror. The Bolshevik fist smashes everyone in a row. People are calmly shot by hundreds" ^{[90, p. 366]}. A food distribution system was introduced. However, as W. Churchill rightly wrote: "By destroying the free market, you create a black market" ^{[95, p. 9]}. No matter how the Bolsheviks fought against him, they failed. Hungry people were looking for a way to exchange and buy food.

Lenin's authority has fallen dramatically and he, who recently called for the Brest Peace because of the "strength of the German army," suddenly spoke at the V Congress of Soviets about the weakness of Germany ^{[90, pp. 376-377]}. The Entente offered assistance to the Soviet government in exchange for breaking the Brest Peace ^{[90, p. 372]}. Many Bolsheviks were against receiving help from the "imperialists", but the Central Committee voted in favor. V. Lenin was not present, but sent a note: "I ask you to add my vote for taking potatoes and weapons from the brigands of Anglo-French imperialism" ^{[47, vol. 35, p. 489]}.

L. Trotsky at a meeting of the Central Executive Committee proposed, in order to break the Brest Peace and create a Red Army "specifically for the resumption of world War together with France and England against Germany." At the same time, the Soviet leadership began discussing plans for joint military operations with representatives of the Entente ^{[90, p. 377]}. As the French and American representatives in Russia Sadoul and Robins recalled, "negotiations with the Entente on supplying them with weapons, equipment and vehicles to the Russian army, on providing assistance by instructors began immediately after the victory of the socialist revolution..." ^{[41, p. 304]}. And this help began to be provided. Telegram: "Your words: "we advise you to accept the help of the British"... in sending their insignificant, however, detachment to help our Red Army?.. At the apparatus of Comrade. Stalin. Accept the answer: Accept help" ^{[46, p. 235]}. Thus, by changing allies and betraying them in turn, the Bolsheviks managed to stay in power (see below).

However, the Bolsheviks still refused the alliance against Germany. Then the Entente landed its troops in some places in Russia. According to the memoirs of W. Churchill, their goal was not to occupy the country, but to assist those forces who wanted to liberate their country from the Germans and continue the war with Germany, as well as to save Czechoslovaks from the danger of destruction by the Bolsheviks ^{[97, p. 27]}. Subsequently, they assisted A.V. Kolchak, but only on the condition that his government would allow nationwide free elections to the Constituent Assembly, which would determine the state structure of Russia. A.V. Kolchak agreed to this and to the requirement of the Entente countries not to support the restoration of class and class privileges after the victory ^{[97, p. 28]}. According to W. Churchill: "Kolchak was honest, noble and incorruptible" and he could be trusted ^{[97, p. 26]}. But while the leadership of the Entente countries, knowing the monarchical views of A.V. Kolchak, hesitated and corresponded with him, demanding written guarantees, the time was lost. The Red Army formed by the Bolsheviks was gaining strength, and the army of the Omsk ruler was weakening ^{[97, p. 29]}.

At first, the Red Army was built on voluntary principles. It included the election of commanders, collective command, rally management, when fighters discussed issues of conducting operations at rallies. The combat qualities of such an army were low ^{[21, p. 103]}. But this state of affairs did not last long. The flow of "conscious volunteers" to the Red Army began to dry up quickly. So, at a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet on March 5, 1918, Zinoviev stated that newspapers reported that 80 thousand volunteers were enrolled in the Red Army in Moscow, but in fact only 3 thousand ^{[41, p. 369]}. This statement by Zinoviev also once again demonstrates the "truthfulness" of Bolshevik newspapers.

Seeing this state of affairs, the Bolsheviks returned to the "old-regime" word "Fatherland", putting forward the slogan "The Socialist Fatherland is in danger" and moved to the forced formation of an army modeled on the army of "hated tsarism" ^{[21, p. 108]}. In March 1919, the majority of delegates to the VIII Party Congress, rejecting the views of the "military opposition" (I. Stalin, K. Voroshilov, etc.), supported the course of V. Lenin and L. Trotsky to use unity of command, enhanced discipline and tsarist officers ("military experts") under the control of commissars in the Red Army. These measures, as well as the widespread use of repression in the spirit of the most brutal and bloody events in human history, allowed the Bolsheviks to establish iron discipline. The Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic (RVSR) was formed, the post of commander-in-chief was established, the headquarters was organized. L. Trotsky was appointed Chairman of the RVSR (killed by an ice axe in 1940), I. I. Vatsetis was appointed commander?in-chief (shot in 1938). By these methods, the Bolsheviks managed to form 12 armies modeled after the pre-revolutionary Russian armed forces ^{[21, p. 108]}.  Thus, another utopian theory of K. Marx and V. Lenin completely failed, that the new system would need to "destroy the standing army and replace it with an armed people" ^{[47, vol. 33, p. 41]}. What the Bolsheviks fought against before the October revolution, now, having gained power, they themselves adopted, and competing in cruelty with the bloodiest regimes in the history of mankind.

So, L. Trotsky established the institute of hostages from relatives of tsarist military officers who served in the Red Army. In case of going over to the white side, the hostages, including the wives and children of these officers, were destroyed. So, in March 1919, relatives of officers of the 86th regiment who had gone over to the Whites were shot in St. Petersburg ^{[5, p. 56] [53, p. 29]}. Women were often raped before being shot. In general, rape of women has become a common occurrence of the new government ^{[53, p. 91-92, 95, 98, 120, 144, 151-154] [94, pp. 217-219, 231]}.

L. Trotsky also established detachments: "It is impossible to build an army without repression. It is impossible to lead the masses of people to death without having the death penalty in the arsenal of the command. As long as the evil tailless monkeys, proud of their technology, called humans, build armies and fight, the command will put soldiers between possible death ahead and inevitable death behind" ^{[84, p. 393]}. Moreover, the "hated bourgeoisie" were forcibly mobilized in the Red Army on pain of death. V. Lenin wrote that it was "devilishly important" to end Yudenich. It is necessary to mobilize another "10 thousand bourgeois, put machine guns behind them, shoot several hundred and achieve a real mass pressure on Yudenich" ^{[46, p. 304]}. By terror, the Reds tried to intimidate those defending themselves from them. Frunze telegraphed: "... act both by bribery and the threat of total extermination" ^{[46, p. 297]}.

The atheism of the Bolsheviks naturally led them to regard people as "evil tailless monkeys" whose death means little on the way to a "bright future". Nevertheless, they did not forget to take care of their "monkey" needs and honors. For example, L. Trotsky was greeted "as a member of the imperial family" with an orchestra and honors. "In order to emphasize his special importance, Trotsky constantly carried with him bags of money intended for awarding Red Army soldiers who distinguished themselves in battles." We must pay tribute to him, he used his capabilities very competently, using not only the "stick", but also the "carrot", realizing that using only terror, it will be difficult to achieve victory. He also had a great oratorical gift, which also affected the victories of the Red Army ^{[40, p. 46]}.

In Sviyazhsk, L. Trotsky applied "decimation" for the first time. He wrote: "The steamer docked at the pier, the deserters disembarked, I appointed a field tribunal, which sentenced the commander, commissar and a certain number of soldiers to death (every tenth – Auth.). A hot iron was applied to the rotten wound" ^{[84, p. 385]}. At a meeting of the politburo , V. Lenin wrote in red ink: "...I fully support this order" ^{[60, p. 109]}. Since then, this has become a common practice in the Red Army. "Cowardly liars pretending to be sick" were also shot. "The fear that settled in the motley, motley ranks of revolutionary fighters kept many from fleeing to their families from the hateful war" ^{[40, p. 44]}.

But decimation did not always lead to an improvement in discipline. L. Trotsky wrote that "the decimated com. the composition is shaken by the purge," therefore, "it may turn out that we do not have an army, but a house of cards" ^{[46, p. 483]}. Therefore, the Bolsheviks used every opportunity. Even German military units were involved in the repression, which once again indirectly confirms the "German trace" in the Russian revolution: "There were cases on the western border near Pskov when German troops were invited to pacify the rebellious red units" ^{[90, p. 405]}.

Since the conduct of universal compulsory military service took place with great difficulties, L. Trotsky proposed to strengthen repression. Roundups on those who did not want to fight for the Reds were assigned to the county military commissar.  A "severe punishment" was prescribed "with those "kulaks" (quotes ? Auth.) who promote desertion and provoke it" ^{[40, 136]}. The most malicious evaders were ordered to be punished, and from the rest to form penal companies or penal battalions: "With a reserve battalion, a penal company can be organized for deserters and those guilty of more serious violations of discipline and duty. All units of the Red Army should be passed through the reserve battalions" ^{[40, pp. 196-197]}.

Desertion during the Civil War was understood as any evasion from military service, including the failure of citizens to appear at conscription points on the mobilization agenda ^{[60, p. 108]}. Bolshevik propaganda positioned the Red Army as an army of the working people. In fact, these working people, even under the threat of executions, overwhelmingly did not want to fight for the power of the Bolsheviks. In 1919, the orders for the mobilization of replenishment to the troops were carried out only by 50%. And because of desertion from the marching companies, only 50% of those who managed to be mobilized arrived at the front. The Military Department and the Cheka have developed measures of strict responsibility for desertion for the families and relatives of people drafted into the Red Army and mutual responsibility for the mobilized themselves ^{[60, p. 111]}. Nevertheless, for example, in 1920, a division transferred for the war with Poland, upon arrival at the place, 50% of the personnel were missing.  And in total, during the years of the Civil War, evasions from turning up for conscription amounted to 75%, not counting escapes from the army ^{[60, p. 114]}.

To clean the streets and barracks, digging trenches, rear units from the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia began to be forcibly formed, which in fact meant the revival of slave labor.  And the "best" representatives of the bourgeoisie, who showed loyalty to the authorities, were sent to combat units ^{[89, p. 182]}. The Red Army also took part in the robbery of the village. L. Trotsky wrote: "It is necessary to throw the best, organized detachments into areas rich in bread" ^{[89, p. 181]}.

L. Trotsky did not carry out all these completely misanthropic anti-Christian actions on his own, he acted "with the approval of the Central Committee" ^{[40, pp. 43, 223, 422, 437]}. To the reproaches against L. Trotsky for his amateur activity, V. Lenin replied that the accusation that "he does not pursue the policy of the Central Committee is a crazy accusation ... on every major issue of strategy, there has never been a time when there was no Central Committee" ^{[40, pp. 434-435]}. At a meeting of Cheka employees, V. Lenin said: "When we are accused of cruelty, we are perplexed how people forget the most elementary Marxism." And in accordance with the instructions of the leader, "the most elementary Marxism" was driven with lead bullets into the heads of those who "forgot" it." ^{[40, p. 45]}.

W. Churchill rightly wrote: "I hate Bolshevism and the Bolsheviks not because of their idiotic economic system or the absurd doctrine of unattainable equality. I hate the bloody and destructive terror that is prepared for every land they invade. It is only thanks to this terror that their criminal regime can exist" ^{[51, p. 99]}. Therefore, he categorically opposed the recognition of communist power: "Recognizing the Bolsheviks is the same as legalizing homosexuality" ^{[96, p. 183]} ? at that time it was considered unthinkable.

3.2. The path of hypocrisy, lies and betrayal

Acting ostensibly on behalf of the people, the Bolsheviks destroyed this very people in parts, pitting some of its parts against others (including classes), creating temporary alliances with some groups of the population against others, and then betraying and destroying their former allies in the most merciless way. The "bloody tsarism", which they once fought, was far from such methods (see above) ^{[32, pp. 70-71]}. The "Leader of the Proletariat" openly laughed at those who believed the Bolsheviks, calling them stupid: "Henderson is as stupid as Kerensky, and therefore helps us" ^{[46, p. 504]}. V. Lenin also dissuaded M. Gorky from believing Bolshevik doctors: "God forbid from comrade doctors in general, Bolshevik doctors in particular! Really, in 99 cases out of 100 doctors are comrades "donkeys"...It's terrible to try Bolshevik inventions on yourself!!" ^{[47, vol. 48, p. 224]} This applies to almost all inventions of the Bolsheviks. Thus, deceiving their former opponents with the promise of amnesty or inviting them under the pretext of checking documents, they treacherously destroyed them.

This was also the case when the Bolsheviks came to power in alliance with the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and then these revolutionary allies were destroyed. This was the case many times during the Civil War. For example, in Kiev in 1918, officers were tricked into going to the theater to "check documents." They were shot and hacked right in the theater. About 2,000 people were hacked and killed ^{[53, p. 46]}.

So it was with N. I. Makhno. Appointed commander of the brigade of the 1st Zadneprovsky Ukrainian Division of the Red Army, he made a great contribution to the victory over Denikin. But he advocated socialism with an anarchist bias, and, unlike the Bolsheviks, "with a human face" — against the dictatorship of one Bolshevik party, the robbery of peasants by measures of grain distribution, for the liquidation of the Cheka, the establishment of freedom of speech, press and assembly. This, of course, did not like the leadership of the Bolsheviks, who usurped power ^{[40, p. 158]}. He was outlawed, but voluntarily surrendered the command of the division to the Red commanders, believing that revolutionaries should not fight with each other ^{[98, p. 72] [40, p. 172]}. Soon, fearing for his life, he moved to an illegal position ^{[40, p. 236]}. There were detachments loyal to him. The Bolsheviks announced a decision: "To liquidate all the gangs and those rebel organizations that are beating Denikin today and which will be much more dangerous for us tomorrow (N. I. Makhno — Auth.). There can be no feeling of gratitude towards them. There is one way here, the way of ruthlessness" ^{[40, p. 158]}. Soon N. I. Makhno tried to make peace with the Bolsheviks again and offered his help to the Communists to fight Wrangel, which they accepted. His units played a big role in the seizure of Crimea. But the Communists betrayed him again, and their executions of Makhnovist commanders finally severed his relations with the Bolshevik Party ^{[98, p. 74]}.

It was the same with the Don Cossacks. The chairman of the RVSR, L. Trotsky, issued an order: "Every officer who voluntarily comes to us alone or at the head of his unit from the Krasnovsky camp will be released from punishment..." ^{[40, p. 132]}. But soon a telegram came from Y. M. Sverdlov: "Organize concentration camps immediately. Adapt any mines, mines for prisoners to work in them with their maintenance as such." ^{[40, p. 133]}. This caused a protest of the Donets, who believed in the promises of the Soviet government. As a result, on the territory of the Don region, the punitive machine of the Bolsheviks began to work at full power, terrifying the Cossacks who wanted to move to a peaceful life. There was no mercy for women, children, or the elderly. Cossacks were driven out of their homes and peasants brought from the Voronezh Region were settled in their places. This, in turn, caused a Cossack uprising. The flame of the struggle against the bloody communist regime covered almost the entire territory of the Upper Don. The RVS of the Southern Front sent an order to the troops to eliminate the uprising as soon as possible by burning the rebellious villages, shooting every fifth or tenth Cossack, and taking hostages en masse ^{[40, pp. 137-138]}.

So it was in the Crimea. Several appeals were issued to the officers and soldiers of the Wrangel army who defended the peninsula, promising amnesty to those who surrendered ^{[53, p. 66] [1, p. 133]}. An order was issued by the Revolutionary Military Council of the Southern Front: "The RVS of the Southern Front calls on all Red Army soldiers to spare the surrendering and prisoners. The Red Army soldier is terrible only for the enemy. He is a knight to the vanquished." This was followed by the mass surrender of white soldiers and officers who believed the Communists. But V. Lenin harshly reprimanded the Revolutionary Military Council and the commander with a telegram over a direct wire, in which he stated that he was "extremely surprised by the excessive compliance" and that the enemy "must be dealt with mercilessly" ^{[1, pp. 133-134]}.

However, the Bolsheviks were not going to fulfill their promises. "They prepared in advance for the so-called "Crimean operation", increased and strengthened the Chekist units, formed commandant, convoy and firing squads...the Central Committee of the RCP (b) mobilized in central Russia and sent to the Southern Front many hundreds of professional and most ruthless organizers of terror...the fate of prisoners of war was predetermined...using violence, bullying to prisoners of war and by killing them en masse, the Bolsheviks revived the most cruel and dark sides of human history. They adopted these shameful and savage methods of antiquity for the sake of the main goal — the creation of a "communist paradise" on earth" ^{[1, p. 135]}. Such was the declared "knighthood" of the Bolsheviks.

The same method was used in the Kuban and Turkestan, as well as in the Crimea and on the Don. For example, registration was announced for persons who served with the whites. Not foreseeing the trap, people who believed the Bolsheviks hurried to register, but in fact they were walking towards their death ^{[53, p. 60]}. So, in Sevastopol, for registration and allegedly subsequent employment, former Wrangel officers were invited to come to the city stadium. When they gathered, they were surrounded, taken out of the city in groups and shot ^{[1, p. 8]}. In Petrograd, the same technique was applied to officers of the Baltic Fleet who served from the very beginning of Soviet power and did not participate in any anti-Bolshevik movements.  On August 22, 1921, the re-registration was announced. Many came straight from the service, but were captured, loaded into wagons and sent to a concentration camp ^{[53, p. 61]}.

In fact, the same story happened with the "military experts" — former tsarist and white officers who believed the Bolsheviks and fought for them in the Civil War. At first, they were granted amnesties. However, starting in 1926, major trials began: officers of the Finnish regiment, commanders of national units of the Caucasian Army, former Cossack officers, naval specialists, etc. At that time, these cases had not yet received all-Union distribution. Mass arrests of former tsarist officers began in the USSR in 1930. More than 10 thousand people were sentenced, including to execution (the "Spring" case). After 1931, there were very few "military experts" professionally trained during the tsarist regime in Russia. In 1937-1938, as a result of the "purge" of the Red Army, the surviving former "military experts" were again among those arrested and shot ^{[82, p. 17-20]}.

These methods can be called both Bolshevik and Fascist, since they were also widely used by the Nazis. For example, they created Einsatzgruppen whose sole task was to kill Jews. In the Soviet cities they occupied, they issued orders for the mandatory registration of Jews, most of whom obeyed, unaware of the danger. Of the six million Jews killed by the Germans, from one to one and a half million were destroyed by the Einsatzgruppen ^{[81, pp. 296-297]}. But for the sake of justice, it should be noted that among the Jews there are some currents of an obviously chauvinistic, almost fascist orientation. For example, the Talmud in the Talmud treatise Avoda Zara says that a Jew is not subject to human judgment for the murder of a Gentile, and even if he intended to kill a Gentile, but killed a Jew by mistake ^{[79, p. 291]} "It is forbidden for a Gentile to steal, kidnap or take a captive..., a Jew is not forbidden from a Gentile" ^{[70, p. 291]}. 450]. Probably, the former US Secretary of State M. Albright, the "executioner of Serbia and Iraq", belonged to a similar trend. The echo of cynicism was her statement that the death of half a million Iraqi children as a result of Western sanctions is an "adequate price" for the weakening of Saddam Hussein's regime ^[30].

These are all, of course, completely anti-Christian methods. For Orthodox Christianity, the nationality, class or property status of a person does not matter. The father of the Church , St. Nicholas of Serbia , writes about this in verse:

The faith of the poor and the rich,

All people, simple and noble.

Faith is eternal, faith is glorious!

Our Faith Is Orthodox! ^[57]

Therefore, Christianity calls on absolutely any person to turn from sin and be renewed in the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek, nor Jew, nor circumcision, nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is everything and in everything (Col. 3, 10-11). Accordingly, Christianity teaches all people to treat each other in such a way that they do not do to others what they do not want to themselves (Acts. 15, 20). Even during wars, the attitude towards prisoners and civilians should be merciful ^[8].

V. Lenin attributed to his opponents "all the immeasurable meanness and meanness, all the treachery" ^{[47, vol. 34, p. 22]}, but, as can be seen from the facts given, in fact these words refer primarily to him and other leaders of the Bolsheviks. Thus, through meanness, betrayal, lies, fanaticism, inhuman cruelty, the Bolsheviks achieved their successes and victories in the Civil War. This, of course, cannot be combined with Christianity in any way.

4.       The whole country is a labor campL. Trotsky believed that "man is a rather lazy animal" that needs to be freed from laziness by further deepening and expanding the military-communist coercive methods of conducting the national economy.:

"... we are making the first attempt in world history to organize labor in the interests of the working majority itself. This, however, does not exclude the element of coercion in all its forms, and the mildest and most severe... the correct solution to economic difficulties is to consider the population of the whole country as a reservoir of necessary labor – an almost inexhaustible source"^{[86, pp. 215, 219]}. These are quotes from L. Trotsky's book "Terrorism and Communism", and this is the only book that was fully approved and praised by I. Stalin of all the works of L. Trotsky (see above) ^{[89, pp. 236-237]}. The approach to people as "lazy animals", "evil tailless monkeys" (see above), "an inexhaustible reservoir of labor force" led to the appropriate treatment of them. This is diametrically opposed to the teaching of Orthodox Christianity, which considers man as the supreme creation, the image and likeness of God ^[7].

L. Trotsky insisted on the transformation of the country into one economic and military machine, where each person becomes a small cog in its mechanism: "Forced labor means such labor when every worker occupies a certain place indicated to him ... Every worker of the new social system and in the era of transition to it must be a soldier of the army of labor, performing the outfits of the power that he has set" ^{[85, p. 180]}. There is a certain amount of truth in L. Trotsky's words. During the Civil War, the victory of the Red Army was helped not only by the bloody red terror, lies and betrayal, but also by the choice of the majority of the population of the country of the anti-Christian slogans of the Bolsheviks: "death to the bourgeoisie", "plunder the loot", etc. in the hope of quick enrichment as opposed to Christian commandments: ... do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not covet someone else's (Rom. 13, 9), in the sweat of your face you will eat bread (Gen. 3, 19). Therefore, the people of Russia themselves deserved the most cruel order that was established by the Bolsheviks. This applies not only to Russia. As St. Nicholas of Serbia writes, a deviation from eternal morality by any nation leads to catastrophic consequences for this people, therefore every nation deserves what it has ^{[58, pp. 35-37]}. Not only Orthodox thinkers came to this conclusion. The English historian Thomas Carlyle wrote: "Ultimately, every government is an exact symbol of its people with its wisdom and unreason; we could say: like a people, so is the government" ^{[25, pp. 239-240]}. In the interpretation of W. Churchill, it sounds like this: "Voters relying on universal suffrage are free to do whatever they want. However, then they will have to sort out the results of their decisions" ^{[51, p. 444]}.

K. Kautsky writes that a half?starved worker "was chained with a block of "iron discipline", surrendered uncontrollably to the power of a military "commissar with two revolvers"... who, with threats of arrests, fines, a concentration camp and deprivation of rations, had to beat out of him ? a "born lazy man" - increased productivity and "military pace of work" ^{[36, p. XV]}. But the result was the opposite. In the labor armies, according to official data, there were 11 managers, organizing and guarding people per working person. The cost of labor of such a worker cost the state almost 5 times higher than the cost of labor of a freelance worker ^{[36, pp. XV-XVI]}. W. Churchill wrote: "There is not a single social or economic principle in the philosophy of the Russian Bolsheviks that would not have been put into practice by termites a million years ago" ^{[96, p. 183]}. That is, according to W. Churchill, Bolshevism is not even a rollback to the primitive communal system, but to insect colonies that are not far from truths.

Labor service was combined with the communist principle of wage equalization "at the level of the hungry minimum of the least trained workers" ^{[66, p. 88]}. This principle killed the workers' main incentive to work, personal interest in increasing their productivity and obtaining high qualifications ^{[66, p. 95]}. Such a policy has shown its extreme inefficiency and the aggravation of the discontent of the population, up to popular uprisings, such as the Kronstadt uprising and the armed uprising of the Tambov peasants. All this forced the Bolsheviks to abolish this, one of the main principles of Marxism and war communism. The New Economic Policy (NEP) allowed the existence, under certain restrictions, of capitalist enterprises. And capitalism brought the country out of ruin. The standard of living of workers thanks to the NEP in the late 20s of the twentieth century even exceeded the level of 1913 ^{[64, p. 102] [66, p. 98]} U. Churchill wrote: "Some aim at a private entrepreneur as a predator, others look at him as a cash cow, and only a few see in him a hardy horse that pulls a cart" ^{[95, p. 38]}. But by the 1930s, the NEP was curtailed. This led to a constant deterioration of the financial situation of the workers. At the same time, broad industrialization and a policy of increased production growth were carried out. This speaks of the cruelest exploitation of the people. It was only by the beginning of the 60s that the standard of living of the workers of 1913 was again reached ^{[64, p. 102]}

V. Lenin wrote to G. M. Krzhizhanovsky: "... to mobilize all engineers, electrical engineers without exception ... to train at least (10-50?) man to electricity. If you do it, it's a bonus. If you do not fulfill it, you will be in prison" ^{[47, vol. 52, p. 38]}. Even if there was such an attitude towards "our own", what can we say about the enemies? What is the difference between the "successes" of the Bolsheviks under the threat of prison and the muzzle of a pistol from the "successes" of slaveholders who built huge structures on the slave labor of "born idlers" under the whip and the fear of death? Especially great similarity with the slave-owning system was in the "correctional labor" camps, where, as in the ancient slave-owning states, there was always a huge army of prisoners used on giant Soviet construction sites ^{[76] [23]}. These people had no Civil rights ^[77], i.e. they were no different from slaves.

It is noteworthy that in 1937 the amount of money and valuable property seized from the arrested was almost equal to the amount of loans opened by the NKVD for the maintenance of prisoners, i.e. "in essence, the prisoners were kept on their own seized valuables and money" ^{[91, p. 158]}. In this way, the USSR received free slave labor to achieve its "successes". To improve economic indicators, "unloading of camp contingents", i.e. mass extermination of prisoners, was carried out. As a result of such a "change in the number of prisoners" (as indicated in the official documents of the NKVD), "savings" of tens of millions of rubles were achieved. Based on archival data, V. Tsaplin estimated that about 25% of "prisoners" were destroyed in this way. Therefore, economic activity was probably not the main goal of the Gulag, Dalstroy and other camp administrations. And their main goal was the destruction of "class enemies", "enemies of the people" and in general all dissenters ^{[91, p. 161]}.

This was reflected in the first version of the Soviet anthem "The Song of the Bolshevik Party", which paid flattering, almost divine homage to Stalin.:

"The countries of the unprecedented free children,

Today we sing a proud song

About the party, the most powerful in the world,

About his biggest man…

Traitors vile rotten breed

You sweep menacingly out of your way.

You are the pride of the people, you are the wisdom of the people,

You are the heart of the people, you are their conscience..." ^{[54, pp. 155-157]}.

The British Marxist T. Cliff reasonably believed that prisoners in the camps of the USSR were also used to "put in place" other workers, for which capitalism uses "armies of the unemployed", only the situation of prisoners in the USSR was incomparably worse than the situation of the unemployed in the West. And yet, he quite rightly believed that although the labor of prisoners, as a rule, is very unproductive, but the USSR resorted to it on a huge scale because it had much less capital than manpower compared to Western countries, and forced labor of such prisoners on many construction sites with extremely difficult conditions (for example, in Siberia and the Far North) was in such cases the cheapest and even the only possible. But the propaganda of the USSR even presented these barbaric methods as an achievement. So, the newspaper "Izvestia", speaking about the construction sites produced by prisoners in Siberia, wrote: "Until now, it was assumed that the construction season does not exceed one hundred days a year. It is very cold in winter, 50° below zero. But the builders proved that even under such conditions, work can be done all year round" ^{[37, pp. 33-34]}.

Under Tsar V. Lenin received a special paid lunch and milk in prison. His mother brought him diet food 3 times a week.  A Swiss specialist prescribed him more mineral water. In a letter to his sister Anna, V. Lenin reported: "I get my mineral water here too: they bring it to me from the pharmacy on the same day as I order it" ^{[14, p. 16]}. And in exile, according to N. Krupskaya, she and V. Lenin lived as in a holiday home: "The cheapness in this Shushenskoye was amazing. For example, Vladimir Ilyich for his "salary" — an eight—ruble allowance (from the "rotten tsarist regime" — Auth.) - had a clean room, feeding, washing and mending clothes, and then it was considered that he paid dearly… True, lunch and dinner were a bit simple — one week for Vladimir Ilyich they killed a ram, which they fed him from day to day until he ate everything... we hired a servant, a girl of 15 years old, for 2.5 rubles a month + boots ... and does all the menial work" ^{[14, pp. 20-21]}. The "prisoner of Tsarism" played sports, skated, hunted. The grouse, ducks, hares, and hollows killed by him were their constant food. He also went to visit other exiles and hosted them, received piles of magazines and newspapers ^{[14, p. 21]}. In the USSR, it was certainly far from such an attitude towards the opponents of the regime, as well as to all prisoners.

For "achievement", "success", Soviet propaganda also gave out the hardest exploitation of women's labor: "The greatest interest is the fact that the Soviet woman has conquered and continues to conquer those industries that are inaccessible to her under capitalism and which in capitalist countries are declared specifically male… For example, in the mining industry of the capitalist world, a woman occupies the most insignificant place (units of percent — Auth.). In the USSR, women make up 27.9%" ^{[37, p. 29]}. Hindus, one of Stalin's admirers, wrote: "One of the wonderful aspects of Russian life is the use of women in day jobs. They work with a pickle and a shovel, carry heavy loads, carry wheelbarrows" ^{[37, p. 30]}.

General De Gaulle, who met with And. During the Second World War in 1944, Stalin gave a completely objective assessment of the ways to achieve his success: "He rose up using ... totalitarian severity, betting on audacity and inhuman cunning, subjugating some and eliminating others ... Two conditions were needed to achieve success: to make the state powerful, that is, industrial, and at the present time to win the world war. The first task was completed at the cost of unheard-of suffering and human lives. Stalin, when I saw him, was completing the second task — among the graves and ruins. He was lucky because he met a people so tenacious and patient that the most cruel enslavement did not paralyze him; a land full of such resources that the most terrible waste could not exhaust it" ^{[54, p. 159-16]}. Thus, the monopolistic state capitalist – USSR turned into a labor camp with an inefficient, extensive, arbitrarily managed economy, which grew due to the extreme exploitation of the population and terrorist methods of coercion.

5. Science

In 1929, G. Krzhizhanovsky declared: "We are joining the Academy of Sciences as a column of Marxist dialectics" ^{[5, p. 240]}. Many academics opposed the innovations of this "column", which abolished uncensored science. But eventually they gave up. Academician I. P. Pavlov turned out to be one of the most persistent. The famous scientist A. N. Krylov advised him: "Spit, father, kiss the villain's hand" ^{[5, p. 239]}. But academician I. P. Pavlov firmly expressed his position: "A paragraph has been introduced into the Charter of the Academy (of Sciences) that all work should be carried out on the platform of the teachings of Marx and Engels — isn't this the greatest violence against scientific thought? How does this differ from the medieval Inquisition? <...> We are ordered (!) to elect people to the membership of the Highest Scientific Institution, whom we cannot in conscience recognize as scientists. <...> The former intelligentsia is partly exterminated, and partly corrupted" ^{[43, p. 12-13]}. 

I. P. Pavlov was already a Nobel laureate at that time, so he was not touched. But many scientists were accused of "wrecking activities." "Machists", "vitalists", "Menshevik idealists", "vulgarizing sociologists" and other "creeping empiricists" were vilified as propagators of reactionary ideas and opponents of the party's policy in the field of science. At the same time, the "pseudoscience" of genetics (as well as cybernetics later) in the USSR was completely eliminated ^{[5, p. 243]}. Professor D. F. Egorov publicly stated that "not anything else, but the imposition of a standard worldview on scientists, is genuine sabotage." Therefore, the professor was branded as "the leader of the reactionary Moscow mathematical school", who was also the head of the church ^{[5, p. 242]}. He was also persecuted. The cadres of scientists needed for industry, especially defense, were less defeated, although in this area the Marxist-Leninist leadership inflicted significant damage to the scientific and technical potential of the country ^{[5, pp. 243-244]}. The scale of repression can be estimated approximately by the following fact. At the aircraft factory No. 24 alone in 1937, according to the report of the Moscow Regional Directorate of the NKVD, "5 espionage terrorist and sabotage-wrecking groups" were "exposed". About 1,000 "Trotskyist wreckers" and suspected of sabotage and espionage in favor of four capitalist states have been identified ^[73].

"Shakhty case", "the case of the Academy of Sciences", "the case of Slavists", "Pulkovo case", "the case of the industrial party", "the case of doctors", etc., — all these are stages of the destruction of high-class scientific and technical specialists in the USSR.  The term "sabotage" gradually became a common method of justifying the economic failures of Bolshevism ^{[39, p. 242]}. Thus, entire areas and directions of science and entire layers of highly qualified specialists were drained of blood, which led to a strong lag between Soviet pre-war science and technology and the world. Therefore, we can say that science in the USSR at that time was developing not thanks to, but contrary to the policy of the "builders of communism".

But there is one peculiarity in the development of pre-war science in the USSR. Since the late 20s of the twentieth century, special technical and design bureaus began to spread widely in the country, using the labor of imprisoned specialists, later called "sharags" or "sharashkas" ^[78]. One of the first (CCB-39) began operating in 1929 in Butyrskaya prison. Many outstanding scientists and engineers passed through prisons and sharashki: the inventor of ekranoplanes R. L. Bartini, aircraft designers V. M. Myasishchev and N. N. Polikarpov, the founder of seaplane construction in Russia D. P. Grigorovich, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences E. I. Shpitalsky, Prof. E. S. Anteliovich, academician A. L. Mints and many others ^{[78, p. 125] [73]}. In 1939, the "head of an anti-Soviet wrecking organization and an agent of French intelligence", the outstanding aircraft designer A. N. Tupolev, was brought to Sharashka from the camp, and in 1940, the "participant of the Trotskyist wrecking organization", the future founder of Soviet cosmonautics S. P. Korolev, who almost died on Kolyma, was delivered ^[73]. In a letter to L. Kaganovich dated 07.09.1931, the head of the OGPU Economic Department L. Mironov listed the categories of scientists contained in the "sharashki": "spies", "terrorists", "leaders of wrecking organizations", "members of the industrial party", "active counter-revolutionaries", etc. ^{[71, pp. 7-8]} 

Realizing that their fate, and maybe their lives, depended on the results of their work, scientists and designers in "sharashki" worked from morning until late at night. For example, the creation of the I-5 fighter project (one of the best in the world at that time) and the production of its prototype took only 3 months. On its fuselage was written in large letters "VT", which meant "Internal Prison" ^{[71, p. 9]}. G. Yagoda wrote in a letter to V. Molotov: "Only working conditions in a paramilitary environment are able to ensure the effective activity of specialists as opposed to the corrupting environment of Civilian institutions" ^[73]. But, as O. A. Maltseva correctly notes, speaking about the phenomenon of scientific achievements of "sharashek", they were held not only by fear. The most important driving forces of "sharashek" were also patriotism and love for the Motherland, regardless of the attitude to the communist regime ^{[52, p. 560]}. This is already close to the Orthodox vision of this situation, as well as a fact that contradicts the class theory of Marxism-Leninism ? no matter what social system people live in, there will always be those who are guided by their inner moral sense (conscience), implanted by God in every person.

6. Agriculture

The methods of achieving the "successes" of Bolshevism can be seen from the following. The army was thrown into forced collectivization in 1932-1933. All the bread was often taken from the collective farmers ^{[42, p. 47]}. This bread was sold to Western countries ^[65]. From the communist leadership organized in this way , headed by I. Stalin's famine killed about 4 million people ^{[91, p. 178]}. The proceeds from the sale of bread were used to buy English and American equipment ^{[42, p. 47]}. "Collectivization" in the USSR dealt a terrible blow to agriculture. Only in 1938 the total number of cattle approached the level of 1929 ^{[37, p. 35]} Such is the price of the "achievements" of Bolshevism in the construction of a new state social system. Moreover, V. Tsaplin proves on the basis of archival data that the statistics of the USSR were distorted "to hide the size of the mass destruction of the population" ^{[91, p. 181]}. Fraud was also done in order to multiply the "achievements" of the USSR ^{[5, p. 104, 109, 112, 115-116, 258, 260, 311]}.

One of the most important features of the bureaucratic, uncontrolled, atheistic leadership, which refused moral Christian values, was an instant and voluntary change in previously made decisions, when they blamed their failures on opponents. In the USSR, for some time it was believed that the larger the enterprise, the better it is, regardless of the scientifically justified scale. V. Lenin wrote that the source of strength for victories over the bourgeoisie can be "only a new, higher method of social production, the replacement of capitalist and petty-bourgeois production by large-scale socialist production"^{[47, vol. 39, p. 18]}. I. Stalin said: "The objections of "science" against the possibility and expediency of organizing large grain factories in 50-100 thousand hectares have collapsed and scattered into dust." Following his instructions, collective farms with a total land area of tens of thousands of hectares were organized in the 1930s. But after huge losses, the government changed its decisions. The arable wedge of the collective farm in 1938 already averaged about 500 hectares, and "gigantomania" was declared the result of the pernicious activities of "Trotskyist fascists" ^{[37, p. 68]} This is quite consistent with the usual practice of V. Lenin (and his followers) to blame their opponents for their crimes ("under the guise of "green" we outweigh kulakov, popov", "then we'll dump on them" ^{[46, p. 400]}).

The failure of the pre-war agriculture of the USSR after the war was recognized by the Central Committee of the CPSU, but all the blame, as usual, was transferred to the then deceased I. Stalin, and not to the shortcomings of socialism.Allegedly, if it were not for him, the successes in agriculture would have been enormous ^{[62, p. 13]}. N. Khrushchev undertook to correct the excesses and. Stalin. But as a result of the shortcomings of the command management system of the USSR, based not on a scientifically sound agricultural policy, but on the voluntary decisions of the leadership, the opposite effect was achieved. This even led to hunger riots, which were suppressed by the troops. At the same time, the falsifications of statistics showing the "huge achievements" of the USSR were simply fantastic ^[27].

7.       The change of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War and after itDe Gaulle wrote about And .

Stalin: "For more than twenty years he stood at the helm of a wild, unpredictable state that terrified the civilized world with its undisguised desire for world domination, called the dictatorship of the proletariat by the leaders of the October revolution" ^{[54, pp. 159-160]}. But over time And . Stalin stopped trying to fan the "fire of the world revolution" by military means. Moreover, De Gaulle believed that the Russian leader even "feels some guilt for the actions of the Soviet government, inspired by the adept of the permanent revolution, the late Leon Trotsky... four years ago, Comrade Stalin sent him to the next world by the hands of agent Mercader" ^{[54, pp. 157-158]}.

The shocks of the Great Patriotic War forced many to rethink their ideas about the world around them. W. Churchill rightly wrote: "During this war, great changes took place in people's minds, and among them there is no more significant and important for our country than the non-stop and rapid erasure of class differences" ^{[51, p. 547]}. And back in 1944 , W. Churchill wrote: "Profound changes are taking place in Soviet Russia. The Trotskyist form of communism has been finally suppressed. The victories of the Russian armies were secured by a significant strengthening of the Russian state and a striking expansion of the views of its leadership. The religious side of Russian life is experiencing an amazing revival. The discipline and military etiquette of the Russian armies are impeccable. There was a new national anthem, and Marshal Stalin sent me notes. I asked the BBC to sing this anthem in honor of the great victories of the Russian army" ^{[51, p. 614]}. But the realization of these facts did not lead to a positive change in the thoughts of W. Churchill himself. On the contrary, the bonds of common danger, in the face of fascist Germany, disappeared one night after the signing of its surrender, and the "Soviet threat", in his eyes, took the place of the Nazi enemy ^{[22, p. 179]}. 

After the war, especially after the death of I. There were even greater changes in the USSR and a rethinking of the state of affairs. This can be seen, for example, from the transcript of the meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU dated February 9, 1956.:

"T. Voroshilov: Stalin became obsessed (in the struggle) with the enemies...

T. Mikoyan: We cannot but tell the congress. For the first time we can discuss it on our own. How to relate to the past? Is it possible to forgive a failure in agriculture? If people were alive, the successes would be huge.

T. Malenkov: I think it's right to offer to tell the congress. We will not explain by any struggle with the enemies that the cadres were killed. The "leader" was indeed "dear".

T. Aristov: "We didn't know that" (this is unworthy of PB members). Terrible years, years of deceit of the people. They wanted to make a god, but the devil turned out…

T. Saburov: Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov take the wrong position, they fake it. These are not shortcomings (as T. Kaganovich says), but crimes" ^{[62, p. 13]}.

Thus, socialism began to have a "human face". But the USSR did not get rid of all the vices of Marxism-Leninism. K. Kautsky, refuting Bolshevik propaganda, wrote that the social policy of capitalist countries is at a higher level than in the USSR ^{[35, p. 15]}. He says: "One of the most important tasks of victorious democracy in Russia will be to give Russian workers everything that their brothers already use in certain Western countries: broad labor protection, solid housing construction, independence of factory committees from the administration of the enterprise, complete freedom of trade unions and insurance benefits in case of unemployment, illness, disability and old age corresponding to the height of wages" ^{[35, p. 302]}. But throughout the history of the USSR, the standard of living of ordinary Soviet people has always been significantly lower than the standard of living and social standards of the majority of the population in Western countries, which also experienced two world wars and devastation ^{[69, p. 404]}. N. S. Khrushchev worked as a locksmith before the revolution. He told me: "Years have passed since the revolution, and it pains me to think that I, a worker, lived under capitalism in better conditions than workers live under Soviet rule" ^{[31, pp. 64-65]}.

The socialist system created in Russia on the basis of Marxism-Leninism had a mechanism of self-destruction originally embedded in it, which was formulated by its founder V. Lenin. He wrote that monopolies tend to stagnate and decay ^{[45, p. 90]}. As a result of the construction of the USSR on Leninist principles, a huge state monopoly was created on almost everything, which led to the stagnation and decay of the USSR and most directly affected its success. But the question arises, which form of government is better?

8.       Comparison of forms of governmentAs it was said in the author's article ^[8], any state system is not respectful for the Church.

But this is from the point of view that under any system, an Orthodox person can, with God's help, live in a Christian way and enter eternal life, even if he had to accept a martyr's death for this. However, many Church fathers believed that for a better arrangement of the Christian life of society, the Orthodox monarchy is more preferable ^{[70, p. 426] [33, p. 508] [88] [80, p. 8-9] [34, p. 551-552]}, because the Orthodox tsar is the defender of the Orthodox faith, i.e. the truth. For example, St. Barsonofy of Optina said: "In the West, in their sovereigns, the peoples love only themselves. If the king ... is unable to give in to the taste and character of his subjects, then he loses not only the love of the people, but also the throne, as it was with Charles X, Louis Philippe and the Sardinian king Albert. It's not the same here in Russia. Our tsar is a representative of the will of God, not of the people  His will is sacred to us… Glory and prosperity are bestowed upon us by the tsar, we accept it from him as the mercy of God. Whether disgrace and calamity befalls us, we bear them with meekness and humility as a heavenly punishment for our iniquities" ^{[15, p. 425]}. In 1917, most people in Russia, having retreated from God, followed Western pride and rejected the Orthodox tsar. This plunged the country into decades of chaos, Civil war and bloody terror and claimed tens of millions of lives.

The fact that the people's will can incline to evil, and the majority can stand for untruth, was also noticed by N. A. Berdyaev ^{[11, p. 288]}. F. Zakaria also believes that the democratic system cannot and should not be guided by blind adherence to the will of the majority ^{[29, p. XXII]}. Thus, the Athenians, by a completely democratic majority, condemned the brilliant philosopher Socrates to death ^{[29, p. 21]}. As a result of the victory of the French Revolution of 1789, a totalitarian system was formed, when "the state was higher than society" and "equality was higher than freedom".  Starting with the proclamation of human rights and freedoms, it destroyed freedom without a trace. Such a revolutionary system has also stained itself with bloody terror ^{[29, p. 59] [11, p. 288]}. The same thing happened in Russia after 1917. The majority opinion may lead to the fact that impossible mutually exclusive populist proposals will win the vote, for example, such as lowering taxes and simultaneously increasing social services ^{[29, p. XXII, 210]}. Democracy is not viable even with pronounced ethnic preferences, when the majority and minority are practically known in advance ^{[29, p. 118]} Thus, nationalist and even pro-fascist elements won democratic elections in Yugoslavia and in the post-Soviet space (as in Ukraine)  ^{[29, p. 117]}.

Plato also believed that when the principle of permissiveness operates, democracy degenerates into ochlocracy ? the power of the crowd. In this state of affairs, government posts are occupied not by those who deserve it, but by those who liked the crowd. Prompted by the suggestion of leaders, the crowd is ready for any irrational actions ^{[20, p. 5, 7, 12]}. W. Churchill also wrote: "There is least democracy in the laws of the crowd" ^{[95, p. 108]}. A modern example is the Ukrainian "Maidan". In 1917, in Russia, the Bolsheviks, deceiving the okhlos (crowd) with loud fake slogans (see above), came to power and established one of their most brutal and bloody dictatorships in the world ^[8]. Ohlos brought fascists to power in Italy and Germany ^{[20, p. 14]}. Based on all this, it can be concluded that if the power of the people turns into the power of the crowd, "democratization" must be recognized as harmful and limited ^{[29, p. XXXV, 283]}. W. Churchill wrote: "People who are not ready to do unpopular things and resist the roar of the crowd are not fit to be ministers in difficult times" ^{[95, p. 20]}.

These examples once again confirm the correctness of the opinion of many Church fathers that an Orthodox tsar, if guided by eternal moral values, can lead the country better and do much more for the people than democratically elected rulers, often thanks to populist slogans.  But, as history has shown, this system is not perfect either. The defeat of humanity by sin after the fall of the first parents (Rom. 5, 12) led to the fact that in our world it is basically impossible to create an ideal system ? it may be better or worse, but any one will not be without flaws. Thus, in the Synodal period, beginning with the reign of Peter I, the symphony of relations between Church and state was violated. The interference of officials in the affairs of the Church has become excessive. Without the permission of the chief prosecutor ("the sovereign's eye"), not a single case was resolved in the Synod, and this state of affairs did not always bear good fruit ^{[92, pp. 139-140, 146, 149-151, 159]}. Nevertheless, there were chief prosecutors who, being Orthodox, did a lot of good for the Church ^{[92, pp. 162, 306]}.

According to Scripture, the best state system is the theocracy of God the Creator (Numbers 27, 15-23). But it is possible only in a monoreligious society close to 100%, so at present it is not feasible in the vast majority of countries. After her, according to Scripture (1 Sam. 8) and the principle of consepsis tatrum, the Orthodox monarchy should be recognized as the best state system. Taking into account the historical experience of the Russian Empire, we can talk about an Orthodox monarchy with a people's representation, when the tsar has the opportunity to hear the voice of all strata of the people directly, and not through bureaucrats. Since ancient times, Orthodox tsars and princes listened to the advice of the boyar Duma and the church hierarchy when making decisions. But a truly broad popular representation was organized starting from the first "bright" part of the reign of Tsar John the Terrible. At that time, the impulses of his severe mental illness (Medical historian P. I. Kovalevsky believed that Tsar John the Terrible had "all the signs of classical schizophrenia complicated by paranoid complexes and numerous manias" ^{[50, p. 46]}.) were still restrained by the wise advice of the "elected rada" and Metropolitan Makarii of Moscow. In addition, the tsar listened to the voice of representatives of the people — zemstvo councils (a kind of "congresses of Soviets") ^{[50, p. 28]}. In turn, all this led to the zemstvo reform — the expansion of the boundaries of local self-government, in terms of Marxism-Leninism, to an increase in the powers of local "Councils". Moreover, "by the end of the XVI century, secular elected bodies concentrate all the powers of local self-government in their hands" ^{[93, p. 158]}.

Since the reign of Peter I, the zemstvo councils no longer met. Emperor Alexander II, with his reforms, again gave the zemstvos ? "local Councils" fairly broad administrative and economic powers, and Emperor Nicholas II introduced in the Russian Empire a people's representation at the all-Russian level — the State Duma and expanded the powers of the zemstvos ^[93]. Thus, until 1917 in the Russian Empire there was a real power of local people's councils-zemstvos, i.e. "Soviet power", limited (which is positive ? see above) by the power of the Orthodox emperor. Moreover, in these "Councils", "both the peasant and the prince sometimes found themselves on the same bench, having equal legal opportunities under the law to determine the tasks of the zemstvos" ^{[28, p. 110]}. And this is completely in accordance with the teachings of Christianity. All are equal before God: Hellenes, Jews, Barbarians, Scythians, slaves, freemen, etc. (Col. 3, 11), and at the same time it is necessary to honor the king: honor everyone, love brotherhood, fear God, honor the king (1 Pet. 2, 17).

Some semblance of such a system exists in the UK. Perhaps this was one of the reasons that the standard of living of the population of this country until the very end of the twentieth century was the highest in the world ^{[69, p. 404]}. W. Churchill in 1920 said: "Governments that gain power illegally, through violence, often resort to terror in desperate attempts to keep stolen (as in Russia in 1917 ? Auth.). But the noble British Empire, whose structure has been sanctified for centuries and where legitimate power is passed down from generation to generation, does not need such means. (But, given the aggressive colonial wars and the plundering of colonies, the nobility of the British was clearly exaggerated by W. Churchill, although otherwise he is right. ? Author)" ^{[51, p. 111]}. And back in 1944, he said: "Ignorant people in other countries often believe that progress lies in the transition from a monarchy to a republic. In our country, we are well aware of all the advantages of a parliamentary monarchy. Our great traditions and a whole chain of events have brought us here: to the highest point of democratic progress, where we can solve all issues with the greatest efficiency" ^{[51, p. 386]}. This opinion is in accordance with the principle of the Church of Communion and with the historical experience of Russia, so we can agree with it.

9. Construction of the Tower of Babel

Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) wrote: "... the Russian State is being built today without God... the Church condemns such construction, and we strongly warn that we will not have any success until we remember God, without Whom nothing good can be done (Jn. 12, 5)..." ^{[83, p.190]}. Thus, the "successes" of the godless government are not good, from the point of view of Christianity.

"There will be happiness for people, happiness for the ages," was sung in a famous Soviet song. Happiness seemed to the Communists mainly in achieving material well-being for everyone. But even if we hypothetically imagine that a communist utopia would give material abundance to all people, then from the point of view of Christianity, atheism forcibly imposed would more than negate these "achievements" and would not bring happiness to believers.

About those who set material well-being as their main goal of life (whether a communist or a capitalist), Christ said: ... I will spew you out of My mouth ("like disgusting food, into eternal torment" ^{[4, p. 20]}) (Rev. 3, 16-18). Moreover, the wealth obtained by criminal revolutionary means (robbery of noble and noble persons) is unacceptable for Christians. As St. John Chrysostom writes: "Even if the wicked offers money, even if he promises pleasures and honors, reject him and run away; but follow the righteous" ^{[34, p. 491]}. The little of the righteous is better than the riches of many wicked (Ps. 36, 16). 

N. A. Berdyaev wrote about socialist material goals: "Socialism is flesh of the flesh and blood of the blood of capitalism... Worship of Mammon instead of God is equally characteristic of both capitalism and socialism" ^{[11, p. 299]}. But, unlike Marxist-Leninist socialism, capitalism at least does not invade the realm of people's faith and does not try to replace religion. In this respect, it turns out to be preferable. In addition, according to F. Zakaria, the main advantage of capitalism is not that it can provide people with well-being, but that it cannot function without providing them with real freedom ^{[29, p. XVII, 68-70]}. This was also recognized by K. Marx. He argued that capitalism creates the bourgeoisie, which forms bourgeois democracy, as the most suitable system for it, protecting property, contracts, rules and other freedoms. But he did not consider it a positive quality ^{[29, p. 69]}. The purpose of Christian life is not in the material sphere. The Apostle Paul expresses this goal in the following words: for me, life is Christ (Phil. 1, 21). That is, the atheistic, leading the struggle against the religion of Christ, the social system in the USSR was actually a prison for believing Christians.

If the state is built in hostility to believers, to the Church of Christ, such an ungodly construction of the state from the point of view of Christianity is like the construction of the Tower of Babel, which was stopped by God (Gen. 11, 1-9). A.V. Lunacharsky openly declared that the Bolsheviks are "heirs of the Cain tribe" who undertake, contrary to God, to build the new Tower of Babel ^{[49, p. 19-20]}. F. M. Dostoevsky noticed this at the time. He wrote that "socialism is primarily an atheistic question, the question of the Tower of Babel being built precisely without God, not to reach heaven from earth, but to overthrow heaven on earth" ^{[24, p. 55]}.  Such a construction can still be likened to a house that is being built by people who do not fulfill the words of Christ, therefore building it on sand (Matthew 7:26). The wind blew, the water rushed in, and that house collapsed (Matthew 7:27). The Tower of Babel was not completed. The same thing happened with the USSR.

At the time of the construction of the Tower of Babel, all nations had one language and one intention, but, according to Scripture, the Lord God destroyed this universal godless unity ? mixed the languages of the peoples, they ceased to understand each other, separated and dispersed (Gen. 11, 7-8). N. A. Berdyaev said that world socialism put humanity before a choice: either the unity of people in Christ, or the godless unity of people in the antichrist ^{[11, p. 309]}. That is, the Soviet unity of people was essentially antichristian. Among the Babylonian builders in ancient times, the godless unity of people was destroyed, and they dispersed in accordance with their languages. The same thing happened with the USSR, whose peoples were also divided and dispersed into national "apartments".

Before the First World War, the Russian Empire was developing rapidly. According to some parameters, the pace of development exceeded those in the USSR ^[13]. And if we take into account that the USSR had to overcome the consequences of the devastation after the revolution and the Civil War, it can be argued that without the terrible cataclysm staged by the Bolsheviks in 1917, inhuman terror, tens of millions of victims, the semi-impoverished existence of the population and its extreme exploitation, Russian achievements would have immeasurably surpassed the successes of the USSR. 

But even the real successes of the USSR (space, science, nuclear power, military industry, etc.) in the persecution of the Church and the planting of atheism cannot be called successes in the light of the teachings of Christianity, since God does not like the work of godless Babylonian construction ^{[48, p. 2]}. In addition, with the constant persecution of faith and believers, embedded in the the basis of Marxism-Leninism, the "successes" in the construction of the Tower of Babel ? the USSR did not and in principle cannot bring "happiness for centuries" on earth to Orthodox Christians, no matter what material benefits they promised, but, from the point of view of Christianity, they brought death to the eternal life of many millions of souls of people forcibly torn off from God. Therefore, the seventieth anniversary of the communist regime after its victory in the Civil War can be called a new Babylonian captivity, which the new Israel ? Church experienced, like the seventieth anniversary of the captivity of the Jews in Babylon five centuries before the Birth of Christ. Therefore, it is impossible to combine the incompatible teachings of communism and Christianity, unless the Communists abandon Marxism-Leninism and its criminal methods.

Conclusions

This article shows that the Bolsheviks came to power and held it by anti-Christian methods. In particular, V. Lenin's betrayal of the Motherland with accomplices and their financing by Germany can be considered proven. Without this, they would hardly have been able to seize and retain power. The Bolshevik regime was anti-people, because they dispersed the popularly elected Constituent Assembly. They used anti-Christian methods to rule the country, plunging it into an atmosphere of the most brutal terror and fear for decades.  At the same time, they usually blamed their failures in the economy on the "sabotage" of opponents. With such methods, with the most severe exploitation of the population, they managed to achieve success in industrialization.

But the successes of the USSR in the forcible imposition of atheism cannot be considered successes from the point of view of Christianity. They are similar to the success of the construction, according to A. Lunacharsky, by the "tribe of Cain" of the Tower of Babel, objectionable to God. Russia developed rapidly before the revolution. Therefore, if there had not been a bloody revolution and Civil War and, as a result, the destruction of the economy, Russia's successes would have been immeasurably greater. Perhaps there would not even have been fascism and the Second World War after the victory of Russia and the Entente over Germany. The mechanism of self-destruction laid down in the USSR in the form of the creation of a state-capitalist monopoly on almost everything, which, according to V. Lenin's fair (in this case) words, leads to stagnation and decay, hindered the development of the country and caused these very stagnation and decay. This was one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR. In the words of V. Lenin, one can draw another conclusion: only the stupid can trust and help the Bolsheviks ^{[46, p. 504]}, and it is terrible to experience the inventions of the Bolsheviks ^{[47, vol. 48, p. 224]}. The following conclusion is not new. The Communists' use of lies and slander as a tool to achieve their goals makes the entire official history of the USSR unreliable and biased.

The Great Patriotic War turned the worldview of many people in the USSR. During and after it, the relatively peaceful coexistence of Church and state was gradually established, at least declaratively, and the massive and most severe persecutions ceased. This happened, first of all, due to some deviation of the USSR ideology from Marxism-Leninism, which had a positive impact on the development of the country. During the Second World War, there were even some ways of cooperation between the state and the Church. But the Soviet authorities continued to see the ROC as an ideological opponent. The persecution of the Church continued in the form of discriminatory, restrictive and repressive policies of the state.

The comparison of various forms of government carried out in the article suggests that from the point of view of the communism, the best system possible after the theocracy is an Orthodox monarchy with popular representation. But in our world affected by sin after the fall of the forefathers, it is impossible in principle to build a just society (there will always be crimes in this earthly world), one can only get closer to this ideal. However, the deviation from eternal morality by any people under any social system leads to disastrous consequences for this people, as the bitter experience of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia has shown. From the point of view of Christianity, the rule of communists in Russia brought death to the eternal life of many millions of souls of people forcibly torn from God. This repeatedly negates all the achievements of the USSR. In addition, atheistic construction is like the construction of the Tower of Babel, objectionable to God. Therefore, from the position of Orthodoxy, the godless successes of the USSR are not successes, and it is impossible to unite the teachings of communism and Christianity, unless the Communists abandon Marxism-Leninism and its anti-Christian criminal methods.