She worked as a researcher at the State Research Institute of Quartz Glass, senior engineer, assistant, senior lecturer at the Department of Physical Chemistry of the Leningrad Technological Institute. Candidate of Technical Sciences. He has copyright certificates for inventions and about a hundred publications in scientific journals and collections. Married, has a daughter.
In May 1989, she was elected chairman of the coordinating council (then - the Political Executive Committee) of the All-Union Society "Unity - for Leninism and Communist Ideals." In July 1991, she was elected chairman of the organizing committee of the Bolshevik platform in the CPSU. In November 1991, at the founding congress, she was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
Andreeva's article "I can't compromise my principles" was essentially a manifesto of modern Stalinists. In particular, it said: “I support the party call to defend the honor and dignity of the pioneers of socialism. I think that it is precisely from these party-class positions that we must evaluate the historical role of all the leaders of the party and the country, including Stalin.
The press organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Pravda newspaper (April 5, 1988), reacted to Andreeva’s demarche with an editorial “Principles of Perestroika: Revolutionary Thought and Action,” which read: “An attempt is being made to whitewash the past, to justify political deformations by referring only to extreme conditions and crimes against socialism... Defending Stalin, they defend thereby the preservation in our today's life, the practice of the methods of "solving" debatable issues generated by him, the public and state structures created by him, the norms of party and social life. And most importantly, they defend the right to arbitrariness."
Recall that N.A. Andreeva sent a "letter" to the XIX All-Union Party Conference, where she continued to insist on her views. However, this speech by the senior teacher of chemistry no longer attracted public attention.
Nina Andreeva
Taisiya 09.01.2011 02:46:54
Nina Andreeva deserves the greatest respect! We lost because there were too many false communists who screwed up a great idea. And the scoops remained the same as they were! "from the authorities - mansions in the Maldives. I lived and live, thank God, even better than with the advice, but when I come to a village where there is a house and I see how the fields are overgrown with forest, that half of the men drink, and the other -on earnings in St. Petersburg or Moscow, I understand that everything that happened to the country is a complete f...
March 4, 2013Nina ANDREEVA: “I was always annoyed by the discrepancy between words and deeds!”
Dmitry ZHVANIA
I am not a fan of Stalin. One online commentator even described me as "a devout European rotten left-wing liberal Trotskyist." But I don't suffer from Stalinophobia either. True, this is not about me, but about a woman who has become a symbol of modern Stalinism - Nina Andreeva. I respect people who consistently defend their ideas without raping, torturing or killing anyone. Nina Andreeva is just such a person. In the autumn of 1998, I interviewed Nina Alexandrovna for the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper. She did not know that I was an NBP activist and met me in the mask of a “hard-wired Bolshevik”. But when Nina Alexandrovna realized that I did not set out to write another snarky text about the “last Stalinist”, she left her role imposed on her by the mass media. We talked while sitting in the kitchen of her Khrushchev one-room apartment in Petrodvorets. We drank tea with croutons, which the leader of the All-Union Communist Party of Belarus was roasting right in front of me. Moskovsky Komsomolets printed only part of the interview (it's not about censorship, but about the permissible volume). Here I post it in full. Probably, one can say about Nina Alexandrovna - “the most humane Stalinist” ...
- In one interview with you, I read that you, being the curator of a student group at the Technological Institute, often walked with your wards in the parks of Petrodvorets, discussing various problems. What did you talk about with the youth?
- I had quite democratic, non-traditional relationships with the students. I didn't look at the student as my subordinate. We were equal. The difference between me, a teacher, and them, students, was only that I had to give them the maximum knowledge of my subject, I taught physical chemistry, but also prepare them for life. I taught from 1972 to 1991. Vladimir Ivanovich (husband of Nina Andreeva, Vladimir Ivanovich Klyushin - D.Zh.) also worked a lot with students in terms of organizing work in student dormitories, organizing leisure activities, etc. We paid a lot of attention to our students. How did it go? He was the group's curator and I was the group's curator. I was the best curator of the institute! But due to the fact that I had a rather difficult relationship with the leadership of the institute and the party committee, they did not favor me, and I did not receive any regalia. Recorded only thanks to the local faculty level. Almost every Sunday there was one of the student groups in Peterhof. Either Vladimir Ivanovich, or mine. We walked a lot in the parks. In winter, you could ride down the hill, sitting on the plank. A group of young people came - 30-40 people. And I skated with the guys, and Vladimir Ivanovich also loved to ride. In spring and autumn we liked to go to the parks behind the railroad. The most beautiful meadow parks! Few people know about them. Those who live in Leningrad go to official parks. It has a unique drainage system. Lots of ponds. From here water is supplied to the fountains. The layout was made by the best masters of park art of the 18th-19th centuries. We walked, we discussed absolutely everything with the students. For us, there were no topics closed to criticism. Complete trust. Full emancipation. And mutual respect!
In our small one-room apartment, I hosted tea parties for students. Students are students: they like to spend time in a company, to communicate. I fed them. Some were content with the buffet, as there was not enough space for everyone. But everyone was very happy. I remember those times with pleasure. I believe that communication with young people gives a lot to a person. Firstly, a very high vitality, increases activity. It makes it possible to feel the spirit of the times, in which direction development is going.
- Why was the party committee dissatisfied with you?
- I always thought that you need to adhere to the rule: as you say, be kind and do it. I have always been annoyed by the discrepancy between words and deeds! And our high-ranking officials were just the same and differed. I mean the secretary of the party committee and those who were in the administration. Demanding compliance with official discipline (if someone was 3 minutes late there, the bonus was removed from him), the management of the university could not organize the working day of employees. Researchers come and hang around idle for half a day: they drink coffee, they smoke. This annoyed me. What is the point of demanding to arrive at work by 9 am, severely punishing latecomers, if people are idle during the working day? Why is this stint in the workplace necessary?
“How does our party (the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks - D.Zh.) differ from other communist parties? The fact that we do not have former party officials. No one! This is why other communist parties do not like us.”
The second point: the theft of material values flourished on the part of the vice-rector for the administrative and economic part. Then - nepotism. It came to the point that the management of the departments was transferred to their close relatives. Worthy and talented people work at the department. But some kind of incompetent dullness received the administration - simply because he was a close relative of one of the members of the rector's office. The most gray personalities (if they can be called personalities) climbed into the secretaries of the party committee, who knew that after serving four years in the party committee, they would receive the head of the department. They were given a staff of talented guys, they were given the position of a senior researcher, which an ordinary teacher earned with hard work for ten years - in the field of teaching and research. And these rogues had three or four people writing doctoral dissertations. And then they, having molded together four pieces into one dissertation, successfully defended it. It revolted me. Therefore, the party committee did not complain to me. I worked for 38 years. But I don't have any benefits. I am not a labor veteran. I receive a pension of 351 re! (before the default, it was a little more than $50, and after it was a meager amount, and we talked after the default - J.Zh.). In today's times, you know...
- In the 60s, when you were still very young, in the Soviet Union, disputes between "physicists" and "lyricists" were in vogue. You must have been a physicist? Want to explore space?
- Several other aspects were decisive. I was raised by my mother. Father died at the front. We lived very modestly. And the issue of scholarship was important for me. Mom received a pension of 46 rubles. And I was paid 20 rubles for my dead father. I had a choice. I liked chemistry, literature, medicine, issues related to space. I graduated from high school with a gold medal. The question arose before me: where to go to study. The medical institute had a shockingly low scholarship - 23 rubles. The university also had such a scholarship. With this money, it would be very difficult for me to live with my mother. Therefore, I chose chemistry - I went to the Technological Institute. Of all the departments, I was interested in the department of special ceramics, where they studied the issues of manufacturing and developing new alloys for space technology. It was a new specialization. The department was headed by Professor Kozlovsky. The scholarship was higher. Due to the fact that I studied "excellently", I received a scholarship of 49 rubles. So existence determined my profession.
How did you spend your time as a student?
— I remember construction teams with pleasure. We built the Narva State District Power Plant, dug ditches, cemented the bottom of the reservoir. We lived in the Ivangorod fortress. In tents. I remember it often rained. And we slept on damp mattresses. They cooked their own food. I remember pasta and sweet tea with bread. Milk and millet porridge were brought to us from Ivangorod. Night vigils! We crawled along the Ivangorod fortress. Twinkling stars. Komsomol bonfires until three in the morning ... I remember that time with pleasure.
On Sundays we hung out in museums. We went around all the Leningrad museums. We - Leningraders - considered it our sacred duty to introduce non-resident children to Leningrad culture. We drove to the suburbs. But we didn't go hiking.
From the article by Nina Andreeva “I can’t compromise my principles!” Who today will say that she was wrong in the part where she showed the hypocrisy of the party elite?
- What about dancing?
There were also dances. We spent enough Komsomol evenings. We, students of Technolozhka, invited students of Voenmekh. Then we went to visit Voenmekh.
- How did you meet your husband?
He taught us philosophy. He graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy as an external student in four years. He sat on the university bench at the age of 30. When he finished, he came to teach. I fell in love. Then we got together forever. We've been together for 35 years...
… I just feel sorry for today's youth. Because she is thrown into life without prospects. Everyone's future was stolen. But first and foremost, the youth. The vast majority of university graduates do not have the opportunity to find a job in their specialty. Thus, the five best years of their lives are wasted. I really feel sorry for our girls who are forced to sell their bodies, earning money to pay for their studies. I cannot understand how it is possible to combine studies at the university (!), that is, familiarization with the heights of culture, with trading in one's own body! This is immoral. I cannot understand this either as a teacher, or as a person, or as a woman. I can't understand our young guys who, putting up with this, deny themselves the opportunity to have the most beautiful girls. Our beautiful stupid girls go abroad, thinking they will be models there, but end up in brothels. Deprived of the future and our young people. They become hostages of capitalist relations, gradually turning into downtrodden horses. Slightly relaxed - you are already on the sidelines. And you need a huge concentration of strength and energy to catch up. But some young people are starting to think about their future. For example, in our All-Union Young Guard of the Bolsheviks (youth organization under the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks - D.Zh.) there are amazingly talented kids. They write poetry, prose...
- You were engaged in Komsomol work?
- In the tenth grade, I was the secretary of the Komsomol organization of the school. I graduated from school 322, I graduated from that on Borodinka (Borodinskaya street runs from the embankment of the Fontanka River to Zagorodny Prospekt - D.Zh.) At the institute, I was appointed head of the group. In my fourth year, I was elected secretary of the Komsomol organization of the course. I didn't like this area of work. Why? Firstly, overorganization, pressure from above, do this and that, fettering any initiative. I didn’t like this spirit, which had already begun to soar then - servility and uncleanliness in relationships. I was outraged by the fawning before the superiors. Komsomol work did not impress me. The servility of officials from the Komsomol to the higher party brethren aroused in me an internal protest. I made an unequivocal conclusion: I will be engaged in research work. Moreover, I was very interested in this area. I have copyright.
— Tell us about your famous article “I can’t give up my principles”… Did it grow out of a letter to the editors of Soviet Russia?
“Everything that happens to us is a collection of a number of facts, facts, events. Perestroika began. It was a period when we were all, by and large, deceived. Society turned out to be polluted by anti-socialist tendencies. Everyone saw the discrepancy between words and deeds on the part of the top party officials. It needed to be cleaned up. And thoroughly. Public problems were widely discussed in the press. The audience gathered at our house: teachers from the university and institutes, the intellectual elite. We exchanged information, talked, argued. The search for truth! An article by Alexander Prokhanov about the disgusting situation that has developed in society appeared in the Leningrad Worker. Its meaning was as follows. The socialist pillar is being beaten by two trends: one is democratic, the other is soil-based. He suggested that in order to relieve tension in society, to introduce freedom of discussion, discussion, to create a common market of ideas. I think it's absurd. What has been won in a cruel historical struggle cannot be left at the mercy. Prokhanov expressed slanderous ideas. Like the one that needs to create a world government from the leading intellectuals of the world, and it will issue recommendations to the rulers, which they will be obliged to fulfill. But this is nonsense!
Class struggle drives history! And such an amorphous classless approach speaks either of political illiteracy or of deep delusion. Why did I pay attention to this article? Yes, because then there was a question about our trip to Afghanistan with my husband. And Prokhanov published the most beautiful novel “A Tree in the Center of Kabul”. When I read it, I was interested in this topic. After analyzing Prokhanov's article, I decided to write an answer to the Leningrad Worker. The journalist arrived. They put only a small piece called "Memories of the Future." A lot of responses came to Prokhanov's article. And he answered them with a second article. But I did not like this article because of its apolitical nature. That's why I wrote a second reply. But the Leningrad Worker refused to publish it. Meanwhile, the February ideological plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU was held, at which Yegor Ligachev spoke. In order not to write everything again, I sent my letter to Pravda, Sovetskaya Rossiya, and Literaturka (there the debates were in full swing). Everyone was in a frenzy from Gorbachev's Perestroika. On February 23, they called from the editorial office of Sovetskaya Rossiya and asked to shorten the article a little. A journalist came to me. He asked to add a passage about Stalin's repressions and complete the text with a quote from Gorbachev: "Our Marxist-Leninist principles must not be compromised under any circumstances." I titled the article "Do not compromise principles." But the editors called the article “I can’t compromise my principles.” Sounds tougher. In fact, I try to sharpen the issue in disputes in order to more clearly identify the position of the opponent.
- And how do you evaluate modern neo-Stalinist youth publications? For example, the newspaper "Bumbarash"?
Bumbarash is a newspaper with a clear Trotskyist bias. You need to know when and what to call for. For example, today some of our jingoistic revolutionaries are calling for the storming of the Kremlin. This is a complete absurdity, a complete misunderstanding of the situation in the country. In addition to harm, such calls will bring nothing. Of course, young people are always characterized by maximalism in their assessments. But this does not mean that you need to follow the lead of the youth. Today, calling for an armed uprising is simply not serious. In the program of our Party we specifically speak of the need to revive the socialist system. Methods of struggle are determined by the specific situation. Therefore, the cries of "To arms!", except for harm, will bring nothing to the communist movement.
- What do you think about the Communist Party and Gennady Zyuganov? He, like you, is against extremism...
- The Communist Party is a non-communist party. It's kind of like a vinaigrette. Hash! The first part is a communist "swamp": people with a long party experience, boundlessly law-abiding, capable only of voting. The second part - betrayed everything and the entire party nomenklatura, which never cared about the communist ideology. They are accustomed to living by one law, and preaching from the rostrum is completely different. We say: at best, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a social-democratic party. The top is on the liberal-bourgeois position. Obedient communist "swamp" - something like a left social democracy. We come out with sharp criticism of the Communist Party. But we criticize the Communist Party of the Russian Federation not for its positions (the Communist Party has the right to choose those positions to which it has matured), but for the fact that it is hiding behind the communist label. We say: the people can still forgive the betrayal of Gorbachev, but they will never forgive the betrayal of Zyuganov and Co. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is responsible for the fact that the workers' and communist movements act separately. The workers do not trust the communists. For today, all banks, top positions in business and government are occupied by the former party nomenklatura and people from the Komsomol. And then: the Communist Party has become an appendage of the Duma faction. If we look at what the cells of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation are doing on the ground, we will see that, apart from election campaigns, they do nothing. Cowardly! In many regions, local organizations of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation were afraid to even join the civil protest on October 7th. Sometimes they come to rallies without a red banner. But what kind of a communist is he if he is embarrassed by the red banner?
How does our party (the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks - D.Zh.) differ from other communist parties? The fact that we do not have former party officials. No one! This is why other communist parties do not like us. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the party of the highest party nomenklatura. The RKRP is a party of petty party nomenklatura, the RCP-CPSU of Alexei Prigarin is also a nomenklatura party. The PKK of Anatoly Kryuchkov and Yevgeny Kozlov is a party of social science teachers brought up on terry Khrushchevism and anti-Stalinism. We say: today one cannot be a communist if one does not recognize Stalin's merits in building a socialist state. The times were cruel. Stalin fully met his requirements.
— And Viktor Anpilov? Why is he bad? Both a Stalinist and an activist...
- Viktor Ivanovich is an extraordinary person. But he needs to grow up. He is well acquainted with our Bolshevik documents. He uses them 100%! And this is very good. But we do not agree with the methods of activity to which he resorts today. He has a rather meager ideological baggage. He probably has no time to engage in political self-education. He speaks all the time... We characterize him as the most talented protester in the left movement, but... but... But!
— Have you been abroad?
- In Soviet times, I visited only Czechoslovakia. Immediately after the events of 1968, my husband was sent there to train top ideological cadres. He taught in Prague at the highest party school. There he wrote a two-volume textbook "Philosophical Problems of Natural Science".
But after the collapse of the USSR, I traveled a lot, as a representative of the AUCPB visited Brazil, India, the Netherlands, Denmark, Syria, North Korea, Belgium, Italy. Ordinary people are the same everywhere. They are friendly and open everywhere. The relaxed atmosphere was everywhere. My last trip was to Italy. Drove the whole Italian boot. The spontaneity and gullibility of the Italians are striking. Amazing musical people! And I would say - a little naive. They are so open to the interlocutor that they have nothing that they would not want to tell. In Brazil, we did not communicate with the bourgeoisie, but, in modern terms, with the plebs, ordinary hard workers who are fiercely fighting for their existence, and the working intelligentsia. In Sao Paulo, two and a half million people sleep under the bridge! In India, terrible poverty, filth, and insecurity of the population struck.
- And what needs to be done so that there is less dirt in Russia?
— It is necessary to raise the intellectual level of the population. An intelligent person will not allow himself to be spit and littered.
- Andreeva N.A. Ungiven principles or a short course in the history of perestroika: Selected articles, speeches.(1992) [Djv-20.8M] Compiler of the collection, author of notes, preface and afterword A.I. Belitsky.
(Saransk, 1993)
Scan, processing, format Djv: Legion, 2011 - TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Preface (5).
Memories of the future? (7).
I cannot compromise my principles (11).
Letter to the writer A.N. Rybakov (26).
Open letter to the XIX All-Union Party Conference (28).
Open letter to M.A. Ulyanov (35).
On some features of the crisis and the tasks of the "Unity" society. Speech at the Founding Conference of the All-Union Society "Unity" May 18, 1989 (37).
Who are you, Nina Andreeva? Interview to the newspaper "Kupchinskiye Novosti" (48).
Is the crisis continuing? Interview with the newspaper "Evening Novosibirsk" (55).
The desire for truth has not yet been suppressed (57).
The path to truth, but not the truth itself (67).
Stop the slide of the socialist Fatherland to disaster. Report at the All-Union Seminar-Conference on January 24, 1990 (75).
We are for perestroika, but for what? Conversation with own correspondent of "Soviet Patriot" (88).
Report at the II All-Union Conference of the Society "Unity - for Leninism and Communist Ideals" April 14, 1990 (97).
Socialism or death? Interview to the newspaper "Komsomolets" Chelyabinsk August 17, 1990 (116).
Historical quirks (125).
Stop sliding into disaster! To the answer of the liquidators and grave-diggers of our Socialist Fatherland! Report at the III All-Union Conference of the Society "Unity" October 27, 1990 (133).
Anti-communism is the road to reaction and fascism (156).
Syndrome of belonging. Reflections on the subject of the conversation E.K. Ligachev with the correspondent of "Soviet Russia" dated February 6, 1991 (166).
Stop the collapse of the Soviet state (175).
Get up, the country is huge. Report at the All-Union Conference of Supporters of the Bolshevik Platform in the CPSU on July 13, 1991, mountains. Minsk (180).
Hostile whirlwinds are blowing over us ... Report at the conference of the Leningrad organization of the All-Union Society "Unity" September 21, 1991 (196).
Ah, my Russia, Russia (210).
The current moment and our tasks. Report at the Constituent Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on November 8, 1991 (216).
Speech at a rally in Leningrad on December 22, 1991 (239).
At a political crossroads (241).
Speech at a meeting of patriotic organizations in Leningrad on March 17, 1992 (245).
Regrouping of forces and prospects (247).
Is it necessary to revive the CPSU? (255).
Speech at a rally in Brussels on May 1, 1992 (259).
Speech at a rally in Leningrad on May 9, 1992 (261).
Some Lessons of the Temporary Defeat of Socialism in the USSR and the International Communist Movement (264).
The strength of communists lies in their unity and intransigence towards opportunism (278).
Illusions and Reality (296).
Aggravation of the situation in the country and our tasks. Report at the November (1992) Plenum of the Central Committee of the AUCPB (306).
APPENDIX
VKPB program (325).
Foreign policy platform of the AUCPB (349).
Charter of the AUCPB (358).
Afterword (366).
By education N.A. Andreeva is a chemist-technologist, teacher of the course of physical chemistry, author of more than a hundred publications in scientific and technical journals and collections. ...
Nina Aleksandrovna's articles and speeches clearly present the dramatic course of Gorbachev's perestroika and the tragedy of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Their author is not an outside observer of the crisis processes, but an active fighter for socialism and the interests of the working people. At the same time, the proposed collection is a kind of chronicle of the contradictory events of the last five years in the history of Russia, an analytical and critical chronicle, presented in accordance with the social philosophy of Marxism-Lennism, freed from the revisionist vulgarizations of the “new political thinking”.
"I can't compromise my principles." In March 1988, an open letter from a previously unknown teacher from Leningrad, published in the pages of Soviet Russia, split the society.
Later, Nina Adreeva's speech in the press will be called an anti-perestroika manifesto and even a moment of ideological climax. Whether Nina Andreeva is true today to the very principles, found out NTV correspondent Viktor Chernoguz.
Everyone comes to visit Nina Andreeva not without spiritual awe. The die-hard communist is known for her character. The first phrases in the interview are all about one thing. March 1988 forever changed the modest Leningrad teacher.
Nina Andreeva, communist: “It was very hard. Fools surrounded, I will not say otherwise. Some ladies shouted: “Andreeva is coming, Bolshevik!” I told them, “wait and see.”
In 1988, an article in Soviet Russia split society. That time was the height of perestroika, thousands of rallies in the squares. The USSR still seems indestructible. But everyone understands: this is a different country.
The article calling for a return to the revolutionary year of 1917 was a cold shower for many. The publication published in the party newspaper made one think: maybe this is the first sign of a change in the course of the party and the real authors are there, in the Kremlin?
Then, in 1988, Nina Andreeva answered this question in the following way. The idea to write an article came to her in Peterhof parks. Walking along the alleys, the young teacher Andreeva argued a lot with the students. More and more people were talking about one thing: is the all-powerful teaching of Lenin-Stalin true? And in order to give an answer to students, and at the same time to all skeptics, Andreeva wrote the famous “I can’t compromise my principles.”
At the Technological University, Nina Andreeva is still remembered by many. In 1988 she worked at the Department of Physical Chemistry. Now former colleagues say: perhaps Andreeva's husband suggested the idea of the article. He taught just Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Or maybe it all came from the problems that Andreeva had at the institute.
Alexander Slobodov, head of the Department of Physical Chemistry: “As far as I heard (this is objective information), Nina Alexandrovna had many intra-institutional analyzes in which she participated before. There were anonymous and so on. Therefore, the people were not very surprised by this.”
Time magazine and the New York Times wrote about her, even "enemy voices" spoke about her. Letters came by the thousands. Many Andreeva still keeps. The article in "Soviet Russia" was discussed at the Politburo.
Alexander Yakovlev, with the consent of Gorbachev, then insisted that the publication should be condemned. And thus the party leadership made the final choice in favor of perestroika. Nina Andreeva already understands now: then, in 1988, her article was simply used in the struggle of party clans.
Nina Andreeva, communist: “Then my comrades from Soviet Russia told me that it was Yakovlev who wrote it. This is now a well known fact. Yes, he used it to destroy it in the bud, so that no one would dare to get out with this topic in print.
When Nina Andreeva is preparing tea in the kitchen, she is very similar to an ordinary grandmother from Khrushchev, moderately economical and scolding the regime. But this is a misleading impression. Nina Andreeva never gave up her principles. Now she heads the party with the telling name VKPB. And even in the kitchen all the talk is about the tactics of the revolutionary struggle.
Nina Andreeva, communist: “We work with all of them. Because it is necessary to work not with fingers spread wide, but it is necessary to work, clenched into a fist. Therefore, we stand for unity in action.”
The only ones with whom Andreeva does not want to unite are the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. In Andreeva's terminology, they are opportunists and opportunists. The city communists themselves are not ready for cooperation. The article in Sovetskaya Rossiya is, of course, a landmark event, but that is already in the past. This is the position of the party.
Vladimir Fedorov, leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in St. Petersburg: “Many things are not painted there, which we have now received. Nothing is said there about interethnic conflicts, what will tear the country apart, what will destroy the USSR. This was the first call. Like, people think about what this will lead to.
Nina Andreeva, as in 1988, now lives in a one-room Khrushchev with a total area of 30 square meters. A few years ago, you could still meet her at the November demonstrations.
Now she is more at home. He works on books, writes to colleagues, watches videos of his past performances. Party life for Nina Andreeva is now the only thing that helps not to feel lonely.
On March 13, 1988, Nina Andreeva, as they say, “woke up famous”: her anti-perestroika letter “I can’t compromise my principles” was published by Soviet Russia. The bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU at a special meeting discussed the message for 2 days and only by April was able to answer the teacher from St. Petersburg. For Nina Alexandrovna herself and her husband, “freedom of speech” turned into bullying: the woman was forced to give up work at the university, and her husband survived two heart attacks.
AiF.ru correspondent met with Nina Alexandrovna to find out how the life of the most consistent supporter of Bolshevism turned out, how much principle there is in modern politics and what Stalin differs from Putin.
Irina Sattarova, AiF.ru: What is the history of this letter? Why did you choose the newspaper "Soviet Russia"? What did you want to achieve with this appeal?
Since then, I began to read everything that appeared in the press under the authorship of Prokhanov. In 1987, his article was published in Leningradsky Rabochiy, where he wrote: at present, the socialist pillar is being attacked by two different ideological currents - Russophile soilmen and cosmopolitan liberals who do not accept Soviet power, harshly criticizing everything that was under Soviet power and especially under Stalin.
I decided to prepare a response to Prokhanov's letter, especially since we discussed these topics with students. "Leningradsky Rabochiy" published the answer, reducing it by 90%. My response was one of many received by the paper. In January 1988, the newspaper published a new article in which the writer answered us. There were also many controversial points in this material, and I again decided to speak. I sent a letter to the newspaper, but they did not publish it. I called the journalist who contacted me after my first letter to the newspaper. She said, “No, we can't publish. We think it's very scary. The editor-in-chief hid your letter in a safe and forbade it to be shown to anyone.
In the same year, in February, a plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU was held, which was called ideological. Yegor Ligachev (Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU - editorial note) spoke at it. He clearly outlined the problems that our society faced - he practically voiced what I wrote about in my letters. Therefore, I took my letters addressed to the "Leningrad Rabochiy" and sent them to the central newspapers: "Pravda", "Literaturnaya Gazeta", "Komsomolskaya Pravda" and "Soviet Russia" with forwarding.
At first, no one responded. But on February 23, the editor of Sovetskaya Rossiya called me. He offered to publish the article, asking me to shorten it a bit.
Of the two letters, I prepared one material for an A2 page. After March 8, he came from Moscow to my Institute. He read the abbreviated material, said that he had no complaints. “But I think something needs to be added. Now is the time, everyone is discussing repression. We need to add some paragraph about repression, otherwise we won't be able to publish it,” he said.
This is how the paragraph appeared, which says that I am indignant at the repressions that took place in the 30s “due to the fault of the then party and state leadership.” Note that I wrote specifically about the leadership, but not personally about Stalin. Nikita Khrushchev, the first secretary of the Central Committee of Ukraine at that time, was especially successful in compiling execution lists. We know that he sent lists of 15,000 names to Stalin for approval. Stalin always sent these documents back to him with the note “Calm down, Nikita! And check again."
Nina Andreeva speaks like a teacher of the old school: very competently, slowly, without unnecessary interjections and repetitions of words. There are not enough such speakers in "big politics", but the leader of the Bolsheviks never went there. Now this short, stately woman in a strict and modest suit leads an unregistered party with branches in a number of post-Soviet republics - in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltic states. 22 thousand people, Andreeva proudly admits.
On March 13, I went to classes at the institute. I look, in the train everyone buried their heads in the newspaper "Soviet Russia". When I came to the institute, they told me: “Nina Aleksandrovna, your article has been published.” I read it. They changed the ending. I ended with the words "on that we stand and we will stand." They softened: "On that we stand and we will stand."
- In fact, was it an ordinary reader's letter, of which there were many in the Soviet press?
Quite right. Why was it published? This question was well explained by Alexander Yakovlev himself (Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU) in his editorial in Pravda. He said that I raised the question of why we need perestroika at all and whether we will have to save socialism.
For my interlocutor, time seems to have stopped at those events: Nina Alexandrovna still retells dialogues in detail, restores chains of events, vigorously argues with her opponents in absentia - the ideologists of perestroika, many of whom are no longer there. Nina Alexandrovna has the same hairstyle as in the photographs of 1988, the same costume as in the photographs of different years. Of the jewelry - a simple brooch, which can be seen in the pictures 10 years ago.
- Are you satisfied with the effect of your appeal?
If it were possible to go back to that time, I would do the same. I do not regret anything. To my principles, Marxist-Leninist, about which I wrote 25 years ago, I remain true to this day.
At that moment, there was a desire to express their concerns about the ongoing Gorbachev course.
At the UN session in 1987, Gorbachev proposed to interpret the USSR as the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics. He got rid of the main word - "socialist", because the Soviets can be both socialist and bourgeois. At the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in the summer of 1987, Gorbachev said that the task of perestroika was "...uproot the old tree, plow the land, sow seeds and get fruits ...". He expressed himself very clearly. I realized that Gorbachev set the task of uprooting socialism. History confirmed my fears.
I am satisfied with the public reaction to the publication of my article. This letter divided society into two camps - supporters of the preservation of socialism and those who decided to destroy everything connected with the Soviet period. On March 23 and 24, 1988, at the initiative of Alexander Yakovlev (Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU - editor's note), the Politburo was assembled, on the agenda of which there was only one issue - an article by N. Andreeva. On it, Gorbachev for two days, using the method of "arm-twisting", forced everyone to personally dissociate themselves from the provisions of the article "I cannot compromise my principles." On April 5, 1988, Pravda published a devastating article by A. Yakovlev “Principles of Perestroika: Revolutionary Thinking and Action”.
Photo: AiF / Irina Sattarova
Nina Alexandrovna is distracted by a Skype call: she needs to talk to the head of one of the party branches. Nina Andreeva has a laptop on the table, headphones are connected to it. The politician complains: unfortunately, far from all members of the party have enough money for technical equipment. For example, one of the young supporters, an employee of the party editorial office, has to argue over a computer with her mother. In the family, it comes to scandals, but the party is not able to buy new equipment for its employee, Andreeva sighs. Most of the party's supporters are pensioners. It is in St. Petersburg, Moscow pensions are more or less significant, and in the regions - 4 thousand rubles each, says the leader of the Bolsheviks.
- And what has changed in your life after this conversion?
The bullying began. Many organizations, at the direction of the Central Committee of the CPSU, sent "crushing responses" to my article to the media. At the institute, I was excommunicated from classes with students by order of the rector of the university. Letters with threats came to my name at LTI. On the street, the "perestroika" people I knew insulted or swore at me.
They poisoned not only me, but also my husband. He had 2 heart attacks. In February 1989, I took "unpaid" leave until I reached retirement age. My husband also lost his job. For more than two years we lived without a livelihood, spending the money that was saved up on the Savings Book "for a rainy day."
This persecution hardened me for the future fight against the counter-revolution - "perestroika". In May 1989, we created the "Unity - for Leninism and Communist Ideals" society, on the basis of which the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was created on November 8, 1991.
It should be noted that Nina Andreeva's letter was one of the few examples in the history of the world press when an ordinary reader's appeal received a response from the country's top leadership and raised a broad public discussion. Andreeva's letter was reprinted by 800 publications.
For some time you were considered a contender for the post of head of state. After the collapse of the USSR, you headed the Communist Party, which included "refined", staunch supporters of Marxist-Leninist principles. You, in fact, led one of the few parties that had a clear ideological platform. Why failed to come to power?
I never set myself the goal of coming to power. There were people of my convictions of a higher political level than me. Things just started to develop very negatively. 91st year. The GKChP took upon itself the responsibility to abandon perestroika. But the people who entered it turned out to be very weak.
We observed how Yanaev, Chairman of the State Emergency Committee, hands are shaking during a TV show. None of the GKChPists found the strength to take responsibility for the life of the country. They naively went to Foros, where they were not received by Gorbi. He, like a cunning and vile enemy, did not want to communicate with anyone. There was no leader who would be in power and would like to return the country to socialism. And who was Nina Andreeva at that time?
Nina Aleksandrovna admitted that supporters offered her to run for the presidency during the last election campaign, but due to financial problems, this idea had to be abandoned.
- Do you think it was still possible to save the USSR then?
Gorbachev was a man of small mind. Subsequently, he wrote that his wife helped him in everything, who pushed him up the party ladder. As he said in his lecture at the American-Turkish University, their task was to destroy communism.
In the late 80s, the collapse of the USSR could have been prevented. But in the upper echelon of the CPSU there were too many careerists, opportunists and inhabitants in spirit, and even “offended by the Soviet authorities”.
Stalin was very modest in life. And that party nomenclature of the Gorbachev period did not have this quality. In the period of the 70s - early 80s I had to visit Smolny. And there I was outraged by the behavior of these "boys" - the Leningrad "Komsomol leaders". I saw their arrogant posture, the contempt in their eyes towards all who are below their rank. “God, what are we preparing them for? How will they behave in the party? I thought then. Time has shown - these Komsomol members became the destroyers of socialism and the leaders of the "new time".
In October 1993, there was also an opportunity to remove Yeltsin from power. Moscow seethed with the anger of those dissatisfied with Yeltsin's policies, but Zyuganov saved the perestroika counter-revolution. On October 2, on Central TV, he appealed to the people with a request not to take part in "events, clashes." So Zyuganov saved Yeltsin and the counter-revolution.
Photo: AiF / Irina Sattarova
Nina Andreeva, like her idol Joseph Stalin, is also distinguished by everyday modesty. However, even if Nina Alexandrovna would have wanted to “posh”, the post-perestroika state gave her few opportunities. Nina Alexandrovna, Ph.D. and a former university teacher, casually mentioned the size of her pension - 10 thousand rubles.
About modern politics
Why, in your opinion, many leaders and politicians who worked in the Communist Party and were in the ranks of the CPSU in the 80s, after the collapse of the Union, remained in power, and now they have joined United Russia altogether?
In the last years of its existence, the CPSU degenerated from a party defending the interests of the working class into a party of philistines, careerists and opportunists. The odious "United Russia" almost 90% consists of former members of the CPSU and as a "party under the president" is not respected in society.
- Ideology of the Communist Party is close to you? If so, why an alternative communist party?
Zyuganov, when he was in the USSR, was the deputy head of the ideological department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, led by A. Yakovlev. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation was created in February 1993 after the lifting of the ban on communist activity. It is known that back in 1991, Zyuganov coordinated with Yeltsin the issue of creating a "non-extremist party of a socialist orientation", for which he received approval. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a social democratic party in essence, but communist only in name, as it was intended.
They knew at the top that the number of supporters of our party was growing. At the All-Union Conference of the Bolshevik Platform in the CPSU in the summer of 1991, we decided to "bring M. Gorbachev and his entourage to party responsibility for the collapse of the CPSU, the Soviet state, for betraying the cause of Lenin, October, the international communist and workers' movement." And a few more points in the same vein. This was to be done by the Extraordinary 29th Congress of the CPSU, scheduled for autumn 1991. So Zyuganov, who asked Yeltsin's permission to create his own party, was saving his own skin. The creation of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation achieved the goal set by Yeltsin: the communist movement was weakened, the new "communist party" absorbed the "law-abiding infantry" of the CPSU.
In your letter you talked about the need to follow the principles. Do you think modern politicians are principled?
It is hardly necessary to talk about the principle of those who put money, personal power and well-being at the basis of everything.
- Do you support Vladimir Putin?
It depends on the specific issue. We support Putin on the issue of unification of the former Soviet republics - for example, on the issue of expanding the Customs Union. But we are categorically against the policy of "de-Stalinization" pursued by him. "De-Stalinization" is all the more shameful because the oligarchs make fabulous profits from factories built during the periods of Stalin's five-year plans. They cash in on the sale of our natural resources, explored during the Stalinist period of the country's life.
Putin and Stalin. Stalin was a principled politician. He was very rigid in his line: he knew what the country needed. And Putin? Putin is engaged in demagogy. It starts for health, and ends for peace. At the end of February there was a collegium of the Ministry of Defense. Putin said: "There should be no revisions of previously adopted decisions." What does it mean? The military reform almost completely failed, showed its failure, and he declares that "we are entering the stage when fine polishing is needed." What is he going to polish? Rotten tree?
Photo: AiF / Irina Sattarova
Nina Aleksandrovna quotes Putin from the newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya. This edition for Andreeva is still the most authoritative. "Because they don't lie," the politician explained.
Our party does not vote in presidential elections. We will vote if we see a fundamental difference in the positions of the contenders. For example, if one of the candidates is a true pro-American or a fascist, we will vote to prevent him from entering power.
- Do you support the modern protest movement?
We don't support liberal movements because their goal, I believe, is to replace Putin with a more pro-American leader. The "Party of Cause" - for example, M. Prokhorov - expresses the interests of the national bourgeoisie, but has not yet organized mass protests (apparently, we are talking about the Right Cause party, which was headed by Prokhorov in 2011 - ed.). The socialist-oriented protest movement Rot-Front sets as its main goal to get into parliament through elections.
If you were now writing an appeal to the whole country, in which publication would you place it and what would your appeal be about?
My address today would be devoted to the issue of the revival of socialism and the USSR as a multinational united family of equal peoples of the former Soviet republics.
