No it's not the Christmas version. It was first played on January 1, 1945. It was written by Alexander Alexandrov. A famous Soviet musician. What he is trying to convey, is a nation waking up from a brutal war. The church bells are a symbol of how important it was for hope. Nothing to do with Christmas.
Rendered in 1991 on equipment purchased second hand from an American local Television station, this was the penultimate version of the Soviet anthem produced in the CCCP. The penultimate non-vocals version.
This is actually the version aired first time in the year 2000 when Putin decided Russia would have this anthem back. This version did not excist in the time of the USSR.
Santakov Сантаков and his red reindeer. Dashervskiy Дашервский Nikolai Dancer (Could not think of shit this one gets a first name) Николай Дансер Prancerkov Прансерков Vixenmir Викенмир Cometyom Комэтём Cupidim Кюпидим Donneraxei (In spelling Donneraksai or Доннераксай) Blitzendan Блицендан Rudolfskiy Рудолфский (To do this I pulled up a list of names of the reindeer, and a list of Russian male names and mashed the best sounding to [to me] ones and stuck the end sounds.)
When it comes to the idea of communism i sympathy greatly with it. I see it as a uniting and strong standing way of life that focuses on the needs of the many rather than the individual. And i believe that that is the better way of life rather than there being only the rich and the poor in society. Lenin was a great leader who understood his followers and wished to show them a world of peace and plenty. Also with the way the world is going communism will always be there. It is the rallying cry of the people and the strength of the workers. Not the rich wasteful fools in power. The people are the creators of history, and our day will come.
+raó i força I corroborate everything you said. Before the USSR, the Russian Empire was like a sub-Saharan country. Communism fell much of the distance that existed between the eastern and western Europe.
The elves must rise up against the capitalist toy makers and seize control of the entire toy making industry. then the toys should be distributed equally among the children of the world so that the bourgeoisie children don't receive more than the poor beggars. - comrade Santa Clausevich
Not a communist. But I can appreciate the spirit and patriotism behind communism. This anthem is absolutely beautiful. I wish to hear it live someday :)
I don t think that capitalism sent children and women to camps because they took the products of their farms...In capitalist society you have books about communism,in communist society,zero book about capitalism... The way you minimize on 200 millions desth shows you re crazy...
Советский Русский Гимн - 1944 Союз нерушимы, республик свободных Сплотила навеки великая Русь! Да здраствует созданный волей народов Едины, могучи, Советский Союз! Припев: Славься Отечество, наше свободное Дружбы народов, надёжный оплот! Знамя Советское, знамя народное, Пусть от победы к победе ведёт!
It is patriotic if you;re united under the idea that we're being opressed and need to be free. That unity creates patriotism for the vision of a nation that is no longer opressed, thus giving you pride for a State that you know will come to pass.
@Prudii the Mandalorian If the Soviet Union wasn’t Russia dominated then it would be highly likely that the union would have been preserved evolving into a non communist union. Lenin warned the party that Russian domination could break the union and he was proven right in 1991.
Yo this was five years ago .. shit i was was a dumb fuck high schooler .... Shit i started reenactments ... Civil war mainly and now i know real history and not what the school wants us to know ... Fuck commies ... Fuck fascist ... To Tartarus with them
@typenamehere19 (cont.) Was this revealed to the public (who in all fairness, probably knew about thise dire situation already)? Would a leader ever want this in the open?
@YoungRapperWL97 In Chile the transition to communism happened through conventional democratic methods and no violence was involved and as far as i know same thing happened also in Peru and Venezuela (correct me if i'm wrong.) The fact that people in the past have had to fight to set up the system and maintain it does not mean it is inevitable, but certainly the presence of America makes this process much more difficult and possibly violent.
@typenamehere19 I wouldn't have a monarch, no, but as I said, having a competent leader of some kind, an overlooker whose duty to the state is making sure things work. Working kinks out, spending funds, building and repairing - most major aspects. But this overlooker isn't a dictator. They don't create laws or change rules or the system - they are workers, too. But not more than one. Perhaps a small, monthly changed committe of advisors or people who relate current problems in need of fixing.
@typenamehere19 You're damn right - there's so many constrictions in the hierarchy of an employment. Yes, promotions do exist, but they will never elevate you to the status of your boss. Only very rarely would an employee ever replace their boss and they'd probably be stuck within the rigid confines of the predeccor's work. (cont.)
@tobBabashkin The T34/85 was not a canon equivalent of 75 to panthers and 88-tigers, but quite remarkable in terms of mechanical and crossing. for I prefer the sherman firefly armed with 17 pounders English the question one might ask is whether the American Pershing was not the best tank in spite of his job with his gun late 90's and excellent shielding good engine cordially accommodate everyone's preferences
@typenamehere19 I actually agree with pretty much all you're saying. My general idea was to try and prevent any really bad ideas from being passed at all, but you're right - positions of power of power are not needed to spread change and over time those in power will become corrupt. You provide quite a convincing argument!
@typenamehere19 When you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense. Equalization of power does seem essential, but people will often look for a leader during difficult times. It's a stability thing, but they should be able to look to their fellow men and women for that. Sometimes a charismatic, straight thinking leader is a good thing, other times unanimous decisions are best. Perhaps a method where individual people rule the state, but can appoint a learned individual in times of distress?
@typenamehere19 (cont. from previous) Corporate sponsors really get to me. It seems like such a dirty trick because it unfairly insures a stable percentage of the vote, not because of choice, but because of obligation. I know people still have their freedom to vote, but I've heard stories of companies threatening to fire employees if they don't vote for the company benefactor.
@typenamehere19 Anarchy would truly be a much better system, but will take a long time to be implemented properly. But I think that having a competent, intelligent, honest individual not necessarily controlling or running everything, but overlooking and policing (not the best word) isn't a bad thing. It does provide a bit of stability, but does bring up the old problems again of revolution, assassination and the like..
@SAOS451316 Well, what I meant by 'state' wasn't like a government, but a state (like a state of mind). Anarchy is the absence of law and order (much like chaos, the words are almost interchangeable). It's people making their own rules without conforming to a pre-set system, so actual, total literal anarchy is impossible because somewhere, somehow, someone will have rules. Humans always have rules and civilisation regardless of the situation.
@tobBabashkin Geopolitics of Afghanistan : While the United States supported anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan from 1979 (so they didn't know I think) to 1989, their intervention in 2001 led them now to cooperate with Russia ... in Afghanistan. You know all.
this is the BEST russian anthem i ever heard plus the pic is awsome i would like this song on my ipod can someone tell me how i could plz and thxs if u help
@binarynightmare I doubt it. Power is social. It is more likely that we crave safety and freedom. Actually, the only real instincts we have are the fight or flight response and the fears of falling and loud noises. That seems to have allowed us to survive well enough. In an Anarchist system, power is divided equally. This removes the incentive to get more power, because without classes, power is basically irrelevant.
@Szgerle "decade" - are you sure? Now various government officials have much MORE opportunities than average people. Anyway, the "difference of opportunities" has much increased after the soviet period.
@iownage4youi Anarchy isn't a system - it is, by definition, the absence of a system. I get what you mean, but anarchy isn't a system at all, it's a state.
@typenamehere19 Very true. Very right in what you say. But putting this power in a lot of people could theoretically end in infighting. I also believe that sometime people won't always gof or what is right. People can be incredibly ignorant and sometimes it takes an individual or group of individuals with the wisdom to do what is right. If, in a hypothetical situation, there was a majority of people aiming for a decision that in the long run would end in cataclysm (cont.)
@binarynightmare 1) Yes, presently journalists are only able to get a superficial interview with pre-planned statements, what I'm saying is that must be changed. Zeal in journalism is a good thing. As the power of 1 or a group of people decreases, so does the need to monitor them. If power is kept at an extremely low level for the few have it, we won't really need to monitor them so much (though probably still should). At the current state of things with so much power in so few people if private
