Activities of Nina Alexandrovna Andreeva after 1991. Biography. Do you support the modern protest movement?

On March 13, 1988, Nina Andreeva, as they say, “woke up famous”: her anti-perestroika letter “I cannot compromise on principles” was published by “Soviet Russia”. The Bureau of the CPSU Central Committee discussed the message at a special meeting for 2 days and only by April was able to respond to the teacher from St. Petersburg. For Nina Alexandrovna herself and her husband, “freedom of speech” turned into persecution: the woman was forced to give up work at the university, and her husband suffered two heart attacks.

The AiF.ru correspondent met with Nina Aleksandrovna to find out how the life of the most consistent supporter of Bolshevism turned out, how much principle there is in modern politics and why 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 movements - soil-based Russophiles 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. "Leningrad Worker" published the answer, reducing it by 90%. My response was one of many received by the newspaper. In January 1988, the newspaper published a new article in which the writer responded to us. There were also many controversial issues in this material, and I decided to speak again. 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 this is 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 CPSU Central Committee was held, which was called ideological. Egor Ligachev (Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee - editor's note) spoke at it. He clearly outlined the problems that faced our society - he practically voiced what I wrote about in my letters. Therefore, I took my letters addressed to “Leningrad Worker” and sent them to the central newspapers: “Pravda”, “Literary Gazette”, “Komsomolskaya Pravda” and “Sovetskaya Rossiya” with forwarding.

At first no one responded. But on February 23, the editor of Soviet Russia called me. He offered to publish the article, asking me to shorten it a little.

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 abridged material and said that he had no complaints. “But I think we need to add something. 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 a paragraph appeared, where it says that I am indignant at the repressions that took place in the 30s “through the fault of the then party and state leadership.” Please note that I wrote specifically about the leadership, but not about Stalin personally. 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 thousand names to Stalin for approval; Stalin always sent these documents back to him with the note “Calm down, Nikita! And double-check."

Nina Andreeva speaks like an old-school teacher: very competently, without rushing, without unnecessary interjections and repetitions of words. There are not enough such speakers in “big politics,” but the Bolshevik leader 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 was going to classes at the institute. I saw that everyone on the train was buried 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 “this is where we stand and will continue to stand.” They softened: “This is where we stand and will continue to stand.”

- In fact, it was an ordinary reader’s letter, of which many appeared in the Soviet press?

Absolutely right. Why was it published? This question was well explained by Alexander Yakovlev himself (Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee) 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 seemed to stand still on those events: Nina Aleksandrovna is still retelling the dialogues in detail, reconstructing chains of events, heatedly arguing with her absentee opponents - the ideologists of perestroika, many of whom are no longer alive. Nina Alexandrovna has the same hairstyle as in the photographs of 1988, the same costume as in photographs from different years. Jewelry includes a simple brooch, which can also be seen in photographs taken 10 years ago.

-Are you satisfied with the effect your appeal had?

If it were possible to go back to that time, I would do the same. I do not regret anything. I remain true to my principles, Marxist-Leninist, about which I wrote 25 years ago.

At that moment there was a desire to express my concerns about the ongoing Gorbachev course.

At a UN session in 1987, Gorbachev proposed interpreting the USSR as a 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 CPSU Central Committee in the summer of 1987, Gorbachev said that the task of perestroika is “... to uproot the old tree, plow the land, sow the seeds and get the fruits...”. 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, on the initiative of Alexander Yakovlev (Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee - editor's note), the Politburo was assembled, on the agenda of which there was only one issue - an article by N. Andreeva. There, over the course of two days, Gorbachev, using the method of “arm twisting,” forced everyone to personally disassociate themselves from the provisions of the article “I cannot compromise on 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 Aleksandrovna is distracted by a Skype call: she needs to talk with the head of one of the party branches. Nina Andreeva has a laptop on her desk with headphones connected to it. The politician complains: unfortunately, not all party members have enough funds for technical equipment. For example, one of the young supporters, an employee of the party editorial office, has to argue for the 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. In St. Petersburg and Moscow, pensions are more or less significant, and in the regions - 4 thousand rubles, says the leader of the Bolsheviks.

- What has changed in your life after this appeal?

The persecution began. Many organizations, at the direction of the CPSU Central Committee, sent “devastating responses” to my article to the media. At the institute, I was excommunicated from teaching students by order of the rector of the university. LTI received threatening letters addressed to me. On the street, the “perestroika” people who knew me insulted me or swore at me.

They poisoned not only me, but also my husband. They arranged for him to have 2 heart attacks. In February 1989, I took leave without pay, which lasted until I reached retirement age. My husband was also unemployed. For more than two years we lived without a livelihood, spending the money that was saved in the Savings Book for a rainy day.

This persecution steeled me for the future fight against the counter-revolution—“perestroika.” In May 1989, we created the society “Unity - for Leninism and Communist Ideals”, on the basis of which the All-Union Bolshevik Communist Party was created on November 8, 1991.

It should be noted that Nina Andreeva’s letter became one of the few examples in the history of the world press when an appeal from an ordinary reader received a response from the country’s top leadership and raised a wide public debate. Andreeva's letter was reprinted in 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 did you fail to come to power?

I never set myself the goal of coming to power. There were people of my convictions at a higher political level than me. Things just started to develop very negatively. 91st year. The State Emergency Committee took upon itself the responsibility to abandon perestroika. But the people who entered it turned out to be very weak.

We watched how Yanaev, Chairman of the State Emergency Committee, during a TV show my hands are shaking. None of the State Emergency Committee members found the strength to take responsibility for the life of the country. They naively went to Foros, where Gorby did not receive them. 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. Who was Nina Andreeva at that time?

Nina Alexandrovna admitted: her supporters suggested that she nominate her candidacy 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 intelligence. 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 ordinary people in spirit, and even “offended by the Soviet regime.”

Stalin was very modest in life. But that party nomenklatura 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, contempt in their eyes for everyone below their rank. “Lord, what are we preparing them for? How will they behave in the party?” - I thought then. Time has shown that 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 the authorities. Moscow was seething with the anger of those dissatisfied with Yeltsin’s policies, but Zyuganov saved the perestroika counter-revolution. On October 2, he addressed the people on Central TV with a request not to take part in “events, skirmishes.” 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 wanted to show off, the post-perestroika state gave her few opportunities. Nina Aleksandrovna, a candidate of sciences and a former university teacher, casually mentioned in the conversation the size of her pension - 10 thousand rubles.

About modern politics

Why, in your opinion, did many leaders and politicians who worked in the Communist Party and were members of the CPSU in the 1980s remain in power after the collapse of the Union, and now have even joined United Russia?

In the last years of its existence, the CPSU degenerated from a party defending the interests of the working class into a party of ordinary people, careerists and opportunists. The odious “United Russia” consists of almost 90% former members of the CPSU and, as a “party under the president”, does not enjoy respect in society.

- Is the ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation close to you? If so, what is the need for an alternative communist party?

Zyuganov, during his time in the USSR, was deputy head of the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee, headed by A. Yakovlev. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation was created in February 1993 after the ban on communist activities was lifted. It is known that back in 1991, Zyuganov agreed with Yeltsin on the issue of creating a “non-extremist party with 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.

Those at the top knew 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 the betrayal of the cause of Lenin, October, the international communist and labor movement.” And a few more points in the same spirit. This was supposed to be done by the Extraordinary XXIX Congress of the CPSU, scheduled for the fall of 1991. So Zyuganov, who asked Yeltsin for permission to create his own party, was also 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 spoke about the need to adhere to the principles. Do you think modern politicians are principled?

It is hardly worth talking about the principled nature of those who put money, personal power and well-being at the heart of everything.

- Do you support Vladimir Putin?

It depends on the specific issue. We support Putin on the issue of unifying the former Soviet republics - for example, on the issue of expanding the Customs Union. But we are categorically against his “de-Stalinization” policy. “De-Stalinization” is all the more shameful because the oligarchs are making fabulous profits from factories built during the Stalinist five-year plans. They make money from the sale of our natural resources, explored during the Stalin period of the country.

Putin and Stalin. Stalin was a principled politician. He stuck to his line very strictly: he knew what the country needed. And Putin? Putin is engaged in demagoguery. It starts for health, and ends for peace. At the end of February there was a board meeting of the Ministry of Defense. Putin said: “There should be no revisions of previously made decisions.” What does it mean? The military reform has almost completely failed, shown its inconsistency, and he declares that “we are reaching a stage where fine polishing is needed.” What is he going to grind? Rotten wood?

Photo: AiF/Irina Sattarova

Nina Aleksandrovna quotes Putin from the newspaper “Soviet Russia”. This publication is still the most authoritative for Andreeva. “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 candidates. For example, if one of the candidates is a true pro-American or a fascist, we will vote to prevent him from coming into power.

- Do you support the modern protest movement?

We do not support liberal movements, because their goal, as it seems to me, 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 - editor's note). The socialist-oriented protest movement Rot Front has as its main goal to enter parliament through elections.

If you were now writing an appeal to the whole country, in which publication would you publish 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 unified family of equal peoples of the former union republics.

General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Bolshevik Communist Party. Born into a family of workers at the Leningrad seaport. Graduated with honors from the Leningrad Institute of Chemical Technology named after Lensovet. Member of the CPSU since 1966

She worked as a researcher at the State Research Institute of Quartz Glass, a senior engineer, an assistant, and a senior lecturer at the Department of Physical Chemistry at the Leningrad Institute of Technology. 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 Give Up Principles” was essentially a manifesto of modern Stalinists. It said, in particular: “I support the party’s call to defend the honor and dignity of the pioneers of socialism. I think that it is 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 newspaper Pravda (April 5, 1988), responded to Andreeva’s demarche with an editorial article “Principles of Perestroika: Revolutionary Thinking and Action,” which read: “An attempt is being made to whitewash the past by referring only to the extreme situation, to justify political deformations and crimes against socialism... By defending Stalin, they thereby defend the preservation in our life today, in practice, of the methods he generated for “resolving” controversial issues, the public and state structures he created, the norms of party and social life. And most importantly, they defend the right to arbitrariness."

Let us recall that N.A. Andreeva also sent a “letter” to the XIX All-Union Party Conference, where she continued to insist on her views. However, this speech by the senior chemistry teacher no longer attracted public attention.

Nina ANDREEVA: “I have always been annoyed by the discrepancy between words and deeds!”

Dmitry ZHVANIYA

I'm 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, now we are not talking about me, but about the woman who became 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 fall of 1998, I interviewed Nina Aleksandrovna for the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper. She didn’t know that I was an NBP activist and met me in the mask of a “stoned Bolshevik.” But when Nina Aleksandrovna realized that I did not set out to write another sarcastic text about the “last Stalinist,” she came out of 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 toast, which the leader of the All-Union Communist Party of Belarus fried right in front of me. Moskovsky Komsomolets published only part of the interview (the issue is not censorship, but the permissible volume). Here I post it in full. Probably, one can say about Nina Aleksandrovna – “the most humane Stalinist”...

— In one interview with you, I read that you, as the curator of a student group at the Institute of Technology, often walked with your students through 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 did not look at the student as my subordinate. We were equal. The only difference between me, the teacher, and them, the students, was that I had to give them, to the maximum, not only knowledge of my subject (I taught physical chemistry), but also prepare them for life. I taught from 1972 to 1991. Vladimir Ivanovich (Nina Andreeva’s husband, Vladimir Ivanovich Klyushin - D.Zh.) also worked a lot with students in 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 curator of the group, and I was the curator of the group. 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, I was not favored, and I did not receive any regalia. Only gratitude from the local faculty level was recorded. Almost every Sunday one of the student groups was in Peterhof. Either Vladimir Ivanovich’s or mine. We walked a lot in the parks. In winter you could ride down the hill while sitting on a plank. A group of young people came - about 30-40 people. And I skated with the guys, and Vladimir Ivanovich also loved to skate. In spring and autumn we loved to go to the parks next to the railway. The most beautiful meadow parks! Few people know about them. Those who live in Leningrad go to official parks. There is a unique drainage system here. A huge number 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 around and discussed absolutely everything with the students. For us there were no topics closed to criticism. Complete trust. Complete liberation. And mutual respect!

In our small one-room apartment, I organized tea parties for students. Students are students: they like to spend time in a group and communicate. I fed them. Some were content with the buffet, as there was not enough room 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, 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 have always believed that you need to adhere to the rule: as you say, be kind enough to do so.” I have always been irritated by the discrepancy between words and deeds! And our high-ranking officials were distinguished by this. I mean the secretary of the party committee and those who were in the rector’s office. Demanding compliance with official discipline (if someone was 3 minutes late, their bonus was removed), the university management could not organize the employees’ working day. Research workers come and spend half a day hanging around doing nothing: drinking coffee, smoking. This annoyed me. What's the point of requiring people to come to work by 9 am, severely punishing people for being late, if people are idle during the working day? Why is this time off from work necessary?

“How does our party (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 don’t like us.”

The second point: the theft of material assets on the part of the vice-rector for administrative and economic affairs flourished. Then there is nepotism. It got to the point that the management of the departments was transferred to their close relatives. The department employs worthy and talented people. But the management received some kind of mediocre dullness - simply because he was a close relative of one of the members of the rector’s office. The secretaries of the party committee were filled with the most dull personalities (if they can be called personalities), 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 a position as a senior researcher, which an ordinary teacher earned with hard work for ten years - in the field of teaching and research. And three or four people wrote their doctoral dissertations for these sneaks. And then they, having molded four pieces together into one dissertation, successfully defended it. This outraged me. That’s why the party committee didn’t favor me. I worked for 38 years. But I don't have any benefits. I'm not a labor veteran. I receive a pension of 351 rubles! (before the default it was a little more than 50 dollars, and after it was absolutely minuscule, and we talked after the default - D.Zh.). That in these times, you yourself understand...

— In the 60s, when you were still very young, in the Soviet Union, disputes between “physicists” and “lyricists” were in fashion. You were probably a physicist? Did you want to explore space?

— Several other aspects were decisive. I was raised by my mother. My father died at the front. We lived very modestly. And the issue of scholarships was important to me. Mom received a pension of 46 rubles. And they paid me 20 rubles for my dead father. I had a choice. I liked chemistry, literature, medicine, issues related to space. I graduated from school with a gold medal. I was faced with a question: where to go to study. At the medical institute there was a shockingly low scholarship - 23 rubles. The university also had such a scholarship. It would be very difficult for me to live with my mother with this money. That's why I chose chemistry and went to the Institute of Technology. Of all the departments, I was interested in the Department of Special Ceramics, where they studied the production and development of new alloys for space technology. This was a new specialization. The department was headed by Professor Kozlovsky. The stipend was higher there. Due to the fact that I was an excellent student, I received a scholarship of 49 rubles. So existence determined my profession.

— How did you spend your time as a student?

— I remember the construction teams with pleasure. We built the Narva State District Power Plant, dug ditches, and 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. We prepared the food ourselves. I remember pasta and sweet tea with bread. They brought us milk and millet porridge from Ivangorod. Night vigils! We crawled around the Ivangorod fortress. Twinkling stars. Komsomol bonfires until three in the morning... I remember that time with pleasure.

On Sundays we hung out at museums. We visited all Leningrad museums. We, Leningraders, considered it our sacred duty to introduce nonresident children to Leningrad culture. We went to the suburbs. But we didn’t go hiking.

From Nina Andreeva’s article “I Can’t Give Up Principles!” Who today will say that she was wrong in the part where she showed the hypocrisy of the partelite?

- What about dancing?

— There were also dances. We enjoyed our Komsomol evenings. We, Tekhnolozhka students, invited Voenmech students. 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 entered the university bench at the age of 30. After finishing, he came to us to teach. I fell in love. Then we got together forever. We lived together for 35 years...

... I just feel sorry for today’s youth. Because she is thrown into life without any prospects. Everyone's future was stolen. But first of all - among young people. The vast majority of university graduates do not have the opportunity to find work in their specialty. Thus, the guys are wasting five of the best years of their lives. I feel very sorry for our girls who are forced to sell their bodies to earn money to pay for their studies. I cannot understand how one can combine studying at the university (!), that is, becoming familiar with the heights of culture, with trading one’s own body! This is immoralism. I cannot understand this either as a teacher, or as a person, or as a woman. I cannot 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 that they will be models there, but end up in brothels. Our young people are also deprived of a future. They become hostages of capitalist relations, gradually turning into driven horses. Relax a little - you are already on the sidelines. And you need a huge concentration of strength and energy to catch up. But some young people are beginning to think about their future. For example, in our All-Union Bolshevik Young Guard (youth organization under the All-Union Communist Party of Belarus - D.Zh.) there are amazingly talented kids. They write poetry, prose...

— Have you been involved 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 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 line of work. Why? Firstly, over-organization, pressure from above, do this and that, fettering any initiative. I didn’t like the spirit that had already begun to hover then - servility and dishonesty in relationships. I was outraged by the fawning over my superiors. Komsomol work did not impress me. The subservience of Komsomol officials to the higher party brethren caused an internal protest in me. I made a clear conclusion: I will do research work. Moreover, I was very interested in this area. I have copyright certificates.

— Tell us about your famous article “I Can’t Give Up Principles”... Did it grow out of a letter to the editor of “Soviet Russia”?

- Everything that happens to us is a combination of a number of facts, facts, events. Perestroika began. This 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 senior party officials. It was necessary to cleanse. And thoroughly. Social problems were widely discussed in the press. The public gathered at our house: university and institute teachers, the intellectual elite. We exchanged information, talked, argued. Search for truth! An article by Alexander Prokhanov about the disgusting situation that has developed in society appeared in Leningrad Worker. Its meaning was as follows. The socialist pillar is being beaten by two directions: one is democratic, the other is pochvennichestvo. He proposed, in order to relieve tension in society, to introduce freedom of discussion, to create a common market of ideas. I think this is absurd. What was won in a brutal historical struggle cannot be farmed out. Prokhanov expressed false 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 implement. But this is nonsense!

Class struggle drives history! And such an amorphous classless approach speaks of either political illiteracy or deep delusion. Why did I pay attention to this article? Yes, because at that time there was a question about my husband and I traveling to Afghanistan. And Prokhanov published a most beautiful novel, “A Tree in the Center of Kabul.” When I read it, this topic interested me. After analyzing Prokhanov’s article, I decided to write a response to Leningradsky Rabochiy. A journalist arrived. They only posted a small piece called “Memories of the Future.” Prokhanov’s article received a lot of responses. And he answered them with a second article. But I didn’t like this article because it was apolitical. That's why I wrote a second response. But Leningradsky Rabochiy refused to publish it. Meanwhile, the February ideological plenum of the CPSU Central Committee took place, at which Yegor Ligachev spoke. In order not to write everything all over again, I sent my letter to Pravda, Sovetskaya Rossiya and Literaturka (where the debate was in full swing). Everyone was in a frenzy from Gorbachev's Perestroika. On February 23, the editorial office of Sovetskaya Rossiya called and asked to shorten the article a little. A journalist came to see me. He asked me to add a passage about Stalin’s repressions and end the text with a quote from Gorbachev: “Our Marxist-Leninist principles cannot be compromised under any circumstances.” I titled the article “Don’t Compromise Principles.” But the editors titled the article “I Can’t Compromise Principles.” Sounds tougher. In fact, I try to sharpen the issue in disputes in order to more clearly identify my opponent’s position.

— 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 an assault on the Kremlin. This is complete absurdity, a complete misunderstanding of the situation in the country. Such calls will bring nothing but harm. 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 young people. Today, calling for an armed uprising is simply not serious. In our party program we specifically talk about the need to revive the socialist system. Methods of struggle are determined by the specific situation. Therefore, shouting “To arms!” will bring nothing but harm to the communist movement.

— What do you think about the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and Gennady Zyuganov? He, like you, is against extremism...

— The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a non-communist party. This is a kind of vinaigrette. Mishmash! The first part is the communist “swamp”: people with extensive party experience, infinitely law-abiding, capable only of voting. The second part is the party nomenclature that betrayed everything and everyone, which never cared about communist ideology. They are accustomed to living by one law, but preaching from the rostrum is completely different. We say: at best, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a social democratic party. The elite takes a liberal-bourgeois position. The obedient communist “swamp” is something like left-wing social democracy. We strongly criticize the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. But we criticize the Communist Party of the Russian Federation not for its positions (the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has the right to choose those positions for which it has matured), but for the fact that it hides behind the communist label. We say: the people can still forgive Gorbachev’s betrayal, 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 labor and communist movements act separately. The workers don't trust the communists. For today all banks, top positions in business and government are occupied by former party nomenklatura and people from the Komsomol. And then: the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has turned into an appendage of the Duma faction. If we look at what the Communist Party of the Russian Federation cells do locally, we will see that, apart from election campaigns, they do nothing. Cowards! In many regions, local organizations of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation were afraid to even join the civil protest on October 7. Sometimes they come to protests without a red banner. But what kind of communist is he if he is embarrassed by the red banner?

How does our party (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 small party nomenclature, the RCP-CPSU of Alexei Prigarin is also a party of nomenklatura. The PKK of Anatoly Kryuchkov and Evgeniy Kozlov is a party of social science teachers brought up on complete Khrushchevism and anti-Stalinism. We say: today you cannot be a communist if you do 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 to the fullest! And this is very good. But we do not agree with the methods of activity that he resorts to 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 rally leader in the left movement, but... but... But!

— Have you been abroad?

— In Soviet times, I visited only Czechoslovakia. My husband, immediately after the events of 1968, was sent there to train senior ideological personnel. He taught in Prague at the Higher 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 All-Union Communist Party of Belarus I visited Brazil, India, the Netherlands, Denmark, Syria, North Korea, Belgium, Italy. Ordinary people are the same everywhere. They are friendly and open everywhere. There was a relaxed atmosphere everywhere. My last trip was to Italy. I drove all the way through the Italian boots. The spontaneity and trustfulness of the Italians is striking. Amazingly musical people! And I would say - a little naive. They are so open to the interlocutor that they have nothing that they would not like to tell. In Brazil, we communicated not with the bourgeoisie, but, in modern terms, with the plebs, ordinary workers who brutally fight for their existence, and the working intelligentsia. In Sao Paulo, two and a half million people sleep under a bridge! In India, I was struck by the terrible poverty, dirt, and insecurity of the population.

— What needs to be done to make there less dirt in Russia?

— It is necessary to raise the intellectual level of the population. An intelligent person will not allow himself to spit and litter.

Andreeva, Nina Alexandrovna

General Secretary of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (ACPB), Chairman of the Political Executive Committee of the All-Union Society "Unity - for Leninism and Communist Ideals" since 1989; born October 12, 1938 in Leningrad; Graduated from Leningrad Technological Institute named after. Lensoveta, candidate of technical sciences; worked as an engineer, senior engineer, head of a research and production group at the Research Institute of Quartz Glass; became one of the organizers of the Founding Conference of the Bolshevik Platform in the CPSU; married, has a daughter; loves to sew, cook, read classics, and relax in nature.

On March 13, 1988, the newspaper “Soviet Russia” published Andreeva’s article “I Can’t Give Up Principles.” After a sharp discussion of this article at the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Pravda published an editorial (written by A. N. Yakovlev), which confirmed the course of the CPSU leadership towards perestroika. The leadership of LTI twice tried to dismiss Andreeva from the institute, but she was reinstated by a court decision and the USSR Ministry of Higher Education. In 1989, Andreeva created a communist organization - the All-Union Society "Unity - for Leninism and Communist Ideals", and in May 1989 she became the chairman of its Coordination Council (since October 1990 - the Political Executive Committee). In May 1990, she was invited to the congress of the Initiative Movement of Communists (now the Russian Communist Workers' Party, leaders - V. Tyulkin, V. Anpilov). She became one of the organizers of the Founding Conference of the Bolshevik Platform in the CPSU (July 1991, Minsk), and at the same time headed the Organizing Committee for the convocation of the 29th Extraordinary Congress of the CPSU (November 1991). After the CPSU was banned by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation in November 1991 and the Organizing Committee of the Bolshevik Platform made a decision to create a party on its basis, she became a delegate to the Founding Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Belarus, held on November 8, 1991 in Leningrad. Elected at the congress as a member of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Belarus and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Belarus. She has appeared on the pages of both Russian and foreign newspapers. In 1992, the publishing house "Soviet Siberia" published Andreeva's book "Ungifted Principles, or a Short Course in the History of Perestroika."

Large biographical encyclopedia. 2009 .

See what “Andreeva, Nina Aleksandrovna” is in other dictionaries:

Wikipedia has articles about other people with this surname, see Andreeva. Nina Aleksandrovna Andreeva ... Wikipedia

- ... Wikipedia

- (October 12, 1938, Leningrad) Soviet chemist, publicist, politician. She gained fame on March 13, 1988 as the author of the article “I Can’t Give Up Principles,” which was declared a manifesto of anti-perestroika forces. Biography Worked as a research assistant at... ... Wikipedia

- (Andreev): Contents 1 Surname 2 Double surname 3 Toponym 4 Notes ... Wikipedia

Valentina Malyavina Birth name: Valentina Aleksandrovna Malyavina Date of birth: June 18, 1941 (1941 06 18) (71 years old) Place of birth: Moscow ... Wikipedia

Leader: General Secretary of the Central Committee Nina Aleksandrovna Andreeva Date of foundation: November 8, 1991 Headquarters: St. Petersburg Allies and blocs: All-Union Young Guard of Bolsheviks (VMGB) ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see VKPB. All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks Leader: General Secretary ... Wikipedia

Appendix to the article Honored Trade Worker of the Russian Federation Contents 1 Republic of Bashkorto... Wikipedia

Badge of the laureate of the State Prize of the Russian Federation The State Prize of the Russian Federation has been awarded since 1992 by the President of the Russian Federation for contribution to the development of science and technology, literature and art, for outstanding... ... Wikipedia

Do we know many professors and scientists who later became political leaders? Nowadays, politicians most often become people with special education, or managers of large enterprises. But during the years of perestroika, events developed somewhat differently. Those who created the parties had one goal - to bring their ideas to the masses, wanting a better life for the people. They did not pursue the goal of grabbing a place “at the trough.” One of these ordinary citizens who wanted to make the world a better place was Nina, a teacher at one of the USSR research institutes.

Brief statements

Andreeva Nina Aleksandrovna is a Russian chemist and political figure in Soviet and modern Russia. Despite the fact that the public did not always perceive her positively, the woman was able to influence the course of history. The 78-year-old woman gained her popularity after the publication of an essay (article by N. Andreeva) “I Can’t Compromise My Principles.” Some critics believe that this text could be one of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. But is this really so? Let's figure it out.

Biography: Nina Andreeva

On October 12, 1938, a girl, Nina, was born in Leningrad (USSR). Her father was a simple port worker. He died at the front during World War II.

Nina Andreeva received her upbringing from her mother, who worked as a mechanic at the Kirov plant. The war took away from the future chemist not only his father, but also his older brother and sister.

Since childhood, Nina Andreeva loved science. She studied hard in school, so she received a gold medal upon graduation. Having received secondary education, the young woman enters the Leningrad Technological Institute, choosing a specialty and profession as a chemist. But she was more interested not in science itself, but in the high scholarship that was provided for special training. The girl at that time was experiencing great financial difficulties. After graduating from university, the young woman’s specialty was working with special ceramics.

Nina Andreeva graduated from the institute with honors. Later she very successfully completed her postgraduate studies and received a Candidate of Technical Sciences degree.

Years of work

After graduation, Nina Andreeva worked at the Research Institute of Quartz Glass as a researcher. Following this, she taught students physical chemistry at the Leningrad Institute of Technology.

In 1966, a woman joined the Communist Party of the USSR, considering herself an atheist. By decision of the management, the proactive Andreeva Nina Aleksandrovna, for whom science always took first place, was fired from her job. She was expelled from the party. But in 1981, Nina Alexandrovna was reinstated in both her position and membership after passing the test as a citizen of the CPC (CPSU Central Committee).

Chikin Valentin, editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Soviet Russia,” says: when he collected information about Andreeva before publishing her famous article, the administration provided the journalist with the most colorful description of the woman’s entire work. And Nina Andreeva taught from 1972 to 1991.

Harassment of Andreeva and change of occupation

At the beginning of 1988, an article appeared in the newspaper “Soviet Russia”, written by Nina Andreeva, “I cannot compromise on principles.” Three weeks later, what was written was disavowed by Pravda in the article “Principles of Perestroika: Revolutionary Thinking and Actions.”

After this, the persecution of Andreeva began. It all ended with Nina Alexandrovna’s husband experiencing several heart attacks, and the teacher herself was “escorted” from her place of work.

What's next?

This, of course, became a difficult turning point in Andreeva’s life. But already in 1989, a woman headed the All-Union Society (Party) “Unity”, defending Leninism and the political ideals of Russia. In 1991, Andreeva became the leader of the Bolshevik Platform in the CPSU party.

And from the end of autumn of the same year, Nina Aleksandrovna became the head of the All-Union Communist Party organization. But, according to our heroine, she never strived for power. Everything happened by itself.

This is followed by lectures to institute students about how “socialism is invincible.” At the same time, the female politician, the leader of a large party, lived in a modest Khrushchev building, not bothering herself with problems associated with improving her life.

Famous works

In parallel with her fruitful political activities, Nina Andreeva manages to write books and publish articles:

1. Collection of 368 pages: “Ungifted principles, or a short course in the history of perestroika”, 1993.
2. “Slander of socialism is unacceptable,” 1992.
3. Collection of lectures “For Bolshevism in the communist movement”, 2002.
4. A famous 2-page article is “I Can’t Compromise Principles,” 1988.

What does the famous article say?

In the spring, March 13, 1988, Andreeva’s article “I Can’t Give Up Principles” was published. The text of the letter is a cry from the soul of a Soviet teacher. The article condemns materials published in the media, in which, after the start of the implementation of the perestroika plan, they began to criticize socialism and Stalin’s policies.

Andreeva states that, of course, like all Soviet people, she has a negative attitude towards the policies of the USSR leadership of the times when brutal reprisals took place and repressions were carried out against people (30-40s). But Nina Aleksandrovna also points out that you should not spread your anger at the policies of former leaders in general, as is done in the media.

Andreeva praises Stalin with all her might in her letter. As a defensive argument, the woman cites Churchill's fake letter. The teacher demands a return to the previous party-class assessments of Stalin’s policies. According to Andreeva, what was said in the press at the time her text was written distorts history and replaces facts.

The author assures that people who criticize socialism are adherents of the West and cosmopolitanism. Supporters of “peasant socialism” were also subjected to merciless criticism from Andreeva. In the preface to the article, a quote from Gorbachev was used, in which the politician stated that Marxist-Leninist principles should not be compromised under any pretext.

What next?

At the end of March 1988, Nina Andreeva’s letter was discussed in the Politburo at the urgent request of M. Gorbachev himself. At the meeting he supported the teacher, placing emphasis on the merits of Stalin during the Great Patriotic War. Allegedly, without such a leader, victory could not have been achieved.

For many researchers and historians, the moment the article appeared and the subsequent discussion could become the key moments of perestroika. But according to the author herself (N. Andreeva), her letter was a response to the texts of Alexander Prokhanov.

Andreeva's husband

After college, Nina Andreeva married a teacher at the same research institute where she worked. The biographies and views on life of the spouses were very similar.

V.I. was born. Klyushin January 23, 1926. After school I entered the Leningrad Aviation School. During the blockade of the city, he worked at a military factory as a turner. In 1943, Klyushin went to the front, where he was a Komsomol organizer of a company of machine gunners. He was seriously wounded in 1944 in the battle for Leningrad. After the hospital, the guy served in the First Tomsk Artillery School, then became the commander-in-chief of a fire platoon. He had many awards and orders for the defense of the country.

After completing his military service, Klushin entered Leningrad State University. Zhdanov, to the Faculty of Philosophy. Having received a honors diploma, after graduation he goes to work at the Chemical Technology Institute. In 1971 he defended his doctorate and became a professor.

Klyushin and Andreeva lived a long life together. In October 1996, the man died. His health was affected by the stress of the late 80s, when unflattering remarks were directed at his wife and all family members from everywhere. Nevertheless, Andreeva’s husband was always proud of his wife and was her support and support until the end of his days.

Russian (Soviet) chemist Nina Andreeva made her contribution to the history of perestroika and remains in the memory of many citizens. Children study her letter in history lessons at school. In addition, the teacher also contributed to scientific activities. But for the majority of modern youth, she will remain “Granny Ninulka,” as her children once called her, a woman who was able to resist the system, defending her political views and civic position.