In the most explicit form of the mutation of socialism was proved, as I have already noted, in the period of Stalin’s dictatorship, giving rise to a phenomenon that by chance was named “stalinskoj”, discredited and dishonoured real stirrings of socialism, the heroic deed of our grandfathers and fathers, sosedova new society.
The phenomenon of “stalinskiy” generated primarily by the objective contradictions of the mutant socialism. By itself, the personality of I. V. Dzhugashvili was, of course, it is no coincidence that demanded by these mutations, like not accidentally shoots of social liberation in our country claimed great men “Lenin’s guard” (by the way, again it is no coincidence that the majority repressed by the Stalinists), but that’s not the personality, which in itself (if we abstract from the external attributes of the greatness of the “leader of peoples”) uninteresting. (By the way, I note in parentheses that the orientation of the alias is fused with the image of the leader, not the real name of a real person, too, is symbolic; exactly the same symbolic and the metamorphosis of V. I. Ulyanov during this period of real genius-controversial person in the mummy symbol.)
The contradiction of a Communist creation, the enthusiasm of the Soviet people and of Stalinism became apparent, easily observable manifestation of a deeper social conflict of the creativity of workers and turned its bureaucratic forms. It is in this conflict (including not only antagonism but also a unity of the parties) is the key to understanding our past. Moreover, as I said, these mutant forms had not been by chance and not by chance (remember about the “trap of the twentieth century”) were fused with the stirrings of communism so that without each other, these opposites in real life, as a rule, and was not shown. Until now chavismo seemingly-implausible paradox death shoot Stalinists Communists with the name “leader” on his lips. But this paradox is the truth of real life in the USSR, when stalinin was adherent to communism and builders of a new society out of this form as a rule (and let’s not forget about exceptions – the Communist heroes of the struggle against Stalinism in the USSR and abroad), did not think of themselves socialism.
Especially this was true for most workers, recently released from the village and rising to a new life without the experience of self-development of culture, self, personal freedom and critical consciousness, but (here they are, the paradoxes of the “trap”!) objectively become the creators of germs of qualitatively new society. This is the social creativity of the masses, objectively mostly incapable of social creativity, could not fail to produce a transformed (i.e., not just corrupt but also “killing” their actual content) forms semi-religious information of its initiative to implement the external objective will (certain absolutely infallible, which is the “mind, honor and conscience” of an era party), which inevitably had to be fused with the identity symbol.
This is basically an objective (although not the only possible – in other essays of the book, I will indicate the availability of alternatives) the trend, however, was brought to an extremely reactionary form of subjective factor – those who were at the head of this nomenclature system. They (and primarily, “leader”, spliced with the repressive apparatus of the NKVD, – Dzhugashvili and his closest supporters Yezhov, Yagoda, Beria, etc., occasionally straightened with each other, and then, as now more frequently spoken, and oppresses with the leader) became, in fact, the Executive mechanism of nomenklatura-bureaucratic power.
However, it was no more than the tip of the iceberg called “stalinskiy”.
Its hidden in the thickness of everyday life and everyday consciousness was the basis conformists-bourgeois (and first of all, from environment officials and intellectuals, including “elite”, some of the leaders which is especially helpful exalted leaders and actively informed on his colleagues-rivals in the shop).
The real executor of the will of “Stalinism” was not even the investigator of the NKVD or the Gulag soldiers and “private” bureaucrat, shaped by their social interest in a system of nomenclature-bureaucratic power. And the more bureaucratic (i.e., removed from the people, unaccountable to the people standing over him, closed within a specific priveligirovannoi caste) became the economic and political power, the more, in other words, mutated germs Soviet democracy, the greater the scope for arbitrariness and repression received Stalin and Beria. In this pervading every pore of our lives – from party Committee to the Politburo and Gulag – the system of citizens alienated from government, and not in the person Dzhugashvili or one of his minions is the key to understanding the phenomenon of “stalinskiy”.
Now let me reiterate: “stalinskiy” was one of the parties real and painful the great dialectic of our lives.
There was another side, and it had its characters who became the actual embodiment of the greatness of our country. They were everywhere – in manufacturing, science (Vavilov and Keldysh, Korolev and Tsiolkovsky…), art (Shostakovich and Eisenstein, Mayakovsky and Sholokhov…), politics (Bukharin and Trotsky, Kirov and Dzerzhinsky…), army (Tukhachevsky and Zhukov…). One of them was close to the authorities, someone was repressed, but the truth of the USSR is the unity of these contradictions. This coexistence in the same elite Zhukov and Beria, Vavilov and Lysenko… the same way our truth was the coexistence of the bourgeois-informers candidate state to expand the living space in the communal, and “ordinary” heroes of the great Patriotic war; millions of founders of new labour initiatives and “elite” traitors Vlasov type…
Again and paradoxes – paradoxes of the era where “stalinskiy” became the name for all of those who built socialism in defiance of her (and sometimes unconsciously, not realizing that “spite” as he was not understood heroes-the partisans of the war of 1812, defended their Homeland with the name “king-father” on the lips, the fact that this same king and his henchmen will be smack), and those parasitizing on their enthusiasm and exploits destroyed their own creative impulse and the life.
But the main thing for us now is not this publicistic acuteness of the problem and content analysis (which in this essay I will be very brief) contradictions between the sprouts of the Kingdom of freedom and their mutations in our last analysis of contradictions between the construction of a new society and “stalinskoj”.
Let’s examine these sprouts of socialism and their mutations.
Meaningful socio-economic system “mutant socialism” prevailing in our countries (we’ll leave aside the categorical definition of this structure) can be described, based on the development of political economy of socialism (“turning to face” the apologetic characteristics) and Sovietology. In this case, we were able to highlight the contradictory traits system that connects mutations and live sprouts of a post-capitalist society.
In regard to relationship coordination (allocation of resources, types of relations of production and consumption, the maintaining of proportionality) this mutation was the dominance of the bureaucratic Central planning (allowing to effectively reallocate resources to ensure high growth rates of heavy industry and military-industrial complex, but inadequate for achieving competitiveness in the global market of consumer goods and answer “challenges” of the second and third waves of the technological revolution). This mechanism was internally restricted by the phenomena of “planned transaction”, “pseudomenstruation prices”, was corroded by departmental structure, parochialism, corruption and functioned in a more or less formal market (we will remind that in the conditions of “market socialism” – for example, in Hungary 1970’s- most prices are not determined centrally, the autonomy of enterprises was very high). At the same time in different periods in different countries, MCC has developed a grass-roots stirrings of accounting and control, self-government, counter-planning, effective contractual relations and other sprouts “clean” post-market forms of coordination.
In the field of property relations was dominated by the state and cooperative form (although there were exceptions – the dominance of private ownership in agriculture of Poland, for example). Was the content of their corporate-bureaucratic alienation of the worker from the means of production and state-capitalist exploitation – on the one side, social benefits (employment, housing, average consumption, health and education) and stability on the other.
In the field of distribution relations, social security, values and motivation of the work provision was also inconsistent: on the one side equalization, bureaucratic privileges, the suppression of innovative potential; the other sprouts an associate social work – social stability and security, real enthusiasm, teamwork.
Relationship of reproduction of this system can be described as an “economy of scarcity”, emphasising not only the significance of the resource (rather than demand) constraints, but also the presence of congestive deep-seated imbalances, weak motivation of NTP, the presence of “unemployment on the job”. At the same time, these relations of reproduction allow for radical structural changes while preserving stability of the system as a whole (“confidence in the future”), and in some periods (20-e, 50-60 years) – the highest achievements in science, art, education.
In the sphere of social and class relations, these mutations were no less, if not more, important. Sprouts social and class equality, the actual trend of development in the USSR, in the period of “real socialism” has mutated in the direction of extremely specific system of social stratification and exclusion. Along the lines of the Stalinist system, we will have to highlight the layer of socially disenfranchised persons (repressed, deported, etc.), polikraishte the peasantry (the rural population had no passports and were not allowed to leave the place of work, being in relations of personal dependence), employees employed in the state-bureaucratic system, workers and intellectuals, isolated from the people and caste-closed leaf items – these were mutations “indestructible Union of the working class and the peasantry”, the sprouts of which (this is the real dialectics of our past!) were also a reality.
In the political sphere was extremely hard contradiction sprouts real grass-roots democracy (in the framework of various government agencies, grass-roots Councils, various public organizations, national control, even some forms of party initiatives), on the one hand, and growing with 20-ies of the totalitarian suppression of real democracy and freedom of the individual from the really usurped all the basic channels are not only economic but also political power items that use mass repression to implement its domination.
Finally, in the spiritual-ideological sphere of the Soviet system was riddled with profound contradictions of ideological suppression of any dissent (up to the use of repressive methods) an official system of norms produced by special apparatus, are fused with the tip close to the nomenclature of the intelligentsia – on the one hand, the real development of affordable mass authentic culture and socialist thought.