This article is a development of my interpretations of Russian history of the twentieth century, which I outlined in earlier articles, “Just the simple meaning of the Soviet economy” (http://forum-msk.org/material/economic/10478349.html),
“Revolution of 1917 in Russia has not occurred” (http://forum-msk.org/material/politic/10815524.html) and “On the formational nature of the Soviet system” (http://forum-msk.org/material/economic/10643605.html).
I have long believe that the Soviet Union was implemented a model of democracy, in many ways similar to how the United States, although in a somewhat underdeveloped form. That is not surprising – it was a state based on the principles of the Enlightenment (and its logical development – Marxism).
Normal development of this model of democracy in the Soviet Union prevented a coup organized by the Alliance of liberals and clericals. This model was based on indirect democracy. In the U.S. President chosen by electors, not the voters directly. There is profound wisdom – direct democracy is far too subject to short-term mass psychosis, as happened in the Soviet Union in 1989-1991 g, when the population ceased to be a nation and destroyed their own country through the instruments of direct representative democracy (Congress of Soviets as the Federal and Republican levels). In the USSR, indirect democracy was based on the Communist Party.
Once it is necessary to emphasize that from the very moment of the revolution, the party has effectively abandoned the Marxist filling, and has become an instrument of the whole people of the state, and not the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. This meant the Russian understanding of communism.
Even the terror, which carried out the ruling party, had no class, and national significance, from the very beginning. Take, for example, Kronstadt rebellion and other peasant uprisings of the early 20’s. what was the point of all this conflict. After the defeat of the invaders (the white army included – they were parliamentary democracies of the West), Soviet Russia, from the standpoint of the internal situation was on the level before the October 1917 as if no revolution was not.
Namely, the country was inconsistent with itself, and was, by all historical logic, to die. The city demanded bread, and in 1917, starting on the business from 1916 and even 1915 in scase what the tsarist government introduced the surplus in 1917, in September of 1916, a plan for the confiscation of grain from the village and 800 million pounds, in 2 times exceeds all that the government of Lenin’s collected over 3 years of civil war (400 million pounds). And the peasants demanded the land, and not particularly referring to the delivery of grain at planned prices. The peasant men ran from the German front, and the workers of Izhevsk, who opposed the Bolsheviks, demanded the continuation of the war, they had the defense order.
Lenin overturned, coming out of the war! Russian society was incompatible with itself. The whole point of the work of the Soviet government was to be glued. By all means. In the first place – the organization of production, ruined in the war with the Germans. About it in detail wrote Dmitry Verkhoturov in the book “Stalin. Economic revolution”. Organization of the welfare state. Over the years, the civil war was decided, according to various estimates, from 30 to 60 pieces of legislation in the field of protection of labor, protection of motherhood and childhood. The attendance of the resorts of the Crimea increased significantly from the pre-revolutionary level is already in 1921 – and the country is still at war. And violent suppression of those who would not – or could not – wait until the whole economic machine to work.
After the revolution in the Soviet Union began to build a centralized economy, although the model did not appear immediately, there was a period of experimentation.
The Stalinist five-year plan fully implemented the definition of socialism according to Lenin in “the Impending catastrophe and how to fight it”: “…socialism is nothing like a state – capitalist monopoly which is made to serve all the people..”. After a disastrous experience of tsarist industrialization, 1861 – 1914, undertaken on the French credit, left to 1917 the country financially bankrupt, and have not created internal demand (this issue is already understood Stolypin, and decided only by Stalin through the collectivization of agriculture, nationalization and centralization of all industry was the only appropriate response that I explained in detail in “Very simple way.”
The main point of a centralized economy are not “planning” (it is almost impossible in a strict sense, a fantasy about computer-type monsters OGAS-and victories – all the way to nowhere), and the elimination of internal barriers, transaction costs, which in the modern American economy make up exactly half of all General production costs. There is no “planning” in the sense in which it is issued propaganda does not exist, but to MANAGE such a huge unified national economic complex on the basis of the structure type of the party, she’d been doing.
In the USSR the economy of approvals (like in Japan), first, in the years of Stalin’s five-year vertical, and then more horizontal. It is a disease Yegor Gaidar gave then over “the collapse of planning. Centrally – coordinated model of the economy gave Russia an unprecedented economic growth in the twentieth century (http://burckina-faso.livejournal.com/1194110.html).
But all this only worked in the context of one-party system. Is it possible something similar to object in the conditions of market economy and multiparty system? We can not arbitrarily get rid of any of that, nor from another. The modern economy of the developed countries is a celebration of the concept of convergence, of synthesis of the market and a strong public sector and state regulation.
Reaganomics, Thatcherism – it was all not cancel, and only the modification of Keynesianism. 60% of the us electronics industry working on the orders of the state, 20% of construction in the US government. I think that not only can, but another way we have just left. The economy of approvals worked wonderfully and works in Japan, and LDPE 60 years was the ruling monopolist party in the market conditions and pluralism. If we talk about USA, there is actually a one party system with two nearly indistinguishable factions. Although the formal parties – more than 100. But it’s all freaks.
Party real one, and she is represented by two wings. This, I believe, that was not enough the Communist party. But, in principle, to this step was quite a bit. The quick development of industrial capitalism and outstripping the rest of the world the development of Western Europe since the fourteenth century, was achieved in part to the fact that in Europe in the later middle Ages there arose an intense and informal network ties among artisans, traders and engineers – inventors (Jack Goldstone, Why Europe?”). Market mechanisms worked everywhere, but such networks were not.
In Russia there was something similar, but only in the twentieth century. The tsarist government gave rise to a few horizontal linkages, but a lot of them gave rise to a revolutionary party. This is what ensured the survival of the country in terms of military and financial collapse of the Russian Empire in 1916-1917 the Great Patriotic war further multiplied, intensified and complicated these cross-links in society – generals, Industrialists, scientists, and all manner of specialists. Basic infrastructure which ensure these links are the main communication channel is, of course, was the Communist party. State officials, as is vertical structure, of course, is not able to provide such intensive channels and cross-communication.
Very seriously believe that the phenomenal economic growth of the USSR in 50-ies were provided with exactly the information capacity of those informal and cross horizontal networks that emerged in the Soviet Union, primarily on the basis of the Communist party, during world war II. 1953 was truly a landmark and revolutionary for Soviet Russia. The country has successfully overcome the whole 2 dangerous temptation, I would say the crisis, and rushed to new heights. One temptation-the crisis was overcome thanks to Stalin, the other against it. Stalin was sensitive to many things, without which the red Empire was absolutely impossible. That is why he was brutally torn to pieces, the Leningrad case, the attempt to create a Russian Communist party.
Instinct did not fail the aging of the General Secretary: in 1990 Polozkov has created the RCP, and in a year or two, the Soviet Union did not. But on the second question – about the role of the party, the Secretary General is sorely mistaken. His mistake as a theoretician, sociologist almost cost us the Soviet Union. The aging Stalin, however, is very romantic revolutionary and a Bolshevik, wanted to give the Soviet Union a new impetus to development.
But the method and mechanism to do this, he saw categorically worthless – “push” from the Party leadership. Many in Russia believe the Communist party as “mafia”. In a sense, the analogy is legitimate – if you keep in mind these abundant horizontal cross-connection information generated by the Communist party. It is important to understand that you can’t just up and deny the mafia. Ban – she’s not going anywhere, just go into the shadows and will work in the new environment.
But for themselves, not for the country and for the construction of a bright future, as recorded in its Charter. And reports about the progress of construction at regular and extraordinary congresses you will never see. Stalin understood it or not – wanted to plunge the country into a bureaucratic disaster of the bureaucratic state, devoid of any public control – which is what happened after 1991. 1991 came already in 1953. Stalin believed in “alternative elections” to Soviets of all levels. But elections without a good, historically conditioned structures of those parties have no meaning. Stalin was not going to allow Soviet multi-party system! So all this talk about the “elections” are worth nothing.
We would have a well-manipulated by the mafia Duma, like that of Putin. Khrushchev crushed the Bonapartist coup “of the Stalinist knight,” Beria and headed for a radical strengthening of the role of the Party-monopoly in the country. And not lost. My friend, a very knowledgeable Siberian, recently, suddenly expressed to me his assessment of the major economic projects of the Brezhnev era, ‘ 70s-I didn’t ask him about the score he gave her so suddenly, like he was expecting my question. The more valuable recognition. Namely, some projects, such as the development of Tyumen, was impossible under management among public authorities.
All for the same reason – there will not be enough orders along the vertical pyramid, it requires intense horizontal communication, good institutionerne, but nevertheless – informal. The same can be said about other projects of the 70’s: BAM, KAMAZ, Atommash. The country had the most adequate to its geography and history model of management and control: property – state, but is controlled not by the state, a public organization that has a CERTAIN monopoly.
Without a state it was impossible to concentrate resources, the threshold to make an initial investment in such heavy projects return our oil and gas fields, modern American rating – at least 20 years. Only under Putin, to zero, Russia began to return (strictly speaking, net income) from the Brezhnev oil. For the USSR oil and gas was in the current financial balance IN the negative (what is “oil rain”). And without a party with these resources it was impossible to control. So we have gradually come to one fundamental question in the theory of the state, which all sociological and political theories avoid, although the issue is long overdue.
It’s time to recognize that the STATE is not an ORGANIZATION of PEOPLE.
Oh-PA. No elections do not decide anything.
Well, you have chosen these 3.14 daras in Parliament, we chose the king – President, and they still do what they want. What’s the problem. Even if you have well understood the CONCEPT of development, so that on its basis to make laws, it requires a lot of work. And this work must be done, and discuss the concept in Parliament physically once.
Therefore, in the USSR Supreme Council, in fact, was purely a technical body. But it happens everywhere and always. In the West, the Parliament has become a place of VERY DRAMATIC discussion of conceptual issues only in years of severe crises and revolutions.
Take a revolutionary Convention in France. And anything good for the Parliament is not over. The concept should give an INFORMAL ORGANIZATION of ALL the PEOPLE and to give to Parliament the terms of reference. It was in the USSR. And what we have now. Now we sit with nothing – the structure of the Russian economy is consistent with the plans of Hitler, complex production almost destroyed (https://regnum.ru/news/it/2004642.html).
Russia is almost a world pariah and an outsider in the world. The West does not need Russia. but this does not mean that we ourselves need such here, Putin’s feudal. raw, criminal, obosnowannyj. We have nothing to oppose the West in terms of propaganda we have now, unlike the USSR, the same capitalism, only worse than the West. The feudal – colonial. What should I do?
In the first place – to create an Organization of the Russian People, the analogue of the Communist party. I think now it is quite possible to do in a multi-party system, if people understand that for all multi-party pluralism, need some informal (not even spelled out in the law) CONGRESS of all parties, which will permeate all of society with its cross-links and to develop a concept of development of the country. And ORDER (informal) to public bodies what to do.
Anyway, this Institute is absolutely invariant requirement of the time. If we need it NATIONWIDE by the government, and not the oligarchic raspberry. In this case, we solve the problem of foreign policy propaganda. All peoples of the world occupied their States. Your “democracy” and your “elections” no one is mislead.
The state is not the organization PEOPLE.
People can be considered free only he has his own Organization that is not connected by any law. Only the organization of the people as public and non-public structure, is to develop a unified concept of development of the country. All parliaments – signs, tool manipulation State. In addition, we recognize only the sovereignty of PEOPLES, not of States.
In particular, do not take us down a certain “sovereignty” of Ukraine. The government of Ukraine is killing its people and should be punished for it.
We, the PEOPLE of RUSSIA, interact with PEOPLES, not States.
In particular, the people of the United States, alas, is too occupied.
Where the organization of your people? And we have. Well, that’s it. Will not find anyone. Without a radically new truly democratic ideology of Russia is not to get out in the current acute competitor to the world.
