(lat. dictatura) - a form of government in which all state power belongs to one person - a dictator, a group of people or one social stratum (“dictatorship of the proletariat”).
Currently, dictatorship, as a rule, refers to the regime of power of one person or group of persons, not limited by the norms of legislation, not restrained by any social or political institutions. Despite the fact that certain democratic institutions are often preserved under dictatorships, their real influence on politics is reduced to a minimum. As a rule, the functioning of a dictatorial regime is accompanied by repressive measures against political opponents and severe restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens.
Dictatorship in Ancient Rome
Initially, dictatorship was the name given to the highest extraordinary magistracy in the Roman Republic. The dictatorship was established by a resolution of the Senate, according to which the highest ordinary magistrates of the republic - the consuls - appointed a dictator to whom they transferred full power. In turn, the dictator appointed his deputy - the chief of the cavalry. Dictators were supposed to be accompanied by 24 lictors with fasces - symbols of power, while consuls were supposed to have 12 lictors.
Dictators had virtually unlimited power and could not be brought to trial for their actions, but they were required to resign their powers upon expiration of their term. Initially, the dictatorship was established for a period of 6 months, or for the duration of the execution of orders from the Senate, usually related to eliminating a threat to the state.
However, in 82 BC. e. The first permanent dictator, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, was elected (formally - “to carry out laws and to put the republic in order” (legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae causa)). In 79, Sulla, however, resigned as dictator. In 44, a month before his death at the hands of the conspirators, Gaius Julius Caesar, who had previously been elected dictator several times during the civil war according to the usual scheme, became permanent dictator. The office of dictator was abolished in 44 BC. e., shortly after the assassination of Caesar.
Sulla and Caesar were the last dictators in formal office and the first dictators of Rome in the modern sense of the word. Octavian Augustus and subsequent emperors were not appointed to the position of dictator (although this position was offered to Augustus), but actually had dictatorial power. Formally, the Roman state was considered a republic for a long time and all republican authorities existed.
Already Augustus ensured that his adopted son, Tiberius, became his successor. Subsequently, similar cases occurred more and more often. This became one of the prerequisites for the subsequent transformation of Ancient Rome into a monarchy.
Dictatorship in ancient Greek states
Dictatorship was a common occurrence in Ancient Greece and its colonies. Dictators in these states were called “tyrants”, and dictatorship was called “tyranny”. At first, this word did not carry a negative connotation. Most tyrants relied on the demos and oppressed the aristocracy. Some of the tyrants, especially the early ones, became famous as philanthropists, just rulers and sages: for example, the tyrant of Corinth Periander or the tyrant of Athens Peisistratus. But much more stories have been preserved about the cruelty, suspicion and tyranny of tyrants who invented sophisticated torture (the tyrant Akraganta Phalarids, who burned people in a copper bull, was especially famous). There was a popular joke (his hero was at first Thrasybulus of Miletus, then he became attached to other people) about a tyrant who, when asked by a fellow tyrant (option: son) about the best way to stay in power, began to walk around the field and silently pluck all the ears of corn that stood out. above the general level, thereby showing that the tyrant should destroy everything in any way outstanding in the civil collective. Although at the stage of formation of the Greek polis tyranny could play a positive role, putting an end to aristocratic tyranny, in the end they quickly became a hindrance to the strengthened civil collective.
Some tyrants sought to turn their states into hereditary monarchies. But none of the tyrants created any lasting dynasties. In this sense, the oracle allegedly received by Cypselus, who seized power in Corinth, is indicative: “Happy is Cypselus and his children, but not the children of his children.” Indeed, Cypselus himself and his son Periander ruled safely, but Periander’s successor (nephew) was quickly killed, after which all the property of the tyrants was confiscated, their houses razed and their bones thrown out of their graves.
Epoch VII-VI centuries. known as the era of "elder tyranny"; by the end of it, the tyrants disappear in mainland Greece (in Ionia they remained due to Persian support, in Sicily and Magna Graecia - due to the specific military situation). In the era of developed democracy, in the 5th century. BC e., the attitude towards tyranny was clearly negative, and it was then that this term approached its current meaning. Tyranny itself was perceived by mature civil consciousness as a challenge to justice and the basis of the existence of the civil collective - universal equality before the law. It was said about Diogenes, for example, that when asked which animals are the most dangerous, he answered: “among the domestic ones - the flatterer, from the wild ones - the tyrant”; to the question which copper is the best: “the one from which the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton are made” (the tyrannicides).
In the 4th century. BC e., in conditions of an acute crisis of the polis, tyrants (the so-called “minor tyranny”) reappear in the Greek city-states - as a rule, from successful military leaders and commanders of mercenary detachments; but this time there are no stories about wise and just tyrants at all: the tyrants were surrounded by universal hatred and themselves, in turn, lived in an atmosphere of constant fear.
When writing this article, material was used from the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron (1890-1907).
Dictatorship in the Middle Ages
In the Middle Ages, the dominant form of government was the monarchy. Even as a result of coups, as a rule, representatives of royal or other noble families came to power, and they did not hide their intentions to pass on their power by inheritance. However, there were exceptions. Many city-communes and trading republics hired commanders - condottieri or princes - for defense. During the war, condottieri received great power in the city. After the war, relying on mercenary troops recruited with city money, some condottieri retained power, turning into dictators. Such a dictatorship was called a signoria. Some seignories became hereditary, turning into monarchies. One of the most famous dictators who founded the monarchy was Francesco Sforza.
Dictatorship in modern times
Right-wing dictatorships
In Europe
In modern times, dictatorial regimes became widespread in Europe in the 20s - 40s of the 20th century. Often, their establishment was a consequence of the spread of totalitarian ideologies. In particular, in 1922 a fascist dictatorship was established in Italy, and in 1933 a Nazi dictatorship was established in Germany. Far-right dictatorships were established in a number of other European countries. Most of these dictatorial regimes ceased to exist as a result of World War II.
Opinions are expressed that in the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus one of the forms of dictatorship is currently taking place
In Asia, Africa, Latin America
In Asia, Africa and Latin America, the establishment of dictatorships was accompanied by the process of decolonization. The seizure of state power by people from military backgrounds was widely practiced in these regions, leading to the establishment of military dictatorships.
Leftist dictatorships
In Marxism there is also the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Hidden forms of dictatorship
The Patriot Act adopted in the United States actually gave rise to the development of a new form of dictatorship. The Patriot Act grants overbroad powers to the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the state at their discretion, and that such powers can be used against citizens unrelated to terrorism simply to impose greater control over society at the expense of constitutional rights and freedoms US citizens. This document allows you to create by-laws and instructions for public and private organizations, allowing the use of various methods of obtaining information, including the use of torture.
Advantages and disadvantages
Supporters of dictatorship usually point out the following advantages of dictatorship as a form of government:
Dictatorship ensures unity and, as a consequence, the strength of the system of power;
The dictator, by virtue of his position, is above any political party (including his own) and is therefore an unbiased political figure;
Under a dictatorship, there is more opportunity to carry out any long-term (not limited by the term of election) transformations in the life of the state;
Under a dictatorship, there is more opportunity to implement fundamental changes that are necessary in the long term, but unpopular in the short term;
A dictator, much more than an elected leader of a state, is aware of his responsibility for the state he rules.
Compared to a monarchy, the following advantages are distinguished:
A person with organizational and other abilities, will and knowledge usually comes to dictatorial power. At the same time, under a monarchy, power is replaced not by the candidate’s abilities, but by accident of birth, as a result of which the supreme state power can be received by a person who is completely unprepared to perform such duties;
A dictator is usually better informed than a monarch about real life, about the problems and aspirations of the people.
Among the disadvantages of dictatorship, the following are usually mentioned:
Dictators are usually less confident in the strength of their power, so they are often prone to massive political repression;
Following the death of a dictator, there may be a risk of political upheaval;
There is a great possibility of people for whom power is an end in itself getting into power.
Compared to the republic, the following disadvantages are also distinguished:
Under a dictatorship there is more theoretical possibility for the emergence of a monarchy;
The dictator is not legally responsible to anyone for his rule, which can lead to decisions being made that are not objectively in line with the interests of the state;
Under a dictatorship, pluralism of opinions is completely absent or weakened;
There is no legal opportunity to change a dictator if his policies turn out to be contrary to the interests of the people.
Compared to the monarchy, the following disadvantages are also distinguished:
Dictatorship is not usually considered a “godly” form of government.
Unlike a dictator, a monarch, as a rule, is raised from childhood with the expectation that in the future he will become the supreme ruler of the state. This allows him to harmoniously develop the qualities necessary for such a position.
people? Yes it is very good. This is the highest manifestation of the people's struggle for freedom. This is that great time when the dreams of the best people of Russia about freedom are translated into action, the work of the masses themselves, and not of lone heroes.
ON THE HISTORY OF THE ISSUE OF DICTATORSHIP134
(THE NOTE)
The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental question of the modern labor movement in all capitalist countries without exception. To fully understand this issue, it is necessary to know its history. On an international scale, the history of the doctrine of revolutionary dictatorship in general and the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular coincides with the history of revolutionary socialism and especially with the history of Marxism. Then - and this, of course, is the most important thing - the history of all revolutions of the oppressed and exploited class against the exploiters is the most important material and source of our knowledge on the question of dictatorship. Anyone who does not understand the necessity of the dictatorship of any revolutionary class for its victory has understood nothing in the history of revolutions or does not want to know anything in this area.
On the Russian scale, of particular importance, if we talk about theory, is the program of the RSDLP135, compiled in 1902-1903 by the editors of Zarya and Iskra, or, rather, compiled by G. V. Plekhanov and edited, modified, approved by this editorial board. The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is raised clearly and definitely in this program, and, moreover, it is raised precisely in connection with the struggle against Bernstein, against opportunism. But the most important thing, of course, is the experience of the revolution, that is, in Russia, the experience of 1905.
The last three months of this year - October, November and December - were a period of remarkably strong, broad, mass revolutionary struggle, a period of combining the two most powerful methods of this struggle: a mass political strike and an armed uprising. (We note in parentheses that back in May 1905, the Bolshevik congress, the “Third Congress of the RSDLP,” recognized “the task of organizing the proletariat for the direct struggle against the autocracy through an armed uprising” as “one of the most important and urgent tasks of the party” and instructed all party organizations “to clarify the role of mass political strikes, which can be important at the beginning and during the very course of the uprising”136.)
For the first time in world history, such a height of development and such strength of the revolutionary struggle were reached that an armed uprising came out in conjunction with a mass strike, this specifically proletarian weapon. It is clear that this experience has global significance for all proletarian revolutions. And the Bolsheviks studied this experience with all attention and diligence, both from its political and economic sides. I will point out the analysis of monthly data on the economic and political strikes of 1905, on the forms of connection between both, and on the height of development of the strike struggle, which was then achieved for the first time in the world; This analysis was given by me in the journal “Prosveshchenie” in 1910 or 1911 and repeated, in brief summaries, in foreign Bolshevik literature of that era137.
Mass strikes and armed uprisings themselves put on the order of the day the question of revolutionary power and dictatorship, for these methods of struggle inevitably gave rise, first on a local scale, to the expulsion of the old authorities, the seizure of power by the proletariat and revolutionary classes, the expulsion of landowners, sometimes the seizure of factories, etc. . etc. The mass revolutionary struggle of this period gave rise to such organizations, unprecedented in world history, as the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, and after them the Soviets of Soldiers' Deputies, Peasant Committees.
thetas, etc. The result is that those basic questions (Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat), which now occupy the attention of class-conscious workers all over the world, turned out to be posed almost at the end of 1905. If such outstanding representatives of the revolutionary proletariat and unfalsified Marxism as Rosa Luxemburg immediately appreciated the significance of this practical experience and spoke at meetings and in the press with a critical analysis of it, then the vast majority of official representatives of the official Social Democratic and Socialist parties, including reformists and people like the future “Kautskyites”, “Longuetists”, supporters of Hillquit in America, etc., showed a complete inability to understand the meaning of this experience and fulfill their duty as revolutionaries, that is, to begin studying and propagating the lessons of this experience.
In Russia, both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, immediately after the defeat of the December armed uprising of 1905, began to sum up the results of this experience. This work was especially accelerated by the fact that in April 1906 the Stockholm so-called “Unification Congress of the RSDLP” took place, at which both the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were represented and formally united. Preparations for this congress were carried out extremely energetically by both of these factions. Before the congress, at the beginning of 1906, both factions published draft resolutions on all the most important issues. These projects, reprinted in my brochure “Report on the Unity Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (letter to the St. Petersburg workers)”, Moscow, 1906 (pages 110, of which almost half are the texts of draft resolutions of both factions and resolutions finally adopted by the congress), - are the most important material for getting acquainted with the way the question was formulated at that time.
Disputes about the significance of the Soviets were already connected with the issue of dictatorship. Even before the October Revolution of 1905, the Bolsheviks raised the question of dictatorship (see my brochure “Two Tactics of Social Democracy
in the Democratic Revolution,” Geneva, July 1905, reprinted in the collection “For 12 Years”) *. The Mensheviks had a negative attitude towards this slogan “dictatorship”. The Bolsheviks emphasized that the Soviets of Workers' Deputies “were in fact the beginnings of a new revolutionary government” - this is what the draft Bolshevik resolution literally said (p. 92 of the “Report”). The Mensheviks recognized the importance of the Soviets, stood for “promoting the formation” of them, etc., but did not consider them the beginnings of revolutionary power, did not speak at all about a “new revolutionary power” of this or a similar type, and directly rejected the slogan of dictatorship. It is not difficult to see that all the current disagreements with the Mensheviks are already in embryo in this formulation of the question. It is also not difficult to see that the Mensheviks (both Russian and non-Russian, such as the Kautskyites, Longuetists, etc.) showed and are showing themselves in their formulation of this question as reformists or opportunists, in words recognizing the proletarian revolution, in fact denying the most essential and the main thing in the concept of revolution.
Even before the revolution of 1905, in the above-mentioned pamphlet “Two Tactics,” I analyzed the argument of the Mensheviks, who accused me of “substituting in an imperceptible way the concepts: revolution and dictatorship” (“For 12 Years,” p. 459**). I proved in detail that it is precisely with this accusation that the Mensheviks reveal their opportunism, their real political nature, as echoes of the liberal bourgeoisie, conductors of its influence within the proletariat. When a revolution becomes an undeniable force, then its opponents begin to “recognize the revolution,” I said, pointing (in the summer of 1905) to the example of Russian liberals who remained constitutional monarchists. Now, in 1920, one might add that in both Germany and Italy the liberal bourgeoisie, or at least the most educated and dexterous
some of them are ready to “recognize the revolution.” But by “recognizing” the revolution and at the same time refusing to recognize the dictatorship of a certain class (or certain classes), the then Russian liberals and Mensheviks, the present German and Italian liberals, the Turatians, the Kautskyites precisely thereby reveal their reformism, their complete unsuitability as revolutionaries .
For when the revolution has already become an undeniable force, when it is “recognized” by liberals, when the ruling classes not only see, but also feel the invincible power of the oppressed masses, then the whole question - both for theorists and for practical political leaders - comes down to the exact class definition of the revolution . And without the concept of “dictatorship” it is impossible to give this precise class definition. Without preparing for a dictatorship, one cannot be a revolutionary in practice. The Mensheviks did not understand this truth in 1905, and the Italian, German, French and other socialists who are afraid of the strict “conditions” of the Communist International do not understand it in 1920; people who are able to recognize dictatorship in words, but are not able to prepare for it in practice, are afraid. And therefore, it would not be inappropriate to reproduce in detail the explanation of Marx’s views that I published in July 1905 against the Russian Mensheviks, but which also applies to the Western European Mensheviks of 1920 (I replace the names of newspapers, etc., with a simple indication of whether we are talking about Mensheviks or Bolsheviks):
“Mehring says in his notes to the articles he published from Marx’s Neue Rheinische Gazeta in 1848 that bourgeois literature made, among other things, the following reproach to this newspaper: The Neue Rheinische Gazeta allegedly demanded “the immediate introduction of dictatorship as the only means implementation of democracy" (Marx" NachlaB *, volume III, p. 53). From the vulgar-bourgeois point of view, the concept of dictatorship and the concept of democracy exclude each other. Not understanding the theory of class struggle, accustomed to seeing
in the political arena, a petty squabble of different circles and coteries of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois understands by dictatorship the abolition of all freedoms and guarantees of democracy, all kinds of arbitrariness, all abuse of power in the interests of the dictator’s personality. In essence, it is precisely this vulgar-bourgeois point of view that is evident among our Mensheviks, who explain the Bolsheviks’ passion for the slogan “dictatorship” by the fact that Lenin “passionately wants to try his luck” (“Iskra” No. 103, p. 3, column 2) . In order to explain to the Mensheviks the concept of dictatorship of a class as opposed to the dictatorship of the individual and the task of a democratic dictatorship as opposed to a socialist one, it will not be useless to dwell on the views of the Neue Rheinische Gazeta138.
“Any temporary state structure,” wrote the Neue Rheinische Gazeta on September 14, 1848, “after the revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that. From the very beginning we reproached Camphausen (the head of the ministry after March 18, 1848) for not acting dictatorially, for not immediately breaking up and removing the remnants of the old institutions. And while Mr. Camphausen was lulling himself into constitutional illusions, the defeated party (i.e., the party of reaction) strengthened its positions in the bureaucracy and in the army, and even began to venture here and there into open struggle.”139
These words, rightly says Mehring, summarize in a few points what the Neue Rheinische Gazeta developed in detail in long articles about the Camphausen Ministry. What do these words of Marx tell us? That the provisional revolutionary government should act dictatorially (a situation that the Mensheviks could not understand, who shunned the slogan: dictatorship); — that the task of this dictatorship is to destroy the remnants of the old institutions (precisely what is clearly stated in the resolution of the Third Congress of the RSDLP (Bolsheviks) on the fight against counter-revolution and what is omitted from the Menshevik resolution, as we showed above). Finally, thirdly, from these words it follows that Marx castigated bourgeois democrats for “con-
institutional illusions" in the era of revolution and open civil war. The meaning of these words can be seen especially clearly from the article of the Neue Rheinische Gazeta dated June 6, 1848.
“The Constituent People's Assembly,” wrote Marx, “must first of all be an active, revolutionary-active assembly. And the Frankfurt Assembly140 is engaged in school exercises in parliamentarism and leaves the government to act. Let us assume that this learned council would succeed, after mature discussion, in developing the best order of the day and the best constitution. What good will be the best order of the day and the best constitution if the German governments at this time have already put the bayonet in the order of the day?
This is the meaning of the slogan: dictatorship...
Great questions in the life of nations can only be resolved by force. The reactionary classes themselves are usually the first to resort to violence, to civil war, “putting the bayonet on the order of the day,” as the Russian autocracy did and continues to do systematically and steadily, everywhere and everywhere, starting from January 9142. And since such a situation has arisen, since the bayonet has really become the head of the political order of the day, since the uprising has turned out to be necessary and urgent, then constitutional illusions and school exercises in parliamentarism become only a cover for the bourgeois betrayal of the revolution, a cover for how the bourgeoisie is “recoiling” from the revolution. The truly revolutionary class must then put forward precisely the slogan of dictatorship."*
This is how the Bolsheviks talked about dictatorship before the October Revolution of 1905.
After the experience of this revolution, I had to consider in detail the question of dictatorship in the brochure “The Victory of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Workers' Party,” St. Petersburg, 1906 (the brochure was marked March 28, 1906). From this brochure I will give all the most significant considerations,
making a reservation that I am replacing a number of proper names with simply an indication of whether we are talking about Cadets or Mensheviks. Generally speaking, the pamphlet is directed against the Cadets and partly against non-party liberals, half-Cadets, half-Mensheviks. But in essence, everything that has been said about dictatorship applies specifically to the Mensheviks, who at every step slipped towards the Cadets on this issue.
“At the very time when the shots died down in Moscow, when the military-police dictatorship celebrated its frenzied orgies, when executions and mass tortures were taking place throughout Russia, speeches were heard in the cadet press against violence on the left, against the strike committees of revolutionary parties. Selling science at the expense of the Dubasovs, cadet professors went so far as to translate the word “dictatorship” with the word “reinforced security.” “People of science” even distorted their high school Latin in order to belittle the revolutionary struggle. Dictatorship means—take this into account once and for all, gentlemen, Cadets—unlimited power, based on force, and not on law. During a civil war, any victorious government can only be a dictatorship. But the fact is that there is a dictatorship of a minority over the majority, a small group of police over the people, and there is a dictatorship of the gigantic majority of the people over a group of rapists, robbers and usurpers of popular power. With their vulgar distortion of the scientific concept of “dictatorship”, with their cries against violence on the left in an era of rampant the most lawless, most vile violence on the right, the Cadets showed with their own eyes what the position of the “compromisers” is in the intensified revolutionary struggle. The “Compromiser” cowardly hides when the fight heats up. When the revolutionary people won (October 17), the “compromiser” crawls out of his hole, preens himself boastfully, philanders with all his might and shouts into frenzy: it was a “glorious” political strike. When the counter-revolution wins, the “compromiser” begins to shower the vanquished with hypocritical admonitions and edifications. The winning game
The meeting was “glorious.” The defeated strikes were criminal, wild, senseless, anarchic. The defeated uprising was madness, a riot of nature, barbarity, and absurdity. In a word, the political conscience and political mind of the “compromiser” consists in groveling before those who are now stronger, in order to get in the way of those who are fighting, to interfere with one side or the other, to dull the struggle and dull the revolutionary consciousness of the people waging a desperate struggle for freedom"*.
Further. It would be extremely timely to provide clarifications on the issue of dictatorship directed against Mr. R. Blank. This R. Blank outlined the views of the Mensheviks in an essentially Menshevik, but formally non-party newspaper in 1906143, praising them for the fact that they “strive to direct the Russian Social Democratic movement along the path along which international Social Democracy, led by the great Social -Democratic Party of Germany."
In other words, R. Blank, like the Cadets, contrasted the Bolsheviks, as unreasonable, non-Marxist, rebellious, etc. revolutionaries, with the “reasonable” Mensheviks, passing off the German Social Democratic Party as a Menshevik one. This is a common technique of the international trend of social liberals, pacifists, etc., who in all countries praise reformists, opportunists, Kautskyites, and Longuetists as “reasonable” socialists, as opposed to the “madness” of the Bolsheviks.
This is how I answered Mr. R. Blank in the said brochure of 1906:
“Mr. Blank compares two periods of the Russian revolution: the first embraces approximately October - December 1905. This is a period of revolutionary whirlwind. The second is the current period, which we, of course, have the right to call the period of Cadet victories in the elections to the Duma, or, perhaps, if we risk getting ahead of ourselves, the period of the Cadet Duma.
About this period, Mr. Blank says that the turn of thought and reason has come again, and it is possible to return to conscious, planned, systematic activity. Mr. Blank characterizes the first period, on the contrary, as a period of divergence between theory and practice. All social democratic principles and ideas disappeared, the tactics always preached by the founders of Russian social democracy were forgotten, even the very foundations of the social democratic worldview were uprooted.
This is Mr. Blank's main statement - purely factual. The entire theory of Marxism diverged from the “practice” of the period of the revolutionary whirlwind.
Is it so? What is the first and main “foundation” of Marxist theory? The one that the only completely revolutionary class in modern society and therefore the most advanced in any revolution is the proletariat. The question is whether the revolutionary whirlwind uprooted this “foundation” of the Social-Democrats. worldview? On the contrary, the whirlwind confirmed it in the most brilliant way. It was the proletariat that was the main, almost the only initially, fighter of this period. Almost for the first time in world history, the bourgeois revolution was marked by the largest, unprecedented even in the more developed capitalist countries, use of a purely proletarian weapon of struggle: a mass political strike. The proletariat went to fight, directly revolutionary, at a time when Messrs. Struve and Messrs. Blanki were calling to go to the Bulygin Duma, when Cadet professors were calling on students to study. The proletariat, with its proletarian weapon of struggle, won Russia the entire, so to speak, “constitution”, which since then has only been spoiled, cut down and stripped. In October 1905, the proletariat applied the tactical method of struggle that had been discussed six months earlier in the resolution of the Bolshevik Third Congress of the RSDLP, which paid increased attention to the importance of combining a mass political strike with an uprising; - it is this combination that characterizes the entire period of “revolutionary
whirlwind", the entire last quarter of 1905. Thus, our ideologist of the petty bourgeoisie has distorted reality in the most shameless, most blatant way. He did not indicate a single fact indicating the divergence between Marxist theory and the practical experience of the “revolutionary whirlwind”; he tried to obscure the main feature of this whirlwind, which gave the most brilliant confirmation of “all social-democratic principles and ideas”, “all the foundations of the social-democratic worldview.”
What, however, is the real reason that prompted Mr. Blank to come to this monstrously incorrect opinion that during the period of the “whirlwind” all Marxist principles and ideas disappeared? Consideration of this circumstance is very interesting: it exposes to us again and again the true nature of philistinism in politics.
What was the main difference between the period of the “revolutionary whirlwind” and the current, “cadet” period from the point of view of various methods of political activity, from the point of view of different methods of historical creativity of the people? First of all and mainly in the fact that during the period of the “whirlwind” some special methods of this creativity were used, alien to other periods of political life. Here are the most significant of these methods: 1) “seizure” of political freedom by the people - its implementation, without any rights and laws and without any restrictions (freedom of assembly at least in universities, freedom of the press, unions, congresses, etc.); 2) the creation of new bodies of revolutionary power - Councils of workers, soldiers, railway, peasant deputies, new rural and city authorities, etc., etc. These bodies were created exclusively by revolutionary sections of the population, they were created outside of any laws and norms entirely by revolutionary means , as a product of original folk art, as a manifestation of the initiative of the people who have gotten rid of or are getting rid of the old police shackles. These were, finally, precisely the authorities, despite all their infancy, spontaneity, lack of formality, vagueness
in composition and functioning. They acted as authorities, seizing, for example, printing houses (St. Petersburg), arresting police officials who prevented the revolutionary people from exercising their rights (there were also examples in St. Petersburg, where the corresponding body of the new government was the weakest, and the old government was the strongest). They acted as authorities, appealing to all the people not to give money to the old government. They confiscated the money of the old government (railroad strike committees in the south) and used it for the needs of the new, people's government - yes, these were undoubtedly the embryos of the new, people's, or, if you like, revolutionary government. In terms of its socio-political character, it was, in its infancy, a dictatorship of the revolutionary elements of the people - are you surprised, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter? Don’t you see “heightened security” here, which for the bourgeoisie amounts to a dictatorship? We have already told you that you have no idea about the scientific concept: dictatorship. We will now explain it to you, but first we will indicate the third “method” of action in the era of the “revolutionary whirlwind”: the use of violence by the people in relation to the rapists against the people.
The authorities we described were, in embryo, a dictatorship, because this government did not recognize any other authority and no law, no norm emanating from anyone. Unlimited, extralegal, power based on force, in the most literal sense of the word, is a dictatorship. But the force on which this new power relied and sought to rely was not the force of the bayonet captured by a handful of military men, not the force of the “site,” not the force of money, not the force of any previous, established institutions. Nothing like this. The new bodies of the new government had no weapons, no money, no old institutions. Their strength - can you imagine, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter? - had nothing to do with the old instruments of power, nothing to do with “increased security”, if you do not mean increased security
people from oppression by the police and other bodies of the old government.
What was this strength based on? She relied on the masses. This is the main difference between this new government and all previous bodies of the old government. They were the organs of power of a minority over the people, over the mass of workers and peasants. These were the authorities of the people, workers and peasants, over the minority, over a handful of police rapists, over a handful of privileged nobles and officials. This is the difference between dictatorship over the people and the dictatorship of the revolutionary people, remember this well, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter! The old government, as a dictatorship of a minority, could maintain itself solely with the help of police tricks, solely with the help of removal, the removal of the popular masses from participation in power, from monitoring power. The old government systematically did not trust the masses, was afraid of the light, and relied on deception. The new government, as a dictatorship of a huge majority, could and did hold on solely with the help of the trust of the huge masses, solely by attracting in the freest, broadest and most powerful way the entire masses to participate in power. Nothing hidden, nothing secret, no regulations, no formalities. Are you a working person? Do you want to fight to rid Russia of a handful of police rapists? You are our comrade. Choose your deputy, now, immediately; choose as you see fit - we will willingly and joyfully accept him as a full member of our Council of Workers' Deputies, the Peasant Committee, the Council of Soldiers' Deputies, etc., etc. This is a government open to everyone, doing everything in full view of the masses, accessible to the masses, emanating directly from the masses, a direct and immediate organ of the masses and their will. - Such was the new power, or rather, its beginnings, for the victory of the old power trampled the shoots of the young plant very early.
You may ask Mr. Blank or Mr. Kiesewetter, why is there “dictatorship” here, why “violence”? isn't it
a huge mass needs violence against a handful, can tens and hundreds of millions be dictators over a thousand, over tens of thousands?
This question is usually asked by people who have seen the term dictatorship used for the first time in a meaning that is new to them. People are accustomed to seeing only police power and only police dictatorship. It seems strange to them that there can be a government without any police, there can be a non-police dictatorship. Are you saying that millions do not need violence against thousands? You are mistaken, and you are mistaken because you are not considering a phenomenon in its development. You forget that the new power does not fall from the sky, but grows, arises along with the old, against the old power, in the struggle against it. Without violence against the rapists who have the tools and authorities in their hands, it is impossible to rid the people of the rapists.
Here is a simple example for you, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter, so that you can assimilate this wisdom, inaccessible to the cadet mind, “dizzying” for the cadet thought. Imagine that Avramov mutilates and tortures Spiridonova. On Spiridonova’s side, for example, there are tens and hundreds of unarmed people. There are a handful of Cossacks on Avramov’s side. What would the people do if Spiridonova’s torture did not take place in a dungeon? He would use violence against Avramov and his retinue. He would have sacrificed, perhaps, several fighters shot by Avramov, but by force he would still have disarmed Avramov and the Cossacks, and, very likely, he would have killed some of these, so to speak, people on the spot, and would have put the rest in some kind of prison. or prison to prevent them from further mischief and to bring them to the people's court.
You see, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter: when Avramov and the Cossacks torture Spiridonova, this is a military-police dictatorship over the people. When a revolutionary (capable of fighting against rapists, and not just exhortations, edifications, regrets, condemnations, whining and whining, not petty-bourgeois-limited,
and the revolutionary people use violence against Avramov and the Avramovs - this is the dictatorship of the revolutionary people. This is a dictatorship, because this is the power of the people over Avramov, power not limited by any laws (a tradesman, perhaps, would be against forcefully recapturing Spiridonova from Avramov: they say, this is not according to the “law”! Do we have such a “ law” to kill Avramov? Haven’t some philistinism ideologists created theories of non-resistance to evil by violence?). The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing more than power that is unrestricted by anything, not constrained by any laws, absolutely not constrained by any rules, and directly based on violence. The concept “dictatorship” means nothing more than this—remember it well, Messrs. cadets. Further, in the example we took, we see the dictatorship of the people, because the people, the mass of the population, unformed, “accidentally” gathered in a given place, themselves and directly appear on the stage, they themselves carry out justice and reprisals, apply power, create new revolutionary law. Finally, this is the dictatorship of a revolutionary people. Why only the revolutionary people, and not the whole people? Because in all the people who constantly and most cruelly suffer from the exploits of the Avramovs, there are people who are beaten physically, intimidated, people who are beaten morally, for example, by the theory of non-resistance to evil by violence, or simply beaten not by theory, but by prejudice, custom, routine , indifferent people, what are called ordinary people, philistines, who are more capable of distancing themselves from an acute struggle, passing by, or even hiding (as if they didn’t get into a fight here!). That is why the dictatorship is not carried out by the whole people, but only by the revolutionary people, who are not at all afraid of the whole people, who reveal to the whole people the reasons for their actions and all the details of them, who willingly attract the whole people to participate not only in governing the state, but also in power, and to participate in the very structure of the state.
Thus, the simple example we took contains all the elements of the scientific concept: “dictatorship
revolutionary people”, as well as the concept: “military-police dictatorship”. From this simple example, accessible even to a learned cadet professor, we can move on to more complex phenomena of social life.
A revolution, in the narrow, immediate meaning of the word, is precisely such a period of people’s life when centuries of accumulated anger towards the exploits of the Avramovs breaks out in actions, not words, and in the actions of millions of people, not individuals. The people wake up and rise to free themselves from the Avramovs. The people deliver the countless Spiridonovs of Russian life from the Avramovs, use violence against the Avramovs, and take power over the Avramovs. This happens, of course, not as simply and not as “immediately” as in the example we simplified for Mr. Professor Kiesewetter - this struggle of the people against the Avramovs, a struggle in the narrow, immediate sense, this throwing off the Avramovs from the people stretches out for months and years of “revolutionary whirlwind”. This throwing off of the Avramovs by the people is the real content of what is called the great Russian revolution. This shedding, if we consider it from the side of the methods of historical creativity, occurs in those forms that we have just described when speaking about the revolutionary whirlwind, namely: the seizure by the people of political freedom, that is, the kind of freedom the implementation of which was prevented by the Avramovs; - the creation by the people of a new, revolutionary power, power over the Avramovs, power over the rapists of the old police system; - the use of violence by the people against the Avramovs to eliminate, disarm and neutralize these wild dogs, all the Avramovs, Durnovos, Dubasovs, Minovs, and so on and so forth.
Is it good that the people use such illegal, disorderly, unplanned and unsystematic methods of struggle as the seizure of freedom, the creation of a new, formally not recognized and revolutionary power, and use violence against the oppressors?
people? Yes it is very good. This is the highest manifestation of the people's struggle for freedom. This is that great time when the dreams of the best people of Russia about freedom are translated into action, the work of the masses themselves, and not of lone heroes. This is as good as the liberation of Spiridonova from Avramov by the crowd (in our example), the forced disarmament and neutralization of Avramov.
But here we come to the central point of the cadets' hidden thoughts and fears. The reason why a cadet is an ideologist of philistinism is that he brings to politics, to the liberation of the entire people, to the revolution the point of view of that philistine who, in our example of Avramov’s torture of Spiridonova, would hold back the crowd, would advise not to break the law, not to rush to free the victims from the hands of the executioner acting on behalf of legitimate authority. Of course, in our example, such a philistine would be a downright moral monster, and when applied to all social life, the moral ugliness of a philistine is, we repeat, not a personal quality at all, but a social one, conditioned, perhaps, by the prejudices of the bourgeois-philistine science of law that are firmly ingrained in the head .
Why does Mr. Blank consider it not even necessary to prove that during the period of the “whirlwind” all Marxist principles were forgotten? Because he distorts Marxism into Brentanism144, considering such “principles” as the seizure of freedom, the creation of revolutionary power, and the use of violence by the people as not Marxist. This view runs through the entire article of Mr. Blank, and not just Blank, but all the Cadets, all the writers of the liberal and radical camp who are now praising Plekhanov for their love for the Cadets, right up to the Bernsteinians from “Without a Title”145, Messrs. Prokopovich, Kuskova and tutti quanti*.
Let us consider how this view arose and why it should have arisen.
* - similar to them. Ed.
It arose directly from the Bernsteinian or, more broadly, opportunist understanding of Western European social democracy. Those errors in this understanding, which were systematically and comprehensively exposed by the “orthodoxies” in the West, are now being transferred “on the sly,” under a different sauce and for a different reason, to Russia. Bernsteinians accepted and accept Marxism with the exception of its directly revolutionary side. They consider parliamentary struggle not as one of the means of struggle, especially suitable in certain historical periods, but as the main and almost exclusive form of struggle, making “violence”, “seizures”, “dictatorship” unnecessary. It is this vulgar, petty-bourgeois distortion of Marxism that the Messrs. are now bringing to Russia. Blanks and other liberal praisers of Plekhanov. They have become so accustomed to this perversion that they do not even consider it necessary to prove the oblivion of Marxist principles and ideas during the period of the revolutionary whirlwind.
Why should such a view arise? Because it most deeply corresponds to the class position and interests of the petty bourgeoisie. The ideologist of a “purified” bourgeois society allows for all methods of struggle of social democracy, except those that are used by the revolutionary people in the era of the “whirlwind” and which revolutionary social democracy approves and helps to apply. The interests of the bourgeoisie require the participation of the proletariat in the struggle against the autocracy, but only such participation that does not translate into the supremacy of the proletariat and peasantry, only such participation that does not completely eliminate the old, autocratic serfdom and police authorities. The bourgeoisie wants to preserve these organs only by subordinating them to its direct control - it needs them against the proletariat, for which the complete destruction of these organs would make its proletarian struggle too easy. That is why the interests of the bourgeoisie, as a class, require both a monarchy and an upper house, require the prevention of the dictatorship of the revolutionary people. Fight autocracy
The bourgeoisie says to the proletariat, but don’t touch the old authorities - I need them. Fight "parliamentarily", that is, within the limits that I will prescribe for you by agreement with the monarchy, fight through organizations - just not such as general strike committees, Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' Deputies, etc., but through such , which recognizes and limits, neutralizes in relation to capital the law issued by me in agreement with the monarchy.
It is clear from this why the bourgeoisie speaks about the period of the “whirlwind” with disdain, contempt, malice, hatred, and about the period of constitutionalism protected by Dubasov with delight, rapture, with endless petty-bourgeois love... for reaction. This is the same constant and unchanging quality of the cadets: the desire to rely on the people and the fear of their revolution
Much of what is happening today is explained by a defensive reaction to the ten-year violation by liberal radicals of the national dignity of the Russian state-forming people and the destruction of Russian statehood. Brought to the brink of destruction, the Russian national-state organism naturally strives for self-preservation through the consolidation of power, strengthening the state, and strengthening the national self-awareness of the Russian majority of the country. This is the inevitable result of what was done in the past, but it depends on contemporaries what form these processes will take. Some politicians will ignore these objective trends, thereby condemning themselves to marginalization. Someone will demagogically play the patriotic card and rush to power on a new wave in the name of selfish interests. But the very beginning of the creative processes suggests that a generation of statist politicians is being formed who understand that the revival of Russia can only be achieved through the revival of statehood. Understanding the essence of what is happening helps to navigate creatively and avoid dangers.
In this sense, the research of the Russian philosopher Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin, who at the end of the forties described the objective trends of the transition period - after the inevitable collapse of the communist regime, is very relevant. First of all, for Russian history it is obvious that “Such spaces, such a number of nationalities, such people inclined to individualism can be united exclusively by a centralized single state, can be maintained exclusively by an authoritarian (not to be confused with a totalitarian) form of government. Russia can have its own, independently emerging organized forms of an authoritarian state and a democratic state - in unity. It is this - not an accident and not the despotism of the Moscow center - that explains the fact that Russia remained a monarchy for centuries, moreover, all classes and professional workshops developed and practiced unique forms of self-government" (I.A. Ilyin). Ivan Ilyin was convinced that the transition from communism to a statehood organic to Russia was possible only through a national dictatorship - not a dictatorship itself, but an authoritarian regime. For only enlightened authoritarianism or a democratic, liberal dictatorship can avoid post-communist chaos, ochlocracy, which inevitably ends with the arrival of a dictator. It is clear that the upheavals of the nineties sharply narrowed the possibilities for the revival of Russia, but they also taught us a lot. In any case, there are now immeasurably more people who are able to hear the prophetic judgments of the Russian philosopher.
I.A. Ilyin in the book “Our Tasks” warned about the disastrousness of democratic temptations after the fall of the communist regime, when there will be no prerequisites for democracy in society:
“The Russian people will emerge from the revolution as beggars. There will be no rich, no prosperous, no middle class, not even a healthy, economic peasant at all. A poor peasantry, proletarianized around “agricultural factories” and “agro-cities”; a poor worker in industry; a poor artisan, a poor city dweller... This will be the people of a “classless society”; robbed, but not at all forgetting that they were robbed, nor what exactly was taken from them, nor those who subjected them to “expropriation”... Everyone will be poor. , overworked and bitter. The state center, which robbed everyone, will disappear; but the state coinage, left as an inheritance to the heirs, will have minimal purchasing power on the international market and will be in complete contempt on the domestic market. And it is difficult to imagine that state property, plundered and configured, was left by the communists in an economically flourishing form: for it, in all likelihood, will go through a period of fierce struggle for power. So, the poverty of the citizens and the impoverishment of the state are ahead: the classic consequence of all long revolutions and wars... All the spiritual and all social foundations of democracy have been undermined - right down to settled life, right down to faith in work, right down to respect for honestly acquired property. The fabric of national solidarity is torn to shreds. An unprecedented thirst for revenge has accumulated everywhere. The masses dream of shaking off the hypnosis of vile fear and responding to protracted organized terror with violent, disorganized terror."
This is the inevitable state of Russia after decades of communist dictatorship. Ilyin foresaw that in these conditions forces would appear that would try to use the political infantilism of society and entice it into the swamp fires of pseudo-democracy:
“And at this moment they will be offered: 1. “Democratic freedom”; 2. “The right of all self-determination” and 3. “The doctrine of popular sovereignty.” Who will be responsible for the inevitable consequences of this?.. The slogan “democracy immediately and no matter what” come what may" has already led to a totalitarian dictatorship in Russia once. He threatens the same dictatorship in the future, but this time anti-communist... Or they will try to create a new "democratic fascism" so that, while chanting freedom, they will trample on it in the name of a new, unheard-of in the history of pseudo-democracy?.. If anything can inflict new, heaviest blows on Russia after communism, then it is precisely the persistent attempts to install a democratic system in it after totalitarian tyranny. For this tyranny has managed to undermine in Russia all the necessary preconditions for democracy, without which. only a riot of the mob, general corruption and corruption, and the surfacing of more and more anti-communist tyrants is possible... If the people do not have a sound sense of justice, then the democratic system turns into a sieve of abuses and crimes. Unprincipled and sneaky people turn out to be corrupt, they know this about each other and cover for each other: people commit treason, profit from it and call it “democracy.”
As you can see, I.A. Ilyin’s analysis turned out to be very topical. What way out did the philosopher see in this situation?
“And when, after the fall of the Bolsheviks, world propaganda throws into the all-Russian chaos the slogan: “Peoples of the former Russia, dismember!” - then two possibilities will open up: either a Russian national dictatorship will arise within Russia, which will take the “reins of government” into its strong hands and extinguish this a disastrous slogan will lead Russia to unity, suppressing all and any separatist movements in the country; or such a dictatorship will not develop, and an unimaginable chaos of movements, returns, revenge, pogroms, collapse of transport, unemployment, hunger, cold and anarchy will begin in the country. Russia will be engulfed in anarchy and will betray itself headlong to its national, military, political and religious enemies... Years will pass of national remembrance, settling, calming, understanding, awareness, restoration of elementary legal consciousness, a return to private property, to the principles of honor and honesty, to personal responsibility and loyalty, to self-respect, to integrity and independent thought - before the Russian people will be able to make meaningful and indestructible political elections. Until then, it can only be led by a national, patriotic, by no means totalitarian, but authoritarian - educating and reviving - dictatorship... After the Bolsheviks, Russia can be saved - either by the greatest state discipline of the Russian people or by a national-state-educating dictatorship... Only a strict authoritarian (not at all totalitarian!) regime can save the country from destruction... Under such conditions, a national dictatorship will become a direct salvation, and elections will either be completely impossible, or will turn out to be imaginary, a fiction, devoid of legal-forming authority.”
Of course, the modern consciousness is frightened by the term “dictatorship”, but in combination with the definition “national” this concept takes on a deep and relevant meaning for us in Ilyin:
"...Many people think:... either a totalitarian dictatorship - or formal democracy. Meanwhile, in this very formulation new outcomes are already indicated: 1. Dictatorship, but not totalitarian, not communist; dictatorship organizing a new informal democracy, and therefore democratic dictatorship; not demagogic, “promising” and corrupting, but state, ordering and educating; not extinguishing freedom, but accustoming to true freedom 2. Democracy, but not formal, not arithmetic. relying not on the human atom and not indifferent to its internal unfreedom, but on the self-governing, internally free citizen it educates; a democracy of quality, responsibility and service - with suffrage understood and implemented in a new way. And behind these two possibilities lies a multitude. new political forms in a variety of combinations, starting with a new, creative, purely Russian people's monarchy."
It is obvious that the Yeltsin regime of the nineties combined exactly the opposite characteristics - the worst of dictatorship and the caricature of democracy. This dictatorship is precisely demagogic, promising and corrupting, fading freedom, and not teaching true freedom; democracy today is only formal, arithmetic, suppressing mass misunderstandings and private desires, indifferent to the inner freedom of man. What is the mission of a national dictatorship?
“Only such a dictatorship can save Russia from anarchy and protracted civil wars. In order to accustom people to freedoms, it is necessary to give them as much as they are able to accept and fill with life, without destroying themselves and their state; immeasurable and unbearable freedom has always been and always will be pure poison. In order to awaken a sense of justice among the people, it is necessary to appeal to their honor, protect them from pogrom excesses with government prohibitions and leave to the discretion of the people no more than how much they can lift and bear without destroying themselves and their state. never led to good, but only caused political intoxication and unbridled passions. And now not a single state constitution provides any people with such powers... In order to accustom people to state-faithful will, one must start with a limited right to vote: only give it. sedentary, only family, only hard-working, only never served the Communist Party, only mature in age, only acceptable to both voters and the national government. In other words: we must start with a system of non-property qualifications that provide the necessary minimum of integrity, honesty and state sense, so that in the future, as the people and the country improve, the circle of voters can be expanded. Anything else would be doctrinaire madness and the destruction of Russia... A firm, national-patriotic and in theory liberal dictatorship, helping the people to highlight their truly best forces and educating the people for sobriety, for free loyalty, for self-government and for organic participation in state building ,.. loyalty to obligations and contracts, self-esteem and honor."
What can a national dictatorship rely on? What does she demand from the national leader?
“Only a national dictatorship, relying on unfaithful military units and quickly raising cadres of sober and honest patriots from the people to the top, can shorten the period of arbitrary revenge, wanton reprisals and corresponding new destruction... A dictator saving the country from chaos needs: will, restrained by feeling responsibility, formidable imposition and all kinds of courage, military and civil... The essence of dictatorship is in the shortest decision and in the absolute power of the decider. For this, one, personal and strong will is required. Dictatorship is essentially a military-like institution: it is a kind of political commandership. , requiring an eye, speed, order and obedience... No collegial body will master chaos, because it already concludes the beginning of disintegration... In the hour of danger, trouble, confusion and the need for instant decisions-orders - a collegial dictatorship is the last of absurdities... The dictatorship has a direct historical calling - to stop the decomposition, block the road to chaos, interrupt the political, economic and moral disintegration of the country. And there are periods in history when being afraid of a one-man dictatorship means leading to chaos and promoting decay... A single dictator becomes at the head, betting on the spiritual strength and on the quality of the people he saves... This bet on the free and good power of the Russian the people must be made by the future dictator. At the same time, the way up from the very bottom should be open to quality and talent. The necessary selection of people should be determined not by class, not by estate, not by wealth, not by slyness, not by behind-the-scenes whispers or intrigues and not by imposition from foreigners - but by the quality of a person: intelligence, honesty, loyalty, creativity and will. Russia needs conscientious and brave people, not party promoters and not hiring foreigners... So, the national dictator will have to: 1. Reduce and stop the chaos; 2. Immediately begin quality selection of people; 3. Establish labor and production order; 4. If necessary, defend Russia from enemies and robbers; 5. Put Russia on the road that leads to freedom, to the growth of legal consciousness, to state self-government, greatness and the flourishing of national culture."
The primary task of a true national leader is spiritual: to awaken the creative forces of the people and create conditions for their formation into political institutions organic to Russia.
"Politics has tasks: the powerfully instilled solidarity of the people, the authoritative education of a personal, free sense of justice. The defense of the country and the spiritual flowering of culture; the creation of a national future through taking into account the national past, collected in the national present... The modern Russian politician will draw us a system in which the best and the sacred foundations of the monarchy will absorb everything healthy and strong that holds the republican legal consciousness. He will outline for us a system in which the natural and precious foundations of a true aristocracy will be saturated with the healthy spirit that holds true democracies and will be reconciled with a multitude of independent wills; with creative freedom; the individual will voluntarily and sincerely submit to super-personal goals and the united people will find their personal leader to connect with with trust and devotion. And all this must be accomplished in the eternal traditions of the Russian people and the Russian state. And, moreover, not in the form of a “reaction.” , but in the forms of creative novelty. This will be a new Russian system, a new state Russia."
All this may sound utopian, but upon deep reflection, however, it turns out to be closer to reality than much of the current one. Reality, of course, is true, and not phantasmagoric, which “rules the show” today. What Ilyin calls for is, of course, an ideal. But this super-ideal is capable of inspiring people to make a saving super-effort.
We see that the Russian philosopher foresaw what was happening and foresaw the future. But it would be in vain to look for a panacea from him. These are not recipes for salvation, but a clear analysis of the situation and clear formulations of our tasks. As it should be, all this raises even more questions, but, most importantly, it encourages a creative struggle to save one’s fatherland.
Probably none of the dictators of the Soviet camp was as despised as Ceausescu. During his reign, hunger grew year after year in the country, and the police killed up to 15 thousand people a year. When his power was overthrown in 1989, the military had to restrain the people from spontaneous reprisals against him. And yet modern Romanians miss him.
In 2010, the Romanian Institute for Assessment and Strategy conducted a public opinion poll asking questions about the country's life under communism.
It's hard to believe, but 63% said that life was better then; only 29 percent disagreed. To the question “Would you vote for Ceausescu today?” More than 40% of respondents responded positively.
It seems absurd, but today Romania is one of the poorest countries in the EU (second in poverty) and the most corrupt. The people see in the communist dictatorship at least some guarantees of employment and security - albeit in exchange for freedom.
Park Chung Hee
Between 1961 and 1979, South Korea was ruled with an iron fist by Park Chung Hee. Under his rule, surprise secret police searches and torture became commonplace. His opponents disappeared without a trace; it is said that he personally killed the most senior of them in his home. How do Koreans see his figure today?
They consider him the greatest president in history. According to the Korean Times, citing sociological survey data, Park Chung-hee is far ahead in popularity of any other leader in Korea.
Indeed, during his reign there was an economic boom. In the 1970s, South Korea's economic growth rate outpaced that of the United States. This is all the more impressive when you remember that in the 1950s, South Korea was poorer than North Korea. Today, the brutality of the regime is forgotten, only economic successes remain in memory.
Antonio Salazar
Anotonio Salazar was one of the longest-living dictators - and one of the most invisible. For almost 40 years he ruled Portugal, which became a semi-fascist state. During this time, the secret police penetrated every school, every business and every other organization in the country. The network of state terror worked like clockwork. Many dissatisfied people went to concentration camps located in Africa.
Salazar's regime collapsed in 1974, but today his popularity is growing. About one-fifth of Portuguese people think Salazar has done more good than bad. On his birthday, his grave is covered with flowers, and a portrait of the dictator hangs in many bars and restaurants.
This may be due to the economic crisis that broke out in the country in 2010.
Francisco Franco
General Franco is lost against the background of his famous contemporaries - Hitler and Mussolini, but he was no less cruel. During the “White Terror,” 114 thousand Spaniards were killed, many were tortured and raped. Up to 500 thousand people died in concentration camps. Despite this, he remains a popular figure in Spain.
A 2006 poll by El Mundo newspaper found that a third of Spaniards believed Franco's actions in overthrowing the previous government were correct. A 2013 book about Franco by the Royal Academy of History called him a "pacifist" and his political opponents "terrorists."
A significant part of the Spaniards see Franco as the savior of the country from the communists, who also killed about 40 thousand people during the Spanish Civil War. It is generally accepted that the communists would have plunged the country into an even bloodier horror than Franco.
"Black Colonels"
In 1967, the Greek democratic government fell and was replaced by a group of officers who ruled the country through repression for almost 10 years. The junta was particularly notable for its use of rape and abusive sexual acts as torture. When the junta lost power, the new government had to make a lot of efforts to hold official trials, preventing popular lynching.
In 2013, a Metron Analysis poll found that a third of Greeks believed dictatorship was better than democracy. More than 50% think the junta provided better security, and 46% think the economic situation was better.
In recent years, Greece has been experiencing serious problems in the economy; many people, mainly civil servants, have lost their jobs.
Ferdinand Marcos
From 1965 to 1986, Ferdinand Marcos was the sole ruler of the Philippines. During his time in power, he killed 3,257 political opponents, tortured 35,000, and imprisoned 70,000. He is also considered one of the most corrupt officials to ever live on the planet, ranking him second on Transparency International's list.
It would seem that this should not inspire much sympathy, but in 2011, the majority of Filipinos were in favor of Marcos' reburying in the state cemetery for heroes.
In 2014, on the 28th anniversary of his removal from power, there was a wave of tweets on Twitter calling Marcos “the greatest president of all time.”
He is also considered a savior from communism. But, unlike Spain, in the Philippines this danger was not real. It simply served as an excuse for Marcos to steal more than 10 billion dollars from the treasury.
Erich Honecker
You may not remember his name, but you know the name of his country: the German Democratic Republic, the realm of the Stasi political police. Intimidation of the country's residents was the norm, but in the GDR, an economic fiasco was added to this. The East Germans tightened their belts while their Western relatives could not deny themselves anything. When Germany reunited, no one imagined that the GDR would be missed.
But in 2009, the results of a survey conducted by Der Spiegel magazine were made public. Most of the inhabitants of the eastern states of Germany defended the life they led in the GDR. 49% reported that living there was “good.” Some even claimed that there was "less dictatorship" than modern Germany. Most considered the Stasi to be normal intelligence.
In German there is a special term for this: Ostalgie (from Ost - east and nostalgie - nostalgia). One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that the standard of living in the western and eastern lands has not yet become equal.
Haji Muhammad Suharto
If you're unimpressed by the Marcos story, check out Suharto. From 1967 to 1998, he stole $35 billion from the state budget, occupied East Timor and carried out two genocides. And now he is again experiencing people's love.
In many parts of Indonesia, the anniversary of Suharto's massacre of his countrymen is still celebrated today. Four years ago he became a “national hero”, according to the results of a sociological survey.
This is another “hero who saved the country from communism.” And, as in the case of Marcos, it was just an excuse. Under the guise of the fight against communism, Suharto killed at least 500 thousand (according to other estimates - up to two million) ethnic Chinese, carrying out executions along ethnic lines.
Benito Mussolini
Benito Mussolini ruled Italy and was an ally of Hitler. The US and British troops did not have time to get to him - the Italians themselves hanged him. But in the 21st century it was in demand again.
His image can be found on souvenirs for tourists, in restaurants and shops. And this is not just irony - politicians such as Silvio Berlusconi allow themselves to publicly praise Mussolini.
Joseph Stalin
Collect all the previous characters - and they will all give in to Stalin. An approximate estimate of the number of those repressed (executed or sent to prison) during his reign is 20 million. He used the labor of political prisoners as free labor. And he is very popular in Russia.
A 2011 poll by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that 45% of Russians had a “generally positive” assessment of Stalin’s personality. In his home country of Georgia, the figure was 68%. A few years ago, according to a poll for a popular TV show, Stalin was ranked third among Russia's national heroes.
In general, Russians are aware of Stalin's crimes. But he is seen as the conqueror of Hitler and this, as it were, atones for his guilt. In other words, he is a monster, but he defeated a worse monster.
Internet program "Finding Meaning"
Topic: "Dictatorship"
Issue #139
Stepan Sulakshin: Good afternoon friends! Last time we studied the space of meaning of autocracy. It is logical to continue this semantic space by working with the term “dictatorship”. But there is no need to immediately try to hear hints about our Russian reality. We are interested in a precise understanding of what “dictatorship” is. Vardan Ernestovich Bagdasaryan begins.
Vardan Baghdasaryan: I'll start with a quote from Lenin. Nowadays it is not customary to turn to the classics of Marxism-Leninism, but it seems to me that the Marxist tradition has contributed a lot to the methodology for understanding the phenomenon of “dictatorship” in order to dispel the propaganda, manipulative myths associated with this category.
Lenin in his article “On Democracy and Dictatorship” writes: “The bourgeoisie is forced to be hypocritical and call the (bourgeois) democratic republic “power of the whole people” or democracy in general, or pure democracy, which in reality is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the exploiters.
The current “freedom of assembly and press” in a “democratic” (bourgeois-democratic) republic is a lie and hypocrisy, because in reality it is the freedom for the rich to buy and bribe the press, the freedom of the rich to solder the people with bourgeois newspaper lies, the freedom of the rich to keep their “ property" landowners' houses, the best buildings and so on."
Lenin, and before that Marx, described the category of “dictatorship” as hypocritical and came to the conclusion that non-dictatorship states do not exist. Indeed, in relation to the category of “dictatorship”, two approaches can be traced: in terms of the style of government, it is a dictatorial state, and in terms of the actor, it is the exercise of power. Let's look at both of these approaches.
It must be said that, due to its etymological origin, this word does not carry any negative load. In Ancient Rome, it literally meant “sovereign,” and one of the titles of the Roman emperors was the title “dictator,” dictator - in the sense of ruler.
Last time we looked at the category “authoritarianism”. Very often, dictatorship and authoritarianism are considered the same thing, but they are different things. A dictatorship can also be a democratic dictatorship. For example, during the Great French Revolution, the National Convention exercised dictatorial functions, and few people question this, but all decisions and dictatorial powers were exercised in a completely collegial manner.
So, if we talk about the style of government, then the directive style of government is often identified with dictatorship. Here the question arises: what if this arrangement continues, if not the directive style of government? What other management styles are there? Subsequently, a stimulating management system arises - not through directives, but through incentives.
Now, in the conditions of the information society, a contextual control system is emerging, that is, to a greater extent, a control system through the programming of consciousness. But, of course, both incentive and contextual management systems still continue this tradition. There are no fundamental anthological contradictions here.
Under capitalism, as the classics of Marxism showed, the worker, since he does not have the means of production, is forced to hire out. It would seem that he has been granted freedom, but in reality there are economic mechanisms at work that, in fact, make him unfree. This more sophisticated form is, in fact, not much different from the form of directive government.
Now that the beneficiaries have full control of media resources, the system is essentially the same. An illusion arises that a person makes decisions himself, that he, as a subject, creates his own agenda, but in reality, due to the emergence of new cognitive schemes and control mechanisms, his behavior is also programmed by the controlling actor who owns these media resources. That is, technology is developing, but essentially this building system, which was defined as directive, dictatorial, does not change.
The second position is that there is an aggregated model for the exercise of power, that is, the state takes into account the interests of many, which means it aggregates them. There is another model, which is based on the implementation of the interests of one position or one person, and so on.
This means that the first position is aggregated, the second position is associated with a dictatorial position. But here I appeal to the works of both Lenin and Marx, which showed that, in fact, there are no non-dictatorial states. The whole question is who this actor is. In Marxism, this category was revealed through class interests, which means that the whole question is which class, which social group exercises these powers of power.
When we talk about class interests, the model of economic man is set, that class consciousness and property status dominate and determine. But let's look at it from an ideological position using this methodology.
The majority of the population is in favor of sovereignty, the minority is against this sovereignty. There are certain value positions in which there is some kind of consolidation. If the state proceeds from value positions, then these value positions are always associated with some group, and it always turns out that, due to the heterogeneous nature of society itself, the minority does not implement this value position. This means it will be a dictatorship of the majority.
When Marx, and subsequently Lenin, opened the category “dictatorship of the proletariat”, they talked about it. In traditional methodology, this term seems to be negative - there is democracy, and there is dictatorship, but in the Marxist tradition, the dictatorship of the majority is true democracy. This removes the negativism and manipulativeness initially inherent in this concept.
Indeed, in the first constitutions - in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, in the Soviet Constitution of 1924, the categories “dictatorship”, “dictatorship of the proletariat” were present, but this dictatorship of the proletariat was revealed precisely as a democratic system.
I will quote the provision of the 1924 Constitution: “Only in the camp of the Soviets, only under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which rallied the majority of the population around itself, was it possible to completely destroy national oppression, create an environment of mutual trust and lay the foundations for fraternal cooperation of peoples.”
Today, the Chinese experience is often cited. In the People's Republic of China, when the new Constitution was adopted during the time of Deng Xiaoping, the category “dictatorship of the proletariat” sounds like “democratic dictatorship of the people.”
The category of “democratic dictatorship of the people” is reflected in the first article of the Chinese Constitution. The Chinese Constitution begins with the words: “The People's Republic of China is a socialist state of the democratic dictatorship of the people, led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.”
So, the main thing is that there are no non-dictatorial states, the only important thing is whether this dictatorship comes from the interests and positions of the majority or from the interests and positions of the minority.
Stepan Sulakshin: Thank you, Vardan Ernestovich. Vladimir Nikolaevich Leksin.
Vladimir Leksin: Most often, the concept of “dictatorship” is associated with the concept of “dictator”. This is the most common everyday understanding of this term. Indeed, a dictator is a person who dictates, that is, utters something that everyone must follow.
Dictatorship in a broader sense is a political science concept that is very convenient for explaining many processes. And if it is not academic, then it is still, as it were, divorced in everyday consciousness from the fact that if there is a dictatorship, there is also a dictator.
Still, most often dictatorship is understood as an abnormally high personification of power, when such a type of political system and political society is created that there is a hypertrophy of power and the absorption of all institutions of civil society by one person. Moreover, this one person is a very interesting topic.
Now the real power of one person, the dictatorial line exists, no matter what the state is, at least at the level of representative offices. And, naturally, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Victory, the first persons of these states came to Moscow, who in everyday consciousness, and in real life, embody all the power in this state, be it the Senate, parliament, congress, some kind of public meeting and etc.
In any case, one person represents all the energy, all the essence and ideology of a particular state, and from this point of view he may well be considered a dictator. We know that the leaders of, say, the largest corporations are dictators in the full sense of the word.
In any organization, this dictatorial system really exists, only it is no longer a political organization of society, but simply management. This is what is called unity of command in Russian. This unity of command is a pragmatic, or something like, managerial type of dictatorship and dictatorship.
Now more than ever it is clear that the concept of dictatorship and dictator as a personified form of power has three hypostases. The first hypostasis is real. These are real dictators who can really be called “father of the nation”, “Fuhrer”, “leader” and so on.
One of the last really active dictators was Muammar Gaddafi. Many people called Fidel Castro a dictator, who was an absolutely amazing dictator, because, unlike, say, our country, his portrait did not hang in any institution, and there was no sculpture of him.
Nevertheless, these people maximally expressed the essence of power and, most importantly, actually controlled this power. These are real dictators, real delegated dictatorship, delegated dictatorship, and this is a very curious thing.
When there is a certain figure to whom various political, economic, international and so on intentions are practically thrown, she only expresses this, gaining either the love or dislike of the people, but this person is a figurehead expressing the essence of power. Such dictators are now the majority. I think that there are many such people in our history.
Well, the third hypostasis is a hereditary dictatorship. These are the monarchical dictatorships of previous years, these are the dictatorships of the recent past that existed in Latin America, and so on. These are three different types, but they have one thing in common.
By the way, this sign is very clearly expressed in our country. This is what can be called "manual control". Along with the fact that there is a legitimate process for the adoption of laws, to which everyone submits, including the dictator, who always says that he acts either on behalf of the Constitution - the basic law, or in accordance with the laws, he stimulates most of these laws, and sometimes actually creates them, and they then become legitimate from a legal point of view.
But first, manual control is a very clear indicator of dictatorship and the activities of a dictator, when massive orders are issued to everyone and everything, and they must be carried out. This is basically a somewhat belated reflection on the most pressing events that are occurring, and so on.
So what is dictatorship in our time - the norm or a relic? Even in ancient times, Heraclitus said that, having perfect knowledge, one can practically control absolutely everything alone. That is, having all the information in hand, acting within the framework of the law, it would probably really be possible to manage everything, if not for one “but.”
There is a very complex structure of social and international relations within the country. Everyone is connected to everyone else, everyone is connected to each other, but someone establishes this connection, and someone, undoubtedly, is more important than others in this connection.
At one time, one of the obvious dictators, Mussolini, pronounced a very clear formula on this matter. He said that the more complex a civilization becomes, the more individual freedom is limited. This is a very reasonable observation of his, and to some extent it now justifies the activities of so-called dictatorships and dictators who believe that in all the diversity of interests, motivations, actors that now exist in the field of domestic politics, there must be something called “ with a hard, firm hand." This is another basis for dictatorship. Thank you.
Stepan Sulakshin: Thank you, Vladimir Nikolaevich. We are examining an interesting term today. This is a classic term that allows you to see and work out all the stages of the methodology for discovering these meanings. After all, we not only understand individual terms, but also hone the methodology itself, the very technique of discovering meanings in the future. There are a lot of categories of words, and in the practice of every person, in his creative life, they will arise many times.
What would I like to point out here? That, as a rule, meaning is found through human experience, that is, through an enumeration of all manifestations of this category in a variety of contexts. And there are traps here, for example, the trap of endlessly listing what it is, then not collapsing into a formula, a trap that is connected, figuratively speaking, with the fact that “our indignant mind is seething.”
That is, there are some categories that are so bright, dramatic or tragic in some of their certain rather narrow manifestations that it distorts the whole picture. And behind these bright manifestations, which are very important for a person because of their tragedy, other manifestations of this category are lost, and the transition to generalization, synthesis of a semantic formula, and definition of the definitions of this category becomes difficult.
What associations does the word “dictatorship” evoke in our heads, for example, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Red Terror, the civil war, Stalinism and other bright, seemingly semantic projections, spots that actually obscure the semantic essence, sometimes even the logical and technical essence of this very concept ?
Let's try to walk along the road, freeing our minds from seething with such distortions. So, to what semantic space of human activity does this category belong? Of course, to power and control. And, again, maybe a dictator is the head of a family, maybe a dictator in some company, but these are secondary manifestations that do not relate to the main semantic content of this category.
After all, this is power and control. And the genesis of this category points precisely to such an approach. In power and control, as a very complex space, there are many semantic cells, the mosaic of which in this space is useful for a particular term that we want to define.
In this case, the most important thing is three elements, three links in the chain. If this is power and management, then management is necessarily making a decision - one, making a decision - two, and executing a decision - three. And this three-handed thing allows, for example, to construct a series, to see the relationship and precise semantic definitions of such categories as democracy, autocracy and dictatorship, to see what unites them, and something specific that separates them, which is what gives the original, unique and absolutely a specific semantic profile of a particular term.
So, the development of a decision can be carried out individually, collectively or en masse. We have a range from democracy to autocracy and dictatorship. The decision can also be made individually, collectively and en masse.
Finally, execution of a decision can be carried out on a voluntary basis, based on incentives or motivation, or on the basis of coercion, and coercion up to the threat of violence and repression. And it is in these spectral overflows and ranges that these terms find their cells of meaningful life.
So, what is similar between dictatorship and autocracy? This is a monopoly of power at the stages of developing a decision - sole, monopoly, and making a decision - sole, monopoly. Both autocracy and democracy are no different in this. The difference is at the third stage - at the stage of execution of the decision.
Even if I decided for myself that I am the state, I am the president, and took over manual control, I still cannot carry it out alone. And here the difference between dictatorship, which makes this semantic position unique, is extremely pronounced violence - violence with the threat of massive potential repression, an atmosphere of fear, suppression of alternative thought, alternative ideas, and so on.
And on this logical search path we can now give a semantic definition formula. So, dictatorship is a type of imperious rule, management that has the form of monopolization of power in the hands of one (he is the dictator) or several people (dictatorial junta), and the institution of violence and repression dominating the executive mechanism.
I must say that I always want to confuse this concept, like the concept of autocracy, with the concept of totalitarianism. But there is no need to be confused. The diagram of semantic cells that I proposed allows us to understand the completely different field of life of these terms.
Totalitarianism characterizes the degree of statism, that is, the entry of the state into all spheres of life, issues and affairs of society and people. This can happen under democracy, under totalitarianism, under autocracy, and so on. It’s just another dimension of the quality of life of society and government in their symbiosis.
Can dictatorship be expedient? Is it an absolutely reprehensible category? Again I return to the emotional accompaniment of the search for the meaning of this category. Yes, maybe in conditions of force majeure, in military conditions, in special regimes, in mobilization circumstances.
And it's clear why. Because there is a question of life and death. The question of delay, the question of parliamentary debate about whether to retreat or advance on this front - it is clear that these are incompatible things. But force majeure, wars, shocks, mobilizations are an exception to normal peaceful human life. And in normal, peaceful human life, dictatorship is not the most effective type of management and government, just like autocracy.
Monopolization of power is an inevitable path to decay. And no matter how tough the principle of governance may be, say, in the Soviet Union, where the mechanism of ideological violence and the monopoly of power of the CPSU led to the decay of the country, to its historical failure, in the same way the dictatorship cuts off a large amount of human intelligence and initiative in the symbiosis of society and power , creativity, dignity, alternatives, and this leads to inefficiency.
Fear, constraint and injustice also deprive the human community of creativity and efficiency, so in certain circumstances this, unfortunately, is inevitable with its costs, but there the circumstances themselves provide 100 times greater costs. For example, war - loss of life, destruction, injustice, crime. In peaceful life, of course, there must be other methods that provide the highest management efficiency.
Thank you. Next time we will deal with the term “crisis”. All the best.
