amazon seller making sure i get paid with every order
|
contrary to the hopes of sakharov and other reform-minded
intellectuals, both in the ussr and in the west, the soviet
state-socialist system proved incapable of convergence with or
evolutionary transformation into a western-style democracy. despite
a whole number of significant modifications made to the system
following stalin抯 departure and spanning the period of thirty-odd
years until the advent of gorbachev, the essence of the regime
remained practically unchanged. |
 |
the
party-state retained its power monopoly intact and strove to control
the entire sociopolitical order; no autonomy unauthorized from above
was tolerated. of the original six characteristics of
totalitarianism, only the role of the leader changed, and there was
a decline in terror. the ban on independent activity was
particularly stringent in the political sphere: all political
initiatives from below, even when they seemed to be largely in tune
with the party line, were branded 揹issidence?and discouraged by
various means, from subtle dissuasion to blunt repression.
|
any
attempts at modernizing the system to make it more flexible and
efficient could be sanctioned only from above and were abrogated the
moment the regime felt they eroded the totality of party-state
control. this was the main reason for the repeated attempts at and
failures of the sporadic reforms undertaken under khrushchev and
brezhnev. on the one hand, soviet leadership understood that the
system was in need of modernization and that the only way to achieve
this was to decentralize and infuse it with elements of autonomy and
competition. on the other hand, however, all experiments in this
direction were quickly abandoned, as even timid steps toward
decentralization detracted from the party and state抯 power
monopoly, threatening to undermine the totalitarian foundations.
the
fundamental paradox of the soviet postwar development was that the
diversification of economic, social, and political life diluted the
classical features of totalitarianism, yet there was no breakthrough
into the liberalization of social life or the institutionalization
of pluralism. 揚luralism?of interest groups existed only at the
level of these groups and did not determine the nature of their
relations with the state. the central idea of the pluralist model is
not just the existence of plurality of interests, but their
independence and the ability to retain their autonomy while
interacting with the state. in the soviet union interests were
completely denied such autonomy.
it
is true that pluralism of cultural and academic kinds came to play a
significant role in society and in its relations with the state, but
it could not modify the system to such an extent that at some point
it lost its totalitarian character. cultural and academic opposition
did not pose real danger to the regime, because these groups?
primary concern was to gain maximum creative and professional
freedom, rather than wield political influence.
the
authorities tolerated cultural and academic pluralism because it
helped to alleviate the corroding demoralization of society. it also
provided the leadership with much-needed expert information and
advice. as a result, controlled cultural and academic pluralism
developed into a significant and influential subsystem within the
totalitarian system. all substantial concessions to the
intellectuals notwithstanding, real freedom of speech, expression,
and research remained an unattainable dream.
