can you make money on audible amazon
|
similarly, the corporatist approach that began to form in
relations between the state and certain institutional economic
interests did not really infringe on the indivisibility of the
regime抯 political power. soviet state-socialist corporatism did
not form a political system or regime of its own, but was also a
subsystem within a totalitarian regime. it was set up by the
state and functioned under state control. |
in other words, socialist corporatism represented an interaction not
between state and nonstate actors, but almost entirely within state
structures themselves (搒tate-bureaucratic corporatism,?as some
analysts call it). it gave access to economic decision making to
more influential institutional interests, but it also made them
answerable to central authorities for the implementation of
decisions taken.
under socialist corporatism conflicts of interests were ironed out
and reined in by a single integrating force梩he ideological and
political decrees of the party. under stalin, these decrees were so
absolute that the role of interests was almost negligible. besides,
interests simply did not have enough time to form. stalin抯 period
was the time when the command-administrative system, designed to
spearhead the 搒ocialist onslaught,?took shape and existed in its
損urest?form, almost undiluted by group activity.
the
development of group interests accelerated significantly only after
the dictator抯 death. gradually, the command-administrative system
was transformed into a more complex setup, in which certain interest
groups evolved into 損artners?of the party-state. this process was
already quite advanced under khrushchev and strengthened under
brezhnev. during his occupancy the party, state, and economic
bureaucracies came into their own: their ever-swelling structures
became main repositories of power and privilege. nevertheless, the
role of the central party-state authorities as an integrating and
directing force was not abrogated or reduced to that of a mere
broker or mediator. the center may have stopped acting like a
despot, it no longer suppressed and quashed all interests outright,
but, at the same time, it retained its preeminent directing and
guiding prerogatives.
the
rise of socialist corporatism had certain positive consequences. it
led to some relaxation of the regime抯 extreme rigidity and
inflexibility, helping it to respond better to changes in the
economy and society. it engaged economic units of lower levels,
including enterprises, in the process of accommodation and
bargaining, giving rise to a 揵ureaucratic market?that prepared the
soil for the true market, which began to take shape in the
perestroika
and post-perestroika
period.
