Democracy and Totalitarianism

Democracy and Totalitarianism is a book by French philosopher and political scientist Raymond Aron. It contains a detailed comparative analysis of the political systems of the Soviet Union and the democratic countries of the West.

History

Raymond Aron (1966) by Erling Mandelmann

Lectures which Raymond Aron gave in 1957 and 1958 at Sorbonne University were the basis of the book. It is republished in France regularly and has been translated into many languages. A Russian translation was published in 1993.

The Soviet constitution—fiction and reality

The democratically elected Constituent Assembly was dissolved by the Bolsheviks after its first meeting because a considerable majority of its members were hostile to the Bolsheviks. Merchants, priests, and landowners were deprived of electoral rights under the constitution of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of 1918. According to Aron, this Soviet Constitution had no value because the real power belonged to the Communist Party.

Aron specifies that there were no distinctions between cities and villages under the Constitution of 1936. This was unnecessary because there were ample opportunities to juggle the results of elections, and total terror against dissidents. According to official figures 99.9% of voters voted for the Communists. Thus, the authorities tried to achieve 100% participation of voters in elections. The Communists considered the refusal to vote as a protest against the existing political regime.

Meetings of the Supreme Soviet of Russia turned into performances for the expression of approval for actions of the government. Citizens had defined civil rights under the Soviet Constitution of 1936, but these rights could be ignored "according to interests of workers". This clause permitted arbitrary action by the authorities. The Constitution of the Soviet Union was a show for the benefit of the West, according to Aron.

Aron notes that the Bolsheviks justified themselves with the idea of a temporary dictatorship. The Bolsheviks could only construct tyranny, but the eventual dying off of the state remained as a utopian future. It is possible to say of the affairs of Bolsheviks: "People make the history, but people don't understand history which they make". It couldn't have been otherwise as free discussions were forbidden in the Soviet period, censorship was established, and the authorities ruthlessly destroyed all critics of the Party's plans. Aron concludes that the plans and the results of Communists' activities don't match.

Fight within communist party

Lenin in 1920
Stalin at the Tehran Conference in 1943

Aron divides History of Russian Communist Party into 5 stages:

1. Before November, 1917: Vladimir Lenin wanted to create party of professional revolutionaries, that is not small party subordinated to the power of a staff where there has to be the most strict discipline. According to Lenin such party could organize successful capture of the power and such party could incite the people to revolt only, instead of insignificant talks about socialism in parliament. Elections of deputies on congresses of Russian Communist Party were held honestly at the first stage, but Lenin could manipulate by delegations easy. Lenin could impose to congress own will almost always.

2. 1917-1923: There were discussions between fractions of Russian Communist Party. Lenin appeared in minority quite often, but colleagues trusted by Lenin blindly, because experience confirmed correctness by Lenin always. Value of the secretariat of Central Committee of Russian communist party began to grow at this stage. The party officialdom at the head of which Stalin rose in 1922 began to strengthen own power.

3. 1923-1930: Joseph Stalin won a victory over other colleagues of Lenin, because Stalin had support of the party officialdom. Aron explains just by means of this reason Stalin's victory over Leon Trotsky who was much more talented and bright public politician than Stalin. Aron writes: "Trotsky could speak on a tribune anything, but the majority of delegates of congresses voted for the point of view of Stalin because this delegates received own posts through the secretariat of the Central Committee of Russian Communist Party and delegates of congresses were personally obliged to these by Stalin". Stalin maneuvered skillfully: Stalin entered into alliance with Grigory Zinovyev and Lev Kamenev against Trotsky in the beginning, and then Stalin entered into alliance with Nicolai Bukharin against Zinovyev and Kamenev . All these victories by Stalin were played at congresses of Russian Communist Party where Stalin managed to receive a majority of votes always .

4. 1930-1953: Stalin received the individual power. Stalin was surrounded by colleagues with whom Stalin conferred though, but Stalin imposed own will to this colleagues always. Stalin inspired fear to these colleagues since 1934. Fractions in party were liquidated ruthlessly; all opponents by Stalin were executed.

5. After 1953: There were rivalry between Stalin's successors – Nikita Khrushchev, Lavrentiy Beria and Georgy Malenkov who, according to Lenin's recommendation, tried not to pass "bloody line" and not to be engaged in self-destruction. The exception was made for Beria only – Beria was executed because colleagues considered Beria as the applicant to tyrant.

The ideology and terror

According to the Bolshevist theory, the October Revolution became a symbol of a victory of the world proletariat. According to Aron, the October Revolution was actually an example of the important role of small political groups in human history. Aron points to imaginary elections and hypocritical welcome exclamations at congresses and demonstrations, as on symbols of the power of the Soviet ruling clique.

Aron specifies that Lenin didn't rely in own actions on "an objective course of history", and Lenin wasn't ashamed to work contrary to both Marx's theory and own approvals of former years. Noting about role of the state terror in the USSR, Aron points to that fact that such state terror wasn’t invented by Lenin and Stalin, both Oliver Cromwell and Maximilien de Robespierre used to terror too. As an example of the state terror Aron named tragical destiny of delegates for XVII congress of Russian Communist Party (1934). More than a half of this delegates were declared by "enemies of the people" in years of "big terror". Almost all veterans of Russian Communist Party were discharged of the power during mass "cleanings" of 1936-1938. The majority of this veterans were executed or sent to prison. All accused men admitted own guilt on so-called "the Moscow trials". Investigative authorities achieved these recognitions by means of cruel tortures .

Aron quotes Montesquieu's words about despotism: " The fear seizes all people in society imperceptibly, except one tyrant". In this regard Aron quotes Khrushchev writing about that when Khrushchev gathered for a meeting with Stalin, Khrushchev knew never, whether Stalin wants to consult or send to prison . Further Aron draws a conclusion that the fear was result of communistic experiment too.

Aron allocates three types of terror in USSR:

• There were punishment in compliance with the criminal code where there was clause about punishment for "counterrevolutionary activity" or for "social and dangerous act" which could be interpreted by courts very widely. Court sentence (law) could be pronounced in absence of the defender or accused man. It was impossible to appeal against this sentence

• There were administrative courts which worked on reduced procedure. Accused men had no right to protection and the appeal on these "courts". Execution followed within a day after adjudgement in case of a sentence to the death penalty therefore there were no time for the sentence appeal.

•There were deportation of some peoples. Some small peoples of the Caucasus, the Volga region, Crimea, Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic states were deported to Ural (region), Siberia and Central Asia.

Totalitarianism

Aron named five main signs of totalitarianism:

1 . There was a one-party system. One party has a monopoly on political activity only.

2 . There was a state ideology. The ruling party were armed (or as a banner) by ideology. The ruling party gave to this ideology the status of the only authority, and further the ruling party gave to this ideology the status official state truth.

3 . There was a monopoly to information. The state monopolizes mass media for distribution of official truth. The state and its representatives direct all mass media — radio, television, the press.

4 . There was a state economy. The majority of types of economic activity were in submission of the state.

5 . There was ideological terror. Any sin in the economic or professional sphere turns into the ideological crime. Violators are exposed not only to police measures of prosecution, but to ideological measures of prosecution too. Aron compares the Soviet communism, the German national socialism and the Italian Fascism. Aron considers as totalitarian all three political regimes despite all distinctions in ideology.

The Soviet regime and attempts of its understanding.

Aron reminds that according to Karl Marx's theory, the power has to belong to the proletariat under socialism. The proletariat made minority of the population in Russia before October Revolution 1917. If the minority of the population has all power, that it is unfair. The power can be never realized by millions of factory workers. Aron concludes on this basis, that the statement "the power belongs to the proletariat" — it is demagogy. In practice, according to Aron, the power belonged to Communist Party in USSR, and power belonged to ruling group of the highest bureaucrats in this party in the USSR . Social democrats (so-called "Mensheviks") warned in 1917 that the socialist revolution will doom workers to despotism half a century. The leader of the Second International social democrat Karl Kautsky told at once after October Revolution: " October Revolution is not dictatorship of the proletariat, and October Revolution is dictatorship of Communist party over the proletariat". Trotsky justified power capture in 1917, but Trotsky criticized soviet bureaucracy. However, as Aron specifies, the bureaucracy should be created for management of a planned economy: the number of officials surpassed the number of industrial workers more than twice by August, 1920 in RSFSR: 4 million of officials against 1,7 million of industrial workers.

Soviet bureaucracy wanted to see Stalin as own leader, instead of Trotsky with his theory of "permanent revolution"; new revolution wasn't necessary for bureaucracy . Trotsky began to doubt the truth of Marxism in the end own life even.

Comparison of Nazism and the Soviet system

German national socialism and the Soviet power are two versions of totalitarianism. According to Aron similarity of Nazism and the Soviet system is existence of terror after power capture. At the same time, the purposes and a justification of terror were various under Nazism and the Soviet system.

Aron enumerated and compared other similarities of Nazism and the Soviet system:

• one-party system,

• existence of official ideology,

• ubiquitous police,

tyranny.

Similarities between the USSR and the Russian Empire

• Existence of bureaucratic hierarchy.

• State ideology (Orthodoxy or communism).

• The guarded relation to the West that was shown in dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles in Russian Empire.

Soviet regime as an Asiatic mode of production

Karl Wittfogel in the American Communist newspaper. The Daily Worker, 1926.

Aron refers to Karl August Wittfogel's work "Oriental despotism: a comparative study of total power". This book has not been translated into Russian and has not been published in Russia. Marx enumerated various modes of production in the book " A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy". Marx named an Asian mode of production except antique, feudal and capitalist mode of production.

"In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society."

Karl Marx

A Contribution to the Critique of Political

Economy, p. 8.

Features of an Asian way of production:

• The bureaucracy manages to collective work.

• The agricultural demands construction of irrigation systems the bureaucracy can organize construction and repair of irrigation canals and dams in the East. only. The bureaucracy organized industrialization in USSR.

• Cancellation of the market competition and private property led to creation of an Asian way of production in the USSR. There are no social classes at an Asian way of production.

• The power of the governor is absolute at Asian mode of production. Chinese wanted to force the English ambassador to bow to the earth before the Chinese emperor in the 19th century even, but the English ambassador refused to be humiliated thus.

The Marxism is the theory of East despotism. The Russian Empire was half Asian till 1917. The Asian mode of production was established in Ancient Egypt and Ancient China. The Asian mode of production differed exclusive stability, simplicity and durability. Aron draws a conclusion that the Asian way of production was constructed in the USSR.

See also

Sources

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, August 11, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.