Understanding Soviet Society by Michael Paul Sacks & Jerry G. Pankhurst

Author:Michael Paul Sacks & Jerry G. Pankhurst [Sacks, Michael Paul & Pankhurst, Jerry G.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Political Science, General
ISBN: 9781136031762
Google: wcxYAQAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 18703904
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 1988-02-01T00:00:00+00:00

Political Structure: One-Party Rule or Monocracy

It is difficult, at the present historical juncture, to give a simple and precise formulation of the Soviet political structure. It is perhaps easier, at least for Westerners, to state what it is not: it is not a constitutional system with checks and balances of the democratic type, nor is it a parliamentary system. The holders of power are not elected by a constituency from whom they might claim legitimacy, nor do they depend on votes of confidence given to a party (or a coalition of parties) to govern as long as they are able to obtain such votes. This is sometimes justified by stating that antagonistic interest groups do not exist.

Earlier, and particularly under Stalin, the expressions of totalitarianism and dictatorship, in the sense of personal and absolute rules, were probably appropriate though often oversimplified. These definitions may no longer be correct (Cohen 1985a). And yet a basic feature of that political philosophy has remained constant: the concept that the role of the polity (in this case the Party, acting directly or through the Soviets) is to decide, to lead, and to govern according to its own lights. The functions of that polity, then, are not primarily to reflect the wishes or the aspirations of the population at large, nor to satisfy their demands or those of groups (united into parties, as is the case in the West). Rather, they are to make secular decisions that affect the entire society and then proceed to realize or implement these decisions. To this end, the Party uses a combination of coercion and persuasion and is committed to the mobilization of human and material resources to accomplish its goals and programs.

In earlier days, the leadership (or leader) manipulated Soviet society in any way it saw fit. It destroyed and created social classes; it arrested, jailed, tortured, shot, expelled, exiled, or declared “unpersons” those it suspected of disloyalty; it controlled what was said over the radio, printed in the press, seen on television, expressed in the classroom, depicted in novels, sculpted in marble, or painted on canvas. It decided to invest in sputniks and luniks rather than in housing and flush toilets. It, and it alone, determined the correct party line and decided who was antiparty or un-Marxist. Absolute power and control over the population was its first concern, and its unwillingness to compromise and to liberalize the system reflected its fear of the dissatisfaction of the masses and its conviction that government from above by a small, self-selected élite should not perish from the face of the earth.

In today's perspective, and from what we know of Soviet society since Stalin's death, this description reads more like a caricature or some ideal type than like a reflection of contemporary reality. Indeed, in the last few years we have seen a variety of models that modulate, if not modify and transform, the relatively undifferentiated picture of political totalitarianism. Some have defined it as the administered society, totalitarianism without terror;

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.