Re: Slavonica

Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:00:28 +0000
Nikolai S. Rozov (rozov@nsu.ru)

Dear Rene and All,

thanks for your thoughtful analysis of Russian affairs in present and
past. Being a Russian i am far from being an expert in Russian
history and especially in current conjunctures around the Kremlin,
but as far as i know and feel these matters, you are in general quite
close to the truth.

just some notes on the NEP, 'the way from socialism to socialism
(via capitalism)' and about the possible historian reasons of why
Russian are so 'remarkable' people.

On 14 Jul 98 Dr. R.J. Barendse <r.barendse@worldonline.nl> wrote:
Whatever one thinks about Stalin's methods (and there was a broad
agreement among the Bolsheviki on the aims to be achieved) without
the forced industrialisation and, yes, the collectivisation of
agriculture Russia might have remained in the same state of
economic and institutional turpour as it is in now.

Nikolai:
it's right that nobody besides the state wished to invest heavy
industry and infrastructure (mainly militarily oriented)in 1920-th,
but it did not mean the necessity for collectivization in the form of
1929-34 (mass hunger in Ukraine, mass expropriation, mass vilent
migrations to Siberia). Really the short-term effect has been
achieved but on expence of factual extermination of Russian agrarian
countryside, peasants' cultural and biological genofond.
Almost full degradation of modern Russian agraria (mass
alchogolism, inherited debilism and desertness in
kolkhoses and 'derevnia's), inability of Russians to provide
themselves with cheese, meat, butter (that are imported from Western
Europe) is a longue term effect of Stalin's collectivization.

We have other historical cases, even with fully
military-beaurocratic polities, when the success of industrialization
was achieved not by extermination of countryside but by its
development, take f.e. the Prussian reform in 1807-14.

My thesis is that it would be much more efficient (not to say
of morality) not to expropriate Kulaks and NEPmen but to make
alliance with them and to collect finances from taxes, not from plane
state robbery.

it was a fresh idea on the transition from socialism via capitalism
to a some new edition of socialism. Even if it occurs to be right i
predict that this new socialism will be much more inefficient even in
comparison with the Brezhnev's one.

Socialism (as any fully
beaurocratic centralized system) can be effective only if it is
'pure'. Alliances with commerce are possible (as in ancient empires
or modern China) but in conditions of some effective
counter-corruption mechanisms in hand.
The nature of modern Russian semicapitalism/semisocialism is an
extreme curruption of state offices from the top all the way down(as
you also mentioned), that's why even if a new socialism emerges it
will be neither efficient, not stable.

Thanks for for the final hopeful remark on specific features and
merits of Russians, but even here historical analysis leads us not to
triumphal and hopeful but to rather deplorable conclusions.

In fact almost each case of Russian rises (take Christianization,
John IV, Peter the Great, Ekatherine II, Nikolai I, bolshevics,
stalinism) included something like 'a new marriage' between the State
(usually associated with a new Idea) and People. The necessary
condition for termination of conflicts ('smuta') was just a mere
physical extermination by young new state of everybody who disagreed
with the Idea ( and new state power). Pagans, Boyars, Bowmen
(streltsy), Razin, Pugachev, Dekabrists, all representatives of the
regime ancien (in 1917-18), revolutionaries-'trotskists', Kulaks,
intelligentsia during the Collectivization and the Great terror -
all they were victims for new rises of the Russian State (its
avataras).

Let me hope that this historical pattern came to its end. The
arguement is that the scale of repressions after the overt conflict
in October 1993 was very low in fact, suffis to say that main
political enemies of Eltsin who has won that time (Rutskoi,
Hasbulatov, Baburin, Makashov, etc) were not shot down but were
released and they even had possibility to regenerate as political
leaders.

In spite this fact the very "shooting the Parliament" still is one of
the most scandalous blames versus Eltsin and his regime, and in
rather wide range amopong common people.

I appreciate very much Rene's remark that 'nothing is new', but i am
ready to argue that some significant shift in easiness of mass
extermination of political enemies took place (with no guarantees
from new regress, of course). And this is good, surely.

But from the other side...

It does not mean that Russia has no more chances for a new rise
(having being deprived of this 'good old' but bloody tradition).

It does mean that some radically new forms of State-People
solidarity must emerge in Russia. The previous form of solidarity
based only or mainly on power and coercion have come to their end. As
we know from history new forms of this kind do not emerge faster than
centuries.

That's why even if Clinton's and Rene's hopes on a new Russian
rise are incarnated in some time, I doubt very much to be an alive
witness of it.

Best wishes from Russia

Nikolai

******************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov, PhD, Dr.Sc. Professor of Philosophy
E-MAIL: rozov@nsu.ru FAX: 7-3832-397101
ADDRESS: Philosophy Dept. Novosibirsk State University
630090, Novosibirsk, Pirogova 2, RUSSIA

Welcome to PHILOFHI (the mailing list for PHILosophy OF HIstory and
theoretical history)
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe/philofhi.html
and
Philosophy of History Archive (PHA)
http://www.nsu.ru/filf/pha/
*********************************************************************