The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

V.M. Chernov in the 40th years of the XX century. Sotsiokapitalizm and "etatism": assessment of Stalin model of the Soviet society



UDK 947.084.5+64

V.M. CHERNOV V the 40th years of the XX CENTURY. "SOTsIOKAPITALIZM" And "ETATISM": ASSESSMENT of STALIN MODEL of the SOVIET SOCIETY

© 2010 K.G. Malykhin

Views of the leader of the Party of Social Reforms V.M. Chernov in 20 - the 40th of the 20th century on problems of "sotsiokapitalistichesky" evolution of a world civilization are analyzed. V.M. Chernov came to a conclusion about a possibility of recognition of totalitarian Soviet model along with national socialist and fascist as a special stage of development of human society on the way of "sotsiokapitalistichesky" evolution.

Southern Federal University,

B. Sadovaya St., 105/42, Rostov-on-Don, 344006,

decanat@hist. sfedu. ru

Southern Federal University,

B. Sadovaya St., 105/42, Rostov-on-Don, 344006,

decanat@hist. sfedu. ru

In clause it is analyzed views of leader PSR of V.M. Chernov in 20 - 40th XX centuries on problems "socialcapitalism" evolutions of a world civilization. V.M. Chernov has come to a conclusion about an opportunity of a recognition of totalitarian Soviet model, alongside with national socialist and fascist as special a stage of development of a human society on a way "socialcapitalism" evolutions.

The foreign delegation of the Party of Social Reforms which settled down originally in Berlin, and since 1923 - in Prague was the organizational head of the party of revolutionary socialists (PRS) in exile. After submission of almost all Western Europe by Nazis most of eserovsky theorists emigrated to the USA where they issued in the 40th in New York the Za Svobodu magazine.

V.M. Chernov was an unconditional largest theorist of the Party of Social Reforms. In emigration its analytical gift revealed. It did enormous work on a research of problems which Bolshevist Russia faced, allowed it to predict very precisely possible options of development of the country.

He realized that Russia was on border of Europe and Asia, she after other large developed countries entered all-civilization process.

Sorting fall of 1921 of the reason of a failure of the Bolshevist plan of direct communistic experimentalism, V.M. Chernov estimated an all-civilization condition of Russia as follows: "Why the Bolshevist experiment was wrecked? Not only because, that it had to work in exhausted by war, economically primitive agricultural country with the low cultural level of the general development by both the unsophisticated and small proletariat" [1, page 2].

Strictly speaking, according to "classical" Marxist schemes Russia historically "did not ripen" for adoption of the communistic program. That is why, according to V.M. Chernov, Bolsheviks as hazardous players relied on world revolution. V.M. Chernov was convinced that in 1917 they had no action plan and experimented in economic area, being guided by the principle "... Sovietization of everything what the hand could reach" [1, page 2].

As a matter of fact V.M. Chernov accused Bolsheviks and all orthodox Marxists of dogmatism. According to Marxists, in V.M. Chernov's statement, assessment of any phenomenon bipolar, - "either black, or white". Either the Russian revolution bourgeois, or socialist (with a support on world revolutionary process). The third is not given. For this reason Bolsheviks easily stepped from February (or as they spoke in the environment of the Russian diaspora, March) over revolutions to communistic experimentalism then there was a kickback to revival of capitalism.

The correspondence discussion with Bolsheviks led V.M. Chernov to the most interesting conclusions about trends of development of a world civilization. In this plan interest -

on that polemic which was conducted in the mid-twenties by. "revolutionary Russia" and V.M. Chernov with orthodox Marxists and opponents from the pravoeserovsky camp and first of all with A.F. Kerensky and "Days". During this polemic V.M. Chernov allocated trends of development of the western model of social development.

"This classical capitalism which soul was a production anarchy capitalism of Marxian first volume more and more is replaced by the new, organized capitalism eliminating market anarchy, regulating it and therefore in the German literature sometimes bearing a sonorous name & #34; социокапи-тализма"" [2, page 24].

In this sense and the Soviet state capitalism, according to him, is not former "the purest water capitalism", and one of types of "sotsiokapi-talizm".

V.M. Chernov's opponents are Marxists orthodoxes, the right Social Revolutionaries and liberals connected existence of the commodity relations in any given society with characteristic of its social order. V.M. Chernov very figuratively described such situation: "If Kerensky was right, then socialism would appear on Earth & #34 once; a yak the Tat in нощи" absolutely ready as ready Minerva went out of the mind of Jupiter. & #34; До" - there was the purest water capitalism, & #34; После" - there was on its place of the purest water socialism. And between & #34; до" and & #34; после"? Obviously, wonderful jump" [2, page 25].

The trend of development of a modern civilization in the direction of increase in performance of social labor, bigger humanistic orientation of the public relations, development of process of natural nationalization and the statement of democratic principles of the public hostel was important for V.M. Chernov.

"What marked this transitional era? The fact that new public forms become stronger only partially, in imperfect, often underdeveloped, kind of a germinal look. They exist in bourgeois registration, among usual commodity-money relationship, adapting to these alien elements and submitting to its laws.

>. They, one may say, try to beat capitalism him with weapon. Learn carefully to calculate prime cost, to do necessary contributions to the main and reserve capitals, to watch market conditions, and only with a careful eye to the capitalist competitor to improve working conditions and rewards" [3, page 12].

V.M. Chernov was sure that so-called "capitalism" and "socialism" in such country as Russia,

had to coexist ". for long, long times" [4, page 7].

"Here the primary source of all further distortions and creation of the Bolshevism in a question of planned economy. Planned construction, from their point of view, not completion of socialist construction, and opposite, a threshold to it" [3, page 12].

V.M. Chernov was sure absolutely that in 1917 Russia could evolyutsionizirovat in this direction, however Bolsheviks curtailed from a way that again return to it in the 20th

"In front of Russia of the end of 1917 could be

and there was creatively socialist program, the program which was intended for the long period of cultural and political and social growth of creative forces of the most working people" [1, page 2].

Methodological developments of the so-called concept of "sotsiokapitalizm" were theoretical base of estimates of development of Russia in the 20th of compliance of its results to a vesternistsky vector of evolution of mankind.

V.M. Chernov and his colleagues assumed that this option of development of the country was not tightly Russian, and on the contrary, the modern civilization goes on the way of natural nationalization, creation of various forms of cooperation, a bigger social and humanistic okrashennost of the public relations. Thereby V.M. Chernov in the 20th drew a conclusion that the model offered by them carried I vesternist-will hold down orientation.

Stalin reformation of Russia, and then and formation in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal of the totalitarian modes essentially changed arrangement of world forces. Arose the new public phenomenon which forced V.M. Chernov to analyze this new European model within his concept of "sotsiokapitalizm" is made.

After emigration to America the old disagreements about ways of development of Post-Soviet Russia in many respects lost the value. Former opponents - V.M. Chernov, N.D. Avksentyev, A.F. Kerensky, M. Vishnyak, etc., being elite of an eserovsky theoretical thought cooperated in the Za Svobodu magazine. In the program document they directly said that during a new era the former disagreements paled into insignificance. "Now not time for any orthodoxy. On pages of our magazine we look as at a free tribune on which we will subject to the analysis all muchashchy questions us, without being afraid to fall into heresy" [5, page 2].

In the begun war between Germany and the USSR the Social Revolutionaries supported the homeland a minute of heartrending experiences though clearly realized that such step strengthens antinational, totalitarian regime of I.V. Stalin. "Russia fell the next victim of Hitlerite aggression. It is threatened by partition, enslavement and the appeal to vassal colony of the third Reich. At this fatal historical moment we unanimously recognize need to become on protection of Russia and in every possible way we welcome the relevant decisions of London and Washington" [6, page 2].

In the USA V.M. Chernov along with N.D. Avksentyev and V. Zenzinov became the editor of the magazine. In the American emigration it continued a research of that new phenomenon which developed in Europe in the 30th

First of all V.M. Chernov analyzed the Soviet economic model. His main opponent was the social democrat A. Yugov. The last defined Stalin economic model as transitional between capitalism and socialism. In reply to V.M. Chernov objected that the transitional model assumes multiformity, mixed economy.

The basis of the Soviet economic order was formed, according to V.M. Chernov, by domination, the "state owner" which changed with itself a great number of private capitalists [7].

The nature of the totalitarian state owner such is that the worker has no opportunity to find protection at the labor unions which are completely subordinated to Bolsheviks, to find to himself other employer because of lack of those in the USSR. He cannot address such means of fight as a strike that is regarded by the power as political crime. The state owner defines the performance standard of working class, withdraws the surplus value in the course of a trade turnover, and it establishes the exclusive high prices, without reckoning with the Law of Value [7, page 13 - 15].

The only incentive for development of the state owner which is exclusively existing in the USSR consists in the competition on the external arena to other states.

"The state owner does not have that incentive of the interindividual competition which put spurs to private capitalists - businessmen, driving to cheapening, improvement of quality, increase in the product range and which for success in the market induced them to savings, to accumulation and the maximum capitalization of the surplus value. But it has the, not less putting spurs competition - with other states owners which are also fixing production in general, defensive in particular muscles" [7, page 15].

V.M. Chernov asked a question of intrinsic characteristics arisen social and economic and political systems. This system cannot obviously be considered as capitalist, however and it is impossible to call it socialist in any way. V.M. Chernov defined it as something "third".

"Before us not socialism, and certain & #34; третий" a system in which socialist relationship between production and consumption is turned upside down as the normal socialist ratio between production of means of production and production of means of consumption is turned upside down and in the production" [7, page 15].

Earlier similar system was defined as the state capitalism, however V.M. Chernov came to a conclusion that similar definition will a little be coordinated with realities of the USSR 30 - the 40th. Replacement of an initiative mo-

a nopoliya, elements of the competition by planned mechanisms created absolutely other economic model. V.M. Chernov came to a conclusion that the public education which arose in Europe is absolutely independent. He suggested to allocate along with feudalism, capitalism, the future socialism as well etatism. V.M. Chernov directly did not call etatism a formation, however this conclusion arises from his reflections.

"Marx stacked history in three phases: (last) feudalism, (real) capitalism and (future) socialism. The third place is challenged nowadays by etatism. Whether it is fated to it, like feudal and capitalist, the, so long totalitarian era? Whether it will fade, without having been in time rastsvest? The last word in this question belongs to World War II - our world war for democracy and socialism against totalitarianism and etatism" [7, page 16].

V.M. Chernov did not predict terms of existence of a system of etatism. This system could fail in Germany and Italy and during war. However war strengthened it a system in the USSR as to the country to the ally of the anti-Hitlerite coalition. One was clear for V.M. Chernov. The system of etatism took shape as the European option of a sotsiokapitalistichesky transitional era. At the time K. Marx could not expect that the movement to a communistic formation will take place not absolutely rectilinearly and on this way there will be an etatism stage as rather long stage of social development [8, page 37].

V.M. Chernov's conclusions about emergence of a new formation - etatism - caused the next wave of discussions among the Russian socialists.

Originally many social scientists saw the most real socialism, more precisely its earliest, transitional stage in etatism. According to V.M. Chernov's opponents from the social democratic camp, the Soviet model was an early stage of socialist society. The social democrat A. Yugov connected those negative aspects which were shown in Stalin model of social development with growth disease. As V.M. Chernov figuratively wrote, opponents accused him that, characterizing the Soviet model, it described not only the building under construction, but also the construction woods spoiling the wonderful building of socialism under construction [8 page 38 - 39].

Arguments of opponents of V.M. Chernov came down to five main theses. First, the Soviet economy promoted fast increase in national income. Secondly, development of the heavy industry at the expense of easy was a temporary phenomenon, a peculiar disease of growth. Thirdly, primary development of heavy mechanical engineering was connected with the aspiration to compensate insufficiency of development of this branch of the Russian economy in the years of World War I and Civil wars and the general wear of the equipment in days of the New Economic Policy. Fourthly, the most cruel exploitation of working class was the temporary phenomenon connected with aspiration quickly moderni-

to zirovat Russia. In the late thirties this process was replaced by growth of living standards. Fifthly, the bureaucracy is the general phenomenon connected with any form of manifestation of organized activity. It gets into all spheres even of quite democratic communities, somehow into labor unions, cooperatives, etc. In the USSR this phenomenon is connected with formation of new public order and did not lead to emergence of the new social dominating group [8, page 39].

V.M. Chernov during the developed discussion thoroughly sorted each thesis of the opponents from the camp of the Russian social democracy. Leaning on figures of official Soviet statistics, he convincingly proved that the given entities of category of the Soviet model are not temporary diseases of growth, namely the phenomena immanently inherent in the Soviet system.

Moreover, V.M. Chernov said that the developed model has not only the Russian, but also international value. The totalitarian model of social development developed in the largest European countries. The totalitarian states something unites the general that allowed it to speak about historical change of the public relations on a global scale.

"I see, as now many Marxists do not see that the same etatism, only in different versions, gained a victory over socialism: in Russia as the Bolshevism, in Italy as fascism, in Germany as Nazism. The economic system at all three is characterized by the same main signs" [8, page 37 - 38]. This model of social development, according to V.M. Chernov, was based on an autarchy, on monopoly of foreign trade, on protectionism. The closed economy is regulated by the centralized plans. The consumer is forced to be content with the monopoly state prices which are not connected by the Law of Value. Possibilities of satisfaction of needs of workers are minimized. Labor unions are subordinated to the state which pays the main attention to development of the heavy industry to the detriment of easy. The mechanism of self-development of a totalitarian system led to formation of military-industrial model. The Etatichesky model is directed to its extensive expansion, so, and to external expansion. In foreign policy the autarkic, totalitarian "etatichesky" states in 30 - the 40th joined the acute fight among themselves.

"The etatism in the national economy also logically leads to a hyper-imperialism as capitalism in a phase of hegemony of the financial capital by an imperialism it is simple. The question costs so: who in network of own autarchy will manage to catch the whole world gradually?" [8, page 38].

In this new public mechanism there were two social groups. V.M. Chernov allocated ruling elite and labor weight.

"The totalitarian economy of etatism absorbs and dissolves all division into classes of a bourgeois-capitalistic order in new, is clean funktsio-

nalny disintegration on 1) command socio-political & #34; элиту" vydvizhenchesky origin (& #34; narodoproizvoditelny слой" political dictionary & #34; евразийцев") and 2) the executive and labor weight organized and leveled by it" [8, page 43].

As a result of the reflections V.M. Chernov came to interesting conclusions. For him the tendency of the movement of a world civilization to socialism through a long era of "sotsiokapitalizm" did not raise doubts. However this way was not so rectilinear as it was supposed in the 20th. In Europe in the 30th there was a totalitarian option of model of social development which V.M. Chernov defined as "etatism". Trends of development of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Bolshevist Russia were similar. These societies broke up into the dominating elite and the subordinated labor weight. Political freedoms were destroyed. The power subordinated all economy and public life. The rate of exploitation of workers entirely depended on will of ruling bureaucracy. The economy worked not for the sake of the interests of consumers, and is exclusive for production of means of production. The only incentive of development of this public model V.M. Chernov called external threat, fight against the same "etatichesky" states which developed as the states aggressive, militaristic. The economic model was guided first of all by development of the defense industries.

V.M. Chernov refused to Call this system the state capitalism essentially as it was absolutely new historical phenomenon. Such new social order, according to V.M. Chernov, could exist centuries. In the years of World War II in 1942 when V.M. Chernov analyzed the new public phenomenon, nobody could foresee, than the favorable world opposition will end. He understood that if the USSR appears among winners, the Soviet model of development is waited by long destiny.

According to V.M. Chernov, sotsiokapitalistichesky evolution led to formation of such social order which became a peculiar denial, an antithesis of capitalism. At the same time it was not also socialism, at least and early. It was something new in the history of a human civilization.

However V.M. Chernov did not deny that positive value of this phenomenon which consisted in the enormous gain of productive forces though which is carried out due to impetuous, totalitarian operation of a people at large.

V.M. Chernov did not predict a trend of development of this new public phenomenon, did not try to glance through time veil. As he also expected, the German and Italian model of the European etatism were destroyed during military opposition. The Soviet model as a result of World War II only became stronger and extended in considerable territories of Europe and Asia. The analysis of "etatism" convinced V.M. Chernov that hopes for homecoming of the Russian refugees are minimum. He realized that dreams of the Russian emigrants about reforms in the USSR or even about overthrow of the Stalin mode by the Russian people are naive, far from life realities. At the same time he was sure that sooner or later the movement of the USSR by humanistic socialism through denial of "etatism" inevitably will happen.

Literature

1. Power and conciliation//Revolutionary Russia. Yuryev. 1921. September - October. No. 12 - 13.
2. About "agreed"//Revolutionary Russia. Berlin. 1926. December. No. 54.
3. V. Chernov. Questions of the program and tactics. Planned economy and Bolshevism//Revolutionary Russia. Berlin. 1928. October. No. 68.
4. V. Chernov. In the world of rereflections//Revolutionary Russia. Berlin. 1928. January - February. No. 63 - 64.
5. Our tasks//For freedom. New York. 1940. No. 1.
6. The resolution of the New York group of party of revolutionary socialists on the Soviet-German war//For freedom. New York. 1941. No. 2 - 3.
7. V. Chernov. To knowledge of the Soviet economy//For freedom. New York. 1942. No. 6 - 7.
8. V. Chernov. On the ways of etatism//For freedom. New York. 1942. No. 8 - 9.

Came to edition On April 23, 2009

Nancy Roxanne
Other scientific works: