Abstract
The article discusses the problem of the macrosociological classification of the communist societies, called „Andropov’s question“ alluding to the complaint of the Soviet leader (and the head of KGB for some 15 years) that he doesn’t know society under his rule. Pretheoretically, „communist societies“ can be identified as „societies shaped by the attempt to realize the Karl Marx utopian idea of society without classes and alienation“. „Andropov‘s question“ surfaces after one rejects the ideological self-descriptions of these societies as „socialist“. Author draws distinction between two strategies to face this question: the emic and the etic one. Emic perspective is represented by the critical Marxist analysis of the communist societies, classifying them as „degenerated worker’s state“, „deformed socialism“ or „state capitalist“ societies. Etic perspective is represented by non-Marxist theories of communism. The author proposes to classify them depending on the strategy of comparison used for concept formation and explanation. In the theories of communism as totalitarianism, communism is described as a pathology of modernity. This kind of analysis emphasizes the uniqueness of communism, with Nazist Germany as sole comparable case. The theories of communism as one of the many ways leading to modernity highlight its features shared with „normal“ modern societies and consider communism as an incomplete modernity. Theories of communist neotraditionalism (to be discussed in the sequel to this paper) use the social reality of traditional societies or those from the „third world“ where modernization has failed as communism’s mirror.
Highlights
The article discusses the problem of the macrosociological classification of the communist societies
societies shaped by the attempt to realize the Karl Marx utopian idea of society
Emic perspective is represented by the critical Marxist analysis of the communist societies
Summary
Reikðmingos marksistinës idëjos po 1917–øjø atsirado „kapitalistinëse“ ðalyse, kuriose tebebuvo gyva þodþio ir tyrimø laisvë. T. Cliffas ir kiti SSRS santvarkos, kaip valstybinio kapitalizmo koncepcijos, ðalininkai ypaè pabrëþë tà aplinkybæ, kad darbininkø santykiai su ámoniø vadovais „realaus socializmo“ sàlygomis ið esmës nesiskyrë nuo tø, kuriuos stebime ámonëse, kurios veikia kapitalistinëse ðalyse – ypaè tada, kai joms vadovauja samdomi vadybininkai. T. Cliffas ir kiti trockistai-revizionistai tebemanë, kad labiausiai tikëtina jos bûsimos kaitos tendencija yra darbininkø klasës revoliucija, kuri ágyvendins realià darbininkø savivaldà ámoniø rëmuose, o taip iðlaisvins jos ekonomikà nuo pajungimo ginklavimosi varþybø reikmëms, perorientuodama jà á vartojimo reikmenø gamybà. Laikyti SSRS ir jos klonø patirtá árodymu, kad socialistinë santvarka yra nevykusi, jokio pagrindo nëra, nes ten (ir niekur kitur) socializmo (dar) nebuvo. Vis dëlto SSRS ir kitø komunistiniø ðaliø santvarkos kaip valstybinio kapitalizmo koncepcijai galima pripaþinti bent jau tà privalumà, kad jos ðviesoje 1989–1991 m.m. pokyèiai Rytø ir Centrinës Europos ðalyse retrospektyviai (arba ex post) neatrodo netikëti ar nepaaiðkinami. Taèiau vis dëlto trockistai revizionistai ex ante laukë ar tikëjosi visai ne to
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.