Type of society, type of social relationships in modern Russia

Abstract

The point of departure in our reflections is that the social order that formed in the USSR by the early 1930s and lasted until August 1991 was an etacratic system. It was a new social system, neither capitalist nor socialist, which came into being in the USSR and later in a number of other countries on different continents. It is a system with peculiar and permanently reproduced features that marks the establishment of a new self-contained political and Socioeconomic formation. It was based on the abolition of private property (together with the elimination of its representatives as a rule) and a forced nationalization of the major part of the means of production. This society can be called etacratic. An etacratic society is the one based on «state power» (coined by a combination of French and Greek words) and constitutes a distinct branch in the historical development of modern society with objective laws of its own.
An etacratic society may be regarded as an independent Socioeconomic formation in the dichotomy of «Western versus Eastern» civilization, as well as a political form of modernization (industrialization) in the countries of non-European cultures. The following characteristics constitute the foundations of an etacratic society: isolation of property ownership as a function of power, the domination of «power-property» type of relations; predominance of state property (about 90 % in the USSR in 1990), a process of steady growth in state domination [ogosudarstvleniia]; state-monopoly mode of production; domination of centralized distribution; dependence of technological development on external incentives (technological stagnation); militarization of the economy; hierarchical social structure, in which positions of individuals and social groups are determined by their place in the structure of state power, which defines the degree of proximity to the sources of centralized distribution; social mobility as a top-bottom selection of people who are the most obedient and loyal to the system; absence of a civil society or of a constitutional state, and, consequently, the presence of a parti-ocracy, a system of servile submission; imperial poli-ethnic type of national-state order, fixation of ethnic affinity as a status-defining characteristic (ethnicity is defined «by blood» and not by culture or self-awareness).
Etacratic society went through several periods. According to a Russian economist V. Nayshul, during 1960-s— 1980-s the rigid hierarchical system of centralized economic management was replaced by a bureaucratic (administrative) market, while totalitarian state property was still in place. The new system was «the economy of concords». Not only tangible products and services were exchanged in this «market», but also power, prestige, etc. People from all levels of the society, from Politburo members to manual workers participated in this exchange (V. Nayshul. The top and the last stage of socialism / Drowning in a swamp. Moscow, 1991.) These developments formed a basis for peculiar latent processes of the formation of a quasi-private property, of the pre-privatization of state property and of the creation of the new proto-class of large property owners.
During Gorbachev-Yeltsin years these latent processes reached the surface, and nomenclature-style privatization was taking place openly. Ownership of state property from being corporate became corporate-individual. Private property formation was blocked by the existence of numerous semi-state forms of nomenclatura ownership. As a result, Russia did not introduce private property, but instead developed so named privatized owneship. The wealth of «New Russians»(New Rich) does not depend on profitability of companies they own, but on their position in a new hierarchy and associated with this position share of state resources that is distributed to them. Probably the closest analog of the relations of this type is the medieval feudalism.
Our concept of the etacratic nature of soviet-type societies was described in numerous publications that were supported by different scholars and can be used as a basis of a fundamental empirical study. Works expressing etacratic approach were published in Russian science journals as well as in sociological periodicals abroad (International Sociology. Vol.7. 1992, N3; Sociological Research. Vol.31. 1992, N5 and more).
We would argue that our concept suggests a more complete understanding of the post-soviet transition of Russia and other former Soviet Union countries (excluding Baltic countries) than the widely accepted «new class theory». A number of scholars regard¬ed the emerging ruling elite as a new dominant class. This idea was first formulated by Burnham (1941), Djilas (1957), and more recently by Voslensky (1985) and others. While Djilas, Voslensky and their followers contributed much to understanding of the social structure of Soviet-type societies, they still could not avoid maintaining one misleading aspect of the traditional class approach. In our opinion, the existence of so-called «collective ownership» of the means of production by the nomenclatura does not permit us to categorize it as «class» at least not as an economic class. While it is true that the members of the elite of an etacratic system are capable of using state property for their own ends, this capacity is strictly limited by the interests of this group. Basically state property can neither be appropriated nor inherited by individuals. Personal enrichment is subordinate to and controlled by corporate interests. The etacra-cy is inseparable from the state, and as such it does not reproduce itself through its monopolistic, position in the power hierarchy. In an etacratic system we are confronted with the special case of social stratification based on the individual's position in the modern power structure.
What system replaced the estate-type social hierarchy that defined Russia's social system until early 1990-s? The concept widely accepted several years ago that called it a class society, is proving more and more doubtful. The main problems that the author intends to address in his article are: 1. To analyze trends in social and economic processes in Russia in the 1990-s. 2. To define the type of social system that is being formed in modern Russia.
In Soviet society only administration-command nomenclature had recognized its own interests and had all the features of a social stratum including self-identification. During Gorbachev-Yeltsin reforms the nomenclature kept control of power positions and has transformed into upper quasi-bourgeoisie. As opposed to the majority of East-European countries, Russia did not introduce private property and principles of market competition. Nomenclature-bureaucratic type of capitalism was established instead. Although private property flavor now covered the nature of this relationship, it was still based on social hierarchy with a typical for an etacratic society combination of power and wealth. Thus, though undergone minor changes, an etacratic system was still in place in post-Soviet Russia. This was the basis for a new system that was formed as a combination of the elements of estate-type hierarchy and class differentiation.
The majority of both theoretical and empirical social studies of Russia applied Western methodological schemes. Using concepts and categories developed in the West to reflect Western reality, many sociologists did not see a specific nature of soviet and post-soviet society and did not consider that it belongs to a different type of civilization a Eurasian one.
We would argue that the idea of a Eurasian culture of Russian society could be fruitful in the analysis of transition processes in modern Russia. It could help answer the question about the nature of the changes taking place in Russian society: do those changes indicate westernization of the society, the overcoming of etacratism and corporate Eurasian patterns of economic behavior or do they verify the formation of a peculiar social reality? Many years ago Y. Lotman suggested an interesting idea: he wrote in his work that Eurasian culture developed to the west of the border between the settled European civilization and the Great Step and to the east of the confessional border between the true and heretical Christianity. Russia formed a contradictory selfdentifi-cation: it thought of itself as of the Center of the World and as of the World's periphery at the same time.
In order to understand tremendous social changes that are taking place in the big part of the world called Eurasia, a new theory with its own concepts and terminology and with appropriate methodological instruments is needed. The author of this publication described above and developed basic ideas for a new concept of social system and social stratification in contemperary societies of Eurasian civilization.
The future of the country is unclear. Possible scenarios of Russia development is predestining by the result of the beginning struggle between national and comprador capitals. Here is that background, on which can hereinafter develop events. Presently comprador capital rules in interacting with corrupted officialdom. But national capital concentrated on the advantage in provinces not so weak. Large groups of scientific and engineering professionals and high-qualified part of workers, who clearly realize their community of interests and understand an absence of prospects within the framework of «Latin American» way of development keep their potential.
So not expelled that country has chance to change a motion path, to overcome the inertia of «nomenclature quazy-capital ism» development, get up on the way of making information economy, information capitalism, intensive development of middle class.