Old And New Masters Of Russia: From Power Relationships To Proprietary Ones

Abstract

The paper calls attention to a new developmental paradigm in order to bridge the gap between civilization's and general formation's approaches. It is necessary to reject the more recent traditional stereotype about the historical development of mankind as a linear process (from primitive society to capitalist and socialist ones). It has to be noticed that there are many different socio-economical forms existing in the concrete historical-cultural context. According to that scientific position authors make careful distinctions between two lines in the historical development with specific for each of them typological variety. The first of them got started from antic polis, and societies which were along this line based on private property, free enterprise and democracy. Societies of another type have appeared firstly under the epoch of Asian despotism and based on the state property, community life, and overall power state control over societal resources. Considerable interest has been shown in describing the historical past of Russia and possible developmental alternatives and tendencies. Duality in the developmental orientation is seen as one of the most characteristic features of Russia. The Bolshevist regime has undertaken first attempt to liquidate national origins of European developmental intentions with its greater degree of democracy and private initiative. Having said that recent seven decades were portrayed, from one hand, as the maintenance and modification of the aspects of “Asian historical memory”, and at the same time it was the process of the gradual and permanent transformation and total spread of the European patterns, life styles and standards of the West by the channels of technology and everyday communication it was a real movement towards market economy and civil society as an acceptable surviving strategy. That is why August putsch was the last step for liberating from tyranny. It seems so obvious for authors that Russian population has a sufficient potential for real democratic development and reforms, vital for both social and economic reasons which seek lo encourage a greater degree of involvement, self-reliance and self-government. Authors present some of the findings of a recent research project which examined over principal points of the framework of socio-political system, and determined it as etacratical. Etacracy is considered both as original socio-economic formation placed on the civilizational "East-West" dichotomy and us one of the political mode of modernization (industrialization) for non-European cultural area. Within the frame of reference authors clarify essential features of etacratic society as domination of "power-property" relations; slate control-over ownership's relations; state monopoly and control of the means of production; centralized system of distribution; technological stagnation (dependence only on external stimuli); organized systematical selection of the most obedient and devoted lo the system people; the superiority of goods-producing interests over consumers' needs; the degree of closeness to the resources of centralized distribution; ethnic affiliation as a fixed status; absence of civil society. Authors determine the appropriate criterion variables for etacratic society. Authors present some findings of a recent research accessed the strategy of the soviet nomenclature in cool and realistic terms. They consider nomenclature as a specific organized hierarchical formation and etacracy as a political and economical ruling group controlling over property. Authors actively use the data of the researches and statistical information to portray the historical development of the Soviet political elite in terms of occupational status and mobility, standards of living, career orientations of individual at different levels of the nomenclature’s hierarchy with regard to forces producing, maintaining and modifying the basis, the form and the extent of political power and prestige. The authors suggest an empirical description of the portraiture of the main political figures and political members of Political Bureau, Russian Parliament Soviet Government in the age of perestroika, the transformation of the totalitarian dictatorship of the party apparatus into an authoritarian presidential regime, and then to the first democratic government created a chance to reshape our policy and build a framework for democratic development. Authors draw attention lo the crucial point in our history - replacement of the ruling monolith elite by the "distributive" elites manage their control independently in economic sphere, political, military and intellectual spheres. There is a "distribution" of social support between different social forces. It is necessary lo make clear the extent of social support of the former political elite (the Army and the Government ministries, the older officers, inefficient, centralized, and bureaucratic management). And oppositely, to define growing prospects for ever greater support of the followers of a new socio-economic and political order as real base for middle-class' institutionalization. To study the nature, the mechanisms and consequences of social activity and new modifications of nomenclature is only one possible and acceptable scientific task. Greatly neglected group of new economic elite requires intensive exploration to gain an accurate notion of the origins, social mobility and perspectives of development and to build up its typology.