Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 8 – What Russians
now have in the Russian Federation is a Soviet system without communism and its
administrative arrangements, and what they dream of is “a Soviet empire without
communists,” an entity not equivalent to the tsarist empire as some think but
one that reflects their memories of the USSR.
That is the joint conclusion of
Kseniya Larina, Vitaly Dymarskiy and Gleb Pavlovsky on this week’s Ekho Moskvy
program, “2014” (echo.msk.ru/programs/year2014/1432532-echo/).
Larina who hosts the program said
that she had wanted to call this week’s program “The Dream of the Russian: the
Soviet Empire without Jews, Communists and Gays,” to which Pavlovsky responded
that that is “a short list.” But the title she did use ended by reflecting the
views of Pavlovsky and Larina’s other host, Dymarsky.
Pavlovsky pointed out that the
memories Russians have are constantly “rewriting the past significantly better
than Soviet historians did.” And consequently, he argued, it is important not
to rely on polls which do not provide much evidence about what is really
happening but rather consider the country in systemic terms.
The three very much agreed that it
is wrong to “equate a Soviet Union without communists … with the Russian
Empire” that preceded it. As evidence of this, they point out that no one today
speaks of “a Russian Empire without soviets” as in fact some revolutionaries
did in the first post-1917 years.
Pavlovsky compared what has happened
in China with what has occurred in Russia. China has “preserved the communist
party” but effectively eliminated everything else,” whereas Russians “as always
destroyed the structure which could administer the situation and then began to
think ‘But how will be run things?’”
That led to a search for heroes who
could, the commentator continued, with the choice finally falling on Putin who
recognized that “the monopoly base of Soviet power,” which could even be
strengthened “did not need the communist party
or the features of totalitarianism more generally for that purpose.
According to Pavlovsky, the identity
Russians are displaying in this regard “to a certain extent arose artificially
in the Stalin years,” not in Lenin’s time, because of the acceptance of a
paternalist state. “We all cursed inequality but we cursed the inequality of
distribution,” not those who distributed it.
And this
sovietism was not overcome because Russians “did not pass through some broad
public discussions as the Germans did with regard to the Holocaust and fascism,”
Pavlovsky said, although he added that such discussions were by themselves
insufficient as a guarantee of slipping back to at least part of the past.
According to
the Moscow commentator, Russians in fact “did not make any attempts” at forming
a democratic society or a capitalist one. They simply did not set either as their
task, and they lacked the resources to become a European social democracy. As a
result, they remained patrimonial, distrustful of the communist party but not
of the system in which they had lived.
The consequence
of all that, he concluded is that Russia as so often in the past remained “a
hybrid” of various systems precisely because it never made a clear choice among
them.
No comments:
Post a Comment