Former staff adviser to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (mid-1990s), now a long-term researcher at University College Oxford in London, lawyer and political scientist V.B. Pastukhov, in his articles, blog posts and regular interviews in the Russian media, systematically refers to the analogies between the "period of Putin's rule" and the previous periods of the history of the USSR.
Pastukhov systematically and regularly compares the "political system" functioning in the Russian Federation under the leadership of V.V. Putin, then with the Dzhugashvili (Stalin) system, then with the Brezhnev system.
Likewise, Pastukhov no, no, and he will draw an analogy between the period of Yeltsin's rule and the 1920s or the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s, that is, with Dzhugashvili (Stalin) until the early 1930s, or with Khrushchyov.
Recently, Pastukhov started talking about the "Gorbachyov revolution", stating that it is not an analogy to the revolutions of 1917 - neither February nor October, but significant moments in the evolution of "Putin's political system" are not simply rooted in the "Gorbachyov revolution".
Pastukhov already says that in the last 5 years, if not more, the grandchildren of the “nomenklatura” of the USSR, which actually carried out the “Gorbachyov revolution”, are increasingly “returning to the highest power”.
In other words, Pastukhov clearly proceeds from a very specific idea of the cyclical evolution of the political system of the USSR-RF, which he does not fully disclose, but which is the basis for his estimates and forecasts.
In fact, it turns out that Pastukhov is essentially right - the cyclical nature of the evolution of the political system of the USSR-RF is indeed observed, if not only to take a closer look at this evolution, but also to understand its social nature.
10-year and 20-year cycles of the political evolution of the USSR
In the last years of Dzhugashvili (Stalin's) life, G.M. Malenkov, who actually headed the Government of the USSR already under Dzhugashvili (Stalin) and was chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR from March 5, 1953 to February 8, 1955. Khrushchyov N.S. - First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU from September 1953 to October 1964. And although he was the chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR from 1958 to October 1964, the 20th Congress of the CPSU, held on February 14-25, 1956, actually consolidated the political supremacy of Khrushchyov in the USSR.
Bulganin N.A., the former chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR between Malenkov and Khrushchyov, remained in the history of the USSR "the unknown head of the government of the USSR", because he was never an independent political figure equal to Malenkov, Beria or Khrushchyov, although he entered with them into the "inner circle" of Dzhugashvili (Stalin) in the last years of his life.
Therefore, the political leadership of the USSR from February 1955 to October 1964 was actually headed by Khrushchyov - this is 10 and a half years.
Dzhugashvili (Stalin) became the General Secretary of the Central Committee in March 1922. He died on March 5, 1953, that is, from March 1922 to March 1953, exactly 31 years passed.
But was it the same political period, which can be fully called the period of Dzhugashvili (Stalin) rule?
Obviously, this 31 year is at least divided into two politically distinct periods. Where is the “watershed”, the “boundary” between them, and what exactly, what class and politically significant events became such a “boundary”, putting it?
I must say right away that September - October 1932 became such a "frontier" . But why else exactly September - October 1932 was taken by me as a "frontier", as a class and political "divide"?
September - October 1932 is a period when the global international financial and capitalist corporation actually agreed on the final decision on the beginning of the full-scale practical implementation of the "New Social Contract" (= New World Order), called the "New Deal", not only in the USA, but both in Germany and all over the world.
In the United States, this was implemented by the election in November 1932 by Roosevelt, the president, who actually became such in the last decade of January 1933.
In parallel with this, on November 6, 1932, repeated elections of the Reichstag were held in Germany (the first elections, held on July 31, gave a relative majority of the KKE, the SPD and the National People's Party and a minority of the NSDAP with the allies, as a result, the Reichstag was dissolved by Hindenburg on September 4, 1933), and on January 30, 1933 -th year Hitler was elected Reich Chancellor of Germany.
But this is in the world, and it seems to be something exclusively and only about the internal political evolution of the USSR .
Let's start with the fact that on January 30 - February 4, 1933, a joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission took place, which, besides all other decisions, adopted a fundamentally significant class, for in essence, a milestone, decision “on the anti-party grouping of A.P. Smirnov, Eismont, Tolmachev and others. "
Smirnov A.P. - This is a long-term member of the Central Committee, who was one of the active leaders in the "Petersburg Union of the Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class" Ulyanov (Lenin) and Tsederbaum (Martov). Until 1933, he was a member of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee, and before many years one of the secretaries of the Central Committee. Many in the party considered Smirnov one of the founders of Bolshevism.
The "Smirnov's group" included not only some of the prominent participants in the Civil War (Eismont, Tolmachev) and trade union leaders, but mostly the old Bolshevik workers who had never participated in any opposition. This "group" had its cells precisely in the working environment in general and in the working environment of Moscow, Leningrad, Ivanovo-Voznesensk and Rostov-on-Don, in particular.
Smirnov and his supporters demanded to reconsider the "one-sided course of overindustrialization" that created imbalances in the USSR economy, to dissolve collective and state farms, to reorganize and put under control of the OGPU law, to separate the trade unions from the state, to expel Dzhugashvili (Stalin) and all his protégés from the Central Committee .
Physical defeat of the “anti-party grouping of P.A. Smirnov ", produced in the fall of 1932 , when Smirnov himself, Eismont, Tolmachev and a number of other authoritative members of the" group "were arrested as" enemies of the people ", in reality was the defeat of the last organized class-proletarian opposition to Dzhugashvili (Stalin), which was actually created "Leninist Workers' Guard" .
The 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) only put an end to the mass destruction of the remnants of the "Leninist guard", which after the fall of 1932 - winter of 1933 finally lost all signs of proletarian-class organization as a subject of internal party and internal state politics.
That is why, from a class-political point of view, the autumn of 1932 became that real "Rubicon" that separated the period of formation and establishment of Dzhugashvili (Stalin) as a sole dictator from the period of his implementation of a sole dictatorship in the absence of a class-organized threat to this dictatorship within the CPSU (b ).
The directives for drawing up the second five-year plan were approved by the 17th party conference, held January 30 - February 4, 1932. The conference not only legalized the line "on improving the methods of industrial management", which implies the final rejection of "product exchange" and the development of "money circulation" under socialism.
But what is “product exchange”? This is the exchange of goods, mediated by the universal-equivalent commodity, that is, money. This is the NEP, the final rejection of which was legalized by the 17th party conference.
And what, then, is “money circulation under socialism” or, in other words, “socialist trade”? This is the distribution of_goods_as_exchange_of_goods under the guise of exchange of goods and according to the rules of exchange of goods, mediated by simulacra of money.
It is the direct expression of finance capital in everyday economic life. The ultimate centralization of finance capital on the scale of the entire state is nothing but a financial_capitalist_corporation_state .
The course towards total transformation of the USSR into this corporation-state was legalized by the 17th party conference in early 1932. In September-October 1932, the plenum of the Central Committee determined the program for the implementation of this course, which then became the basis for the five-year plans.
The 17th Party Conference also determined the need to shift the center of gravity of state policy to "complete mastery of technology" by "creating a cadre of technical intelligentsia from workers and peasants."
Formally, the first five-year plan lasted from October 1, 1928 to September 1933, but it was at the January 1933 Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) Dzhugashvili (Stalin) declared that now there was no need to "whip up and urge the country" - now created and correctly the assigned party and state "cadres decide everything!" It was this slogan that was approved by the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, that is, the "congress of the executed", as the main slogan of the second five-year plan.
But the main, defining the essence of the matter, political decisions were made by Dzhugashvili (Stalin) in the fall of 1932 during the preparation, holding and following the results of the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), held September 28 - October 2, 1932 .
This plenum actually summed up the results of the entire previous period, and not just the first five-year plan, in terms of "grain procurement", "production and sale of industrial and agricultural goods," "the development of Soviet trade" and "heavy industry." He also determined the new composition of the Organizing Bureau and the Secretariat of the Central Committee, which was engaged in the organizational and technical preparation of the joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission, scheduled for the end of January 1933.
Thus, the period of implementation by Dzhugashvili (Stalin) of a one-man dictatorship in the absence of a class-organized threat to this dictatorship within the CPSU (b) lasted 20 and a half years - from the fall of 1932 to March 1953.
The Brezhnev era began in October 1964 and lasted until the death of Chernenko on March 10, 1985 - this is also 20 and a half years , as well as the period of the complete and no longer class-limited individual dictatorship of Dzhugashvili (Stalin)!
The essence of the "Gorbachyov's revolution" and the beginning of the period of Yeltsin's rule.
19th All-Union Party Conference of the CPSU from June 28 to July 1, 1988. The party conference adopted five resolutions: “On the democratization of Soviet society and the reform of the political system”, “On the fight against bureaucracy”, “On interethnic relations”, “On publicity” and “On legal reform”.
Gorbachyov announced a course for the reform of political power, which implies the abolition of the monopoly of the CPSU on state political, economic, ideological and institutional power .
According to the resolutions of the 19th party conference, this reform formally boiled down, first, to the separation of party bodies from Soviet bodies, but with the combination of one person of the posts of the head of a party body and a body of representative power of the corresponding level, whose deputies were to be elected in the "alternative elections" of the Soviets all levels.
In March 1989, the first "alternative" elections were held to the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, which began its work on May 25, 1989. One of the first decisions of the Congress was the abolition of the 6th article of the USSR Constitution, which established the CPSU's monopoly on ideological, political and economic power in the USSR.
Secondly, to the political and legislative legitimization of the policy of abandoning centralized economic power over social production (abandoning the "planned economic system") and the transition to "market forms of economic management" with the provision of complete economic independence to enterprises and the transfer of full economic power to the directorate , that is, the economic nomenclature.
And, thirdly, to the implementation of an institutional reform that is liberal in its ideological and financial-capitalist in its political and economic essence, which legitimizes and ensures the reform of ideological, political and economic power in the USSR.
Yeltsin at the October 1987 Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee was relieved of his post as first secretary of the Moscow City Committee, and in February 1988 - from the duties of a candidate for membership in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee.
On October 27, 1989, the RSFSR Supreme Council legally formalized the decisions of the 19th party conference by introducing appropriate amendments to the RSFSR Constitution and adopting a new law on "alternative elections" of deputies to the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR.
This first Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR was held May 16-June 22, 1990, electing Yeltsin as Chairman of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet on May 29 and proclaiming the "state sovereignty of the RSFSR" on June 12.
Yeltsin actually ruled the Russian Federation from June 1990 to the end of 1999, that is, 10 and a half years - the same as Khrushchev and Dzhugashvili (Stalin) during his formation and consolidation as the sole dictator .
Putin actually began his independent rule in March 2000 . Plus 20 and a half years, if by analogy with the dictatorship of Dzhugashvili (Stalin), they give October - November 2020 .
But what, then, is the period of Gorbachyov's rule? What periods in the history of Russia-USSR does it correspond to?
What process in the history of the USSR did the "Gorbachyov's revolution" begin to complete?
The period of Gorbachyov's rule should be counted from mid-March 1985 to mid-June 1990, that is, before the adoption by the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR, which marked the beginning of the period of Yeltsin's rule. It's 6 years old.
The period of Gorbachyov's rule precedes the period of Yeltsin's rule, which we, at the suggestion of V.B. Pastukhov, put it as an analogy to the first period of Dzhugashvili (Stalin's) rule and the period of Khrushchyov's rule.
Since the Khrushchyov's period began in 1955, there is no analogy for the entire Gorbachyov period in this segment of history - three and a half years pass during the reign of Dzhugashvili (Stalin) from the fall of 1949 to March 1953.
But it was no accident that Pastukhov compared the "Gorbachyov revolution" with the revolution of 1917, stating, however, that it was not at all an analogue of "Year 16", and then, to the interviewer's clarifying question, recovering from the "revolution of 1917" .
In other words, Pastukhov compares the period of Gorbachyov's reign, judging by everything he said and wrote publicly, with the six years preceding the first period of Dzhugashvili's (Stalin's) rule .
What period is it? This is the period from March 1916 (this is where the clause about the "revolution of the 16th year" comes from!) To March 1922 .
The "Gorbachyov revolution" was committed in the period from March 1988 to September-October 1989 (the "velvet revolutions" in European "socialist countries" and the fall of the Berlin Wall), that is, over a year and a half.
And what year is Gorbachyov's rule, if you count from the beginning of this period? This is the period from the beginning of 3 years to 4 years and a half of the reign of Gorbachyov.
We now count from March 1916 - this is the period from March 1919 to September - October 1920. On March 16, 1919, two days before the opening of the next congress of the RCP (b), which, according to Sverdlov's plan, was supposed to create the inner-party conditions for the transition to the sole dictatorship of Sverdlov, Sverdlov "dies".
And what is it that "milestone" happened in the fall of 1920? Under the guise of a "discussion about trade unions", in fact, a general party and nationwide discussion about the methods of governing the country and the people began. The main opponents in it were Ulyanov (Lenin) and Bronstein (Trotsky).
The real subject of this whole discussion was the question of what to do with the proletariat and with the dictatorship of the party, carried out under the guise of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the coming conditions of a long "peaceful respite".
These questions essentially boiled down to the following alternative:
- either turn the proletariat of Russia into a truly ruling class, defining the class nature and realizing its revolutionary proletarian dictatorship;
- either turn the proletariat of Russia into a “working class” (= in the aggregate worker of the capitalist corporation-state), class and politically safe for the “ruling elite” of this corporation-state, in whose name (“working class”) they (“top” of the party) implements its own state-capitalist dictatorship under the guise of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Within the framework of this discussion, Dzhugashvili (Stalin) received a very good reason and grounds to resume his actions against Bronstein (Trotsky) with the expectation of creating conditions and prerequisites for the subsequent removal and elimination, first of all Bronstein (Trotsky) allies, and then himself.
Summarizing the opinions of different factions that emerged in the course of this discussion by the middle of autumn 1920, Dzhugashvili (Stalin) prepared and on January 19, 1921 in Pravda published an article " Our Differences ", the central political conclusion of which was the conclusion about the need to ban and eradicate all "Anti-party factions and groupings".
The 10th Congress of the RCP (b) in March 1921 adopted a resolution on the unity of the party, which disbanded all factions and groups that existed at that time, and also banned any factionalism as such in the future. At the same time, it was this congress that decided to replace the "surplus appropriation system with a tax in kind" and on the transition to the "new economic policy in general".
But all the political decisions arising from the actual subject of the general party and nationwide discussion and the course of its discussion, in essence, were completed by its main participants in the fall of 1920.
The 10th Congress of the RCP (b) only politically consolidated the resulting political decisions already taken by the main participants in this discussion, and the changed balance of power between them.
The defeat of the "Kronstadt mutiny" for "Soviets without communists!", Provoked and carried out in March 1921, put the final practical point on the question of the future class character of the dictatorship in Russia and then in the USSR.
So the period from March 1919 to the end of the autumn of 1920 became a really turning point, a milestone in defining the real class character and political form of a state-capitalist corporation-state, which under the guise of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, called the RSFSR, first, and then the USSR.
In essence, the period from March 1919 to the end of autumn 1920 was a period of incubation and practical renewal, not just in a modified, but already in a more fundamental form, of the "political revolution at the top" that Sverdlov prepared and started with the support of Dzhugashvili (Stalin), but not was able to bring to a successful conclusion.
It was this "new edition of the political revolution", but in reality a coup d'etat, which soon took the form of a "color revolution" for its political consolidation, just ended successfully.
But, in the end, this coup was completed successfully not for all of its active leaders, but only for those who directly ensured the success of the process of becoming Dzhugashvili (Stalin) as a dictator.
And Pastukhov is really right, drawing not just an analogy, but a succession line from this "political revolution" of 1919-1920 to the "Gorbachyov's revolution" of 1988-1989.
Pastukhov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgV5V8Kg5xo&feature=emb_logo specially drew attention to the indisputable fact that the direct descendants of the upper layer of the "nomenklatura" of the USSR in the last 5 years, if not more, occupy more and more key posts in the top political leadership of the Russian Federation.
“That is, understand,” Pastukhov said, “ this is a trend, this is not an accident ... This is not an accident, and this is due to the peculiarities of the Gorbachyov revolution, because it was not a revolution in 16...
The Gorbachyov revolution was not the 1917 revolution. Here, a significant part of the Soviet "nomenklatura" simply changed the format within which they govern the country. And that's why she didn’t get lost. She left for a while, and now she is returning".
However, according to studies by O. Kryshtanovskaya and other sociologists of the "ruling class" of the Russian Federation, as of 2005-2010, the "ruling class" of the Russian Federation consisted of more than two-thirds of representatives and direct descendants of the Soviet "nomenklatura".
In other words, in reality, the Soviet "nomenklatura", as the social class dominating over the USSR, remained so in the Russian Federation and in most of the CIS countries - this Soviet "nomenclature" never left for a second, and therefore returned to it completely not necessary.
The Soviet "nomenklatura" arose, strengthened and developed itself as the dominant social class of the "new financial aristocracy" over the USSR under the leadership of Dzhugashvili (Stalin) and his successors.
This "nomenklatura", through the "Gorbachyov revolution", created the social conditions that it (the "nomenclature") needs in order to practically realize the long cherished and carefully nurtured existential dream.
Namely, the "nomenklatura" created the conditions necessary to throw off the burden of reproduction of institutional forms of Russia's existence that are alien to it in its social nature and the reproduction of the "nomenclature" as the highest (ruling) layer of the social parasite organism dominating Russia and feeding on her, and "to live like all" real members of the "new financial aristocracy" of the world .
Instead of an afterword
If the cyclical nature of the evolution of the financial-capitalist corporation-state, created by the Soviet "nomenklatura", is really the way it was revealed to us through consideration of the essence of the matter, which alone makes Pastukhov's analogies fully consistent with reality, then for V.V. Putin and others like him, their March 1985, as well as March 1953, comes at the end of 2020.
Are any time shifts possible in this cyclicity (in the duration, relatively speaking, of 10 and 20-year cycles)? Or is everything extremely tough?
The considered dates of the beginning and completion of these cycles of political evolution of the financial-capitalist corporation-state, which exists on the territory of Russia and is fed at the expense of Russia, so far indicate sufficient "rigidity" in terms of their duration.
But this by no means excludes, but presupposes, deviations in the timing, which were in fact almost regular.
However, the amplitude of such deviations so far has not exceeded one or three months , and on this basis it is quite possible to assume that if now there is another deviation in the timing of the completion of the 20-year cycle, it is unlikely to exceed one or two quarters . And it is already clear that this is possible only upwards, and not downwards.
If the end of the current 20-year cycle really takes place soon, then it will be a matter of chance how exactly, what specific events will actually end the period of V.V. Putin.
However, V.B. Pastukhov on October 13 live on Echo of Moscow at https://echo.msk.ru/programs/personalno/2724193-echo/ stated:
“No matter how powerful the [RF] presidential administration is, it cannot replace the president and his involvement... a tendency... which I am recording... - a decrease in the President's involvement in political decision-making ... Strengthening the role of the technical apparatus, where the main importance belongs ...to the presidential administration"...
But the problem is, Pastukhov further notes, that “these people cannot replace the president. ...after a while ...we will get a huge number of factions fighting around some center of power. ...we will receive such a reissue of the Soviet era. There will be a huge number of nomenklatura groups that will fight around the presidential administration ...which will monitor only one parameter: so that these groups do not form stable alliances that would create threats to his power".
And what does this threaten practically and politically? Pastukhov replies that "all this is called a crisis of governance, ...in general, the effectiveness of governing the country will fall, and we will find ourselves in some kind of deep crisis".
Pastukhov himself predicts this management crisis in the second half of the 2020s. And this indicates that the analogies he draws are either no more than intuitive, and then Pastukhov does not understand the actual cyclical nature of the evolution of the highest state power in the USSR during the last century, at least.
Or Pastukhov is politically extremely biased, and therefore, despite understanding this cyclical nature, he deliberately and deliberately misleads the public ("society") about the prospects and timing of the end of the period of Putin's rule.
Say, the end-edge of this period is not visible, and therefore the public should not prepare for the struggle for the highest power and a new political system in Russia. This creates the ideological and socio-psychological prerequisites necessary for the utmost minimization of the participation of the general public in the "transit of power", already at full steam ahead in the Russian Federation.
In fact, his forecast does not change anything in essence in the process that has long been gaining strength, becoming dominant in the state administration of the Russian Federation , firstly.
And, secondly, the reflection of what is happening in reality, especially the reflection that is carried out from afar on those manifestations on the surface of social life, which become the property of the public always only after the fact and with great delay, always lagging behind what is happening in reality itself.
Hegel emphasized that “Minerva’s owl begins its flight only at dusk”, that is, the train of reality has not only left for a long time, but has long been far, far from the point of its departure, but reflection is only just fixing the preparation of this train for departure...
Not only the next year 2021, but already one and a half or two last months of the current 2020, can confirm that Pastukhov's “mid-term forecast” is actually not so much a forecast as a statement of an accomplished and, in part, a fait accompli.
Most likely, this is a fact that, due to the delay in reflection, is not stated by Pastukhov and others like him as an already accomplished and completing fact, but is only extrapolated by them into the future not as a fact of the present, but as a fact of the future, imaginary in image and the semblance of the fact of the present..."