Avtoritar sotsializm - Authoritarian socialism

A qismi seriyali kuni
Sotsializm
Rivojlanish Ma'rifat davri Frantsiya inqilobi Sotsializm tarixi 1848 yilgi inqiloblar Sotsialistik hisoblash munozarasi Sotsialistik iqtisodiyot
Fikrlar Natura shaklida hisoblash Kollektiv mulk Kooperativ Umumiy mulk Kommuna (hukumat modeli) Iqtisodiy demokratiya Iqtisodiy rejalashtirish Teng erkinlik Teng imkoniyat Erkin assotsiatsiya Erkin bozor Sanoat demokratiyasi Kirish-chiqarish modeli Xalqarolik Ish vaqtini hisoblash Mehnatga vaucher Moddiy balansni rejalashtirish Peer ‑ to peer peer iqtisodiy Foydalanish uchun ishlab chiqarish Birgalikdagi iqtisodiyot Ijtimoiy dividend Ijtimoiy mulk Bir mamlakatda sotsializm Sotsialistik ishlab chiqarish usuli Har kimga o'z hissasiga ko'ra /ehtiyojlar Ishchilarning o'zini o'zi boshqarish Ish joyidagi demokratiya
Modellar Kommunizm Ishtirok etish iqtisodiyoti Demokratik konfederalizm Bozor iqtisodiyoti Bozor sotsializmi Lange modeli Mutualizm Sotsialistik bozor iqtisodiyoti Sotsialistik yo'naltirilgan bozor Rejalashtirilgan iqtisodiyot Markazlashtirilmagan rejalashtirish Inklyuziv demokratiya OGAS Cybersyn loyihasi Sovet tipidagi Ijtimoiy ekologiya
Variantlar 21-asr Afrika Arab Agrar Anarxizm Avtoritar Blankizm Xitoy Kommunizm Demokratik Axloqiy Ekologik Feminist Furierizm Erkin bozor Gandi Gildiya Laissez-faire Liberal Ozodlik Marhaenizm Marksizm Shahar Millatparvar Ouenizm Islohot Diniy Inqilobiy Rikardian Sen-simoniyalik Ilmiy Ijtimoiy demokratiya Shtat Sindikalizm Uchinchi dunyo Utopik Sionist
Mamlakatlar bo'yicha Argentina Avstraliya Bangladesh Braziliya Kanada Xitoy Kommunistik Xitoy Millatchi Xitoy Estoniya Gretsiya Gonkong Hindiston Eron Italiya Gollandiya Yangi Zelandiya Pokiston Shri-Lanka Tunis Birlashgan Qirollik Qo'shma Shtatlar Vetnam Yugoslaviya
Odamlar Ko'proq Zal Sen-Simon Babeuf Ouen Furye Tompson Xodgskin Qandli diabet Enfantin Proudhon Blank Gertsen Bakunin Marks Barmbi Engels Lavrov Lassalle Morris Jons Kropotkin Bernshteyn Malatesta Kautskiy Teylor Plexanov Jaures Devi Barone Du Bois Goldman Lenin Lyuksemburg Blum Rassel Pannekoek Recabarren Eynshteyn Trotskiy Keller Attli Tavni Neurat Polanyi Maxno Bordiga Debs Koul Xo Tito Mao Nagy Pertini Gerxardsen Oruell Duglas Senghor Erlander Allende Xoxa Kreyskiy Mitteran Nosir Mandela Kroslend Bookchin Dubchek Zinn Kastoriadis Tompson Meynli Kastro Che Xomskiy Qirol Kraksi Laklau Sanders Mouffe Ali Öcalan Žižek Korbin Layton G'arb To'siqlar Varoufakis
Tashkilotlar Birinchi xalqaro Ikkinchi xalqaro Uchinchi xalqaro To'rtinchi xalqaro Beshinchi xalqaro Mehnat va Sotsialistik xalqaro Sotsialistik xalqaro Jahon Demokratik Federatsiyasi Yoshlik Xalqaro sotsialistik ittifoq Yoshlik Jahon sotsialistik harakati Xalqaro qo'mitasi To'rtinchi xalqaro Progressiv alyans
Tegishli mavzular Anarxizm Kapitalizm Kommunistik jamiyat Kapitalizmni tanqid qilish Sotsializmni tanqid qilish Iqtisodiy hisoblash muammosi Iqtisodiy tizim Frantsuz chap Chap libertarizm Ozodlik Sotsialistlar ro'yxati Sotsialistik iqtisodchilar ro'yxati Marksistik falsafa Nanosotsializm Progressivizm Sotsializm va LGBT huquqlari Sotsialistik hisoblash munozarasi Sotsialistik partiya Sotsialistik davlat Sotsializm turlari
Iqtisodiyot portali  Siyosat portali  Sotsializm portali

Avtoritar sotsializm, yoki yuqoridan sotsializm,^[1] bu iqtisodiy va siyosiy tizim ning ba'zi bir shakllarini qo'llab-quvvatlash sotsialistik iqtisodiyot rad etish paytida siyosiy liberalizm. Terim sifatida bu o'zlarini sotsialistik deb ta'riflaydigan va "rad etuvchi" iqtisodiy-siyosiy tizimlar majmuini aks ettiradi liberal-demokratik tushunchalari ko'p partiyali siyosat, yig'ilishlar erkinligi, habeas corpus va so'z erkinligi, yoki qo'rquvi tufayli aksilinqilob yoki vositasi sifatida sotsialistik tugaydi. Bir nechta mamlakatlar, eng muhimi Sovet Ittifoqi, Xitoy va ularning ittifoqchilari, jurnalistlar va olimlar tomonidan avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlar deb ta'riflangan.^[2][3][4]

Qarama-qarshi avtoritar, antistatistik va ozodlik sotsialistik harakatning qanoti, avtoritar sotsializm ba'zi shakllarini qamrab oladi Afrika,^[5][6] Arab^[7] va Lotin Amerikasi sotsializm.^[8] Garchi an avtoritar yoki noqonuniy shakli davlat sotsializmi, tez-tez deb nomlangan va qarama-qarshi bo'lgan sotsializm o'ng qanot tanqidchilari tomonidan va bir shakli sifatida bahslashdi davlat kapitalizmi chap qanot tanqidchilari tomonidan bu davlatlar mafkuraviy edi Marksist-leninchi va o'zlarini bor deb e'lon qildilar ishchilar va dehqonlar yoki xalq demokratiyalari.^[9] Akademiklar, siyosiy sharhlovchilar va boshqa olimlar avtoritar sotsialistik va demokratik sotsialistik davlatlar, birinchisi Sovet bloki va ikkinchisi vakili G'arbiy blok Angliya, Frantsiya, Shvetsiya va G'arb kabi sotsialistik partiyalar tomonidan demokratik ravishda boshqarilgan mamlakatlar ijtimoiy-demokratik davlatlar umuman, boshqalar qatorida.^{[10][11][12][13]}

Dan kelib chiqqan holda utopik sotsializm tomonidan himoya qilingan Edvard Bellami^[14] tomonidan aniqlangan Hal Draper yuqoridan sotsializm sifatida,^[1] bu juda ko'p bilan bog'liq Sovet modeli va qarama-qarshi yoki taqqoslangan avtoritar kapitalizm.^{[15][16][17][18]} Avtoritar sotsializm chap va o'ng tomonidan ham nazariy, ham amalda tanqid qilindi.^[19]

Siyosiy ildizlar

Sotsializm yuqoridan

Avtoritar sotsializm yuqoridan sotsializm tushunchasidan kelib chiqqan. Hal Draper sotsializmni yuqoridagi falsafa sifatida aniqlagan elita ma'muriyat ishga tushirish sotsialistik davlat. Sotsializmning boshqa tomoni pastdan ancha demokratik sotsializmdir.^[1] Yuqoridan sotsializm g'oyasi elita doiralarida pastdan sotsializmga qaraganda ancha tez-tez muhokama qilinadi, garchi bu marksistik ideal bo'lsa ham - chunki u amaliyroq.^[20] Draper sotsializmni pastdan toza, ko'proq toza deb bildi Marksistik sotsializm versiyasi.^[20] Draperning so'zlariga ko'ra, Karl Marks va Fridrix Engels "xurofiy avtoritarizmga yordam beradigan" har qanday sotsialistik institutga ixlos bilan qarshi edilar. Draper bu bo'linish "islohotchi yoki inqilobiy, tinchlik yoki zo'ravonlik, demokratik yoki avtoritar va boshqalar" o'rtasidagi bo'linishni aks ettiradi degan fikrni ilgari surmoqda.^[1] va bundan keyin aniqlaydi elitizm sotsializmning oltita asosiy navlaridan biri sifatida, ular orasida "Filantropizm", "Elitizm", "Pannizm", "Kommunizm", "Permeationizm" va "Sotsializm-tashqaridan".^[21]

Artur Lipovning fikriga ko'ra, Marks va Engelslar "zamonaviy inqilobiy demokratik sotsializmning asoschilari" bo'lib, "pastdan sotsializm" ning bir shakli sifatida ta'riflangan, ya'ni "ommaviy ishchi harakatiga asoslangan, pastdan demokratiyani kengaytirish va inson erkinligi ". Bu sotsializm turi "avtoritar, antidemokratik aqida" va "sotsializm unvoniga da'vogar bo'lgan turli xil totalitar kollektivistik mafkuralar" va "20-asrda harakatlar va davlatga olib kelgan" yuqoridan sotsializm "ning ko'p navlari" bilan farqlanadi. despotik 'shakllariyangi sinf "sotsializm nomidan e'lon qilingan iqtisodiyotni boshqaradi", "sotsialistik harakat tarixidan o'tgan" bo'linma. Lipov aniqlaydi Bellamizm va Stalinizm sotsialistik harakat tarixidagi ikki taniqli avtoritar sotsialistik oqim sifatida.^[22]

The avtoritar –ozodlik ichidagi kurash va nizolar sotsialistik harakat ga qaytish Birinchi xalqaro va 1872 yilda chiqarib yuborish anarxistlar, kim rahbarlikni davom ettirdi Anti-avtoritar Xalqaro va keyinchalik o'zlarining libertarian xalqaro tashkil etdi Anarxist Sent-Imier Xalqaro.^[23] 1888 yilda individualist anarxist Benjamin Taker, o'zini anarxistik sotsialist deb e'lon qilgan va libertaristik sotsialistik avtoritarga qarshi davlat sotsializmi va majburiy kommunizm, tomonidan "Sotsialistik maktub" ning to'liq matni kiritilgan Ernest Lesigne^[24] "Davlat sotsializmi va anarxizm" mavzusidagi insholarida. Lesigne fikricha sotsializmning ikki turi mavjud: "Biri mustabid, boshqasi libertarian".^[25] Takerning ikkita sotsializmi bu avtoritar davlat sotsializmi edi, uni u marksistik maktab va libertarian anarxistik sotsializm bilan bog'ladi yoki oddiygina anarxizmni o'zi ilgari surdi. Takerning ta'kidlashicha, avtoritar "davlat sotsializmi sotsializmning boshqa shakllarini soya qilib qo'ygani unga sotsialistik g'oya monopoliyasiga ega bo'lish huquqini bermaydi".^[26] Takerning so'zlariga ko'ra, sotsializmning ushbu ikki maktabi umumiy bo'lgan narsa qiymatning mehnat nazariyasi va anarxizm turli xil vositalarni qo'llagan maqsadlar.^[27]

Ga binoan Jorj Vudkok, Ikkinchi xalqaro "libertarizmga qarshi avtoritar sotsializmga qarshi kurash maydoniga aylandi. Ular nafaqat o'zlarini ozchilik huquqlari tarafdorlari sifatida namoyish etishdi, balki nemis marksistlarini Britaniya ishchi harakati tomonidan ta'qib qilinishining oldini olish omili bo'lgan diktatorlik murosasizligini namoyish qilishga undashdi. XM Xindman kabi rahbarlar ko'rsatgan marksistik yo'nalish ".^[28] Mualliflari kabi anarxistlarning fikriga ko'ra Anarxistlar uchun tez-tez so'raladigan savollar kabi yuqoridan sotsializm shakllari avtoritar sotsializm yoki davlat sotsializmi haqiqiy oksimoronlar va ozodlik pastdan sotsializm haqiqiy sotsializmni anglatadi. Anarxistlar va boshqa avtoritar sotsialistlar uchun sotsializm "faqat odamlar sifatida o'z ishlarini boshqaradigan sinfsiz va avtoritar (ya'ni libertarian) jamiyatni anglatishi mumkin (vaziyatga qarab). In boshqacha qilib aytganda, bu hayotning barcha jabhalarida o'zini o'zi boshqarishni nazarda tutadi ", shu jumladan ish joyida.^[29] Tarixchi Herbert L. Osgood anarxizmni avtoritar kommunizm va davlat sotsializmining "o'ta antitezi" deb ta'riflagan.^[30]

Umumiy sotsialistlar va sotsialistik yozuvchilar, shu jumladan Dimitri Volkogonov, avtoritar sotsialistik rahbarlarning xatti-harakatlari "sotsializmning Oktyabr inqilobi tomonidan yaratilgan ulkan jozibasiga" zarar etkazganligini tan oldi.^[31] Ba'zi o'ng qanot mualliflari tasvirlab bergan bo'lsa-da konservativ sotsializm, fashizm va Prussiya sotsializmi, boshqa shakllari qatorida paternalistik konservatizm va o'ng siyosat, avtoritar sotsializm sifatida,^[32] olimlar o'zlarining tabiatini qat'iy deb ta'rifladilar kapitalistik va konservativ sotsialistik emas.^[33]

Utopik sotsializm

Miloddan avvalgi III asr iqtisodiyoti Mauryan imperiyasi Hindiston "ijtimoiylashgan monarxiya" va "davlat sotsializmi" deb ta'riflangan.^[34][35] Kabi qadimgi yunon faylasuflari siyosatida avtoritar sotsialistik fikr elementlari aniqlandi Aristotel^[36] va Aflotun.^[37] Zamonaviy sotsializmning birinchi tarafdorlari a yaratish uchun ijtimoiy tekislashni ma'qul ko'rishdi meritokratik yoki texnokratik individual iste'dodga asoslangan jamiyat. Anri de Sen-Simon atamani tanlagan birinchi shaxs sifatida qaraladi sotsializm.^[38] Sen-Simon ilm-fan va texnologiyaning ulkan salohiyatiga qoyil qoldi va tartibsiz tomonlarini yo'q qiladigan sotsialistik jamiyatni targ'ib qildi. kapitalizm va asoslangan bo'lishi mumkin teng imkoniyatlar.^[39] U har bir inson bo'lgan jamiyatni yaratishni targ'ib qildi imkoniyatlariga qarab tartiblangan va ishiga qarab mukofotlangan.^[38] Sen-Simon sotsializmining asosiy yo'nalishi ma'muriy samaradorlik va industrializmga va ilm-fan taraqqiyot kaliti ekanligiga ishonishga qaratilgan edi.^[40] Bunga rejalashtirishga asoslangan va keng miqyosli ilmiy taraqqiyot va moddiy taraqqiyotga yo'naltirilgan oqilona tashkil etilgan iqtisodiyotni amalga oshirish istagi ham qo'shildi.^[38]

Avtoritar sotsialistik davlatni taklif qilgan birinchi yirik xayoliy asar bu edi Edvard Bellami roman Orqaga qarab tasvirlangan a byurokratik sotsialistik utopiya. Bellami o'zini radikal sotsialistik qadriyatlardan uzoqlashtirdi va ko'p jihatdan uning ideal jamiyati 19-asr oxirida Qo'shma Shtatlarning ko'plab tizimlariga taqlid qildi. Biroq, uning kitobi 1800 yillarning oxirlarida AQShda millatchilik deb nomlangan ommaviy siyosiy harakat uchun ilhom manbai bo'lib xizmat qildi. O'sha Millatchilik klublari, millatlashtirish istagi tufayli shunday nomlangan sanoat, ning kuchli tarafdorlari bo'lgan populistlar, kim xohlagan milliylashtirish temir yo'l va telegraf tizimlari. Ularning tashviqotiga va siyosatga aralashishiga qaramay, 1893 yilda millatchilik harakati asosiy nashrlarining moliyaviy qiyinchiliklari va Bellamining sog'lig'i yomonlashgani sababli pasayishni boshladi va asrning boshlarida aslida yo'q bo'lib ketdi.^[20] Romanda tasvirlangan jamiyatda davlat mulki foydasiga xususiy mulk bekor qilindi, ijtimoiy sinflar yo'q qilindi va barcha minimal va nisbatan oson bo'lgan ishlar 21 yoshdan 45 yoshgacha bo'lgan barcha fuqarolar tomonidan ixtiyoriy ravishda bajarildi. Ishchilar mukofotlandi va armiyaga asoslangan reyting tizimi orqali tan olingan.^[41] Hukumat buni ta'minlash va ta'minlash uchun zarur bo'lgan eng qudratli va obro'li institutdir utopiya.^[20] Artur Lipov ushbu ideal jamiyatning byurokratik hukmronligini ham iqtisodiy, ham ijtimoiy munosabatlarning kvazi harbiy tashkiloti sifatida belgilaydi.^[14] Bellamy zamonaviy harbiy xizmatni milliy manfaatlarning katalizatori sifatida yuksaltirdi.^[41]

Bellamy jamiyatining eng katta tanqidlari shundaki, u yuqoridan sotsializm g'oyasiga asoslanadi. Rejim odamlarga ekspert elita tomonidan o'rnatiladi va demokratik nazorat yoki shaxs erkinligi mavjud emas. Lipov bu tabiiy ravishda olib keladi deb ta'kidlaydi avtoritarizm, yozish: "Agar ishchilar va aksariyat ko'pchilik shafqatsiz ommaviy bo'lgan bo'lsa, ulardan siyosiy harakatni tashkil qilish yoki ularga sotsialistik jamiyat yaratish vazifasini berish haqida gap bo'lishi mumkin emas edi. Yangi institutlar yaratilmaydi va shakllanmagan bo'lar edi. pastdan, lekin zarurat bo'lsa, utopik rejalashtiruvchi tomonidan oldindan belgilangan rejaga to'g'ri keladi ".^[14]

Uning kirish so'zida Piter Kropotkin kitobi Nonni zabt etish, Kent Bromley g'oyalarini ko'rib chiqdi utopik sotsialistlar frantsuzlar kabi François-Noël Babeuf va italyan Filipp Buonarroti frantsuz sotsialistidan farqli o'laroq avtoritar sotsializmning vakili bo'lish Charlz Furye, asoschisi sifatida tavsiflangan libertarizm sotsializmi.^[42]

Avstriya va Chikago iqtisodiyot maktablari

"Ixtiyoriy va majburiy iplar" ni ajratib turganda,^[43] The Avstriyalik va Chikagolik sotsializmni tushunish va tavsiflash avtoritarizm va statizm. Ning avstriyalik ta'riflaridan biri sotsializm ga asoslangan davlat sotsialistik "asosiy vositalarga davlat egalik qilish" tushunchasi.^[43] Ikkinchisi - sotsializm "xususiy mulk va xususiy mulk da'volariga institutsional aralashish yoki tajovuz sifatida tushunilishi kerak. Kapitalizm, boshqa tomondan, xususiy mulkni aniq e'tirof etish va xususiy shaxslar o'rtasida agressiv bo'lmagan, shartnomaviy almashinuvga asoslangan ijtimoiy tizimdir. mulk egalari ".^[43][44]

Fridrix Xayek, Avstriya maktabi iqtisodchisi, taniqli akademik tanqidchilardan biri edi kollektivizm 20-asrda. U kollektivizmdagi sotsializm tendentsiyalarini, shu jumladan ixtiyoriy hamkorlikka asoslangan nazariyalarni tan oldi va keskin tanqid qildi.^[45][46] Siyosatni amalga oshiradigan elita g'oyasini maqtagan Bellamidan farqli o'laroq, Xayek sotsializm o'z-o'zidan zulmga olib keladi degan dalillarni ilgari surdi va "o'z maqsadlariga erishish uchun rejalashtiruvchilar kuch yaratishi kerak - boshqa odamlar boshqaradigan erkaklar ustidan hokimiyat - Iqtisodiy faoliyatning markazlashgan yo'nalishi talab qiladigan erkinlikni bostirish uchun demokratiya to'siqdir. Demak, rejalashtirish va demokratiya o'rtasida sinf paydo bo'ladi ".^[47] Xayek ikkalasi ham bahslashdi fashizm va sotsializm markaziy iqtisodiy rejalashtirishga asoslanadi va davlatni shaxsga nisbatan qadrlaydi. Xayekning so'zlariga ko'ra, aynan shu yo'l bilan mumkin bo'ladi totalitar Birinchi jahon urushidan keyingi yillarda bo'lgani kabi hokimiyat tepasiga ko'tarilish.^[47] Xayek va uning ustozi kabi Avstriya maktabi iqtisodchilari Lyudvig Mizz so'zini ham ishlatgan sotsializm avtoritar sotsializm, markaziy rejalashtirish va davlat sotsializmining sinonimi sifatida uni fashizm bilan yolg'on bog'lab,^[48][49][50] Xayekning yozishicha, "bizning zamonaviy sotsialistlarimizning katta erkinlik haqidagi va'dasi chinakam va samimiy bo'lsa-da, so'nggi yillarda kuzatuvchi kuzatuvchidan sotsializmning kutilmagan oqibatlari, kommunizm sharoitidagi ko'p jihatdan g'ayrioddiy o'xshashlikdan taassurot qoldirdi. 'va' fashizm ''.^[51] Kabi Chikago maktabi iqtisodchilari Milton Fridman shuningdek, sotsializmni markazlashgan iqtisodiy rejalashtirish bilan, shuningdek avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlar va buyruqbozlik yoki davlatga yo'naltirilgan iqtisodiyot bilan tenglashtirdi, kapitalizmni erkin bozor deb atadi.^[52] Biroq, fashizm va uning kabi variantlari Falangizm va Natsizm, boshqa fashistik ilhomlantiruvchi harbiy rejimlar qatorida, olimlar tomonidan a o'ta o'ng, sotsialistik asosan qabul qilingan mafkuralar korparatist, liberal bozor iqtisodiy siyosat, bilan iqtisodiy rejalashtirish ligaga tushib ketdi urush harakatlari.^{[53][54][55][56]}

Mises tanqid qilindi chapga moyil, ijtimoiy liberal kabi siyosatlar progressiv soliqqa tortish sotsializm sifatida, a paytida turish Mont Pelerin Jamiyati uchrashuv va ular uchun "biron bir sotsialist" deb atash uchun "asos bo'lishi mumkin degan fikrni bildiruvchi" kishilarga murojaat qilish.^[57] Boshqa tomondan, Xayek ta'kidlashicha, davlat iqtisodiyotda, xususan a ni yaratishda rol o'ynashi mumkin ijtimoiy xavfsizlik tarmog'i,^[58][59] tanqid qilish o'ng va konservatizm,^[60] hattoki ba'zilarini forma tomon ilhomlantiradi bozor sotsializmi yoki Hayekian sotsializmi.^[61][62] Xayek "o'zlariga bog'liq bo'lmagan holatlar tufayli haddan tashqari ishqibozlik yoki ochlik tahdidi ostida bo'lganlar uchun ba'zi bir qoidalarni" himoya qildi. Xayek "faqat sanoat jamiyatida bunday tartibga solish zarurati shubhasiz", "faqat muhtojlarning umidsizlik harakatlaridan himoyani talab qiladiganlar manfaati uchun bo'lsin", deb ta'kidladi.^[63] ba'zilari "u davlat tomonidan majburiy ravishda majburiy tibbiy yordam va ishsizlik sug'urtasini targ'ib qilganini" ta'kidladi^[64] va "Xayek bu borada qat'iy edi".^[65] Mises ham tenglashtirdi markaziy bank sotsializm va markaziy rejalashtirish bilan. Misesning so'zlariga ko'ra, markaziy banklar imkon beradi tijorat banklari sun'iy ravishda past foiz stavkalari bo'yicha kreditlarni moliyalashtirish, shu bilan bank kreditining barqaror bo'lmagan kengayishiga olib keladi va keyingi qisqarishga xalaqit beradi.^[66] Biroq, Xayek bunga qo'shilmadi va markaziy bank nazorati zarurligini muqarrar deb ta'kidladi.^[67] Xuddi shunday, Fridman ham pul tizimida hukumatning o'rni bor degan xulosaga keldi^[68] va ishongan Federal zaxira tizimi oxir-oqibat a bilan almashtirilishi kerak kompyuter dasturi.^[69] Ijtimoiy ta'minotni tanqid qilish bilan birga, ayniqsa Ijtimoiy Havfsizlik, u yaratgan deb bahslashmoqda farovonlikka bog'liqlik,^[70] Fridman ba'zilarining davlat tomonidan ta'minlanishini qo'llab-quvvatladi jamoat mollari xususiy tadbirkorlik sub'ektlari ta'minlay olmaydigan deb hisoblanmaydi,^[70] himoyalangan a salbiy daromad solig'i eng ko'p farovonlik o'rniga^[69][70] va uning qarashlari "bozor munosabatlari [...] ajoyib ishlarni amalga oshirishda", ammo "barcha fuqarolarning asosiy iqtisodiy ehtiyojlarini qondirish imkoniyatini beradigan daromadlarning taqsimlanishini ta'minlay olmaydi" degan e'tiqodga asoslangan edi.^[71] Ba'zi avstriyalik maktab iqtisodchilari Xayz va Fridman tomonidan qo'llab-quvvatlangan siyosat sotsializm shaklini tashkil etgani haqida Mizzga ergashmoqdalar.^[43][72]

Avstriyalik va Markscha iqtisodiyot maktablari tanqidlariga qo'shilishadi aralash iqtisodiyot, ammo ular avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlarga nisbatan turli xil xulosalarga kelishadi. Yilda Inson harakati, Mises kapitalizm va sotsializm aralashmasi bo'lishi mumkin emasligini ta'kidladi - na bozor mantig'i, na iqtisodiy rejalashtirish iqtisodiyotda ustun bo'lishi kerak.^[73] Mises bu masalani batafsil bayon qilib, agar bozor iqtisodiyotida ko'plab davlat yoki milliylashtirilgan korxonalar mavjud bo'lsa ham, bu iqtisodiyotni aralashtirib yubormaydi, chunki bunday tashkilotlarning mavjudligi bozor iqtisodiyotining asosiy xususiyatlarini o'zgartirmaydi. Ushbu davlat mulki bo'lgan korxonalar hali ham bozor suverenitetiga bo'ysunishi kerak edi, chunki ular sotib olishlari kerak edi asosiy vositalar bozorlar orqali daromadlarni ko'paytirishga harakat qiling yoki hech bo'lmaganda xarajatlarni minimallashtirishga harakat qiling va iqtisodiy hisob-kitob uchun pul hisobidan foydalaning.^[74]

Xuddi shunday, klassik va pravoslav Marksistik nazariyotchilar sotsializm va kapitalizm o'rtasida o'rta daraja sifatida aralash iqtisodiyotning hayotiyligini bahslashadi. Korxona mulkidan qat'i nazar, ham kapitalist qiymat qonuni va kapitalning to'planishi kabi iqtisodiyotni yoki ongli ravishda rejalashtirishni va baholashning pul bo'lmagan shakllarini boshqaradi natura shaklida hisoblash oxir-oqibat iqtisodiyotni boshqaradi. Dan Katta depressiya oldinga, G'arb dunyosida mavjud bo'lgan aralash iqtisodiyotlar hali ham kapitalistikdir, chunki ular kapital to'plash asosida ishlaydi.^[75] Shu asosda ba'zi marksistlar va nomarsistlar, shu jumladan akademiklar, iqtisodchilar va ziyolilar Sovet Ittifoqi deb ta'kidlaydilar. va boshq. davlat kapitalistik davlatlari bo'lgan; va sotsialistik rejali iqtisodiyot bo'lishdan ko'ra, ular ma'muriy-buyruqbozlik tizimi. 1985 yilda allaqachon Jon Xovardning umumiy tavsifi deb ta'kidlagan Sovet tipidagi iqtisodiy rejalashtirish kabi rejali iqtisodiyot chalg'ituvchi edi, chunki markaziy rejalashtirish muhim rol o'ynagan bo'lsa-da, Sovet iqtisodiyoti edi amalda rejalashtirishdan yuqori darajada markazlashtirilgan boshqaruvning ustuvorligi bilan tavsiflanadi va shuning uchun to'g'ri muddat iqtisodiyotga to'g'ri keladi markaziy boshqariladi dan ko'ra markazlashgan holda rejalashtirilgan.^[76] Bu ikkalasiga ham tegishli Sovet Ittifoqi iqtisodiyoti va bu uning ittifoqchilari Sovet modelini yaqindan kuzatib bordi.^[76][77] Boshqa tomondan, boy aralash iqtisodiyotlarni hali ham "kapitalistik" deb ta'riflagan holda, Avstriya maktabi iqtisodchilari muntazam ravishda aralash iqtisodiyot siyosatini "sotsializm" deb ta'riflaydilar. Xuddi shunday, ular kabi fashistik rejimlarni tasvirlaydi Fashistik Italiya va Natsistlar Germaniyasi "sotsialistik" sifatida,^[43] garchi olimlar ularni kapitalistik rejimlar deb ta'riflasalar ham.^{[53][54][55][56]}

Javob

Avstriya va Chikago avtoritar sotsializm tushunchasi tanqid qilindi. Xususan, bu chalkashlik uchun tanqid qilingan ijtimoiy demokratiya va boshqa shakllari islohotchi va demokratik sotsializm avtoritar va davlat sotsializmi. Buyuk Britaniyada, inglizlar Konservativ kabi siyosatchilar Margaret Tetcher "erkin nomlangan sotsializm" va "boshqalar sotsial demokratiyani, korporativlikni, keynsianizmni yoki aralash iqtisodiyotni nima deb atashini" avtoritar sotsializm bilan taqqoslaganda "samarasiz tarmoqlarni haddan tashqari qo'llab-quvvatlash, jazolangan soliqqa tortish, mehnat bozorini tartibga solish, narxlarni boshqarish - erkin iqtisodiyotning ishlashiga xalaqit bergan barcha narsalar ".^[78] Bu atama bo'lgan Qo'shma Shtatlarda ayniqsa dolzarbdir ijtimoiylashuv har qanday davlat yoki hukumat tomonidan boshqariladigan sanoat yoki xizmatga murojaat qilish uchun noto'g'ri ishlatilgan (bu uchun ham tegishli atama munitsipallashtirish yoki milliylashtirish ). Shuningdek, bu soliqdan moliyalashtiriladigan har qanday dasturni, xoh xususiy, xoh hukumat tomonidan amalga oshirilishini anglatishda noto'g'ri ishlatilgan.^[79] Xuddi shunday, sotsializm tomonidan Qo'shma Shtatlarda ishlatiladigan pejorativga aylandi konservatorlar va liberterlar buzmoq liberal va progressiv siyosat, takliflar va jamoat arboblari.^[80][81][82]

Xayek, Mises va Fridman kabi odamlar ham avtoritar sotsializmga qarshi chiqishni da'vo qilishgani uchun ikkiyuzlamachilik uchun tanqid qilindi liberal diktatura kabi Chili harbiy diktaturasi ostida Augusto Pinochet. Mises fashizm haqida fikr bildirdi^[83] tanqid qilingan,^[84][85] boshqalar uni himoya qilgan bo'lsa-da.^[86] Xuddi shu tarzda, Xayekning diktatura tarkibidagi ishtiroki tanqid qilindi.^[87] Xayek shunday dedi: "Uzoq muddatli institutlar sifatida men diktaturaga mutlaqo qarshiman. Ammo diktatura o'tish davri uchun zarur tizim bo'lishi mumkin. [...] Shaxsan men liberalizmdan mahrum bo'lgan demokratik hukumatdan liberal diktaturani afzal ko'raman. Mening shaxsiy taassurotim - va bu Janubiy Amerika uchun amal qiladi - masalan, Chilida biz diktatura hukumatidan liberal hukumatga o'tishni guvohi bo'lamiz ".^[88] Xayek o'zini himoya qilar ekan, "hatto juda yomon ko'rilgan Chilida ham biron bir odam topolmadim, u Pinochet davrida shaxsiy erkinlik unga nisbatan ancha kattaroq ekanligiga qo'shilmadi. [Salvador] Allende ",^[89][90] demokratik sotsialistik^[91][92][93] Chili prezidenti demokratik tarzda 1970 yilda o'zini birinchi deb atagan shaxs sifatida saylandi Marksistik bilan mamlakatda prezident etib saylanish liberal demokratiya^[94][95] va a Markaziy razvedka boshqarmasi - orqaga qaytarilgan harbiy to'ntarish.^[96] Xayek uchun avtoritarizm va totalitarizmni farqlash juda muhim ahamiyatga ega va u totalitarizmga qarshi bo'lganligini ta'kidlash uchun qiynaldi va o'zi himoya qilgan o'tish davri diktatura kontseptsiyasi totalitarizm emas, avtoritarizm bilan ajralib turishini ta'kidladi. 1981 yil may oyida Venesuelaga tashrif buyurganida, Hayekdan Lotin Amerikasida totalitar tuzumlarning keng tarqalishi haqida izoh so'rashdi. Bunga javoban Xayek "totalitarizmni avtoritarizm bilan" chalkashtirib yuborishdan ogohlantirdi va "Lotin Amerikasidagi har qanday totalitar hukumatlardan bexabarligini aytdi. Yagona - Allende boshchiligidagi Chili". Xayek uchun, totalitar juda o'ziga xos bir narsani anglatadi, ya'ni "liberalizm va individualizm" dan farqli o'laroq "aniq ijtimoiy maqsad" ga erishish uchun "butun jamiyatni tashkil etish" niyatini anglatadi.^[87]

Fridmanning Chili harbiy diktaturasida ishtirok etishi ham uning iqtisodiy maslahatchisi sifatida tanqid qilingan.^[97][98][99] Pinochet davrida Chili Fridmam va uning iqtisodiy siyosatiga amal qilgan Chikago Boyz.^{[100][101][102]} Fridman o'sha paytda Pinochet diktaturasini ham, o'sha paytgacha yaxshi ma'lum bo'lgan suiqasdlar, noqonuniy qamoqlar, qiynoqlar va boshqa shafqatsizliklarni ham tanqid qilmagan bo'lsa ham,^[103] u o'zining norasmiy maslahatchisi lavozimini himoya qilib, shunday dedi: "Men iqtisodchi uchun Chili hukumatiga texnik iqtisodiy maslahat berishni yomon deb hisoblamayman, bundan tashqari, men shifokorning chililikka texnik tibbiy maslahat berishini yomon deb bilaman. Tibbiyot vabosini tugatishda yordam berish uchun hukumat ".^[104] Fridman Chili siyosiy tizimini tanqid qilgan bo'lsa-da,^{[98][105][106]} u "erkin bozorlar [Pinochetning] siyosiy markazlashuvi va siyosiy boshqaruviga putur etkazadi", deb ta'kidladi^[107][108] uning Chilidagi roliga qarshi tanqidlar uning asosiy bahsini o'tkazib yubordi, chunki erkin bozorlar odamlarning erkin bo'lishiga olib keladi va Chilining erkin bo'lmagan iqtisodiyoti harbiy hukumatni keltirib chiqardi. Fridman "siyosiy markazlashuv va siyosiy boshqaruv" ni buzadigan erkin bozorlar tarafdori edi.^[109] Biroq, ba'zi iqtisodchilar Chilining ushbu davrdagi tajribasi Fridman siyosatining barbod bo'lganligini ko'rsatib, 1975 yildan 1982 yilgacha (sof deb atalmish davrda) sof iqtisodiy o'sish bo'lmaganligini ta'kidladi. Monetarist tajriba "). keyin 1982 yil inqirozi, davlat avvalgi sotsialistik tuzumga qaraganda ko'proq iqtisodiyotni boshqargan va barqaror iqtisodiy o'sish faqat iqtisodiyotni xususiylashtirgan keyingi islohotlardan so'ng, ijtimoiy ko'rsatkichlar kambag'al bo'lib qolgan. Pinochet diktaturasi, unga qarshi bo'lgan qarshiliklarni bostirish orqali ommabop bo'lmagan iqtisodiy yo'nalishni amalga oshirdi. Erkin bozor g'alabasidan ko'ra, u "neo-liberal tikuv va aralashuvni davolash usullarini birlashtirish" deb ta'riflangan.^[110] Barqaror o'sish davriga kelib, Chili hukumati "neo-liberal mafkuraviy isitmani sovitdi" va "jahon moliya bozorlariga ta'sirini nazorat qildi va o'zining samarali mis kompaniyasini jamoat qo'lida ushlab turdi".^[111]

Yana bir tanqid shuki, nazariya tarafdorlari sotsializmni samarasiz emas, balki imkonsiz deb ta'riflab, o'zlarining ishlarining kuchini oshirib yuborishadi.^{[112][113][114]} Nima uchun u emasligini tushuntirishda Avstriya maktabi iqtisodchi, Bryan Kaplan deb ta'kidlaydi iqtisodiy hisoblash muammosi sotsializm uchun muammo, u Misesning o'limga olib kelishini ko'rsatganligini yoki aynan shu muammo avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlarning qulashiga olib kelganini rad etadi.^[115] Kristen Ghodsei, Pensilvaniya Universitetining etnografi va Rossiya va Sharqiy Evropa tadqiqotlari professori, Sovuq urush oxirida G'arb davlatlarining g'alaba qozongan munosabatlari, xususan, barcha sotsialistik siyosiy g'oyalarni avtoritar sotsializmning haddan tashqari ko'pligi bilan bog'lash fikri. Stalinizm demokratiyaning solingan demokratiyani neoliberal mafkura bilan ilgarilashiga yordam bergan chap tomonning munosabatini chetlab o'tdi. Bu neoliberalizm (ya'ni iqtisodiy qashshoqlik, umidsizlik, ishsizlik va sobiq Sharqiy blokda va G'arbning ko'p qismida tengsizlikning kuchayishi) vayronalari bilan birga kelgan g'azab va g'azabni o'z ichiga olishga imkon berdi. o‘ng qanot millatchi keyingi o'n yilliklarda harakatlar.^[116][117]

Devid L. Xofmann, Ogayo shtati universitetining hurmatli tarix professori, davlat zo'ravonligining avtoritar sotsialistik amaliyotlari sotsialistik mafkuradan kelib chiqadimi degan savolni ko'taradi. Stalinizm kabi avtoritar sotsialistik mafkuralarni xalqaro kontekstga qo'yib, u Stalin hukumati tomonidan qo'llanilgan davlat aralashuvining ko'plab shakllari, shu jumladan ijtimoiy kataloglashtirish, kuzatuv va kontslagerlar Sovet tuzumidan oldin paydo bo'lgan va Rossiyadan tashqarida paydo bo'lgan deb ta'kidlaydi. U yana ta'kidlashicha, ijtimoiy aralashuv texnologiyalari 19-asrdagi Evropa islohotchilari faoliyati bilan birgalikda ishlab chiqilgan va Birinchi Jahon urushi paytida, barcha jangovar mamlakatlardagi davlat aktyorlari o'z aholisini safarbar qilish va nazorat qilish borasidagi sa'y-harakatlarni keskin oshirib yuborgan paytda juda kengaygan. Sovet davlati umumiy urushning shu pallasida tug'ilganligi sababli, boshqaruvning doimiy xususiyatlari sifatida davlat aralashuvi amaliyotini institutsionalizatsiya qildi.^[118] Ikki yozish Guardian 2002 va 2006 yillardagi maqolalar, britaniyalik jurnalist Seumas Milne Stalin va Gitler egizak yovuzlik bo'lganligi va shuning uchun kommunizm natsizm singari dahshatli ekanligi haqida "Sovuq Urushdan keyingi rivoyatning ta'siri" natsizmning noyob jinoyatlarini reabilitatsiya qilish, mustamlakachilik jinoyatlarini dafn etish va radikal harakatlarga har qanday urinish degan g'oyani berishdir. ijtimoiy o'zgarish har doim azob-uqubat, o'ldirish va muvaffaqiyatsizlikka olib keladi ".^[119][120]

Xususiyatlari

Nazariya va asos

A qismi seriyali kuni
Marksizm-leninizm
Tushunchalar Ma'muriy-buyruqbozlik tizimi Sotsializm sharoitida sinfiy kurashning og'irlashishi Fashizmga qarshi kurash Antiimperializm Anti-revizionizm Markaziy rejalashtirish Sovet tipidagi iqtisodiy rejalashtirish Kollektiv etakchilik Kollektivizatsiya Iqtisodiyotning balandligi Demokratik markaziylik Dialektik mantiq Dialektik materializm Foko Mehnat zodagonlari Marksistik-leninistik ateizm Bir partiyali davlat Partiinost ' Xalq demokratiyasi Ommabop front Proletar internatsionalizmi O'z-o'zini tanqid qilish Ijtimoiy fashizm Bir mamlakatda sotsializm Sotsialistik vatanparvarlik Sovet Yugoslaviya Shtat Sotsialistik Ishlab chiqaruvchi kuchlar nazariyasi Uchinchi davr Avangardizm Milliy ozodlik urushlari
Variantlar Kastroizm Dengizm Gevarizm Xoshimin fikr Xoxaizm Husakizm Juche Kadarizm Xrushchevizm Maoizm Marksizm-leninizm-maoizm Marksizm-leninizm-maoizm-gonsalo tafakkuri Marksizm-leninizm-maoizm-prachanda yo'li Milliy Stalinizm Titoizm Si Tszinpinning fikri
Odamlar Ernst Talman Jozef Stalin Gonchigiin Bumtsend Xose Dias Palmiro Togliatti Xoshimin Võ Nguyên Giap Earl brauzeri Nikita Xrushchev Valter Ulbrixt Mao Szedun Iosip Broz Tito Lazar Kaganovich Enver Xoxa Den Syaoping Che Gevara Fidel Kastro Salvador Allende Agostinyo Neto Mengistu Xayl Mariam Kim Ir Sen Nikolae Cheesku Samora Machel Tomas Sankara Matyo Kereku Alfonso Kano Abimael Guzman Si Tszinpin
Nazariy ishlar Leninizm asoslari Dialektik va tarixiy materializm Kommunistik partiya tarixi Sovet Ittifoqi (bolsheviklar) SSSRdagi sotsializmning iqtisodiy muammolari Sovet iqtisodiyotining tanqidi Marksizm-leninizm asoslari Partizanlar urushi
Tarix Sovet Ittifoqi 1927–1953 1953–1964 1964–1982 1982–1991 Katta tanaffus Sovet Ittifoqida kollektivizatsiya Sovet Ittifoqida sanoatlashtirish Buyuk tozalash Ispaniya fuqarolar urushi Ikkinchi jahon urushi Ulug 'Vatan urushi Yunonistonda fuqarolar urushi Sovuq urush Sharqiy blok Xitoy inqilobi Xitoy 1949–1976 1976–1989 1989–2002 2002 yil - hozirgi kunga qadar Koreya urushi Kuba inqilobi Natijada De-stalinizatsiya Varshava shartnomasi Qo'shilmaslik harakati Vetnam urushi Xitoy-Sovet bo'linishi 1956 yildagi Vengriya inqilobi Oldinga sakrash Portugal mustamlakalar urushi Qora kuch harakati Nikaragua inqilobi Madaniy inqilob Praga bahori Naksalit qo'zg'oloni CPP-NPA-NDF isyoni Turkiyadagi maoistlar qo'zg'oloni Perudagi ichki mojaro Nepal fuqarolar urushi 1989 yilgi inqiloblar
Mamlakatlar bo'yicha Afg'oniston Albaniya Angola Benin Bolgariya Kambodja Xitoy Kongo Kuba Chexoslovakiya Chexiya Slovakiya Sharqiy Germaniya Efiopiya Granada Vengriya Shimoliy Koreya Laos Mo'g'uliston Mozambik Polsha Ruminiya Somali Sovet Ittifoqi Armaniston Ozarbayjon Belorussiya Estoniya Gruziya Qozog'iston Qirg'iziston Latviya Litva Moldova Rossiya Tojikiston Turkmaniston Ukraina O'zbekiston Vetnam Yaman Yugoslaviya Bosniya va Gertsegovina Xorvatiya Makedoniya Chernogoriya Serbiya Sloveniya
Tashkilotlar Albaniya Mehnat partiyasi Komekon Komintern Xitoy Kommunistik partiyasi Kuba Kommunistik partiyasi Hindiston Kommunistik partiyasi Hindiston Kommunistik partiyasi (marksistik) Kampucheya Kommunistik partiyasi Filippin kommunistik partiyasi Rossiya Federatsiyasi Kommunistik partiyasi Sovet Ittifoqi Kommunistik partiyasi Vetnam Kommunistik partiyasi Hindxitoy kommunistik partiyasi Kampuchean Xalq inqilobiy partiyasi Laos xalq-inqilobiy partiyasi Falastinni ozod qilish uchun Xalq jabhasi Sandinista milliy ozodlik fronti Yorqin yo'l Koreya ishchilar partiyasi
Tegishli mavzular Bolshevizm Leninizm Trootskizm
Shuningdek qarang Butunittifoq kommunistik partiyasi (bolsheviklar) Anti-kommunizm Ommaviy qotillik Sovuq urush Insoniyatga qarshi jinoyatlar kommunistik rejimlar ostida Ommaviy qotillik Kommunistik partiya boshqaruvini tanqid qilish Shaxsga sig'inish Marksistik qarashlar maktablari Milliy bolshevizm Yangi sinf Post-kommunizm Qizil fashizm Qizil qo'rqinch Ikkinchi Ikkinchi dunyo Davlat kapitalizmi Davlat sotsializmi Xitoyning davlat mafkurasi Sovet Ittifoqining davlat mafkurasi Uchinchi dunyoizm Totalitarizm
Kommunizm portali  Siyosat portali  Sotsializm portali

A qismi seriyali kuni
Stalinizm
Tushunchalar Sotsializm sharoitida sinfiy kurashning og'irlashishi Anti-revizionizm Kollektivizatsiya Shaxsga sig'inish Katta tanaffus Marksizm-leninizm Ommabop front O'z-o'zini tanqid qilish Bir mamlakatda sotsializm Sovet sotsialistik vatanparvarligi
Odamlar Jozef Stalin Boleslav Bierut Metyas Rakosi Valter Ulbrixt Valko Chervenkov Enver Xoxa Kim Ir Sen Nikolae Chauşesku
Nazariy ishlar Leninizm asoslari Kommunistik partiya tarixi Sovet Ittifoqi (bolsheviklar) Dialektik va tarixiy materializm SSSRdagi sotsializmning iqtisodiy muammolari Marksizm-leninizm asoslari
Tarix Sovet Ittifoqi 1927–1953 Katta tanaffus Sovet Ittifoqidagi kollektivizatsiya Sovet Ittifoqida sanoatlashtirish Buyuk tozalash Ispaniya fuqarolar urushi Ulug 'Vatan urushi Yunonistonda fuqarolar urushi Sovuq urush Sharqiy blok Xitoy inqilobi Birinchi Hindiston urushi Koreya urushi Shifokorlarning fitnasi
Tomonlar Butunittifoq Kommunistik partiyasi bolsheviklari Albaniya Mehnat partiyasi Yangi Zelandiya Kommunistik partiyasi Vetnam Kommunistik partiyasi Ruminiya Kommunistik partiyasi Rossiya Federatsiyasi Kommunistik partiyasi Milliy bolsheviklar partiyasi Boshqa Rossiya Stalin bloki - SSSR uchun
Tegishli mavzular Stalinistlarga qarshi chap De-stalinizatsiya Iosif Stalinning paydo bo'lishi Stalin va antisemitizm Stalin davri Stalin jamiyati Stalin arxitekturasi Neo-stalinizm Buyuk tozalash Xoxaizm Maoizm Milliy bolshevizm Milliy kommunizm Vatanparvarlik Qizil fashizm Xitoy-Albaniya bo'linishi Sovet-Sovet bo'linishi Sovet-alban bo'linishi Tito-Stalin ikkiga bo'lingan Totalitarizm
Kommunizm portali  Sotsializm portali  Siyosat portali

Avtoritar sotsializm - umuman ta'riflanishi mumkin bo'lgan siyosiy-iqtisodiy tizim sotsialistik, lekin birini rad qiladigan kishi liberal-demokratik tushunchalari ko'p partiyali siyosat, yig'ilishlar erkinligi, habeas corpus va so'z erkinligi. Zamonaviy avtoritar uchun umumiy bo'lgan boshqa xususiyatlar sotsialistik davlatlar 20-asrdan boshlab ta'kidlashni o'z ichiga oladi og'ir sanoat uchun rivojlanish, a yagona partiyaviy tizim maqsadlarini ilgari surish davlat oldinga, dan keng foydalanish tashviqot xuddi shunday qilish va ko'proq qilish.^[2][3][4]

Sovet advokatlari va sotsialistlari ushbu turdagi tanqidlarga kontseptsiyadagi g'oyaviy farqlarni ta'kidlab javob berishdi erkinlik va ozodlik. Qayd etilishicha, "Marksist-leninchi buzilgan normalar laissez-faire individualizm (uy-joy birovning to'lash qobiliyatiga qarab belgilanadigan kabi) "va" shaxsiy boylikdagi turli xil o'zgarishlarni G'arb "qoralamagan" bo'lsa-da, tenglikni ta'kidlar ekan, ular bu erda "bepul ta'lim va tibbiy yordam, uy-joy yoki ish haqi bo'yicha ozgina farqlar va" va hokazo ".^[121]

Sobiq fuqarolarning da'vosiga izoh berishni so'rashganda sotsialistik davlatlar endi kengaytirilgan erkinliklardan foydalaning, Xaynts Kessler, avvalgi Sharqiy Germaniya milliy mudofaa vaziri, javob berdi: "Sharqiy Evropada millionlab odamlar endi ishdan, xavfsiz ko'chalardan, sog'liqni saqlashdan va ijtimoiy ta'minotdan ozod bo'lishdi".^[122]

Sanoatning shakllanishi

Avtoritar kuchlar sotsialistik iqtisodiyotni tatbiq etar ekan, bu jarayon ko'pincha og'ir sanoatning o'sishiga erishish vositasi sifatida yordam beradi. sanoatlashtirish (ko'rinib turganidek Jozef Stalin ning nazorati Sovet Ittifoqi ). Stalin maqsadlari Sovet iqtisodiyotini jadal sanoatlashtirishga olib keldi, bu 1930 yilga kelib shahar aholisini yana 30 million kishiga ko'paytirdi va 1940 yilga kelib avtomobillar ishlab chiqarishni yiliga 200 ming kishiga etkazdi.^[123]

Sovet Ittifoqi tashqarisida 20-asrning boshlarida ko'tarilgan ikki global ishtirokchi yosh davlatlar edi Germaniya va Italiya. Amalga oshirilgan ko'plab siyosatlar Nemis fashisti Adolf Gitler va Italiya fashisti Benito Mussolini, bularni kim yaratgan shaxsiyat kultlari, qarama-qarshi va yomon tushunilgan, ularning davlatlari ostida bir nechta markazlashtirilgan rejalashtirilgan ish loyihalari mavjud edi.^[124] The Reyxsautobaxn yilda Natsistlar Germaniyasi bunga misol bo'ldi. Ning qurilishi Avtobahn va avtomobil yo'llari qurilishi atrofidagi sanoat tarmoqlari qurilish davomida band bo'lgan nemislarning foizini oshirdi.^[125] Yilda Fashistik Italiya kabi loyihalar Don uchun jang yoki Er uchun jang sotsialistlar an'anaviy ravishda qo'llab-quvvatlaydigan jamoat ishlarining loyihalari. Biroq, Eksa kuchlari, boshqa fashistik rejimlar qatorida, a korparatist aralash iqtisodiyot sotsializm o'rniga va barchasi radikal edi antikommunistlar, anti-marksistlar va sotsialistlar. Aksincha, ular misol sifatida tasvirlangan avtoritar^{[53][54][55][56]} va totalitar kapitalizm,^[126] Mussolini iqtisodiy siyosatni tashkil etish uchun xususiy biznes va davlatni bog'lashni tanlash bilan.^[127]

Avtoritar sotsialistik rejimlar o'rtasida umumiy bo'lgan yana bir narsa bu edi avtarkiy. Bu boshqa avtoritar tuzumlar tomonidan qabul qilingan bo'lsa-da, bu juda xilma-xil sabablarga ko'ra amalga oshirilgan. Avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlar avtarkiyani ta'qib qildilar^[128] yetmoq tanqislikdan keyingi iqtisodiyot kafolat berish a kommunistik jamiyat holbuki, fashistik rejimlar uni ta'qib qildilar millatchi va imperialistik fashistik Germaniya kabi maqsadlar yashash maydoni, bilan fashist va o'ta o'ng avtarkiyaga intilishni da'vo qiladigan harakatlar platformalar yoki ichida tashviqot, ammo amalda ular o'zlarini ta'minlash uchun mavjud harakatlarni tor-mor etishdi.^[129] Ular ekspansist urush va genotsidga tayyor bo'lish uchun keng kapital aloqalarini o'rnatdilar^[130] an'anaviy bilan ittifoq qilish paytida biznes va tijorat elita.^[131] Avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlar va fashistik rejimlar, shuningdek, ikkinchisi diqqat markazini o'zgartirganligi bilan farq qildilar sinf ziddiyati o'rtasidagi ziddiyatga e'tibor qaratish millatlar va irqlar.^[132]

A Marksistik jamiyat tahlili 19-asrdagi sanoatlashtirish jarayoni oqimni joylashtirganligini ta'kidlaydi metropollar ularning hozirgi hokimiyat pozitsiyalarida. Nazariy jihatdan, sanoatlashtirish imkon berishi kerak tartib ko'tarish uchun metropollardan tashqari turmush darajasi va ularning raqobatbardoshligi populyatsiyalar ushbu metropollar bilan iqtisodiy darajada bo'lish.^[133] Biroq, chetga Rossiya va bir qator oldingi Sharqiy blok a'zolari, ko'p postsovet davlatlari sobiq va hozirgi avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlar ham toifalarga kiritilmagan sanoati rivojlangan mamlakatlar.^[134]

Yagona partiyaviy tizim

Avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlar ko'pincha qarshi ko'p partiyali tizim kuchini singdirish hukumat ichiga yagona partiya buni bitta davlat rahbari boshqarishi mumkin edi. Buning sababi shundaki, elita sotsialistik nazariyani tatbiq etish uchun vaqt va resurslarga ega, chunki bu sotsialistik davlatda xalq manfaatlarini partiya yoki partiya rahbari himoya qiladi. Hal Draper buni yuqoridan sotsializm deb atashgan.^[135] Draperning fikriga ko'ra, yuqoridan sotsializm oltita shtamm yoki shaklda keladi, ular sotsialistik tizim tepasida elita guruhini ratsionalizatsiya qilishni talab qiladi. Bu a dan farq qiladi Marksistik sotsializmni pastdan turib himoya qiladigan istiqbol, sotsializmning yanada toza va demokratik yo'l bilan boshqariladigan shakli.^[135]

Evropadan tashqarida, Eritreya, Mozambik va Vetnam 20-asrning bir qismida sotsialistik bo'lgan va yakka partiya tomonidan boshqarilgan davlatlarning namunalari sifatida turing. Eritreyada 1970 yilda paydo bo'lgan hukmron partiya Eritreya Xalq ozodlik fronti (EPLF) va davlat nazorati ostida EPLF ayollar huquqlarini kengaytirish va ta'limni kengaytirish kabi sotsialistik ideallar ustida ish boshladi.^[136] Mozambikda yagona davlat boshqaruvi FRELIMO 1975 yilda Portugaliya hukmronligi tugaganidan keyin davlat hali ham mafkuraviy jihatdan sotsialistik bo'lgan paytda yuz berdi.^[137] Vetnamda Vetnam Kommunistik partiyasi o'zini sotsializmga o'tishda, shuningdek "mehnatkash xalq va butun xalqning avangardi" deb biladi.^[138]

Targ'ibot

Kafedralar tashviqot bularda umuman kam emas rejimlar. Targ'ibotdan keng foydalanish to'kilgan san'at, kino, plakatlar, gazetalar, kitoblar. Sovet Ittifoqida qattiq mahsulot tsenzura ning gullab-yashnashi edi Rossiya fantastika va fantaziyasi shu qatorda; shu bilan birga sotsialistik realizm.^[139] Lotin Amerikasida, Che Gevara sotsializm xalqaro miqyosdagi kurash edi degan g'oyani namoyish qildi va harakat qildi Radio Rebelde va uning stantsiyani uzatilishi Kuba shimolga qadar Vashington^[140]

Iqtisodiyot

Avtoritar sotsialistik iqtisodiy tizimning uni bir-biridan ajratib turadigan bir necha elementar xususiyatlari mavjud kapitalistik bozor iqtisodiyoti, ya'ni kommunistik partiya ishchilar sinfini namoyish qilishda kuchlarning kontsentratsiyasiga ega va partiyaning qarorlari jamoat hayotiga shu qadar singib ketganki, uning iqtisodiy va iqtisodiy bo'lmagan qarorlari ularning umumiy harakatlarining bir qismidir; tabiiy resurslar va kapital jamiyatga tegishli bo'lgan ishlab chiqarish vositalariga davlat egaligi; markaziy iqtisodiy rejalashtirish, avtoritar-davlat sotsialistik iqtisodiyotining asosiy xarakteristikasi; bozor markaziy davlat idorasi, umuman davlat rejalashtirish komissiyasi tomonidan rejalashtirilgan; davlat tomonidan xususiy iste'molni to'ldiruvchi tovarlar va xizmatlar bepul taqdim etiladigan milliy daromadni ijtimoiy jihatdan teng taqsimlash. Ushbu iqtisodiy model hukumatning markaziy rejalashtirish bilan juda ajralib turadi.^[141] Ideal holda, jamiyat ishlab chiqarish vositalariga ijtimoiy egalikdagi kabi egasi bo'lar edi, ammo amalda davlat ishlab chiqarish vositalariga egadir. Agar davlat egasi bo'lsa, u ishchi sinf va butun jamiyat manfaati uchun ishlaydi degan fikr.^[142] Amaliyotda jamiyat faqat nazariy jihatdan egasidir va jamiyatni boshqaradigan siyosiy institutlar to'liq davlat tomonidan o'rnatiladi.^[143]

Esa Marksist-leninchilar bu ishchilarni saqlab qolish Sovet Ittifoqi va boshqalar sotsialistik davlatlar kasaba uyushmalari kabi muassasalar orqali ishlab chiqarish vositalari ustidan chinakam nazoratni amalga oshirgan,^[144] demokratik va ozodlik sotsialistlar bu davlatlar cheklangan miqdordagi sotsialistik xususiyatlarga ega edi va amalda shunday deb ta'kidlaydilar davlat kapitalistlari bu quyidagi kapitalistik ishlab chiqarish usuli.^{[145][146][147]} Yilda Sotsializm: utopik va ilmiy, Fridrix Engels deb ta'kidladi davlat mulki o'z-o'zidan kapitalizmni yo'q qilmaydi,^[148] aksincha, bu kapitalizmning so'nggi bosqichi bo'lar edi burjua davlati.^[149] Yilda Imperializm, kapitalizmning eng yuqori bosqichi va Imperializm va jahon iqtisodiyoti, ikkalasi ham Vladimir Lenin va Nikolay Buxarin o'z navbatida shunga o'xshash tarzda "davlat kapitalizmining o'sishini o'zining imperialistik davrida kapitalizmning asosiy xususiyatlaridan biri sifatida belgilagan".^{[150][151][152]} Yilda Davlat va inqilob, Lenin "monopol kapitalizm yoki davlat-monopol kapitalizm endi kapitalizm emas, endi uni" davlat sotsializmi "va boshqalar deb atash mumkin" degan noto'g'ri burjua islohotchilar fikri juda keng tarqalgan "deb yozgan.^[153]

Bir necha iqtisodchi va olimlar avtoritar sotsialistik davlatlar a ga ergashmadilar deb ta'kidladilar rejali iqtisodiyot, lekin aksincha quyidagicha ta'riflangan ma'muriy-buyruqbozlik tizimi va chaqirdi iqtisodiyotni boshqarish, bu iqtisodiy tizimlarda resurslarni taqsimlashda rahbarlikdagi ierarxik boshqaruv va ishlab chiqarishga jamoat mulkchiligining markaziy rolini ta'kidlaydigan atama,^{[76][154][77]} ajratish to'g'risidagi muhim qarorlarni ishchilarning o'zi emas, balki hukumat organlari qabul qiladi va qonun bilan belgilanadi.^[155] Bu ongli rejalashtirishni marksistik tushunishga zid keladi.^[156][157]

Markaziy rejalashtirish

A markazlashgan rejali iqtisodiyot, odatda, Davlat rejalashtirish komissiyasi deb nomlangan markaziy rejalashtirish organi mavjud bo'lib, u ijtimoiy maqsadlar va partiya tomonidan belgilangan ustuvorliklar doirasida ish yuritishga mas'uldir.^[141] Rejalashtirish bozor ko'rsatkichlarini tark etish ijtimoiy taraqqiyotga imkon beradi degan fikr ostida amalga oshirildi.^[158] Rejalashtirishning markaziy organi beshta aniq vazifa uchun javobgardir, ya'ni rejalashtirish qarorlarini iqtisodiy hisoblash mezonlarini belgilaydi; belgilangan muddat ichida erishiladigan maqsadlarni aniqlash va miqdorini aniqlash; "rejani izchil va ishonchli bo'lishini ta'minlash uchun maqsadlarni muvofiqlashtirish; rejaning amalga oshirilishini ta'minlash usullarini aniqlash; o'zgaruvchan iqtisodiy hisob-kitoblarga muvofiq maqsadlarni qayta ko'rib chiqish.^[141]

Rejalashtirish jarayoni bir yillik rejalar, besh yillik rejalar va uzoq muddatli rejalarni tuzishni o'z ichiga olgan. Bir yillik rejalarda ishlab chiqarish va bozor muvozanatining dolzarb muammolarini hal qiladigan jadvallar va tafsilotlar mavjud edi. Besh yillik rejalar kelgusi besh yilda amalga oshiriladigan siyosiy, harbiy va iqtisodiy strategiyani, shuningdek quvvat va ishlab chiqarish sur'atlaridagi o'zgarishlarni birlashtirdi. Buni barcha idoralar, vazirliklar, kasbiy va ilmiy tashkilotlarning ellik nafarga yaqin etakchi mutaxassislaridan iborat guruh amalga oshirdi. Uzoq muddatli rejalar global strategiyani ishlab chiqishni qamrab oldi. This plan was about goals for the state and society, not about individual responsibilities. Structural changes were a main theme.^[141][159] Nevertheless, centrally planned economies provided a better quality of life than market economies at the same level of economic development in nearly all cases.^[160]

Some economists have argued that the major reason for the economic shortcomings of authoritarian socialist states which adopted Soviet-type planning was due to their avtoritar and administrative, buyruq nature rather than sotsializm o'zi yoki rejalashtirish as a whole and that both iqtisodiy rejalashtirish and government direction of the economy through non-coercive means such as dirigizm have been practiced with success during the urushdan keyingi kelishuv. It has been argued that authoritarian socialist states failed because they did not create rules and operational criteria for the efficient operation of davlat korxonalari ularning ichida administrative-command ajratish resurslar va tovarlar va etishmasligi demokratiya in the political systems that the authoritarian socialist economies were combined with. A form of competitive socialism that rejects diktatura and authoritarian allocation of resources in favour of iqtisodiy demokratiya could work and prove superior to the capitalist bozor iqtisodiyoti.^[161] Others have argued that a central deficiency of such economic planning was that it was not premised on final consumer demand, but that such a system would be increasingly feasible with advances in information technology.^[162][163]

Sovet Ittifoqi iqtisodiyoti

Ning mohiyati Sovet iqtisodiyoti bu kommunistik partiya is the sole authority of the national interest. The party makes all the decisions, but they should take into account the desires of the population and these desires were then to be weighted into the decision making. According to Article 11 of its 1977 constitution, the main goal of the Sovet Ittifoqi was to "raise the material and cultural standards of the working people". Marxist thought and its interpretation by the Soviet Union dictated that private ownership was to be banned and the nationalization of all aspects of production a necessity, yet some things were not nationalized for the sake of economic efficiency or production targets. There was an emphasis on rapid industrialization, the development of heavy industry, relegation of consumer production as non-essential and collectivization of agriculture. Sovet tipidagi iqtisodiyot also used a larger proportion of their resources on investment than do market economies. The issue with this was that current consumption was undercut because of the over-investment. All these actions supported the purposes of the state, not the people.^[164]

During the 1940s–1970s, the Sovet Ittifoqi iqtisodiyoti grew at a rate that outpaced that of Western European nations, but by the 1980s the Soviet economy was in shambles. Bunga bog'liq bo'lgan Turg'unlik davri, a more tolerant central government and increasing military spending caused by the yadroviy qurollanish poygasi with the United States, especially under Ronald Reygan, whose administration pursued more aggressive relations with the Soviet Union instead of détente that was preferred in the 1970s. The end to the urushdan keyingi kelishuv va Keynschilik in the 1970s and the rise of neoliberalizm va iqtisodiy globallashuv in the 1980s also caused problems as they forced the Soviet Union and other countries to adapt and reform themselves. Unlike China, the Soviet's failure to do so further contributed to its dissolution in December 1991.^[165] A main problem of the Soviet Union was that it pushed agriculture to the bottom of its priorities and that its central planning scheme inhibited technological innovation.^[164][166] Despite the attempts of the Soviet Union to guarantee employment to all of its labor force, it did not satisfy the human desires of its laborers because "people want land, not collectivization. Consumers want goods, not gigantic industrial enterprise. Workers want better wages and higher living standards, not citations and medals. [And] an economy cannot be politically tailored to perfection".^[164][167]

The Soviet Union had a poor overall performance. Although it had high growth rates in productions, many enterprises operated with losses.^[168] Nevertheless, the Soviet Union's growth in GDP per capita compared favorably with Western Europe. In 1913, prior to both Birinchi jahon urushi va Rossiya inqilobi of 1917, the former Soviet Union had a GDP per capita of $1,488 in 1990 international dollars which grew 461% to $6,871 by 1990. After its dissolution in December 1991, this figure fell to $3,893 by 1998. By comparison, Western Europe grew from a higher base of $3,688 international dollars by a comparable 457% to $16,872 in the same period and reached $17,921 by 1998.^[169] Dan Stalin davri erta Brejnev davri, Sovet iqtisodiyoti grew faster than the Qo'shma Shtatlar and maintained itself as the second largest economy in both nominal and purchasing power parity values ko'plari uchun Sovuq urush 1988 yilgacha, qachon Yaponiya took the second place.^[169] It is also claimed that the Soviet model provided a better hayot sifati va inson rivojlanishi than market economies at the same level of economic development in nearly all cases.^[160] Bilan Sovet Ittifoqining tarqatib yuborilishi^[170] followed by a rapid decrease of the quality of life, there has been a growing Sovet nostalji^[171] that has been most prominent in Russia^{[172][173][174][175]} and with older people.^{[176][177][178][179]}

Economy of the Eastern Bloc

The initial move for socialism was in 1963 after a Central Committee meeting, these countries became the Komekon mamlakatlar. There were countries that chose to introduce the new economic system gradually (Bolgariya, Sharqiy Germaniya va Polsha ) and countries that decided to first prepare theoretically, then experimentation at different levels and then in a large scale (Vengriya va Ruminiya ). Chexoslovakiya was set apart because the first stage of its transition consisted of economic recovery and then socialism was gradually implemented. Yugoslaviya differed from other Eastern European countries in that after 1950 it modified its economic system by making self-management the base of enterprise activity.^[168] There were also a few differences between the economic model of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries such as East Germany and Poland. Czechoslovakia and East Germany were administered along regional lines. Poland retained a centralized system similar to the Stalinist centralization of the Soviet Union.^[167] The Eastern European countries differed from the Soviet Union in that they had greater flexibility in the management of subordinate firms, the market was assigned a greater importance, accessible foreign trade and liberalization of the exchange of capital goods. There was also less bureaucracy than in the Soviet Union involved in the planning of the countries.^[168]

The Eastern Bloc countries achieved high rates of economic and technical progress, promoted industrialization and ensured steady growth rates of labor productivity and rises in the standard of living^[180] despite experiencing misdevelopment by central planners.^[181] During the 1950s–1960s, growth rates were high,^[182] progress was rapid by European standards and per capita growth within the Eastern European countries increased by 2.4 times the European average, accounting for 12.3 percent of European production in 1950 and 14.4 in 1970,^[182] but most of their economies were stagnant by the late 1970s and 1980s as the system was resistant to change and did not easily adapt to new conditions.^[182] Siyosiy sabablarga ko'ra eski fabrikalar kamdan-kam hollarda yopilgan, hatto yangi texnologiyalar paydo bo'lganda ham.^[182] Growth rates within the Eastern Bloc experienced relative decline after the 1970s.^[181] This has also been attributed to the 1970-yillardagi energetika inqirozi shu jumladan 1973 yilgi neft inqirozi, 1979 yilgi energetika inqirozi va 1980-yillarda yog 'yog'i, post-war displacement ning Keynschilik va ko'tarilish neoliberalizm va iqtisodiy globallashuv. Countries such as China that did not isolate and instead reformed themselves thrived, but this did not happen in most Eastern Bloc countries as they depended upon the Soviet Union, especially for significant amounts of materials.^[181] From the end of the World War II to the mid-1970s, the economy of the Eastern Bloc steadily increased at the same rate as the economy in Western Europe, with the least none-reforming Stalin nations of the Eastern Bloc having a stronger economy then the reformist-Stalinist states.^[183] While most Western European economies essentially began to approach the GDP per capita levels of the United States during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Eastern Bloc countries did not,^[181] with per capita GDPs trailing significantly behind their comparable Western European counterparts.^[181]

Ning qulashi ortidan Sharqiy blok bilan 1989 yilgi inqiloblar, the economies of postsovet davlatlari quickly fell apart and took a long time to return to pre-1989 levels.^[169] Not only growth plummeted following the Sovet Ittifoqining tarqatib yuborilishi in December 1991, but also living standards declined, drug use, homelessness and poverty skyrocketed and suicides increased dramatically. Growth did not begin to return to pre-reform-era levels for approximately fifteen years. Some scholars have claimed that the Soviet model's industrialization and modernization laid the groundwork for their later iqtisodiy o'sish, without which their current market-oriented economy may have not thrived or growth as much, or that it provided a better quality of life than market economies.^[160] The 1991 yil Sovet Ittifoqi referendumi (77% on an 80% turnout voted to preserve the Soviet Union and all Sovet respublikalari voters voted in favor, with the Turkmenia Republic showing the most support at 98% and the lowest in the Rossiya Respublikasi at 73%)^[184] has also been cited to argue that a vast majority of people did not want the Soviet Union dissolved, but rather more autonomy for the states within the union instead of a separation and the massive privatizations which had disastrous effects including giving rise to powerful oligarxlar, ayniqsa Rossiya va Ukraina.^[185] Mixail Gorbachyov, oxirgi Sovet rahbari, supported Scandinavian ijtimoiy demokratiya shaklida Shimoliy model.^[186][187] In light of those results, post-Soviet states have seen a growing nostalgia and a constant high number of people have expressed a longing for the Soviet period and its values since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, although the level of Soviet nostalgia varies across the former republics and certain groups of people may blend the Soviet and post-Soviet experience in their daily lives.^[188] Polls have also showed that a majority of post-Soviet states viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union negatively^[189] and felt that it could have been avoided.^[170] An even greater number would openly welcome a revival of the Soviet system.^[178][179] Sovet Ittifoqi uchun nostalji has appeared in the former Eastern Bloc,^{[190][191][192][193][194]} especially in eastern Germany,^[195] Polsha,^{[196][197][198][199]} Ruminiya^[200] va sobiq Yugoslaviya.^[201][202]

The dissolution of the Soviet system was followed by a rapid increase in qashshoqlik,^{[203][204][205]} jinoyat,^[206][207] korruptsiya,^[208][209] ishsizlik,^[210] uysizlik,^[211][212] stavkalari kasallik,^{[213][214][215]} bolalar o'limi,^[216] oiladagi zo'ravonlik^[216] va daromadlar tengsizligi,^[217] along with decreases in kaloriya qabul qilish, umr ko'rish davomiyligi, kattalar savodxonligi va daromad.^[218] Many people in post-Soviet states felt that their lives were worse off after 1989, when capitalist markets were made dominant.^[219][220] Subsequent polls and qualitative research across post-Soviet states "confirmed these sentiments as popular discontent with the failed promises of free-market prosperity has grown, especially among older people".^[221]

Xitoy iqtisodiyoti

The Maoist economic model of China was designed after the Stalinist principles of a markaziy ravishda boshqariladi buyruqbozlik iqtisodiyoti asosida Sovet modeli.^[222] In the common program set up by the Xitoy Xalq siyosiy maslahat kengashi in 1949, in effect the country's interim constitution, davlat kapitalizmi meant an economic system of korporativlik. It provided the maxim "Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of state capitalism".^[223]

Keyin Sovet Ittifoqi Kommunistik partiyasining 20-s'ezdi, Mao Szedun condemned Stalinizm and the flaws in the Marksist-leninchi movement that peaked with the 1956 yil Vengriya qo'zg'oloni. This gave Mao space in which to experiment with departure from the Soviet socialist economy. The Maoist economic model was reliant on High Tide of Socialism in the Chinese Countryside, How to Handle Contradictions Among the People va Ten Great Relationships. Mao modeled the Chinese socialist economy in such a way that it led to the Oldinga sakrash va Commune Movement. Yilda High Tide of Socialism in the Chinese Countryside, Mao focused on the industrialization and mechanization of the countryside. Yilda How to Handle Contradictions Among the People, Mao wrote about his thoughts on the problems of socialist states as well as the conflicts of interest in the Chinese socialist society. Yilda Ten Great Relationships, Mao wrote about his vision of China's economy.^[224]

The Maoist model had a dual economic goal, namely the industrialization of the countryside and the socialization of its people. It differed from the Soviet Union's goals in that Mao emphasized the sinfiy kurash qarshi burjuaziya while the Soviet Union started advocating tinch yashash. China also allowed for more flexibility and experimentation than the Soviet Union and the countryside was at the center of its policies.^[225] Supporters argue that life expectancy greatly improved under Mao and that he rapidly industrialized China and laid the groundwork for the country's later rise to become an economic superpower^{[226][227][228][229]} while critics see many of Maoist economic policies as impediments to industrialization and modernization that delayed economic development and claim that China's economy underwent its rapid growth only after Maoist policies had been widely abandoned.^[230]

Economic challenges and legacy

The problem with the central planning of authoritarian socialist states is that as the state develops, it also grows in complexity and the possible errors grow and the possibilities of dis-allocations and waste of resources.^[141] Izoh sifatida Karl Marks, capitalism works because it is a system of economic force, but in socialist economics this force is insufficient to provide enough incentive. Human needs should be taken into account to make a socialist society function, but there is no necessary connection between the accumulation of capital and human satisfaction.^[231] Some of the issues that emerged during the socialist phase of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Maoist China included inflation, lagged consumption, fixed prices, production structure and disproportionality.^[158]

There was a lag between when products were fabricated and when they were accessed to by the population, goods tended to stockpile. Yugoslavia raised its industrial prices by 17% and its agricultural prices by 32% from 1964 to 1965 while Czechoslovakia raised the prices of foodstuffs and services by 20% in 1966 and by 1967 prices were up by 30%. The production of consumer products also diminished in Yugoslavia, where the share of consumer products fell from 70% before World War II to 31% in 1965. Prices were fixed under the premise that it would force producers to behave more efficiently and as such the price-controlled products were produced in lower quantities. In Yugoslavia, the market distortion caused by the price fixing was realized and led to the un-freezing of prices in 1967. Hungary also had frozen prices and slowly unfroze them over a period of ten to fifteen years because otherwise the structural disproportions of the Hungarian economy would spin prices out of control. Many factories were kept running through government subsidies and protection despite any economic losses of the factories. This decreased overall efficiency of the socialist economies, increased the financial losses of those economies and caused them to have a disproportionate amount of available jobs and manpower. As argued by Ljubo Sirc, the "Soviet Union and other communist countries have the worst of both worlds: some enterprises or operations are inefficient because they are too capital-intensive, other enterprises or operations because they are too labour-intensive".^[158]

The Stalin economic model in which the socialist economies were based did not allow for a decrease in growth rates. It did not allow for the flexibility needed to keep up with growing economies.^[222] Ga binoan Pol Roderik Grigoriy, Sovet Ittifoqining qulashi was due to the inherent drawbacks of the ma'muriy-buyruqbozlik tizimi, namely poor planning, low expertise of planners, unreliable supply lines, conflict between planners and producers and the dictatorial chain of command. According to Gregory, "the system was managed by thousands of 'Stalins' in a nested dictatorship". Once the enterprizes gained some freedom davomida qayta qurish, the rigid administrative-command system imploded.^[232][233] Despite these shortcomings, the Soviet Union's growth in GDP per capita compared favorably with Western Europe.^[169] It has also been noted that such states compared favorably with Western states in some health indicators such as bolalar o'limi va umr ko'rish davomiyligi,^[234] making some significant gains and that "one thought [...] bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal".^[235] Sovet Ittifoqining davomli merosi, qurilishga qaratilgan o'n yillik siyosat davomida yaratilgan jismoniy infratuzilma bo'lib qolmoqda og'ir sanoat va keng tarqalgan atrof-muhitni yo'q qilish.^[236] Under the Soviet system, income, property and social equality was radically increased. Daromadlarning tengsizligi in Russia dropped, then rebounded after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. Similarly, income inequality also dropped rapidly in the Sharqiy blok and after Eastern Europe went under the Soviet ta'sir doirasi Ikkinchi Jahon urushi oxirida. After the collapse of the Soviet system, economic and ijtimoiy tengsizlik went back up.^[237]

The breakdown of economic ties that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a severe economic crisis and catastrophic fall in turmush darajasi yilda postsovet davlatlari and the former Eastern Bloc^[238] which was even worse than the Katta depressiya.^[239][240] Qashshoqlik va iqtisodiy tengsizlik surged between 1988–1989 and 1993–1995, with the Jini nisbati increasing by an average of 9 points for all former socialist states.^[241] Rossiyadan oldin ham moliyaviy inqiroz in 1998, Russia's GDP was half of what it had been in the early 1990s.^[240] In the decades following the end of the Cold War, only five or six of the post-communist states are on a path to joining the wealthy capitalist West while most are falling behind, some to such an extent that it will take over 50 years to catch up to where they were before the end of the Soviet system.^[242][243] In a 2001 study by economist Steven Rosefielde, he calculated that there were 3.4 million premature deaths in Russia from 1990 to 1998, partly blaming on the "shok terapiyasi "bilan kelgan Vashington konsensusi.^[244]

Ga binoan Klas-Göran Karlsson, discussion of the number of victims of authoritarian socialist regimes has been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased".^[245] Any attempt to estimate a total number of killings under authoritarian socialist regimes depends greatly on definitions,^[246] ranging from a low of 10–20 millions to as high as 110 millions.^[247] The criticism of some of the estimates are mostly focused on three aspects, namely that the estimates were based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable; that the figures were skewed to higher possible values; and that those dying at war and victims of civil wars, Holodomor and other famines under authoritarian socialist governments should not be counted.^{[248][249][250][251][252][253]} Critics also argue that neoliberal siyosati liberallashtirish, tartibga solish va xususiylashtirish "had catastrophic effects on former Soviet Bloc countries" and that the imposition of Washington Consensus-inspired "shock therapy" had little to do with future economic growth.^[185] It has been argued that the establishment of ijtimoiy davlatlar in the West in the early 20th century could be partly a reaction by elites to the Bolsheviklar inqilobi and its violence against the burjuaziya which feared violent revolution in its own backyard.^[254] The welfare states gave rise to the urushdan keyingi kelishuv va urushdan keyingi iqtisodiy o'sish, where the United States, the Soviet Union and Western European and East Asian countries in particular experienced unusually high and sustained iqtisodiy o'sish bilan birga to'liq ish bilan ta'minlash. Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war such as Japan (Yaponiyaning urushdan keyingi iqtisodiy mo''jizasi ), West Germany and Austria (Wirtschaftswunder ), Janubiy Koreya (Xan daryosining mo''jizasi ), Frantsiya (Trente Glorieuslar ), Italiya (Italiyaning iqtisodiy mo''jizasi ) va Gretsiya (Yunonistonning iqtisodiy mo''jizasi ).^[255][256] Xuddi shunday, Maykl Parenti holds that the Soviet model played a role in "tempering the worst impulses of Western capitalism and imperialism" and that Western business interests are "no longer restrained by a competing system" in the post-Cold War era and are now "rolling back the many gains that working people in the West have won over the years".^[257] For Parenti, there were clear differences between fascist and socialist regimes as the latter "made dramatic gains in literacy, industrial wages, health care and women's rights" and in general "created a life for the mass of people that was far better than the wretched existence they had endured under feudal lords, military bosses, foreign colonizers and Western capitalists".^[258]

Other have criticized the linking of all leftist and socialist ideals to the excesses of Stalinism^[259][260] by the elites in the West in hope to discredit and marginalize all political ideologies^[119][120] that could "threaten the primacy of private property and free markets",^[116] emphasising Stalin and other socialist leaders' crimes and neglecting legitimate achievements such as education, literacy, the modernisation of the economy, social security, the rise in the standard of living and women's rights.^[116][260] Similarly, it has been argued that there is a double standard in emphasising famines, labour camps, mass killings and purges under socialist regimes in a death toll body count,^[261][262] but not applying the same standard to kapitalistik, mustamlaka -imperatorlik rejimlar.^{[116][263][264]} The collapse of the Soviet system, the Soviet Union in particular, is seen as the proof that communism and socialism can not work, allowing for all left-wing criticism of the excesses of neoliberal capitalism to be silenced,^[221] for the alternatives will supposedly inevitably result in economic inefficiency and violent authoritarianism.^[265] Some Western academics argue that anti-communist narratives have exaggerated the extent of political repression and censorship in states under authoritarian socialist rule,^[266] or that those states provided inson huquqlari kabi iqtisodiy, ijtimoiy va madaniy huquqlar not found under kapitalistik davlatlar.^[267]

Rivojlanish

Authoritarian socialism is best understood through an examination of its developmental history, allowing for the analysis and comparison of its various global examples. Although authoritarian socialism was by no means restricted to the Soviet Union, its ideological development occurred in tandem with the Stalin rejimlar.^[268][269] As the Soviet Union was a developmental model for many socialist states in the post-World War II era, Soviet authoritarian socialism was adopted by a diverse range of states and continued to develop well into the 20th century in the Middle East and North African regions. Those regions, characterized by authoritarian traits such as uncontested party leadership, restricted civil liberties and strong unelected officials with non-democratic influence on policy, share many commonalities with the Soviet Union.^[270]

Authoritarian socialist states were ideologically Marksist-leninchi (the Sovet Ittifoqining davlat mafkurasi that arose in Imperial Russia within the Bolshevik ning fraktsiyasi Rossiya sotsial-demokratik ishchi partiyasi ) or one of its variants such as Maoizm, among other national variants and updating, following the Soviet developmental model. While those socialist states saw themselves as a form of democracy opposed to that of Western states and claimed to be workers and peasants' states or people's democratic republics,^[9] they are considered to be authoritarian^[2][3][4] because they featured external controls such as violent repression and forms of artificial socialization.^[271]

The implementation of authoritarian forms of socialism was accomplished with a dogmatized ideology reinforced by terror and violence. The combination of those external controls served to implement a normality within an authoritarian country that seemed like illusion or madness to someone removed from its political atmosphere.^[271] For many authoritarian socialist countries, their regimes were a mix of this form of external control-based totalitarizm (jamiyatning intellektual va mafkuraviy faol a'zolari uchun) va an'anaviy yoki madaniy avtoritarizm (aholining aksariyati uchun).^[271]

Bilan Sovet Ittifoqining qulashi va Sharqiy blokning, sobiq avtoritar sotsialistik rejimlarning aksariyati o'zlarini isloh qildilar. Sharqiy Evropada bo'lganlarning bir qismi "shok doktrinasi "ga ko'chib o'tdi erkin bozor kapitalistik va liberal-demokratik yo'nalish, garchi ularning ba'zilari, masalan, Vengriya yoki Rossiya "ozod bo'lmagan demokratik davlatlar "va boshqalar"gibrid rejimlar ". Afrikada ko'plab hukmron partiyalar hokimiyatni saqlab qolishdi va a demokratik sotsialistik yoki sotsial-demokratik yo'nalish, boshqalari esa liberal-demokratik yo'lga o'tdilar ko'p partiyali siyosat.^[272][273] Kuba va Vetnam kabi boshqa mamlakatlar Xitoyning rivojlanishiga rioya qilib, iqtisodiy islohotlarni amalga oshirishda markazlashgan siyosiy nazoratni saqlab qolishdi. Ular tarkibiga avtoritar sotsialistik rejimlar bo'lmagan, ammo hozirda "Filippin va Tailand kabi xitoylik ittifoqchilar kiradi".Pekin konsensusi "ustidan"Vashington konsensusi "keyin Sharqiy Evropa mamlakatlari.^[274][275] Yo'nalishi bo'yicha harakat qilishdan ko'ra demokratik kapitalizm undan keyin Sharqiy Evropa davlatlarining aksariyati, Vengriya, Nikaragua, Rossiya, Singapur, Turkiya va Venesuelani o'z ichiga olgan Xitoy va uning ittifoqchilari. avtoritar kapitalist rejimlar.^[55][56]

Sovet Ittifoqi

Jozef Stalin va Vladimir Lenin

Qaramay Markscha asoslari Vladimir Lenin sotsializm, uning tizimining haqiqatlari to'g'ridan-to'g'ri qarama-qarshi bo'lgan Karl Marks ishchi sinfining ozodligi va avtonomiyasiga ishonish.^[269] Ushbu qarama-qarshiliklar, birinchi navbatda, Leninning "tarixning vakolati nima ekanligini aniq bilgan va uni o'zi tayinlagan qo'riqchilar bo'lishga tayyor bo'lgan" inqilobchilarning avangard yoki polk partiyasini amalga oshirishi bilan bog'liq edi.^[276] Bu partiyaning vazifasi, ishchilar sinfining siyosiy jihatdan hukmronlikka tayyor emasligi va Rossiya sotsializmga hali tayyor emasligi, deb hisoblaganligi sababli, bu partiyaning vazifasi asosan o'tish davri bo'lishi kerak edi.^[276]

Lenin davlat-kapitalistik siyosatni qabul qildi.^{[277][278][279][280]} Ko'rish paytida Sovet Ittifoqi 1923 yilda kuchayib borayotgan majburiy kuch, o'layotgan Lenin, Rossiya "a." ga qaytganini aytdi burjua podshoh mashinasi [...] sotsializm bilan zo'rg'a laklangan ".^[281] Marks bu atamani yaratdi kazarma kommunizm (Nemis: Kasernenkommunizm) avtoritar sotsializmning hayotning barcha jabhalari byurokratik rejimga asoslangan va jamoatchilik shakliga murojaat qilish.^{[282][283][284]} Dastlab, Marks bu iborani ko'rishni tanqid qilish uchun ishlatgan Sergey Nechayev ichida ko'rsatilgan Kelajak ijtimoiy tizimining asoslari^[284] Lenin kabi boshqa rus inqilobchilariga va boshqalarga katta ta'sir ko'rsatdi Pyotr Tkachev.^{[285][286][287][288][289][290]} Bu atamaning o'zi nazarda tutilmagan harbiy kazarmalar, aksincha sanoat ishchilari ko'p joylarda yashagan ishchilar barak tipidagi ibtidoiy yotoqxonalarga Rossiya imperiyasi vaqt.^[291] Sovet Ittifoqining siyosiy nazariyotchilari keyinchalik bu atamani Xitoyga nisbatan qo'lladilar Mao Szedun.^[282] Keyinchalik qayta qurish davrga nisbatan qo'llanilgan Sovet Ittifoqi tarixi.^[291]

Birinchi bilan sotsializmga erishgan deb da'vo qilgan Stalindan farqli o'laroq Sovet konstitutsiyasi 1936 y^{[292][293][294][295]} va keyin buni tasdiqladi SSSRdagi sotsializmning iqtisodiy muammolari,^{[296][297][298][299][300]} Lenin Sovet Ittifoqini sotsialistik davlat deb atamagan va u sotsializmga erishgan deb da'vo qilmagan.^[301] Stalinning hamkasblari uni Osiyo deb ta'riflagan bo'lsa va Stalinning o'zi yapon jurnalistiga "men evropalik emasman, lekin osiyolik, ruslashgan gruzinman", deb aytgan edi.^[302] Lenin etnik jihatdan rus,^[303] boshqa Evropa mamlakatlari, xususan Germaniya madaniy jihatdan Rossiyadan ustun ekanligiga ishonishdi^[304] u "Osiyo mamlakatlarining eng yengil, o'rta asr va sharmandali qoloq mamlakatlaridan biri" deb ta'riflagan.^[305] Lenin yoshligidan Rossiyaning madaniy jihatdan Evropa va G'arbga aylanishini xohlagan.^[304][306]

Yilda uning vasiyatnomasi, Lenin byurokratiya kuchayganidan tashvishda bo'lib, Sovet boshqaruv organlari tarkibiga o'zgartirishlar kiritishni taklif qildi. Shuningdek, u bir qancha bolsheviklar rahbarlarini, jumladan Stalin va Leon Trotskiy, agar Trotskiy va Stalin o'rtasida partiya rahbariyatida bo'linish paydo bo'lishi ehtimoli haqida ogohlantirish, agar buning oldini olish uchun tegishli choralar ko'rilmasa. Post-stsenariyda Lenin Stalinni lavozimidan olib tashlashni taklif qildi Rossiya Kommunistik partiyasining bosh kotibi "s Markaziy qo'mita. Isaak Deuther Trotskiyning ham, Stalinning ham biografi, "u butun vasiyat noaniqlik bilan nafas oldi", deb ta'kidladi.^[307] Lenin-sotsialistlar Stalin haqidagi qarashlarida ikkiga bo'lingan. Ba'zilar uni Leninning haqiqiy vorisi deb hisoblashadi, boshqalari esa u Ленин g'oyalaridan chetga chiqib xiyonat qilgan deb hisoblashadi.^[308] Stalin Sovet Ittifoqining ijtimoiy-iqtisodiy mohiyati haqida ham ko'p bahs-munozaralar bo'lib, turli xil shakllar deb nomlangan byurokratik kollektivizm, davlat kapitalizmi, davlat sotsializmi yoki umuman noyobdir ishlab chiqarish usuli.^[309]

Vladimir Lenin

Marks a rivojlanish tarixi manipulyatsiyasiga olib kelgan sanoatlashtirishning kapitalistik asri orqali ishchilar sinfi. Ushbu rivojlanish a-ning vakolatlari bilan yakunlandi proletariat mevalaridan foyda ko'rishi mumkin sanoatlashtirish ekspluatatsiya qilinmasdan. Garchi u o'zining mafkurasini sanoatlashgan jamiyatning huquqsiz ishchi sinfiga murojaat qilishni nazarda tutgan bo'lsa-da, u hali muvaffaqiyatli sanoatlashmagan rivojlanayotgan mamlakatlar tomonidan keng qabul qilindi.^[268] Buning natijasida iqtisodiyotni turg'unlik va sotsialistik davlatlar sanoatlashtirish uchun zarur tashkiliy va tuzilmasiz olib keldi.^[268] Ushbu modellarning barbod bo'lishini ko'rib, Lenin Rossiyada sotsializmni ishchilar sinfiga va dehqonlarga murojaat qilgan partiya diktaturasi orqali yuqoridan qurish kerak degan xulosaga keldi.^[276] Ishchi sinf aholining atigi 15 foizini tashkil qilganligi sababli, Lenin ancha katta dehqonlar sinfiga murojaat qilishga majbur bo'ldi (bu qariyb 80 foizni tashkil etadi). Bolshevik fraktsiyasi Rossiya sotsial-demokratik ishchi partiyasi oxir-oqibat Lenin davrida Rossiya kommunistik partiyasi (bolsheviklar) ichidagi bo'linish tufayli ijtimoiy demokratiya.^[268] Bolsheviklar dehqonlarga "Non, tinchlik va er" deb va'da berdilar va mulkdorlardan erlarni qayta taqsimlab, Rossiyada fermer xo'jaliklari sonini 1917 yildagi 427 ming kishidan 1919 yilda 463 ming kishiga etkazdilar.^[268]

Ba'zilar uchun Lenin merosi shafqatsiz terrorizm va hokimiyatni ozchiliklar qo'lida to'plash edi.^[276] Lenin qasddan zo'ravonlikni aholini manipulyatsiya qilish vositasi sifatida ishlatgan va "muxolifat tezislariga qaraganda" miltiq bilan muhokama qilish "juda yaxshi" deb ta'kidlab, qarshiliklarga mutlaqo toqat qilmagan.^[276] U hukmron partiyaning ritorikasi va siyosiy ideallarini bemalol qabul qilishi uchun butun jamiyatni mafkuraviy yo'q qilish uchun ishladi.^[276] Ijtimoiy bo'ysunish, ommaviy qotillik va yo'qolib qolish, aloqalarni tsenzuralash va adolat yo'qligi uchun terrorizmni (maxfiy politsiya apparati tomonidan qo'zg'atilgan) Leninning ishlatishi faqat uning vorisi tomonidan kuchaytirilgan. Jozef Stalin.^[276] Ushbu tezisni qo'llab-quvvatlaydiganlardan farqli o'laroq,^{[310][311][312][313][314][315]} boshqalar bu xarakteristikaga qarshi chiqishdi va Leninni Stalindan, Leninizmni Stalinizmdan ajratishdi.^{[316][317][318][319]} Munozarali shaxs, Lenin ham tahqirlangan va ham hurmatli bo'lib qolmoqda,^[320] ham butparast qilingan va iblisga aylangan raqam.^[321] Bu Lenin va Leninizm ko'pincha siyosiy yo'nalishlarda qutblangan.^[322] Leninning tarjimai hollari hamdard, ham dushman bo'lgan bo'lsa ham,^[321] ba'zilari Lenin haqida na dushmanlik, na ijobiy sharhlar berishdan qochishga, shu bilan siyosiylashtirilgan stereotiplardan qochishga harakat qildilar.^[320][323] Ikkisini ham himoya qiladigan ba'zi marksistik faollar Oktyabr inqilobi va sovet demokratiyasi, qanday qilib bolsheviklar terrordan qochishni istashganini ta'kidlab, va Qizil terror ga javoban tug'ilgan Oq terror bu pastga tushirilgan.^{[324][325][326]}

Lenin turli xil "asrning eng muhim siyosiy rahbari" sifatida ta'riflangan,^[327] "zamonaviy tarixning shubhasiz taniqli shaxslaridan biri"^[328] va 20-asrning "asosiy aktyorlari" dan biri^[329] shuningdek, "yigirmanchi asrning eng keng tarqalgan, taniqli piktogrammalaridan biri"^[330] va "zamonaviy tarixning eng muhim va ta'sirchan shaxslaridan biri".^[331] Ba'zi tarixchilar Lenin ma'muriyatini quyidagicha tavsiflashgan totalitar^{[332][333][334][335]} yoki a politsiya shtati;^[334] yoki ular buni a bir partiyali diktatura,^{[320][323][336][337][304][338]} uning diktatori sifatida Lenin bilan,^{[321][332][333][306][339]} Lenin va Stalin o'rtasidagi farqlarni ta'kidlagan bo'lsada, birinchisida partiyaning diktaturasi bo'lgan, ikkinchisida esa bitta odamning.^{[320][332][335]} Boshqalar Lenin hukumati diktatura bo'lgan degan fikrga qarshi chiqishdi va uni elementlarning saqlanib qolishining nomukammal usuli deb hisoblashdi. demokratiya ba'zi bir jarayonlarsiz liberal demokratik davlatlar.^[320][323] Oxirgi qarashga ko'ra, "Leninni shafqatsiz siyosatga olib borgan shaxsiy fazilatlar, XX asrning ba'zi yirik G'arb rahbarlaridan kuchli bo'lishi shart emas edi".^[320]

Xayrixohlar orasida Lenin haqiqiy sozlashni amalga oshirgan deb tasvirlangan Marksistik nazariya bu Rossiyaning o'ziga xos ijtimoiy-iqtisodiy sharoitlariga mos kelishiga imkon berdi.^[340] Sovet qarashlari uni tarixiy ravishda muqarrarligini tan olgan va shunga yarasha muqarrar ravishda amalga oshirishga yordam bergan odam sifatida tavsifladi. Aksincha, G'arb tarixchilarining aksariyati uni siyosiy hokimiyatga erishish va undan keyin saqlab qolish uchun voqealarni manipulyatsiya qilgan shaxs sifatida qabul qilishdi, bundan tashqari uning g'oyalarini uning pragmatik siyosatini g'oyaviy jihatdan oqlashga urinishlar deb hisoblashdi.^[341] Yaqinda, revizionistlar Rossiyada ham, G'arbda ham ilgari mavjud bo'lgan g'oyalar va xalq bosimining Lenin va uning siyosatiga ta'sirini ta'kidladilar.^[342]

Jozef Stalin

Stalin Sovet Ittifoqini jadal sanoatlashtirishga intildi,^[123] ammo, ehtimol, aholining umumiy mahorat darajasi va kapitalini hisobga olgan holda, haqiqatga mos kelmaydigan tarzda^[133] va Sovet Ittifoqi G'arbdan bostirib kirishga tayyor bo'lish uchun Angliya iqtisodiy rivojlanish nuqtai nazaridan asrlar davomida bajargan ishlarini o'n yil ichida amalga oshirishi kerak degan Stalinning argumenti.^[343] Ushbu etishmovchilikni e'tirof etgan Stalin iste'mol uchun ajratilgan resurslarni ishlab chiqarishga yo'naltirishni yoki tez o'sish uchun vaqtincha qurbonlik sifatida eksport qilishni buyurdi.^[268] Model dastlab muvaffaqiyatli bo'ldi, mafkura va millatchilik uy-joy uchun oziq-ovqat va qurilish materiallari kabi resurslarning etishmasligiga qaramay, ma'naviylikni targ'ib qildi. Ehtimol, ekspluatatsiya qilingan sinflar Rossiyaning jadal va muvaffaqiyatli sanoatlashuvi amalga oshirilgandan so'ng, hokimiyatdan voz kechadi deb ishonishgan. avangard partiyasi va kommunizm paydo bo'ladi.^[276] Biroq, Stalin bundan ham uzoqroq qurbonliklarni talab qilishni davom ettirdi. Tarixchilarning ta'kidlashicha, uning siyosiy va iqtisodiy maydonlarni boshqarishi tufayli uning avangard partiyasiga nisbatan ancha yuqori nazorat berilgan. Rossiya podshohlari yoki imperatorlari, fuqarolarning hayoti jihatlari, masalan, tibbiy xizmat, uy-joy va ijtimoiy erkinliklar partiyaning qaroriga binoan cheklanishi mumkinligini hisobga olib, uning farmonlariga qarshi chiqishni xohlamadilar.^[268]

Muvaffaqiyatsizliklarga qaramay, Stalinning umidlari ishchilar sinfi tomonidan norozi bo'lib qoldi va ushbu davrda ko'plab yangi rivojlanayotgan sotsialistik davlatlar tomonidan ushbu model qabul qilindi. Sovet urinishi qishloq xo'jaligini kollektivlashtirish Sovet Ittifoqini dunyodagi eng yirik don eksport qiluvchilardan dunyodagi eng yirik don importchilariga aylantirish, muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchraganiga qaramay, keng takrorlandi.^[268] Ko'pgina tarixchilarning ta'kidlashicha, yo'q qilish - Stalin rejimi davrida siyosiy muxoliflar, mafkuraviy raqiblar, gumon qilingan partiyadoshlar, ayblanayotgan harbiy ofitserlar, kulaklar, quyi sinf oilalari, sobiq ijtimoiy elita a'zolari, etnik guruhlar kabi turli xil odamlarning taqdiri. diniy guruhlar va ushbu jinoyatchilarning qarindoshlari va hamdardlari.^{[268][269][276]} Ushbu o'limlar GULAGdagi kollektivizatsiya, ochlik, terror kampaniyalari, kasalliklar, urush va o'lim darajasi natijasida sodir bo'lgan. Stalin davrida ortiqcha o'limlarning aksariyati to'g'ridan-to'g'ri o'ldirish bo'lmaganligi sababli, Stalinning o'limini Stalin bilan bog'lash mumkin bo'lgan olimlar o'rtasida birdamlik yo'qligi sababli stalinizm qurbonlarining aniq sonini hisoblash qiyin.^{[344][345][346][347][348][349]} Biroq, bu arxivga kirishgacha bo'lgan 20 million yoki undan yuqori bo'lgan taxminlardan ancha past.^[350][351] Haqida Holodomor, kattaroq qismi 1932–1933 yillardagi Sovet ocharchiligi,^[352][353] konsensusning ta'kidlashicha, Stalin siyosati o'lim darajasining yuqori bo'lishiga katta hissa qo'shgan bo'lsa-da, Stalin yoki Sovet hukumati ocharchilikni ongli ravishda ishlab chiqqan degan fikrni rad etadi.^{[116][348][354][355]} Aytish joizki, davlatga qarshi jinoyatlar sodir etganlikda aybdor deb o'ylagan va hujjatlashtirishni talab qilgan holda, Stalinning "maqsadli qotilliklari" "qotillik" emas, balki "qatl etish" toifasiga ko'proq mos keladi, deb ta'kidladilar.^[345]

Orasida stalinistlarga qarshi chap va antikommunist Ruslar va g'arbliklar, Stalin merosi asosan salbiy,^[356] totalitar davlat sifatida tavsiflangan Sovet Ittifoqi bilan^[357][358] va Stalin avtoritar rahbar sifatida.^[359] Turli biograflar Stalinni a diktator,^{[357][358][359][360][361]} an avtokrat,^{[357][362][363]} an Sharqiy despot,^[356][362] yoki uni mashq qilishda ayblagan Sezarizm.^[363] "Ehtimol [...] yigirmanchi asrning yo'lini belgilagan" odam boshqa har qanday odamga qaraganda ko'proq,^[362] "tarixdagi eng taniqli shaxslardan biri" deb ta'riflangan^[357] "nodir" kombinatsiyaga ega: "intellektual" va qotil "," yakuniy siyosatchi "va" yigirmanchi asr titanlari orasida eng qiyin va maftunkor "^[360] shuningdek, "insoniyat tarixidagi eng qudratli shaxslardan biri",^[363] Dastlab Stalin partiya oligarxiyasining bir qismi sifatida hukmronlik qildi va 1934 yilda shaxsiy diktaturaga aylandi va 1937 yil mart va iyun oylari orasida mutlaq diktatorga aylandi.^[364] Keyinchalik Stalin "bolshevik diktaturasi ichida shaxsiy diktatura" ni o'rnatdi,^[359] "misli ko'rilmagan siyosiy hokimiyat uning qo'lida" to'plangan^[356] va "tarixdagi deyarli har qanday monarxga qaraganda shaxsiy despotizmga yaqinroq" deb ta'riflangan.^[357] Biroq, zamonaviy arxiv tadqiqotlari shuni ko'rsatadiki, tozalashlar ortida Stalin o'zining shaxsiy diktaturasini o'rnatishga intilmagan. Balki dalillar uning Lenin nazarda tutgan sotsialistik davlatni qurishga sodiqligini ko'rsatmoqda. Terrorizm uchun haqiqiy turtki aksilinqilobdan bo'rttirilgan qo'rquv edi.^[365]

Boshqa tarixchilar va olimlar Stalinni hamma narsaga qodir va hamma joyda mavjud qilib ko'rsatadigan "o'ta soddalashtirilgan stereotiplardan" ogohlantirdilar. zolim orqali Sovet hayotining har bir jabhasini boshqargan repressiya va totalitarizm,^[356] "u qudratli bo'lsa-da, uning vakolatlari cheksiz emasligini" va Stalin boshqaruvi uning meros qilib olgan sovet tuzilishini saqlab qolish istagiga bog'liqligini ta'kidlab.^[357] Stalinning hokimiyatda qolish qobiliyati uning ko'pchilikka ega bo'lishiga tayanganligi kuzatilgan Siyosiy byuro har doim.^[359] Qayd etilishicha, turli nuqtalarda, ayniqsa uning keyingi yillarida, partiyaviy oligarxiya uning avtokratik boshqaruviga tahdid soladigan "davriy ko'rinishlar" bo'lgan.^[358] Stalin chet ellik mehmonlarga uning diktator ekanligini rad etib, uni shunday deb belgilaganlar Sovet boshqaruv tizimini tushunmasligini aytdi.^[362] Bir necha tarixchilar buni tanqid qildilar totalitar egizaklar^[116][345] tushunchasi va ular orasidagi taqqoslashlar kommunizm /sotsializm va fashizm^[366] yoki Stalinizm va Natsizm^{[367][368][369][370]} kabi Sovuq urush tushunchalar^[371] jamiyatning yuqori darajalariga qaratilgan va ulardan foydalanadigan tizim haqiqatini yashirgan.^{[372][373][374]} Boshqalar bundan tashqari, Sovuq Urush davrida G'arbning antikommunistik siyosiy nutqida ushbu kontseptsiya qanday qilib urushgacha konvertatsiya qilish vositasi sifatida tanilganligini ta'kidladilar. fashizmga qarshi kurash urushdan keyingi antikommunizmga.^{[375][376][377][378][379]}

Sovet Ittifoqi qulashi va arxivlarning ozod etilishi bilan ba'zi bir issiqlik munozaralardan chiqib ketdi va siyosiylashuv kamaytirildi. Sovet siyosiy tizimi markazdan to'liq nazorat qilinmaganligi va Lenin ham, Stalin ham siyosiy voqealarga faqat paydo bo'lgan paytdagina javob bergani haqida bahs yuritilgan.^[380] Ba'zilar, Stalin o'zini o'ldirishni uyushtirganligi to'g'risida ilgari e'lon qilingan topilmalarni shubha ostiga olishdi Sergey Kirov uning Buyuk Terror kampaniyasini oqlash uchun.^[381] Boshqalar ochlikdan ommaviy o'lim "noyob stalinistik yovuzlik" emasligini ta'kidladilar va Stalinist rejimning Golodomorga nisbatan xatti-harakatlarini taqqoslaganlar Britaniya imperiyasi (Irlandiya va Hindiston tomon) va hatto G8 zamonaviy davrda, ikkinchisi "ommaviy o'limni kamaytirish uchun aniq choralar ko'rmagani uchun ommaviy qotillik yoki jinoiy ehtiyotsizlik tufayli ommaviy o'limga aybdor" va Stalin va uning sheriklarining himoyasi "ularning xatti-harakatlari bundan ham yomon bo'lmagan" XIX-XX asrlarda ko'plab hukmdorlarga qaraganda ".^[347] Tanqidlarga qaramay, Stalin taniqli va ajoyib siyosatchi sifatida qaraldi^[357][363] shuningdek, buyuk davlat va davlat quruvchisi,^[356] Ba'zilar Stalinsiz Sovet Ittifoqi 1991 yildan ancha oldin qulab tushishi mumkin edi, degan fikrni ilgari surmoqda.^[357] Yigirma yil ichida Stalin Sovet Ittifoqini yirik sanoat dunyosiga aylantirdi,^[357][363] urbanizatsiya, harbiy kuch, ma'lumot va Sovet g'ururi jihatidan "ajoyib yutuqlarga da'vo" qiladigan narsa.^[357] Uning hukmronligi davrida sovetlarning o'rtacha umr ko'rish darajasi yaxshilangan yashash sharoitlari, ovqatlanish va tibbiy xizmat tufayli o'sdi^[382] chunki o'lim darajasi ham pasaygan.^[383]

Millionlab Sovet fuqarolari uni xo'rlagan bo'lsalar-da, Stalinni qo'llab-quvvatlash baribir Sovet jamiyatida keng tarqaldi.^[357] Ushbu yutuqlarni keltirib, G'arb dunyosi va uning rahbarlari tomonidan mustamlaka va imperializm davrida sodir etilgan jinoyatlar, shuningdek, XX asrda sodir bo'lgan harbiy jinoyatlar va insoniyatga qarshi jinoyatlar, Stalinning nafratini asosan kelib chiqqan deb ta'kidlaydilar. Bosh kotib Nikita Xrushchev "Yashirin nutq "davomida o'qing 20-kongress ning Sovet Ittifoqi Kommunistik partiyasi 1956 yil fevral oyida ba'zilar Stalin va uning merosini qayta tiklashga urinishdi,^[384] yoki boshqa yo'l bilan yanada neytral va nozik ko'rinishga ega bo'ldi.^{[385][386][387]} Biroq, ushbu urinishlar tanqidga uchradi va uning mualliflarining aksariyati shunday nomlandi neo-stalinistlar.^{[388][389][390][391][392][393]} 21-asrda ruslarning yarmidan ko'pi Stalinni ijobiy deb biladi va ko'pchilik uning yodgorliklarini qayta tiklashni yoki rahbarlar tomonidan buzilgan yoki Sovet Ittifoqi tarqatib yuborilgan paytda tartibsiz ruslar tomonidan vayron qilinganini qo'llab-quvvatlamoqda.^{[394][395][396]} So'nggi yigirma yil ichida ruslar orasida Stalinning mashhurligi uch baravar oshdi^[397][398] va shundan beri tendentsiya tezlashdi Vladimir Putin, kim ushlab turish deb ta'riflangan neo-sovet qarashlar,^[399] hokimiyatga keldi.^[400][401]

Xitoy

Mao Szedun

Elita qulaganidan so'ng, erga egalik qiluvchi sinf 20-asr boshlarida Xitoy o'z faoliyatini boshladi Kommunistik inqilob qishloq orqali. Qishloq xo'jaligi ommasi va davlat tomonidan boshqariladigan dasturlar o'rtasidagi munosabatlar buzilganligi sababli Xitoy Kommunistik partiyasi boshchiligidagi Mao Szedun hokimiyatni qo'lga kirita boshladi.^[402] 1949 yilgi insholarida Xalq demokratik diktaturasi to'g'risida, Mao o'zini va Xitoy davlatini iqtisodiy nazoratni oshirgan holda kuchli davlat hokimiyatini yaratishga majbur qildi.^[402] U avtoritar davlatning muhimligini, bu erda siyosiy tartib va ​​birlik o'rnatilishi va saqlanishi mumkinligini ta'kidladi. Mao butun tizimni ag'darish asosida birlashishga sodiq qoldi.^[402] Sifatida partiya raisi, Mao partiyaning tuzilishi va ijro etilishi ustidan o'zi bilan to'liq nazorat qilishga imkon berdi shaxsga sig'inish, donolik va xarizmaning qo'riqchisi sifatida deyarli afsonaviy pozitsiya.^[402]

Bunday kuch bilan Mao davlat tomonidan nazorat qilinadigan choralarni ko'rmasdan kun tartibini qo'llab-quvvatlashga imkon berib, ommabop fikrlarga ta'sir o'tkaza oldi. Davomida Oldinga sakrash, Xitoyni agrar sohadan yirik sanoat qudratidan rivojlantirish tashabbusi, Mao odamlarga ta'sir o'tkazish uchun o'zining obro'siga juda ishongan.^[402] Ammo keng pog'ona hujumi muvaffaqiyatsizlikni isbotladi, chunki keng tarqalgan ekin va sug'orishdagi muvaffaqiyatsizliklar 1959-1961 yillarda olib keldi Buyuk Xitoy ochligi. Inqilobning tugashi haqida hech qanday taklif yo'q edi - bu doimiy ravishda vakolat berish jarayoni bo'lishi kerak edi dehqonlar sinfi.^[403] Uning agressiv muvaffaqiyatsizligi bilan Madaniy inqilob, Xitoyning partiyani va Maoni qo'llab-quvvatlashi susaygan. O'limidan keyin davom etayotgan kurashlar uning sotsialistik tuzumiga putur etkazadi, yanada demokratik, hali ham bir partiyali boshqaruv tizimining bugungi kungacha davom etishiga imkon beradi. Xitoyda ham, chet elda ham uning merosi to'g'risida ozgina kelishuv mavjud emasligi sababli, Mao zamonaviy dunyo tarixidagi eng muhim va ta'sirchan shaxslardan biri sifatida qaraladigan munozarali shaxsdir.^[404][405]

Qo'llab-quvvatlovchilar Maoni avtomobil haydash bilan kreditlashadi imperializm Xitoydan,^[406][407] millatni modernizatsiya qilish va uni a jahon kuchi Xitoy rahbariyati ostida uning aholisi 550 milliondan 900 milliondan oshganligi sababli ayollar maqomini oshirish, ta'lim va sog'liqni saqlashni yaxshilash hamda umr ko'rish davomiyligini oshirish.^[226][228] boshqa yutuqlar qatorida.^[227][229] Aksincha, uning rejimi chaqirilgan avtokratik va totalitar va ommaviy repressiyalarni boshlaganligi va diniy va madaniy yodgorliklar va obidalarni yo'q qilgani uchun hukm qilindi. U o'lim sonining ko'payishi uchun qo'shimcha ravishda javobgar bo'lgan. Hisob-kitoblarga ko'ra ochlik, qamoqxonada ishlash va ommaviy qatl tufayli qurbonlarning soni 30 dan 70 milliongacha.^[408][409] Ba'zi tanqidchilar Mao o'zining siyosati tufayli yuzaga kelgan azob-uqubatlar va o'limni rad etganini yoki uning siyosati millionlab odamlarning o'limi uchun javobgar bo'lishini yaxshi bilganini ta'kidlashsa-da,^{[409][410][411][412][413][414][415][416]} boshqalar bunga qarshi chiqishdi.^{[408][414][417]}

Siyosiy aql, nazariyotchi, harbiy strateg, shoir va ko'rguvchi sifatida maqtalgan,^[408] Mao turli xil "buyuk tarixiy jinoyatchi", "ham hayvon, ham daho" sifatida ta'riflangan, u ham "yaxshilik uchun buyuk kuch" bo'lgan,^[230] "tarixdagi buyuk rahbar" va "buyuk jinoyatchi"^[414] bilan taqqoslanadigan "yigirmanchi asrning buyuk zolimlaridan biri" Adolf Gitler va Jozef Stalin,^[411][418] o'lim soni ikkalasidan ham oshib ketganligi bilan.^[408][409] Biroq, boshqalar bu taqqoslashlarni rad etadilar va o'lim sabab bo'lgan deb ta'kidlaydilar Natsistlar Germaniyasi va Sovet Ittifoqi asosan tizimli va qasddan qilingan edi, Maoning o'limining aksariyati ocharchilikning kutilmagan oqibatlari bo'lgan va uy egalari sinfi fikr islohoti orqali qutqarishga bo'lgan ishonchi tufayli xalq sifatida yo'q qilinmadi. Mao Xitoy bilan to'qnashuvlar davrida Xitoyning an'anaviy e'tiqodiga qarshi chiqqan 19-asrdagi xitoylik islohotchilar bilan taqqoslangan G'arb mustamlakachilari^[408] shuningdek Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Prezidenti Endryu Jekson.^[419]

Xuddi shunday, maoistlarning iqtisodiy siyosati ziddiyatli. Qo'llab-quvvatlovchilar buni ta'kidlaydilar umr ko'rish davomiyligi Mao davrida ancha yaxshilandi va bu kabi siyosat Xitoyni tez sur'atlarda sanoatlashtirdi va mamlakatning keyinchalik iqtisodiy super kuchga aylanishiga zamin yaratdi.^{[226][227][228][229]} Tanqidchilarning ta'kidlashicha, kabi siyosat Oldinga sakrash va Buyuk Proletar madaniy inqilobi iqtisodiy rivojlanishni kechiktirgan sanoatlashtirish va modernizatsiyalashga to'sqinlik qildi va buni da'vo qilmoqda Xitoy iqtisodiyoti maoistlik siyosatidan keng voz kechilgandan keyingina uning tez o'sishiga erishdi. Umuman olganda, ikkala tarafdorlar ham, tanqidchilar ham umuman inson tanazzuli bo'lganiga rozi bo'lishadi.^[230]

Maoizm

Maoizm ning moslashtirilgan xitoycha versiyasi Marksizm-leninizm.^[420] Ishonish paytida demokratik markaziylik, agar partiya qarorlari tekshiruv va munozaralar bilan olib borilsa va keyin amalga oshirilgandan so'ng partiyaning barcha a'zolari uchun majburiy bo'lsa, Mao partiya qarorlariga qarshi bo'lganlarni qabul qilmadi.^[403] Orqali Madaniy inqilob va Aksilinqilobchilarni bostirish kampaniyasi, Mao har qanday qo'poruvchilik g'oyasini, xususan kapitalistik yoki g'arbiy tahdidni og'ir kuch bilan tozalashga urinib ko'rdi va o'z harakatlarini markaziy hokimiyat uchun hokimiyatni saqlab qolish uchun zarur bo'lgan yo'l sifatida oqladi.^[403]

Shu bilan birga, Mao ushbu milliy birlikni yaratish usuli sifatida madaniy meros va individual tanlov muhimligini ta'kidladi. U o'zining ideal tizimini "sotsialistik inqilobga ko'maklashish uchun ham markaziylik, ham demokratiya, ham intizom va erkinlik, ham maqsadlar birligi, ham shaxsiy xotirjamlik va tiriklik mavjud bo'lgan siyosiy vaziyat" deb ta'rifladi.^[403] Tizim qarama-qarshilikni targ'ib qilar ekan, Mao, avvalambor, davlat ommani o'zlarini ifoda etadigan vositalar bilan ta'minlashi mumkin deb hisoblar edi, ammo uning o'zini o'zi ifoda etadigan markasi asosan ishlab chiqarilgan bo'lib, asosan an'anaviy amaliyot va artifaktlarni almashtirishga asoslangan. Xitoy madaniyati o'zi bilan. Bu orqali odamlarni partiyaning ichki kollektiviga aylantirish mumkin edi.^[403]

Ta'kidlash joizki, Mao avtoritarizmi vakolat berishning quyidan yuqoriga qarab kollektiv uslubida yotgan. Uning tizimida proletariat va dehqonlar davlat byurokratiyasi va kapitaliga qarshi ko'tarilish uchun javobgardilar.^[420] Bilan dehqonlar sinfiga qo'shilish burjuaziya qishloq (yer egaligi, mahalliy dehqonlar) ning guruhi bayroqdorlar orqali shaharning boy egalari tomonidan hokimiyatga bo'lgan da'vosini to'xtata oldi. kommunizm. Faqat ushbu to'plam dehqonlar va mayda burjua mavjud bo'lgan Mao o'zining odatiy byurokratiyasini rivojlantirishi mumkin edi.^[420] Ushbu birlik o'rnatilgandan so'ng, Mao xalqni davlatni boshqarishi mumkin bo'lgan odamlar deb ta'kidladi, ammo uning hukumati fuqarolarni qattiq nazorat qilishi uning nazariyasidagi qarama-qarshilikni ta'kidlamoqda - ziddiyat, ularning fikricha, ularning ixtisoslashgan tizimining zaruriy haqiqati edi.^[420]

Maoizmdan keyingi davr

Keyingi Xitoy iqtisodiy islohotlari 1980-yillarda Den Syaoping, aksariyati hozirgi va sobiq avtoritar sotsialistik rejimlar ta'qib qilgan Xitoy modeli kabi faqat rahbarlar Kim Chen Il va Mobutu Sese Seko pravoslav qarashlarini saqlab qolishdi. Vetnam kabi mamlakatlar (sotsialistik yo'naltirilgan bozor iqtisodiyoti ) va yaqinda Kuba xitoyliklarga ergashdi sotsialistik bozor iqtisodiyoti. Bilan Katta tanazzul, "Vashington konsensusi "Pekin konsensusi" ga bo'lgan mehrini yo'qotmoqda Joshua Kurlantzik, Xitoy modeli "etakchi demokratik davlatlarga munosib alternativani taklif qiladi. Ko'p jihatdan ularning tizimlari 1920 va 30-yillarning boshlarida kommunizm va fashizm kuchayganidan beri demokratik kapitalizm uchun eng jiddiy muammolarni keltirib chiqarmoqda".^[275]

Kurlantzik "" Xitoy modeli "siyosiy liberallashuvsiz iqtisodiy liberallashtirish uchun stenografiyaga aylandi" deb ta'kidlar ekan, "Xitoyning rivojlanish modeli aslida ancha murakkab. U Janubiy Koreyadagi kabi ilgari davlatga asoslangan Osiyo rivojlanish modellariga asoslanadi" va Tayvan, Kommunistik partiyaning iqtisodiy va siyosiy siyosatni ishlab chiqishda markaziy bo'lib qolishini ta'minlashga qaratilgan noyob xitoylik qadamlarni tashlamoqda ". Kurlantzikning ta'kidlashicha, "Pekin hukumati iqtisodiyotni yuqori darajada nazorat qiladi, ammo u deyarli sotsializmga qaytmaydi". Xitoy "o'z iqtisodiyotini ma'lum darajada ochgan kapitalizmning gibrid shaklini ishlab chiqdi, lekin u hukumatning strategik sohalarni nazorat qilishini, korporativ g'oliblarni tanlashini, davlat mablag'lari hisobidan investitsiyalarni belgilashni va bank sektorini milliy chempionat firmalarini qo'llab-quvvatlashga majbur qiladi" . 1980 va 1990 yillarda "Xitoy ko'plab davlat firmalarini xususiylashtirganini" ta'kidlagan bo'lsa-da, u "markaziy hukumat hanuzgacha 120 ta kompaniyani nazorat qiladi. [...] Ushbu tarmoqlar orqali ishlash, Pekin rahbariyati davlat ustuvorliklarini belgilaydi, kompaniyalarga signal beradi. , va korporativ kun tartibini belgilaydi, lekin buni davlatning to'g'ridan-to'g'ri qo'li jamoatchilik oldida ko'rinmasdan amalga oshiradi ".^[275]

Kurlantzikning so'zlariga ko'ra, "hukumatning biznesga aralashuvi, erkin bozor demokratiyasida imkonsiz tarzda hukmron rejimning kuchini va Xitoyning xalqaro mavqeini mustahkamlash uchun ishlatiladi. [...] Qisqasi, Xitoy modeli tijoratni ko'radi Shaxsiy shaxslarni kuchaytirish (va potentsial ravishda boy bo'lish uchun) emas, balki milliy manfaatlarni ilgari surish vositasi sifatida. Va o'ttiz yildan ortiq vaqt mobaynida Xitoyning rivojlanish modeli ajoyib muvaffaqiyatlarga erishdi ". Hindiston bilan bir qatorda, Xitoy "butun global iqtisodiyotning deyarli yagona o'sishini" ta'minlamoqda va taxminan o'ttiz yil ichida mamlakat qashshoq, asosan agrar davlatdan dunyodagi ikkinchi yirik iqtisodiyotga aylandi.^[275]

Arab dunyosi

Sotsializm O'rta Sharqqa populist galvanizatsiyalashga mo'ljallangan siyosat ishchilar sinfi ag'darishga mustamlakachilik kuchlari va ularning mahalliy ittifoqchilari. Ushbu siyosat arab xalqlarini jadal sanoatlashtirish va ijtimoiy tenglashtirishdan manfaatdor bo'lgan avtoritar davlatlar tomonidan olib borilgan va ko'pincha qayta taqsimlovchi yoki protektsionistik iqtisodiy siyosat, quyi tabaqadagi safarbarlik, xarizmatik rahbarlar va milliy turmush darajasini yaxshilash va'dalari bilan ajralib turardi.^[421] Ushbu davlatlar shu paytgacha bo'lgan mustamlakachilik taraqqiyoti nuqtai nazaridan ilg'or edi. Ular ishchilar tomonidan muhim siyosiy va iqtisodiy yutuqlarga erishishga imkon berdilar, erlarni qayta taqsimlashni rag'batlantirdilar, oligarxik siyosiy hokimiyatlarni qo'lga kiritdilar va amalga oshirdilar. import o'rnini bosuvchi sanoatlashtirishni rivojlantirish strategiyalari.^[421]

Ning qulashi bilan Sharqiy blok quyidagilarga rioya qilish 1989 yilgi inqiloblar va Sovet Ittifoqining tarqatib yuborilishi 1991 yil dekabrda, shuningdek, surish demokratlashtirish, ko'plab arab davlatlari tomonidan taklif qilingan moliyaviy intizom modeliga o'tdilar Vashington konsensusi.^[421] 1980-1990 yillar davomida ushbu davlatlarning avtoritar rahbarlari demokratik institutlarni amalga oshirgan bo'lsalar-da, ularning ko'p partiyali saylovlari ishbilarmon elitalar shaxsiy manfaatlar uchun lobbi qilishlari mumkin bo'lgan maydonni yaratdilar, shu bilan birga quyi tabaqani susaytirdilar.^[421] Iqtisodiy erkinlashtirish ushbu mintaqalarda ijaraga beriladigan shahar elitalarini qo'llab-quvvatlashi asosida tuzilgan rejimlarga olib keladigan iqtisodiyotlar paydo bo'ldi, siyosiy muxolifat siyosiy marginalizatsiya va hatto qasos olish imkoniyatini taklif qildi.^[421]

Ba'zi trotskistlar kabi Xalqaro ishchilar qo'mitasi a bo'lgan paytlarda Suriya kabi mamlakatlarni o'z ichiga olgan milliylashtirilgan iqtisodiyot kabi deformatsiyalangan ishchilar davlatlari,^[422][423] boshqa sotsialistlar neo-Baasistlar partiya ichidan va o'z mamlakatlaridan tashqarida targ'ib qilingan kapitalistlar.^[424]

Demokratizatsiyaga qarshilik

Arab dunyosi

Qiyosiy siyosat sohasi tomonidan ko'plab munozaralar Arab mintaqasi qanday qilib bu vaziyatdan qochishga qodir bo'lganligi to'g'risida bo'ldi demokratlashtirishning uchinchi to'lqini. Ushbu sohadagi mutaxassislar uchun zarur bo'lgan shartlarni muhokama qilishdan tortib bir qator dalillar keltirilgan demokratlashtirish tomonidan qo'llab-quvvatlanmaydi Arab madaniyati kerakli demokratik o'tishni boshlaydigan demokratik aktyorlarning etishmasligi.

Marsha Pripshteyn Posusni "madaniyatning patriarxal va qabilaviy mentaliteti plyuralistik qadriyatlarning rivojlanishiga to'sqinlik qiladi", deb ta'kidlaydi, arab fuqarolarini patriarxal liderlarni qabul qilishga moyil qiladi va ko'pchilikning ta'kidlashicha milliy demokratiya muvaffaqiyatli bo'lishi uchun zarur.^[7] Eva Bellin, bu tarqalish ekanligini tan oldi Islom mintaqani ajratib turuvchi omil hisoblanadi va shuning uchun "Islomning demokratiyaga qarshi mehmondo'stligini hisobga olgan holda" mintaqaning istisno holatiga hissa qo'shishi kerak.^[7] Posusneyning ta'kidlashicha, ushbu "demokratiya va islom o'rtasidagi o'zaro nomuvofiqlik" ushbu assotsiatsiyani miqdoriy ravishda sinab ko'rish bo'yicha harakatlar aniq natijalarni bermaganligi sababli isbotlanmagan bo'lib qolmoqda.^[7] Hududdagi etnik bo'linishlar, shuningdek, zaif fuqarolik jamiyati, davlat tomonidan boshqariladigan iqtisodiyot, qashshoqlik, savodxonlikning past darajasi va tengsizlik kabi omillar sifatida keltirilgan.^[7][425]

Uning kitobida Arab avtoritarizmi haqida bahslashish: Nodemokratik rejimlarda dinamikasi va mustahkamligi, Oliver Shlumberger, mintaqaning neft va gaz ta'minoti va uning geosiyosiy joylashuvining strategik ahamiyati tufayli demokratlashtirishning noaniqligidan ko'ra barqarorlikni afzal ko'rgan holda, Yaqin Sharqda avtoritarizmga nisbatan xalqaro ambivalentsiya mavjudligini ta'kidladi.^[425]

Afrika

Léopold Sédar Senghor

Davomida 1945 yilgi Pan-Afrika konferentsiyasi, qashshoqlikka uchragan Afrika qit'asida uyushqoqlik, rivojlanish va o'z taqdirini belgilashni kuchaytirish choralari mustamlakachilarga muzokaralarga turtki berdi. milliy suverenitet.^[5] Qit'ada marksistik harakatlar oz bo'lsa-da, Sovet Ittifoqi faoliyati Afrika mamlakatlaridan anti-imperialistik va globallashuv harakatlarini qo'zg'atdi. Kongress tashkil etildi milliy ozodlik ularning sessiyalarining asosiy mavzusi sifatida, haqiqiy milliy suverenitet ustidan imperialistik kuchlar tomonidan yo'q qilinishi va ekspluatatsiyasini ta'kidladi. Biroq, ular ushbu yangi ozodlik uchun aniq ijtimoiy yoki siyosiy parametrlarni o'rnatmadilar.^[5]

Afrika rahbarlari doimiy ravishda sotsializmni to'g'ridan-to'g'ri rad etish deb hisoblashgan mustamlakachilik tizimi va o'z navbatida butun qit'ada mustaqil kapitalistik tizimlarni yaratish tushunchasini rad etdi. Ular sotsializmning har xil shakllarini - ba'zilari marksistik-leninistik, boshqalari demokratik - har bir mamlakatga xos mafkuralarga singdirishga harakat qilishdi.^[5] Ushbu tizimlar o'rnatilgandan so'ng, mamlakatlar "fokusli institutsional" jamiyat tomon rivojlandi. Sotsiolog Uilyam Fridlandning fikriga ko'ra, jamiyatlar totalitar nuqtai nazarni qabul qilib, bir partiyali tizimlar va institutlarga "xususiy yoki jamoat faoliyatining har bir sohasiga kirib borishga" imkon berdi.^[6]

Senegal

Senegal prezidenti Leopold Sedar Senghor sotsializmning birinchi va eng ashaddiy afrikalik tarafdorlari orasida edi. Prezident etib saylanishidan oldin, Senghor 1945 yilgi Frantsiya Ta'sis yig'ilishidagi afrikalik to'qqiz nafar delegatdan biri bo'lib ishlagan, o'zini o'zi boshqarish va siyosiy qarorlarni mahalliy hokimiyat tomonidan saylangan kengashlar orqali o'tkazish to'g'risida muzokaralar olib borgan.^[426] Ushbu choralar qisqa vaqt ichida amalga oshmadi va mustamlakalardan mustamlakaga qadar muxtoriyat saqlanib qoldi mustaqillik harakatlari 1960-yillarning.

Keyin Senegal mustaqilligi 1960 yilda Senghorniki Union Progresiste Senegalaise, ning hosilasi Frantsiya sotsialistik partiyasi, butun qit'ada katta qo'llab-quvvatlashni kuchaytirdi.^[6] Uning partiyasining muvaffaqiyatlarining aksariyati uning revizionist versiyasiga bog'liq edi Marksizm-leninizm, u erda "marksizmning asosiy qarama-qarshiligi shundaki, u o'zini fan sifatida namoyon qiladi, ammo inkor qilinishiga qaramay, axloqqa asoslanadi".^[6] Senghor uni axloqiy mezon sifatida belgilab, qat'iy determinizmni mafkuradan olib tashlab, uni afro-markazli modelga aylantirishga imkon berdi. Uning qayta ko'rib chiqilishi ham shunga o'xshashligini isbotladi Benito Mussolini u o'zining bir partiyali boshqaruvidagi hukumatdan va uning oldiga milliy harakatni chaqirarkan: "Bir so'z bilan aytganda, biz Milliy ongni uyg'otishimiz kerak. [...] Ammo hukumat bularning hammasini qila olmaydi va qilmasligi ham kerak. partiya tomonidan yordam berish. [...] Bizning partiyamiz ommaning ongi bo'lishi kerak ".^[6]

Gana

Senghor bilan bir xil yo'nalishda, sotsialistik rahbar Kvame Nkrumah sotsialistik itoatkorlikning ushbu bir partiyalashtirilgan, milliylashtirilgan shaklini ilgari surishga intildi. Nkruma hukumatga tegishli mulk va resurslarning muhimligini ta'kidladi. U "xususiy foyda uchun ishlab chiqarish odamlarning katta qismini ishlab chiqarilgan tovar va xizmatlardan mahrum qiladi" degan fikrni ilgari surib, jamoat mulkini "odamlar ehtiyojlariga" mos kelishini qo'llab-quvvatladi.^[427] To accomplish this, Nkrumah emphasized the importance of discipline and obedience towards the single socialist party. He argued that if people submitted and accepted the singular party's program, political independence would be possible.^[427] By 1965, his one-party rule had produced an Assembly entirely made up of his own party members.^[428]

Nkrumah saw law as a malleable weapon of political power, not as a product of a complex system of political institutions.^[428] Ghanaian power structures were dominated and controlled by his hand, but elite landowners questioned the legitimacy of Nkrumah's power. Those elites were only afforded one choice, namely to align with their government if they wanted access to the state. Gradually, those who were not granted or did not desire entrance into the party created regions blocs.^[429] The Asante emerged as a regional force capable political sway. With the power to set the agenda, the authoritarian party often clashed with these emerging regional groups, ultimately undermining the one-party system.^[429]

Tanzaniya

Julius Nyerere attempted to socialist reform for Tanzaniya following those in Gana va Senegal. The tenets of his initiatives were to promote the Tanzanian economy; secure state control over development; create a sole political party called the Tanganika Afrika milliy ittifoqi (TANU) which would be under his control; and share the benefits of all gathered income.^[430]

The system—called ujaama—became a tool for nationalization of the Tanzaniyalik odamlar. In the system, all Tanzanains were encouraged to run for office, with no campaign funding allowed. Speeches in the election would not focus on the national issues, but rather on the quality of the individual, each of whom would be closely controlled by TANU.^[430] Structurally, the power was shared along regional boundaries, giving increased policy making power and resource allocation to these regions. Local institutions were downplayed, with leadership organizations often facing subversion from higher governmental structures.^[431]

The first wave of elections in the Tanzanian general election produced a 100% voting rate for TANU officials.^[432][433]

lotin Amerikasi

XXI asr sotsializmi is an interpretation of socialist principles first advocated by German sociologist and political analyst Xaynts Diterich and taken up by a number of Lotin Amerikasi rahbarlar. Diterich 1996 yilda ikkalasini ham ta'kidlagan erkin bozor sanoat kapitalizm va 20th-century authoritarian socialism dolzarb muammolarini hal qila olmadi insoniyat kabi qashshoqlik, ochlik, ekspluatatsiya, iqtisodiy zulm, seksizm, irqchilik, yo'q qilish Tabiiy boyliklar va haqiqatan ham yo'qligi ishtirok etish demokratiyasi.^[434] While having demokratik sotsialistik elements, it primarily resembles Marksistik revizionizm.^[435] Sotsializmning ushbu shaklini targ'ib qilgan rahbarlar kiradi Ugo Chaves ning Venesuela, Néstor Kirchner ning Argentina, Rafael Korrea ning Ekvador, Evo Morales ning Boliviya va Luis Inasio Lula da Silva ning Braziliya.^[436] Because of the local unique historical conditions, it is often contrasted with previous applications of socialism in other countries, with a major difference being the effort towards a more decentralised and participatory planning process.^[435]

Critics claim that this form of socialism in Latin America acts as a façade for authoritarianism. The charisma of figures like Hugo Chávez and mottoes such as "Country, Socialism, or Death!" Lotin Amerikasi diktatorlari bilan taqqoslashlar o'tkazdilar va kaudilyolar o'tmish.^[437] Ga binoan Stiven Levitskiy, only under "the dictatorships of the past [...] were presidents reelected for life", with Levitsky further stating that while Latin America experienced democracy, citizens opposed "indefinite reelection, because of the dictatorships of the past".^[8] Levitsky then noted how in Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela "reelection is associated with the same problems of 100 years ago".^[8]

2014 yilda, Washington Post also argued that "Bolivia's Evo Morales, David Ortega of Nicaragua and the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez [...] used the ballot box to weaken or eliminate term limits".^[438] The sustainability and stability of economic reforms associated with governments adhering to such socialism have also been questioned. Lotin Amerikasi mamlakatlari birinchi navbatda ularni moliyalashtirdilar ijtimoiy dasturlar neft, tabiiy gaz va foydali qazilmalar kabi qazib olish eksporti bilan, ba'zi iqtisodchilarning ta'kidlashicha, inflyatsiya va o'sishni pasayishiga olib kelgan qaramlikni keltirib chiqaradi.^[439] While some critics say the crisis is caused by "sotsializm " or the country's "sotsialistik siyosat ",^[440] its policies have been described as "populist "^[441][442] or "hyper-populist"^[443] and the crisis has more to do with authoritarianism as well as anti-democratic governance, corruption and mismanagement of the economy.^{[444][445][446][447]} According to analysts and critics alike, the Bolivarian government has used those populist policies in order to maintain political power.^{[448][449][450]}

Although socialists have welcomed a socialism of the 21st century, they have been skeptical of Latin America's examples and criticized their authoritarian qualities and occasional cults of personality. Ularning ilg'or rolini aytib, ular ushbu hukumatlar uchun mos belgi ekanligini ta'kidlaydilar populizm dan ko'ra sotsializm.^{[451][452][453][454][455]} Chávez and Maduro have been compared to Lenin and Stalin, respectively, including Chávez and Lenin's early deaths and the economic problems after their deaths. Maduro, who has joked about his similar appearance and morj mo'ylovi with Stalin,^[456] argued he is not a new Stalin and claimed to be merely following Chávez.^[457] Nonetheless, Maduro has been variously described by newspapers such as the Yangi shtat arbobi va The Times as the "Stalin of the Caribbean" and the "tropical Stalin", respectively.^[458][459] Ga binoan The Daily Beast, Maduro has embraced the "tropical Stalin" moniker.^[460] Ga binoan Joshua Kurlantzik, Latin American countries such as Nicaragua and Venezuela have been following the Xitoy modeli and are described as authoritarian capitalist rejimlar.^[275]

Venesuela

Ugo Chaves

While elections won by Ugo Chaves were certified as being free and legitimate by Amerika davlatlari tashkiloti va Karter markazi,^[461] The Venesuela Bolivar Respublikasi under Chávez and his Bolivarizm moved toward authoritarian socialism.^[462][463] Chávez's earlier forms of Bolivarizm edi sotsial-demokratik in nature, merging elements of capitalism and socialism. By January 2005, Chávez began openly proclaiming the ideology of XXI asr sotsializmi. This new term was used to contrast the demokratik sotsializm which he wanted to promote in Latin America from the authoritarian socialism that had been spread by socialist states like the Soviet Union and China during the 20th century, arguing that the latter had not been truly democratic, suffering from a lack of participatory democracy and an excessively authoritarian governmental structure).^[461] Despite those aspirations, the Bolivarian government used "centralized decision-making and a top-down approach to policy formation, the erosion of vertical power-sharing and concentration of power in the presidency, the progressive deinstitutionalization at all levels, and an increasingly paternalist relationship between state and society" in order to hasten changes in Venezuela.^[464] The various attempts, including the 2002 yil Venesuela davlat to'ntarishiga urinish va 2002-2003 yillarda Venesuela umumiy ish tashlashi, at overthrowing the Bolivarian government from power and end his Bolivar inqilobi may explain Chávez's radicalization.^[461] In practice, Chávez's administration proposed and enacted populist iqtisodiy siyosat.^[465][466]

Using record-high oil revenues of the 2000s, his government nationalized key industries, created participatory democratic jamoat kengashlari sifatida tanilgan ijtimoiy dasturlarni amalga oshirdi Bolivariyalik missiyalar oziq-ovqat, uy-joy, sog'liqni saqlash va ta'limdan foydalanish imkoniyatlarini kengaytirish.^{[467][468][469][470][471][472][473][474][475]} Venezuela received high oil profits in the mid-2000s,^[476] resulting in improvements in areas such as poverty, literacy, income equality and quality of life occurring primarily between 2003 and 2007.^{[468][476][477]} However, those gains started to reverse after 2012 and it has been argued that government policies did not address strukturaviy tengsizliklar.^[478]

On 2 June 2010, Chávez declared an economic war due to Venesueladagi etishmovchilik, boshlanishi Bolivarian Venesueladagi inqiroz.^[479] By the end of Chávez's presidency in the early 2010s, economic actions performed by his government during the preceding decade such as defitsit xarajatlari^{[480][481][482][483][484]} va narxlarni boshqarish^{[485][486][487][488][489]} proved to be unsustainable, with the economy of Venezuela faltering while qashshoqlik,^{[468][476][490]} inflyatsiya^[491] va kamchiliklar ortdi. Uning ishlatilishi ruxsat beruvchi harakatlar^[492][493] va uning hukumatidan foydalanish Bolivar targ'iboti were also controversial.^{[494][495][496][497]} Venesueladagi sotsialistik rivojlanish to'g'risida Chaves ikkinchi hukumat rejasi bilan bahslashdi (Patriya rejasi [es ]) Venesuelada hanuzgacha hukm surib kelayotgan ijtimoiy-iqtisodiy shakllanish "sotsializm o'zimizning ichki dinamizmimizni endigina o'rnatishni boshladi". kapitalistik va rentier ".^[498] Xuddi shu tezis Maduro tomonidan himoya qilingan,^[499] rivojlanishida muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchraganligini tan olgan ishlab chiqarish kuchlari deb tan olish paytida "buzuq va samarasiz bo'lgan eski model davlat kapitalizmi " typical of traditional Venezuelan oil rentism has contradictorily combined with a statist model that "pretends to be a socialist".^[500]

Nikolas Maduro

2015 yilda, Iqtisodchi argued that the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela—now under Nikolas Maduro keyin Chavesning o'limi in 2013—was devolving from avtoritarizm ga diktatura as opposition politicians were jailed for plotting to undermine the government, violence was widespread and opposition media shut down.^[501] Chaves va Maduro administrations' economic policies led to shortages, a high inflation rate and a dysfunctional economy.^[502] The government has attributed Venezuela's economic problems to the decline in oil prices, sanctions imposed by the United States and economic sabotage by the opposition.^[503] Western media coverage of Chávez and other Latin American leaders from the 21st-century socialist movement has been criticized as unfair by their supporters and left-leaning media critics.^[504][505]

Broadly, chavismo policies include milliylashtirish, ijtimoiy ta'minot dasturlari va opposition to neoliberalism, particularly the policies of the Xalqaro valyuta fondi va Jahon banki. According to Chávez, Venezuelan socialism accepts xususiy mulk,^[506] but this socialism is a form of social democracy that seeks to promote ijtimoiy mulk^[507] va qo'llab-quvvatlaydi ishtirok etish demokratiyasi.^[508] In January 2007, Chávez proposed to build the communal state, whose main idea is to build self-government institutions like communal councils, communes and communal cities.^[509] While Chávez remained relatively popular throughout his time in office, Maduro suffered unpopularity with the deterioration of the economy during his tenure and there was a decline of self-identified chavistas.^{[510][511][512]}

Despite its claim to socialist rhetoric, chavismo has been frequently described as being davlat kapitalistik tanqidchilar tomonidan.^[513][514] Critics frequently point towards Venezuela's large private sector.^[515] In 2009, roughly 70% of Venezuela's yalpi ichki mahsulot was created by the private sector.^[516] According to Asa Cusack, an expert on Latin America and frequent contributor to ommaviy axborot vositalari, Venezuela's economy remained "market-based and private-sector dominated" throughout Chávez's time in office. Although "the social economy and the public sector were heavily promoted", for example through nationalization, "the private sector was expected to remain dominant, and it did. A centrally planned socialist economy like Cuba's was neither the aim nor the reality".^[517] Chavismo has been widely discussed in the media.^{[518][519][520][521][522][523][524][525]}

According to Kirk A. Hawkins, scholars are generally divided into two camps, namely a liberal-demokratik one that sees chavismo ning misoli sifatida demokratik orqaga qaytish va a radical-democratic one that upholds chavismo as the fulfillment of its aspirations for participatory democracy. Hawkins argues that the most important division between these two groups is neither methodological nor theoretical, but ideological. It is a division over basic normative views of democracy, i.e. liberalizm ga qarshi radikalizm. Scholars in the first camp tended to adhere to a klassik liberal ideology that valued procedural democracy (raqobatdosh saylovlar, widespread participation defined primarily in terms of voting and fuqarolik erkinliklari ) as the political means best suited to achieving human welfare. Ular ko'rdilar chavismo in a mostly negative light as a case of democratic backsliding or even competitive avtoritarizm or electoral authoritarian regime. On the other hand, scholars in the second camp generally adhered to a classical socialist ideology that mistrusted market institutions in either the state or the economy. Although accepting the importance of liberal-democratic institutions, they saw procedural democracy as insufficient to ensure political inclusion and emphasized participatory forms of democracy and collective worker ownership in the economy.^[526]

Tahlil va qabul

Chap qanot

Left-wing critics argue that it is a form of davlat kapitalizmi bu keyin anti-imperializm, populizm, millatchilik va ijtimoiy demokratiya. Rather than representing a sotsialistik rejali iqtisodiyot, the Soviet model has been described in practice as either a form of state capitalism^{[145][146][147]} yoki a non-planned, buyruqbozlik iqtisodiyoti.^{[76][154][77]} The fidelity of those varied socialist revolutionaries, leaders and parties to the work of Karl Marks and that of other socialist thinkers is highly contested and has been rejected by many Marxists and other socialists alike.^[527] Some academics, scholars and socialists have criticized the linking of all leftist and socialist ideals to the excesses of authoritarian socialism.^{[259][260][119][120]}

Anarxizm va marksizm

Ko'pchilik demokratik va ozodlik socialists, including anarxistlar, mutalistlar va sindikistlar, deride it as davlat sotsializmi for its support of a ishchilar davlati instead of abolishing the burjua state apparatus outright. They use the term in contrast with their own form of socialism which involves either jamoaviy mulk (shaklida ishchilar kooperativlari ) yoki umumiy mulk ning ishlab chiqarish vositalari holda markaziy rejalashtirish davlat tomonidan. O'sha libertarian sotsialistlar believe there is no need for a state in a socialist system because there would be no class to suppress and no need for an institution based on coercion and regard the state being a remnant of capitalism.^{[528][529][530]} They hold that statizm is antithetical to true socialism,^[29] the goal of which is the eyes of libertarian socialists such as Uilyam Morris, who wrote as follows in a Commonweal article: "State Socialism? — I don't agree with it; in fact I think the two words contradict one another, and that it is the business of Socialism to destroy the State and put Free Society in its place".^[531]

Klassik va pravoslav Marxists also view the term as an oxymoron, arguing that while an association for managing production and economic affairs would exist in socialism, it would no longer be a state in the Marxist definition bunga asoslangan domination by one class. Oldin Bolshevik -LED Rossiyada inqilob, many socialist groups—including reformists, orthodox Marxist currents such as kommunizm kengashi va Mensheviklar as well as anarchists and other libertarian socialists—criticized the idea of using the state to conduct rejalashtirish va milliylashtirish of the means of production as a way to establish socialism.^[532] Lenin himself acknowledged his policies as state capitalism,^{[277][278][279][280]} defending them from left-wing criticism,^[533] but arguing that they were necessary for the future development of socialism and not socialist in themselves.^[534][535]

American Marxist Raya Dunayevskaya dismissed it as a type of state capitalism^{[536][537][538]} chunki davlat mulki of the means of production is a form of state capitalism;^[539] The proletariat diktaturasi shaklidir demokratiya va yagona partiyaviy boshqaruv is undemocratic;^[540] va Marksizm-leninizm ham emas Marksizm na Leninizm, but rather a composite ideology which socialist leaders such as Jozef Stalin used to expediently determine what is kommunizm and what is not communism among the Sharqiy blok mamlakatlar.^[541]

Chap kommunizm

Critical of the economy and government of socialist states, chap kommunistlar italiyalik kabi Amadeo Bordiga deb ta'kidladi Marksizm-leninizm was a form of political opportunism which preserved rather than destroyed kapitalizm because of the claim that the exchange of commodities would occur under sotsializm; foydalanish mashhur front organisations by the Kommunistik Xalqaro;^[542] va bu a political vanguard tomonidan tashkil etilgan organic centralism was more effective than a vanguard organised by demokratik markaziylik.^[543] For Bordiga and those left communists supporting his conception of Stalinizm, Jozef Stalin va keyinroq Mao Szedun, Xoshimin, Che Gevara va boshqalar antiimperialistik revolutionaries were great Romantik revolutionaries, i.e. bourgeois revolutionaries. According to this view, the Stalinist regimes that came into existence after 1945 were extending the bourgeois nature of prior revolutions that degenerated as all had in common a policy of expropriation and agrarian and productive development which those left communist considered negations of previous conditions and not the genuine construction of socialism.^[544] Da Rossiya inqilobi edi a proletar inqilobi, it degenerated into a bourgeois revolution^[545] va vakili Frantsiya inqilobi ning Sharqiy va Uchinchi dunyo, bilan sotsializm olish liberalizm joy.^[542][546]

Although most Marxist–Leninists distinguish between communism and socialism, Bordiga, who did consider himself a Leninchi and has been described as being "more Leninist than Lenin",^[547] did not distinguish between the two in the same way Marxist–Leninists do. Both Lenin and Bordiga did not see socialism as a separate mode of production from kommunizm, but rather just as how communism looks as it emerges from capitalism before it has "developed on its own foundations".^[548] This is coherent with Marx and Engels, who used the terms kommunizm va sotsializm bir-birining o'rnini bosadigan.^[549][550] Like Lenin, Bordiga used sotsializm to mean what Marx called the "kommunizmning quyi bosqichi ".^[551] For Bordiga, both stages of communist or socialist society—with stages referring to tarixiy materializm —were characterized by the gradual absence of money, the market and so on, the difference between them being that earlier in the first stage a system of rationing would be used to allocate goods to people while in communism this could be abandoned in favour of full free access. This view distinguished Bordiga from Marxist–Leninists, who tended and still tend to telescope the first two stages and so have money and the other exchange categories surviving into socialism, but Bordiga would have none of this. For him, no society in which money, buying and selling and the rest survived could be regarded as either socialist or communist—these exchange categories would die out before the socialist rather than the communist stage was reached.^[542] Stalin first made the claim that the Sovet Ittifoqi had reached the lower stage of communism and argued that the qiymat qonuni still operated within a socialist economy.^[552]

Other left communists such as the councilists explicitly reject the Leninist vanguard party and the organic centralism promoted by Bordigistlar.^[553] Otto Rühl saw the Soviet Union as a form of state capitalism that had much in common with the state-centred capitalism of the G'arb shu qatorda; shu bilan birga fashizm.^[545] While Rühle saw the Leninist vanguardist party as an appropriate form for the overthrow of the podshohlik avtokratiyasi, it was ultimately an inappropriate form for a proletarian revolution. For Rühle and others, no matter what the actual intentions of the Bolsheviklar, what they actually succeeded in bringing about was much more like the bourgeois revolutions of Europe than a proletarian revolution.^[545][554]

Ozodlik kommunizmi va sotsializm

A variety of non-state, libertarian communist and socialist positions reject the concept of a socialist state altogether, believing that the modern state is a byproduct of capitalism and cannot be used for the establishment of a socialist system. They reason that a socialist state is antithetical to socialism and that socialism will emerge spontaneously from the oddiy level in an evolutionary manner, developing its own unique political and economic institutions for a highly organized fuqaroligi bo'lmagan jamiyat. Libertarian communists, including anarxistlar, councilists, chapchilar va Marksistlar, also reject the concept of a socialist state for being antithetical to socialism, but they believe that socialism and communism can only be established through inqilob and dissolving the existence of the state.^[529][530] Within the socialist movement, there is criticism towards the use of the term sotsialistik davlat in relation to countries such as China and previously of Soviet Union and Eastern and Central European states before what some term the "collapse of Stalinizm "1989 yilda.^{[555][556][557][558]}

Anti-authoritarian communists and socialists such as anarchists, other democratic and libertarian socialists as well as revolutionary syndicalists and left communists^[152][559] claim that the so-called socialist states cannot be called socialist because they actually presided over state capitalist^{[145][146][147]} or non-planned administrative economies.^[76][77] Those socialists who oppose any system of state control whatsoever believe in a more decentralized approach which puts the means of production directly into the hands of the workers rather than indirectly through state bureaucracies^[529][530] which they claim represent a new elita yoki sinf.^{[560][561][562][563]}

This leads them to consider state socialism a form of state capitalism (an economy based on centralized management, capital accumulation and wage labor, but with the state owning the means of production)^[564] which Engels and other Bolshevik kabi rahbarlar Vladimir Lenin va Nikolay Buxarin stated would be the final form of capitalism rather than socialism.^[149][152] Similarly, others pointed out that milliylashtirish va davlat mulki have nothing to do with socialism by itself, having been historically carried out for various different purposes under a wide variety of different political and economic systems.^[565]

Trootskizm

Biroz Trotskiychilar following on from Toni Kliff deny that it is socialism, calling it state capitalism.^[566] Other Trotskyists agree that these states could not be described as socialist,^[567] but they deny that those states were capitalist,^[568] qo'llab-quvvatlovchi Leon Trotskiy 's analysis of pre-restoration Soviet Union as a workers' state that had degenerated ichiga bureaucratic dictatorship which rested on a largely nationalized industry run according to a plan of production.^{[569][570][571]} and claimed that the former Stalinist states of Central and Eastern Europe were deformatsiyalangan ishchilar davlatlari based on the same relations of production as the Soviet Union.^[572]

Trotsky believed that regardless of their intellectual capacity, central planners operate without the input and participation of the millions of people who participate in the economy that can understand and respond to local conditions and changes in the economy. In advocating a markazlashtirilmagan rejalashtirilgan socialist economy, Trotsky and some of his followers have criticized central state planning as being unable to effectively coordinate all economic activity.^[573]

Some Trotskyists have emphasised Trotsky's revolutionary-democratic socialism^[574] and Trotskyists such as Hal Draper described it as such.^[575][576] O'sha uchinchi lager revolutionary-democratic Trotskyists and socialists supported a socialist siyosiy inqilob that would establish or re-establish socialist democracy in deformed or degenerated workers' states.^[577][578] Some such as Draper also compared ijtimoiy demokratiya va Stalinizm as two forms of socialism from above.^[1][579]

O'ng qanot

Right-wing criticism is mainly related to communist party rule shu qatorda; shu bilan birga antikommunizm, anti-marksizm va sotsializm.^[19] Another criticism is that of the iqtisodiy hisoblash muammosi as first outlined by Avstriya maktabi iqtisodchilar Lyudvig fon Mises^[580] va Fridrix Xayek,^[581] keyin sotsialistik hisoblash munozarasi.^{[582][583][584]}

Sotsialistik davlatlar va davlat sotsializmi are often conflated to and referred to by detractors simply as sotsializm. Austrian School economists such as Mises and Hayek continually used sotsializm as a synonym for authoritarian socialism and its buyruqbozlik iqtisodiyoti.^[47][48] The attributive davlat is usually added by socialists with a non-state-based method for achieving socialism to criticize state socialism.^[585] This is especially notable in the United States, where sotsializm is a pejorative term used to refer to either authoritarian socialist states,^[82] any state or tax-funded industry, program and service,^[79][80][81] or the degree of government and iqtisodiy aralashuv davlat tomonidan.^[78]

In their broader critique of socialism, right-wing commentators have emphasised the lack of democracy in socialist states that are considered to be authoritarian or undemocratic, arguing that democracy and socialism are incompatible. Chikago maktabi iqtisodchi Milton Fridman argued that a "society which is socialist cannot also be democratic" in the sense of "guaranteeing individual freedom".^[19] Sotsiolog Robert Nisbet, a philosophical conservative who began his career as a leftist, argued in 1978 that there is "not a single free socialism to be found anywhere in the world".^[19] For anti-communist academic Richard Pipes, the tendency to "merge political and economic power" is "implicit in socialism" and authoritarianism is "virtually inevitable".^[19]

According to the Hungarian-born political sociologist and communist-studies scholar Pol Hollander, a critic of communism and left-wing politics in general,^[586] tenglik was one of the features of authoritarian socialist states that was so attractive to Western intellectuals that they quietly justified their authoritarianism and the murder of millions of kapitalistlar, er egalari and supposedly wealthy kulaklar in order to achieve this equality.^[587] Ga binoan Valter Shaydel, authoritarian socialists who have supported equality were correct to the extent that historically only violent shocks have resulted in major reductions in economic inequality.^[588]

Shuningdek qarang

• Avtoritarizm
• Avtoritar kapitalizm
• Ozodlik sotsializmi
• Davlat kapitalizmi
• Davlat sotsializmi

Adabiyotlar