Essence, characteristic features and main forms of a totalitarian regime. Totalitarian regimes and their main features

1. Theoretical foundations of totalitarianism

1.1.Formation of the theory of totalitarianism.

The term "totalitarianism" comes from the Latin word " totalis ”, which means “whole”, “whole”, “complete”. Totalitarianism is complete (total) control and strict regulation by the state over all spheres of society and every person, based on the means of direct armed violence. At the same time, power at all levels is formed in secret, as a rule, by one person or a narrow group of people from the ruling elite. The exercise of political domination over all spheres of society is possible only if the government widely uses a developed punitive system, political terror, and total ideological indoctrination public opinion.

However, much earlier, totalitarianism developed as a direction of political thought, justifying the advantages of statism (unlimited power of the state), autocracy (from the Greek “autocratic”, “having unlimited rights”). In ancient times, the ideas of total subordination of the individual to the state were a reaction to the developed diversity of human needs and forms of division of labor. It was believed that it was possible to reconcile different interests and thereby achieve justice only with the help of a strong state that would manage all social processes.

Representative of one of the main philosophical schools Ancient China- the school of law (“fa-jia”) Shang Yang (mid-4th millennium BC) noted that true virtue “has its origin from punishment.” The establishment of virtue is possible only “through capital punishment and the reconciliation of justice with violence.” The state, according to Shan Yang, functions on the basis of the following principles: 1) complete unanimity; 2) the predominance of punishments over rewards; 3) cruel punishments that inspire awe, even for minor crimes (for example, a person who drops a burning coal on the road is punishable by death); 4) separation of people by mutual suspicion, surveillance and denunciation.

The autocratic tradition in the management of society was characteristic of the political thought of not only the East, but also the West. Totalitarian ideas are found in the political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Thus, for the formation of a morally perfect person, according to Plato, a properly organized state is necessary that is capable of ensuring the common good. For a properly organized state, the main thing is not “that only some people in it should be happy, but that everyone in it should be happy.” For the sake of the good of the whole, that is, justice, everything that violates state unity is prohibited or abolished: the free search for truth is prohibited; family and private property are abolished, since they divide people; the state strictly regulates all aspects of life, including private life, including sexual life; a unified education system is being approved (after birth, children do not remain with their mothers, but are placed at the disposal of special educators).

Whenever in the development of human society there were noticeable shifts in the system of division of labor and new groups of needs appeared, this led to a certain loss of controllability of social processes. A noticeably complicated and differentiated society did not immediately find adequate ways of regulation, which caused an increase in social tension. At first, the authorities tried to overcome the emerging chaos of the initial stage of structural changes in the system with simple solutions, searching for an idea that could unite all groups of society. This is how the theoretical growth of the ideas of totalitarianism took place.

Later, at the beginning of XX c., totalitarian thought was embodied in political practice in a number of countries, which made it possible to systematize and highlight the signs of totalitarianism and formulate its specific specificity. True, the practice of socio-economic and political-cultural development of totalitarian systems has led a number of scientists to the conclusion that totalitarianism is not only a political regime, but also certain type social system. However, the dominant interpretation in political science is its interpretation as a political regime.

The term “totalitarianism” appeared in the 20s. XX century in Italy, in the political dictionary of the socialists. It was widely usedBenito Mussolini (1883-1945) - head of the Italian Fascist Party and the Italian Fascist government in 1922-1943. , who gave it a positive meaning in his theory of the “organist state” ( stato totalitario ), personifying the power of official power and designed to ensure high degree unity of the state and society. Mussolini said: “We were the first to say that the more complex civilization becomes, the more individual freedom is limited...”

In a broader sense, the idea of ​​omnipotent and all-consuming power underlying this theory was developed by the theorists of fascism G. Gentile and A. Rosenberg, and was found in the political writings of the “left communists” and L. Trotsky. At the same time, representatives of the “Eurasian” movement (N. Trubetskoy, P. Savitsky) developed the concept of a “ruler idea,” which illuminated the establishment of a strong and cruel power towards the enemies of the state. A persistent appeal to a strong and powerful state contributed to the involvement in the theoretical interpretation of these ideal political orders and works of statist content, in particular, Plato with his characterization of “tyranny” or the works of Hegel, T. Hobbes, T. More, who created models of the strong and a perfect state. But the most profoundly proposed system of power is described in the dystopias of J. Orwell, O. Huxley, E. Zamyatin, who in their artistic works gave an accurate image of a society subjected to the absolute violence of power.

However, the most serious theoretical attempts to conceptually interpret this political structure of society were made already in the post-war period and were based on a description of the actual Hitler regime in Germany and the Stalin regime in the USSR. Thus, in 1944, F. Hayek wrote the famous “The Road to Serfdom”; in 1951, the book was published X . Arendt “The Origin of Totalitarianism”, and four years later the American scientists K. Friedrich and Z. Brzezinski published their work “Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy”. In these works, for the first time, an attempt was made to systematize the signs of totalitarian power, to reveal the interaction of social and political structures in these societies, to identify trends and prospects for the development of this type of politics.

In particular, Hannah Arendt argued that Nazism and Stalinism were a new modern form of state. Totalitarianism strives for total domination inside and outside the country. She singled out a single ideology and terror as characteristic features of totalitarianism.

She called the reasons for the emergence of totalitarianism imperialism, which gave rise to racist movements and claims to world expansion, the transformation of European society into a society of people so lonely and disoriented that they could be easily mobilized with the help of ideology.

Subsequently, on the basis of the increasing inclusion of various historical and political sources in the analysis of totalitarianism, several approaches to its interpretation have emerged in science. A number of scientists who took the most radical positions did not classify totalitarianism as a scientific category, seeing in it, albeit new, but just a metaphor for depicting dictatorships. In other words, they viewed totalitarianism as a means of artistic reflection of phenomena well known in theory. Other scientists, such as L. Gumilyov, sharing similar ideas, do not consider totalitarianism to be a special political system, or even a system in general, seeing in it “anti-system” qualities or anti-homeostatic properties, i.e. having the ability to preserve one’s internal integrity only under the influence of systematic violence.

And yet, most scientists believed that the concept of totalitarianism still theoretically describes real political orders. However, a number of scientists saw in it only a kind of authoritarian political system. The American historian A. Yanov presented totalitarianism as a manifestation of the universal, generic properties of state power, which is constantly trying to expand its powers at the expense of society, imposing on it its “services” for leadership and management. The most striking historical examples of such expansion of the state, its desire for omnipotence were seen in the attempts of the Persian monarchy to seize the Greek republics, in the offensive of the Ottoman Empire ( XV - XVI centuries), in the expansion of absolutism in European monarchies XVIII centuries, etc. This approach as a whole made it possible to consider the Hitler and Stalinist regimes as ordinary forms of manifestation of a tendency towards permanent tyranny of the state.

However, along with such approaches, most scientists are of the opinion that totalitarianism is a very specific system of organizing political power, corresponding to certain socio-economic connections and relationships. As M. Simon believed, the use of the very term “to-talitarianism” generally makes sense only if all varieties of political dictatorships are not adjusted to it. Therefore, scientists are faced with the task of revealing the basic, systemic features of this type of organization of power, of understanding the historical conditions under which the emergence of these political orders is possible.

1.2. Features of totalitarian ideologies and political consciousness.

Despite the differences in social goals formulated in various totalitarian regimes, their ideological foundations were essentially identical. All totalitarian ideologies offered society their own version of establishing social happiness, justice and public well-being. However, the establishment of such an ideal system was strictly linked and based on the affirmation of the social privileges of certain groups, which justified any violence against other communities of citizens. For example, Soviet communists associated the establishment of a society with a “bright future” with the determining role of the proletariat, the working class. At the same time, the German Nazis, instead of a class, placed the nation, the German race, at the center of the creation of a new society, which was supposed to occupy a central place in the creation of the “Reich”. Thus, regardless of the place these ideologies occupied in the ideological and political spectrum, they all became an instrument to ensure the interests of social leaders and, therefore, a means of justifying repression and violence against their opponents.

Totalitarian ideologies belong to the type of mythological ideological formations, since they place emphasis not on the reflection of reality, but on the popularization of an artificially created picture of the world, which tells not so much about the present as about the future, about what needs to be built and what is required sacredly believe. When constructing an image of a future bright life, the ideologists of totalitarianism act on the principle of “simplifying” reality, i.e. schematization of living social and political connections and relationships and adjustment of reality to pre-created images and goals.

Such ideologemes turn out to be extremely far from reality, but at the same time extremely attractive to the undemanding or disoriented consciousness of the masses. Considering that totalitarian ideologies enter the political market in years of severe social crises, their influence, reorienting public opinion from real contradictions to future ones and therefore easily resolved in a purely speculative way, as a rule, increases.

An indispensable factor in the growing influence of totalitarian ideologies on public opinion is their inextricable connection with the authority of a strong leader, a party that has already managed to demonstrate to society its determination to achieve its goals, especially in the fight against the enemies of “people's happiness.”

Mythological ideologies are extremely confrontational. They categorically insist that they are right and are uncompromisingly opposed to ideological opponents. One of their main tasks is to debunk the ideas of opponents and oust competitors from political life. It is precisely this intention that, as a rule, is associated with the ideas of external expansion of the corresponding forces, their desire to “make happy” the lives of not only their own people, but also other peoples. Based on the understanding of the irreconcilability of totalitarian ideology with its opponents and the desire to preserve the ideological purity of society, the government sees as its main task the eradication of dissent and the destruction of all ideological competitors. The main slogan she uses in this case is “those who are not with us are against us.” Therefore, all totalitarian regimes were formed as fierce fighters for the purity of ideas, directing the edge of political repression primarily against ideological opponents.

It is noteworthy that the intensity of repression did not change due to the recognition of an “external” or “internal” enemy. Thus, for the Soviet communists, political opponents were not only the “worldbourgeoisie,” but also representatives of a number of social circles: supporters of the tsarist regime (White Guards), clergy (priests), representatives of the liberal humanitarian intelligentsia (“minions of the bourgeoisie”), entrepreneurs, kulaks (who embodied the spirit of private property). The German Nazis declared Jews and other representatives of “inferior races” who allegedly posed a threat to the Reich as internal enemies.

It is characteristic that, despite the difference in the ideological goals of the regimes, the methods they used to combat ideological opponents were practically the same: expulsion from the country, placement in concentration camps, physical destruction. The continuity of the ideological struggle for purity of thoughts was expressed in the systematic use of repression against entire social and national strata. Having destroyed or temporarily suppressed competitors in society, the ruling parties invariably transferred the edge of the purifying ideological struggle within their ranks, persecuting insufficiently loyal members, achieving more complete compliance of their behavior and personal lives with the proclaimed ideals. This policy, essential for the preservation of regimes, was accompanied by campaigns of “brainwashing”, encouraging denunciation, and controlling loyalty.

For the sake of rooting new system values, totalitarian regimes used their own semantics, invented symbols, created traditions and rituals that presupposed the preservation and strengthening of indispensable loyalty to power, increasing respect and even fear of it. On the basis of ideologies, not only the future was projected, but also the past and even the present were rethought, or rather, rewritten. As V. Grossman aptly wrote, “...state power created a new past, moved the cavalry in its own way, reappointed heroes of already accomplished events, and dismissed genuine heroes. The state had sufficient power to replay what had already been done once and for all eternity, to transform and reincarnate granite, bronze, spoken speeches, to change the arrangement of figures in documentary photographs. It was truly new story. Even living people who survived from those times experienced their already lived lives in a new way, turning themselves from brave men into cowards, from revolutionaries into agents abroad.”

However, not being able to support the promoted goals and ideals with a sustainable increase in the people’s well-being, liberate civic activity, and establish an atmosphere of security and trust in power, totalitarianism inevitably “washed out” the actual ideological, semantic content of its lofty goals, stimulated the superficial and formal perception of these ideals turned ideological constructions into a type of uncritically accepted creed. The solidarity between state and society thus created encouraged not the conscious interest of the population in strengthening and supporting the regime, but the thoughtless fanaticism of individuals. And neither strict filtering nor control over information brought success. The Iron Curtain did not save people from their habit of free thinking.

A totalitarian political regime can exist for decades because it creates a type of personality that does not think of any other way of government and constantly reproduces the features of political culture and the functioning mechanism of totalitarianism even in dramatically changing political conditions.

The characteristic features of the totalitarian political consciousness of the individual are absolutism, dichotomism of thinking: “friend-foe”, “friend-enemy”, “red-white”; narcissism, narcissism: “the best nation”, “ best country"; one-sidedness, one-dimensionality: “one idea”, “one party”, “one leader”, an uncritical attitude towards existing orders and patterns, stereotypical thinking, saturated with propaganda stereotypes; orientation towards power and strength, thirst for this power, authoritarian aggression on the one hand, and on the other - constant readiness to submit; simplification, reduction of the complex to a simpler one, schematism, one-line thinking: “Whoever is not with us is against us,” “If the enemy does not surrender, he is destroyed,” “If there is a person, there is a problem.” No person - no problem..."; fanaticism; frenzied hatred, suspicion, developing into moral and physical terror against fellow citizens, friends and even relatives; orientation towards a “bright future”, ignoring the values ​​of today.

2. The essence and conditions of functioning of the totalitarian regime

2.1. Prerequisites for the emergence, essence and distinctive properties of totalitarianism.

Certain elements of a totalitarian system have historically been found in many types of dictatorships. Thus, in the eastern despotisms one could see the rigidity of government and the absolute authority of the ruler, in the medieval states of Europe the demands of the church to adhere to the same beliefs from birth to death, etc. However, in its entirety, everything that is organically inherent in this political order, appeared only in a certain historical period.

As independent and qualitatively integral totalitarian political systems, historically they were formed from the corresponding dictatorial regimes, which artificially built the same type of legal, social and economic relations. In general, totalitarianism was one of the alternatives that countries found themselves in conditions of a systemic (modernization) crisis. The common distinctive features of this kind of crisis are: depression and loss of social guidelines by the population, economic decline, sharp social stratification, the spread of poverty, crime, etc. Combined with the presence of powerful layers of patriarchal psychology, the cult of a strong state, the activities of well-organized parties with their iron discipline and extremely ambitious leaders, as well as the spread of acutely confrontational ideological doctrines and some other factors, the above characteristics crises contributed to the fact that these societies took the path of creating totalitarian systems.

A special factor that contributed to the orientation of societies toward the construction of totalitarian orders and was of significant importance in Russia were the traditions of underground activity,terrorist organizations that revolutionized the political activity of the population and legitimized in public opinion the ideas of a violent redistribution of power and wealth, getting rid of people who interfered with progress and the establishment of justice. These traditions, which affirmed contempt for the value of human life and the authority of the law, subsequently served as one of the most powerful sources of the spread of everyday “snitching”, everyday denunciation, which justified people’s betrayal of their loved ones in the name of “ideals”, out of fear and respect to power. It is no coincidence that Pavlik Morozov, who betrayed his loved ones, became for many decades in our country a symbol of devotion to the ideas of socialism and civic duty.

Initially, the systemic description of totalitarian political orders followed the path of highlighting the most important and fundamental features of totalitarianism. Thus, Friedrich and Brzezinski, in the work mentioned above, identified six of its main features: the presence of a totalitarian ideology; the existence of a single party led by a strong leader; the omnipotence of the secret police; the state's monopoly over mass communications, as well as over weapons and over all organizations of society, including economic ones.

Based on the conclusions of K. Friedrich and Z. Brzezinski and summarizing the practice of the Franco regime in Spain, X. Linz identified the following elements of a totalitarian regime:

1) a highly centralized, monistic power structure in which the dominant group “is not responsible to any elected body and cannot be deprived of power by institutional peaceful means.” The power structure in such regimes has a pyramidal shape, the top of which is crowned by a leader (chief) or group. All types of power (legislative, executive, judicial) are actually concentrated in the hands of the ruling group or leader. An indispensable condition for the functioning of the pyramid-distant structure of power is the sacralization of the leader;

2) a monopolistic, detailed ideology that legitimizes the regime and imbues it with a certain grandeur of a historical mission. The importance of monopoly ideology in such systems is great, since it is it that acts as a mechanism that shapes the needs and motivations of individuals and integrates society around priority goals. With the subordination of society to the achievement of a common idea, a collective goal, a totalitarian regime begins to form. Reducing the entire diversity of needs to achieving a single goal leaves no room for freedom and autonomy of the individual;

3) active mobilization of the population to carry out political and social tasks with the help of a number of monopolistic institutions, including a single, mass party, which practically strangle in the bud any form of autonomous social and political organization.

The famous theorist K. Popper saw the features of a totalitarian organization of power and society in the strict class division of the latter; in identifying the fate of the state with the fate of man; in the state’s desire for autarky, the imposition by the state of the values ​​and lifestyle of the ruling class on society; in the state's appropriation of the right to construct an ideal future for the entire society, etc.

In these descriptions of totalitarian orders, the main emphasis was placed on certain characteristics of the state. However, the state itself cannot become a system of total control, since it is fundamentally oriented towards the law and the system established by it for regulating the behavior of citizens. Totalitarianism relies on power generated by the will of the “center” as a specific structure and institution of power. Under this political system, a system of power is being formed in society, striving for absolute control over society and people and not bound by law, traditions, or faith. Dictatorship here becomes a form of total domination over society by this “center” of power, its all-consuming control over social relations and the systematic use of violence. That is, totalitarianism is a political system of arbitrary power.

The establishment of totalitarian political orders is not a direct continuation of the activities of the previous legitimate regime of power and the social traditions associated with it. Totalitarian regimes, and subsequently systems, were born as the embodiment of certain political projects that provided for the construction of a “new” society by the authorities and at the same time swept away everything that does not correspond to or interferes with the implementation of such plans. The main emphasis in this policy was on the denial of the old order and the establishment of a “new” society and man. For example, the Soviet regime consistently tried to completely destroy life in all areas public life any manifestations of bourgeois relations, examples of the entrepreneurial culture emerging in society, liberal democratic ideas, civil activity of the population not regulated by the authorities.

The most important mechanism for the formation of such political and social orders, the real driver of this process, were ideological factors. It was ideology that determined the social horizons of the development of society on the path to establishing one or another political ideal, formed the corresponding institutions and norms, laid down new traditions, created pantheons of its heroes, set goals and set deadlines for their implementation. Only ideology justified reality, brought meaning to the actions of the authorities, to social relations, culture. Everything that was denied by the ideological project was subject to destruction, everything that was prescribed by it was subject to inevitable implementation. Occupying a central place in political mechanisms, ideology turned from an instrument of power into power itself. Because of this, both the totalitarian political regime and the totalitarian system of political power became a type of ideocracy, or, taking into account the sacred nature of this doctrine for the authorities, a “reverse theocracy” (N. Berdyaev).

The following conditions are identified as conditions for the formation of totalitarianism: a sharp break in established structures, the marginalization of various social groups ; the destruction or absence of areas of civil society activity; the emergence of modern media; deformation of political consciousness; lack of democratic traditions, predisposition of mass public consciousness to violent methods of resolving issues; accumulation government experience solving social problems by mobilizing millions of people; the availability of opportunities to create an extensive apparatus of repression and violence.

In general terms, the following can be distinguished: character traits totalitarianism:

- high concentration of power, its penetration into all spheres of society. The authorities claim to be the spokesman for the highest interests of the people; society is alienated from power, but does not realize it. In totalitarian consciousness, power and people appear as a single, inseparable whole;

— the formation of government bodies is carried out in a bureaucratic way and is not under the control of society. Management is carried out by the dominant layer - the nomenklatura;

— there is a single ruling party led by a charismatic leader. Its party cells permeate all production and organizational structures, directing their activities and exercising control. Attempts to create alternative political and public associations are suppressed. There is a merger of the state apparatus with the apparatus of the ruling parties and public organizations;

— democratic rights and freedoms are of a declarative, formal nature. At the same time, the state performs certain social functions, guaranteeing the right to work, education, recreation, medical care, etc.;

— there is only one ideology functioning in society, which claims to have a monopoly on the truth. All other ideological movements are persecuted, opposition views manifest themselves mainly in the form of dissidence;

— in totalitarian ideologies, history appears primarily as a natural movement towards a certain goal (world domination, building communism), in the name of which any means are justified;

— the government has a monopoly on information and has complete control over funds mass media, which are used to manipulate public consciousness. Political propaganda serves the purpose of glorifying the regime and sacralizing the supreme power;

— the government has a powerful apparatus of social control, coercion and intimidation of the population. The repressive apparatus has special powers;

— government bodies strictly control the economy, possessing a fairly high ability to mobilize resources and concentrate efforts to achieve narrowly limited goals, for example, military construction, space exploration;

— political socialization aims to educate a “new man”, devoted to the regime, ready to make any sacrifices in the name of the “common cause.” Manifestations of individuality are suppressed, ideas about the state as the source of distribution of all benefits are inculcated, servility and denunciation are encouraged;

— the state structure is unitary in nature. The rights of national minorities are declared, but in reality they are limited.

Totalitarian systems are not self-developing formations based on natural-historical mechanisms of evolution (private interest, free individual, private property, inequality), but mobilization ones. Mobilization systems function through the use of resources of fear and coercion. They can even achieve certain successes in solving strategic problems (for example, in carrying out industrialization, structural restructuring, breakthrough into space, etc.).

However, the resources of fear and coercion are not long-lasting enough and require constant external stimulation. To do this, the ruling elite forms “images of the enemy” (internal and external) to concentrate the social energy of the masses in solving specific problems. It is no coincidence that the supporting structure of totalitarian regimes turns out to be mass parties that have a monopoly on power. They become elements of the state, merging with it.

Of course, one cannot limit the resources of totalitarian regimes only to coercion and pure fear. In addition, the totalitarian type of power also appeals to values ​​(either class or national) and carries out total brainwashing. However, mobilization systems must also form their own social base on which they could rely. Therefore, we can highlight a third resource that totalitarian regimes use - rewarding individuals, groups or entire social classes with symbolic or status insignia (increasing status, providing economic or material advantages to certain categories or the population as a whole).

2.2. Social sources of totalitarianism.

However, it is not enough to explain the establishment of totalitarianism only by the ability of the ruling elite to subordinate all social processes to the realization of a collective goal. It turns out that this ability is fueled by the mentality and culture of the population, historical traditions, and the social and economic structure of society.

Until XX V. the establishment of totalitarianism was complicated by the absence of conditions that could ensure total state control over society and the individual. Only with the entry of human society into the industrial phase of development, marked by the emergence of a system of mass communications that provided opportunities for ideological control over society and the replication of certain values, was the state able to completely subjugate society.

The growing division and specialization of industrial labor destroyed patriarchal, traditional collectivist ties and values, and previous forms of socio-cultural identification. The alienation of the individual increased, his defenselessness before the ruthless world of market forces and competition. The market has created a different system of values ​​and preferences - an individual-achieving one, to which a pre-industrial or state-dependent worker did not immediately adapt.

Under these conditions, an employee who has been knocked out of the previous system social connections(collectivist-corporate), but not yet included in the industrial-market system, the desire to find protection in the face of a strong state is increasing. This need is felt more acutely by the marginalized, that is, the intermediate strata who have lost social ties with their former environment and group. They are characterized by increased sensitivity, aggressiveness, embittered envy, ambition, and self-centeredness. It is the marginalized people and the extreme form of their manifestation - the lumpen - that become the social base of totalitarian regimes. Consequently, totalitarianism was a reaction of the social and ethnic marginalized to individualism, to the increasing complexity social life, fierce competition, global alienation of the individual, powerlessness in the face of the surrounding hostile world. Marginal strata were seduced by the slogans of mass parties (socialist or national socialist), which promised to guarantee social security, stability, an increase in living standards, and equalization (under the guise of equality).

The huge administrative apparatus of the state, the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy, serves as a kind of “drive belt” for the policies of the ruling circles. Certain layers of intellectuals (intelligentsia) also played their role in the spread of such social standards and prejudices, who systematized these popular aspirations, turning them into a moral and ethical system that justified these mental traditions and gave them additional public resonance and significance .

Differentiation social roles and functions, determined by the division of labor in industrial societies, increased the interdependence of individuals and groups within society. The need to overcome this diversity and ensure the integrity of a socially differentiated society noticeably increased the integrative role of the state and reduced the volume of individual freedom.

Objectively favorable preconditions for the formation of totalitarian regimes do not at all mean the fatal inevitability of their establishment - everything depends on the maturity of civil society, the presence of a democratic political culture, and developed democratic traditions. These factors allowed the majority of industrial developed countries overcome the crisis of 1929 - 1933. and preserve the institutions of democracy.

Historical experience shows that totalitarian regimes most often arise under extraordinary circumstances: in conditions of growing instability in society; a systemic crisis covering all spheres of life; the need to solve any strategic problem that is extremely important for the country. Thus, the emergence of fascism in countries Western Europe was a reaction to the crisis of liberal values ​​and parliamentary institutions, which were unable to ensure stability and integration of the system in the conditions of the deep crisis of 1929 - 1933. The formation of communist totalitarianism in Soviet society was due, for all other reasons, to the need to carry out industrialization in a historically short time, which was possible provided that power was concentrated in the hands of the leader and a narrow circle of his supporters.

2.3. Institutional and normative properties of totalitarianism

The need to maintain ideological purity and purposefulness in building a “new” society also presupposed a completely special construction of the institutional and normative sphere of the totalitarian system.

The need for a strict ideological orientation of state policy, maintaining constant ideological control over the activities of all government bodies predetermined the fusion of the state and the ruling party and the formation of that “center” of power that could not be identified with either the state or the party . Such a symbiosis of state and party bodies did not make it possible to “separate” their functions, to define independent functions and responsibility for their implementation. The USSR provided much richer historical experience of totalitarian rule than other countries, showing examples of those social and political relations to which the logic of the development of totalitarianism led.

It is his example that clearly shows how party committees directed the activities of almost all government structures and authorities. Leadership role enshrined in the country's constitution communist party meant the complete priority of ideological approaches in solving any generally significant (state) economic, economic, regional, international and other problems.

The complete political dominance of this party-state was manifested in the unconditional and undeniable dominance of centralized control and planning in the economic sphere. The complete dominance of large enterprises and the exclusion of private property put the state in the position of the only employer, independently determining working conditions, criteria for assessing its results, and the needs of the population. The economic initiative of individual workers was recognized only within the framework of strengthening these relations, and all types of individual entrepreneurship (“speculation”) were classified as criminally punishable.

The monolithic nature of political power did not imply division, but the practical fusion of all branches of power - executive, legislative and judicial. The political opposition as a public institution was completely absent. The mechanisms of self-government and self-organization have lost their inherent autonomy and independence. The authorities emphasized only collective forms and methods of social and political activity. The elections were completely and completely subjected to shameless directing, thus fulfilling a purely decorative function.

To control this monopolistic political order of power, a powerful secret political police was created (in Germany - SS units, in the USSR - the Cheka, NKVD, KGB). It was a mechanism of strict, all-pervasive control and management, which had no exceptions and was often used to resolve conflicts within the ruling layer. At the same time, it was the most privileged area of ​​the civil service, whose workers were the most highly paid, and the infrastructure was intensively developed, assimilating and implementing the most advanced world technologies. In combination with the strengthening of administrative control mechanisms, the need for constant control of society led to a tendency towards an increase and strengthening of the mass character of the apparatus of power. Thus, in society there was always a need to increase the number of employees. On this basis, a powerful layer of nomenklatura, a service-professional caste that had colossal social privileges and opportunities, emerged in the USSR.

Due to these basic properties, totalitarianism functioned as a system that most clearly opposed pluralism, the plurality of agents and structures political life, the diversity of their opinions and positions. The most terrible enemy of totalitarianism is competition, focused on people’s free choice of their ideological and political positions. Fear of not only political protest, but also social diversity, the desire for the unification of all social forms of behavior did not limit only the forms of expressing support for the authorities, where, on the contrary, diversity and initiative were encouraged. A universal and essentially the only political and ideological form of regulation of all social processes erased under totalitarianism the border between state and society. The authorities received unlimited access to all areas public relations, right upto a person’s personal life, actively using methods of terror, aggression, and genocide against one’s own people.

Despite the constantly proclaimed “popular” nature of power, the decision-making system in totalitarian systems turned out to be completely closed to public opinion. Formally proclaimed laws, norms, and constitutional provisions had no significance in comparison with the goals and intentions of the authorities. The 1936 Constitution was one of the most democratic in the world. But it was she who covered up the mass repressions of the communists against their own people. The most typical and widespread basis for the real regulation of social relations was the orientation of the institutions of power towards the opinion of the leaders and the sacralization of their positions.

Force and coercive methods and technologies had unconditional priority in regulating public relations. But not enough high level At maturity, this all-pervasive forceful regulation of social relations predetermined the loss of totalitarian systems of their strictly political character, their degeneration into a system of power built on the principles of administrative coercion and dictate.

3. Historical forms of totalitarianism

3.1. Types of totalitarian regime.

World practice allows us to identify two types of totalitarian regime: right and left.

Right a variety of totalitarianism is represented by two forms - Italian fascism and German national socialism. They are considered right because they usually maintained a market economy, the institution of property, and relied on mechanisms of economic self-regulation.

Since 1922, the integration of Italian society took place on the basis of the idea of ​​reviving the former power of the Roman Empire. The establishment of fascism in Italy was a negative reaction of the petty and middle bourgeoisie to the lag in the process of developing national and economic integrity. Fascism embodied the antagonism of the petty-bourgeois strata towards the old aristocracy. Italian fascism largely identified the signs of totalitarianism, although it did not fully develop them.

The classic form of right-wing totalitarianism is National Socialism in Germany, which arose in 1933. Its establishment was a response to the crisis of liberalism and the loss of socio-economic and national identity. They tried to overcome the revival of the former power and greatness of Germany by unifying society based on the ideas of the superiority of the Aryan race and the conquest of other peoples. The mass social base of the fascist movement was the petty and middle bourgeoisie, which in its origin, mentality, goals and standard of living was antagonistic to both the working class and the aristocracy, the big bourgeoisie. As a result, participation in the fascist movement for the petty and middle bourgeoisie seemed to be an opportunity to create a new social order and acquire a new status and advantages in it - depending on personal merits to the fascist regime. It should be noted that the growth of the national and social self-awareness of the Germans was significantly influenced by the defeat in the First World War (1914 - 1918) and the deep economic crisis of 1929 - 1933.

The left-wing variety of totalitarianism was the Soviet communist regime and similar regimes in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, South-East Asia, in Cuba. It relied (and in a number of countries still relies) on a distributive planned economy and destroys the market, if it exists. In the USSR it was supposed to achieve social homogeneity and leveling out the social diversity of interests. Only that which corresponded to the interests of the working class was recognized as progressive. True, in reality the working class in the USSR was marginalized, since its basis was made up of yesterday's peasants. The destruction of the previous way of life, the usual simplified picture of the world, which divided the world into white and black, good and bad, created discomfort in them, fear of the future, and showed their inability to exist in conditions of diverse social interactions.

The formation of the collective goal of society in the form of the ideal of a “bright future”, which embodied the age-old dream of a just and perfect society, coincided with the expectations of broad sections of the then Soviet society. It was assumed that this ideal could only be realized with the help of a strong state. Thus, totalitarianism was a peculiar reaction of the rejection by the patriarchal consciousness of social marginals of such universal human values ​​as the market, competition, private property, and personal freedom.

3.2. Totalitarianism and modernity .

Friedrich and Brzezinski expressed the idea that over time, totalitarianism will evolve towards greater rationality, preserving its fundamental structures for the reproduction of power and social order. In other words, they saw the source of danger for totalitarianism outside the system. Life has largely confirmed this idea, although it has also demonstrated internal factors that destabilize this order.

As history has shown, a system of power built on the primacy of mono-ideology and the corresponding structure of political institutions and norms is not able to flexibly adapt to the intense dynamics of complex societies, identifying the range of their diverse interests. This is internal closed system, built on the principles of homeostasis, fighting the internal vacuum, which moves according to the laws of self-isolation. Therefore, in the modern world, totalitarianism cannot provide the political prerequisites for either the development of market relations, or an organic combination of forms of ownership, or support for entrepreneurship and economic initiative of citizens. This is a politically non-competitive system of power.

In the modern world, its internal sources decomposition is associated primarily with the disintegration of the economic and social foundations of self-survival. The social base of totalitarian regimes is narrow and is not associated with improving the social status of the most proactive and promising strata of society. Acting only by mobilization methods, totalitarianism is not able to draw the human resources necessary for social progress. The extreme tension of status rivalry that develops in these societies, the unreliability of the daily existence of the individual, and the lack of security in the face of the repressive apparatus weaken support this mode. The latter, as a rule, lacks the ability for critical self-reflection, which can give a chance to find more optimal answers to the challenges of the time.

Fear and terror cannot haunt people forever. The slightest weakening of repression activates opposition sentiments in society, indifference to the official ideology, and a crisis of loyalty. At first, maintaining ritual devotion to the dominant ideology, but unable to resist the voice of reason, people begin to live by double standards; doublethink becomes a sign of a reflective person. Opposition is embodied in the emergence of dissidents, whose ideas gradually spread and undermine the ideological monopoly of the ruling party.

But, apparently, the main source of destruction and the impossibility of reproducing totalitarian orders is the lack of resources to maintain the information regime of mono-ideological domination. And the point is not only in the social foundations of this global process for the modern world, when the development of personality and humanity is inextricably linked with the competition of opinions, the constant rethinking of programs by individuals, and spiritual search. There are also purely technical prerequisites for the unviability of totalitarian systems. These include, in particular, modern messaging processes, an increase in the intensity and technical equipment of information flows, the development of communication contacts between different countries, the development of technical infrastructure associated with the emergence of mass electronic media, and the development of the Internet. In short, a qualitative change in the information market cannot but involve even those countries that are trying to artificially isolate their information space from the penetration of “alien” ideas into the new order. And the destruction of the system of unanimity is the main prerequisite for the collapse of totalitarianism.

Thus, we can conclude that totalitarian political systems are characteristic mainly of countries with pre- and early industrial economic structures, which make it possible to organize the monopolization of the ideological space using forceful methods, but are absolutely not protected from modern economic and especially information and communication processes. Therefore, totalitarianism is a phenomenon only XX c., this type of political system could appear only in the narrow space that history provided to some countries.

Nevertheless, totalitarianism also has some chances for a local revival. After all, many decades of terror have formed among the population of these countries a certain type of cultural orientation, which is capable of reproducing the corresponding norms and stereotypes, regardless of the prevailing political conditions. It is not surprising that in the post-Soviet space today, peculiar proto-totalitarian regimes often emerge, in which opposition media do not operate, opposition leaders are subject to repression and even physical destruction, partyarchalism and outright fear of power reign supreme. Therefore, the final destruction of the specter of totalitarianism is organically connected not only with the presence of democratic institutions and the involvement of countries and peoples in new information relations. People's understanding of the values ​​of democracy and self-respect, their awareness as citizens of their honor and dignity, the growth of their social responsibility and initiative are also of colossal importance.

Literature

Arendt H. The beginnings of totalitarianism // Anthology of world political thought. T.2 / Rep. ed. T.A. Alekseeva. - M., 1997.

Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism. - M., 1994.

Berdyaev N.A. The origins of Russian communism. - M., 1990.

Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science: Tutorial. - M., 1995.

Djilas M. The face of totalitarianism. - M., 1993.

Political science course: Textbook. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M., 2002.

Malko A.V. Political and legal life of Russia: actual problems: Tutorial. - M., 2000.

Mukhaev R.T. Political science: a textbook for students of law and humanities faculties. - M., 2000.

Fundamentals of Political Science. Textbook for higher educational institutions. Part 2. - M., 1995.

Political science. Textbook for universities / Edited by M.A. Vasilik. - M., 1999.

Political science. encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1993.

Soloviev A.I. Political science: Political theory, political technologies: A textbook for university students. - M., 2001.

Totalitarianism in Europe of the twentieth century. From the history of ideologies, movements, regimes and their overcoming. - M., 1996.

Friedrich K., Brzezinski Z. Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy // Totalitarianism: what is it? T.2 / Ed. count L.N. Verchenov et al. M., 1992.

Hayek F. The Road to Slavery // Anthology of World Political Thought. T.2 / Rep. ed. T.A. Alekseeva. M., 1997.

Totalitarianism is a political system that is characterized by complete state control over all spheres of public life, the virtual elimination of the rights and freedoms of citizens, and repression of the opposition and dissidents.

The first sign is the complete monopolization of power by one or another political leader. The Secretary General, Fuhrer or Caudillo unites in himself the legislative and executive powers, and the judicial branch is placed in such conditions that it practically loses its independence. The politician who finds himself at the top of the totalitarian system imagines himself as the leader and savior of the people. On the way to absolute dominance, he certainly overthrows someone, suppresses or destroys something. Thus, Hitler, on his way to total power, organized the burning of the Reichstag (parliament), and in 1933 he abolished it completely.
Having appropriated full power, the supreme leader creates his own command vertical. He appoints and dismisses lower-level commanders at his own will. Every official owes his career to him and must unconditionally follow his instructions. Government officials who are disliked by the leader are relieved of their positions, put on trial or oblivion.

The second sign of a totalitarian regime is the desire to eliminate the multi-party system and establish the dominance of one political party in society. The one-party system makes it possible to create and introduce into the masses a single ideology that supports and protects the interests of the ruling political regime. In such a system there is no place for critical speeches and opposition movements.
Propaganda, Information Support population are of a centralized state nature. The political rhetoric of totalitarianism is characterized by the use of label terms, words divorced from the actual origin and content of the concepts that they originally designated, and used to create the image of an “enemy of the nation,” “renegade,” “enemy of the people.”
Information monopoly opens up the opportunity to create easily digestible social myths, a kind of hyperreality, an illusory world that completely capture the mass consciousness. The lumpen population begins to believe that they are participating in political life, when in reality they are being used by the authorities as a means to strengthen their positions in society.

The third sign of a totalitarian regime is the creation of broad socio-political movements that provide it with mass social support. These movements introduce the totalitarian idea into the mass consciousness, help the totalitarian regime maintain comprehensive control over various manifestations of public life, and form a positive attitude towards the existing government on the part of the people. With the help of the apparatus of intimidation and the activists of these movements, an atmosphere of suspicion and spy mania is being created in society. Enemies are being looked for everywhere, denunciation and mutual responsibility are spreading. In such conditions the best way Demonstrating loyalty to the regime becomes personal devotion and servility.
The massive nature of socio-political movements gives the totalitarian regime the appearance of democracy, democracy, and provides it with a certain stability.

The fourth sign of totalitarianism is state-directed terror, through which the existing government seeks to achieve the universal loyalty of citizens. Together with total propaganda, terror gives rise to general violence, causing constant fear and self-doubt among citizens. The repressive actions of state punitive bodies begin with a “witch hunt”, with reprisals against the opposition. But over time, terror reaches national proportions. The feeling of insecurity of an individual in front of the state machine becomes so obvious, personal security turns out to be so minimal that paralysis of the individual will sets in, cowardice, betrayal and suspicion of people towards each other appear.

The fifth feature of a totalitarian system is its desire to create a closed, isolated economic mechanism, which is under strict, centralized control of the state. A strictly centralized order of economic life is required by the ruling elite in order to have unlimited access to the material and financial resources necessary for the implementation of certain strong-willed decisions and projects, as well as in order to maximize economic dependence people from a totalitarian state.
By achieving state monopoly in the economic sphere, the totalitarian regime expels from the economy that part of the industrial and financial business who does not cooperate with him. The taken means of production and capital are appropriated by the totalitarian state or passed into the hands of entrepreneurs loyal to it.

The sixth sign of totalitarian power is the implantation in society of one, the only true ideology. Its content is formed by a combination of specially invented myths and pseudoscientific theories. By implementing its ideology, the government emphasizes the exceptional nature of its historical mission; it certainly “protects” someone or something, “saves”, etc.

Political features. In accordance with the logic of the totalitarian system, the comprehensive ideologization of society complements it with totalitarian politicization, the penetration of power into all spheres of the social organism. The omnipotent government acts as the main guarantor of ideological control over the population. Totalitarianism strives for the complete elimination of civil society and private life independent of government. The political system serves as the core, the foundation of the entire social and economic organization, which is characterized by a rigid hierarchical structure. The core of a totalitarian political system is an extremely centralized political movement for new order led by a party of a new, totalitarian type. This party merges with the state and concentrates real power in society. All political opposition and the creation of any organizations without government approval are prohibited. At the same time, the totalitarian political system claims to be the expression of the people's will, the embodiment of the highest nationality.

It uses uncontested forms of democracy, which involve making decisions without voting based on the immediate reaction of meeting participants and creating the appearance of popular support, but not allowing for real influence on the decision-making process. The political features of a totalitarian society also include the presence of a powerful apparatus of social control and coercion (security services, army, police, etc.), mass terror, and intimidation of the population.. In an effort to find mass support, totalitarianism proclaims the superiority of a certain class, nation, race. In this case, there is always an internal or external enemy - the bourgeoisie, imperialism, Jews. In the process of eliminating or limiting private property, the individual becomes completely dependent on the state, without which most people cannot get work or housing. The individual loses all autonomy and rights and becomes completely defenseless against omnipotent power. An attempt is being made to form a “new man”, whose features are devotion to ideology and leaders, diligence, and readiness to make any sacrifices for the sake of the “common cause.” Possession of power or influence on it becomes the basis of social life. stratification, economic and social privileges. The dominance of ideology is also evident in economics. Distinctive features totalitarianism are social restrictions, and ideally the complete elimination of private property, market relations, competition, planning and command-administrative methods of management. A state monopoly is established on the disposal of all the most important

public resources

and the man himself. Types of totalitarianism. Depending on the dominant ideology, total. political systems are divided into communism (socialism), fascism and national socialism. Communist totalitarianism to a greater extent expresses the main features of totalitarianism, since it presupposes the complete elimination of private property and all personal autonomy, the absolute power of the state. Despite the predominantly total. forms of politics The organization of the socialist system is also characterized by humane politics. goals. For example, in the USSR the level of education of the people sharply increased, achievements of science and culture became accessible to them, social services were provided. protection of the population, the economy, space and military industries developed, the crime rate dropped sharply, and for decades the system almost did not resort to mass repression. Fascism like a real politician. and the social system arose in Germany in 1933. National Socialism is related to fascism, although it borrows a lot from Soviet communism and, above all, revolutionary and socialist components, forms of total organization. party of the state. The place of class here is taken by the nation, the place of class hatred by national and racial hatred. the aggressiveness of National Socialism is directed against other peoples. Any totalitarian states belong to three main types of totalitarianism, although there are significant differences within each of these groups.

By resisting, these people darken the building's celebration.

They are stubborn to the point that I spit on justice.

I.-V. Goethe "Faust"

Characteristic common features of totalitarian regimes

The complete opposite rule of law is totalitarian. Despite all the differences between totalitarian dictatorships, what is characteristic of them is that, using attractive social myths, they strive to mobilize the population of their countries to implement obviously utopian, albeit tempting, social projects. Therefore, almost all totalitarian regimes are based on a detailed ideological doctrine, covering all vital aspects of human existence.

Ideological doctrines of totalitarian regimes, as a rule, contain the “only correct” answers to all questions that arise among members of society. Widespread propaganda of these doctrines accompanies every person throughout his life. It already starts with kindergarten, continues at school, at university, fills all periodicals, sounds in radio and television programs: from birth to death, a person remains under strict ideological control. As a result, a single ideology is formed, which, according to the authorities, should be adhered to by all residents of the country without exception. This ideology orients society towards a certain final and perfect state: “communism”, “racially pure society”, “Islamic state” - for the sake of which it is necessary to make some sacrifices and endure temporary inconveniences and restrictions in the present.

Every totalitarian ideology contains a call based on a categorical rejection of the existing state of affairs and aimed at conquering the world for the sake of building a “bright future.” An important component of totalitarian ideology is the “image of the enemy” it forms, which helps the regime unite society against the mythical threat from saboteurs and saboteurs within society or from the external environment. In the name of the lofty goals it proclaims, the totalitarian regime considers it possible to systematically violate not only civil rights, but also human rights. The central idea of ​​totalitarianism in all its varieties is the complete subordination of each individual person and the entire society as a whole to absolute control by state power.

One party system. The cornerstone of the foundation of a totalitarian state is the one-party system. The establishment of such a system is the first step towards totalitarianism. A political party seeking to establish its undivided dominance is usually inspired by the idea of ​​​​a united will of a class or a nation. Such a party considers itself the only true exponent of this will, thus assigning a monopoly right to speak on behalf of the entire class or nation. The party may, for tactical purposes, enter into cooperation and form coalitions with other political parties, but its true goal is not a coalition, but a monopoly, therefore, at the first opportunity, it ruthlessly destroys all political competitors.

Totalitarian rule does not tolerate any opposition, therefore the main goal of totalitarian parties is to achieve undivided dominance over the apparatus of state power. The establishment of a one-party system is a key measure on which the very existence of a totalitarian state depends. Therefore, once established, the one-party system is protected by all forces and means available to the modern state. The totalitarian regime views every demand to eliminate the one-party system and restore democracy with its inherent multi-party system as a direct attack on the foundations of state security. Such demands are declared anti-people and anti-state and are punished especially cruelly and mercilessly, because a terrorist dictatorship cannot be strong if its fundamental basis - the one-party system - collapses.

Party-state. An essential point in the creation of a totalitarian state is the complete fusion of the party apparatus with the state apparatus. Having won a dominant position, the party turns the state apparatus into its monopoly, appointing its functionaries to all government posts and positions. As a result, the state becomes a party state, and the party becomes a state party. Party leaders simultaneously become leaders of the state, sometimes combining several senior government positions. Appointment to any public office becomes impossible without the consent of the party authorities, and soon there is not a single post left to be occupied by a person who does not belong to the ruling party.

In a totalitarian state, a system is established according to which not a single law, not a single resolution of state power can be adopted without prior agreement with the party leadership. Formally, legislative acts are adopted government agencies, but essentially their role becomes purely decorative. In the same way, any resolution of local authorities must receive the prior approval of the regional party organization. Thus, not only the executive, but also the legislative branch falls completely under party control, and there is not a single sphere in the state free from the pervasive influence of the ruling party, which usually begins to call itself simply the Party (with a capital P). The formally preserved separation of powers loses all practical significance, because in a totalitarian state the parliament, the government, and the court essentially turn into executive bodies Parties.

The merger of the party with the state is expressed in the complete subordination of all state structures to the party. Thus, thanks to party control over the appointment of all officers, the army is transformed from the armed force of the state into the armed force of the party. Law enforcement agencies of the state begin to perform party functions, and all speeches against the Party are elevated to the rank of state crimes and become criminally punishable. The state budget actually turns into a party treasury, and all state resources become, essentially, party resources and are spent at the discretion of party functionaries without any sanction from state power.

Characteristic features of totalitarian states. The presence of similarities in the methods of organizing and functioning of power allows us to say that despite the difference in ideologies, and sometimes irreconcilable hostility between them, totalitarian states are similar in their political structures and methods of governance. This similarity is manifested in the commonality of the following characteristics:

• - the forced establishment of a one-party system, when everyone political parties, except for the dominant one, are eliminated from the political scene, after which the monopoly right to state power is assigned to one single party, usually headed by a charismatic leader;
• - merging of the dominant party with the state, when party bodies exercise full control over the bodies government controlled or completely replace them, taking control directly;
• – unification of public life, when all independent public organizations are dissolved, and only those remain and are created in which the monopoly influence of the ruling party and its ideology is ensured;
• – the establishment of an authoritarian way of thinking, when any discussions on socio-political issues are categorically prohibited, the ideology of the ruling party is declared the only true teaching, and the party and its next leader are proclaimed the highest authority on all issues without exception;
• – the creation of a powerful repressive apparatus aimed at suppressing any real and even potential resistance to the regime, the widespread use of preventive repressions directed not only against individuals, but also against entire classes of the population or even entire nations;
• – establishment of comprehensive control over all media of mass communication and information: press, radio, cinema, television.

"State-mechanism" and "state-organism"

By its structure, a totalitarian state is the most perfect and most brutal political system designed to suppress human personality and the people as a whole. It resembles a well-calibrated mechanism that works flawlessly and accurately as long as its links are in good working order and nothing interferes with their interaction. However, the extremely close interconnection of all links of the political organization of a totalitarian state makes it very sensitive to even the most minor failures and violations. A totalitarian state appears monolithic and solid, but its solidity can be deceptive, like the fragile solidity of glass. Due to colossal internal stresses and too tight coupling of parts state mechanism even minor violations in one link threaten the integrity of the entire system. Hence the constant fear and the merciless cruelty of the totalitarian regime to all manifestations of disagreement caused by this fear. Hence the sharp intolerance towards liberalism, multi-party system, pluralism, because for totalitarianism everything that forms the basis of the normal life of a rule of law state is mortally dangerous.

The most elementary statements of citizens in a liberal democracy on issues of politics and law, economics and morality, with which one can agree or not, but for which no one is condemned or held accountable, are considered by the totalitarian regime as grave political crimes that threaten the security of the state. A totalitarian regime can give literally everything political significance judging a person for long hair or tight trousers, not because they are dangerous in themselves, but because the very fact of independently deciding even such minor issues is seen as a political act - disobedience to the system.

Unlike a totalitarian state liberal democracy resembles more a living organism than a machine. Even if his actions do not have such mathematically verified accuracy, but thanks to the flexibility and mobility of parts, he is able not only to compensate for certain individual defects, but also to regenerate lost or missing parts, adapting to constantly changing living conditions.

Comparing the two proposed models - legal and totalitarian states, it can be noted that they constitute the extreme opposite points of a certain series. At one end there is an ideal model of a state, maximally adapted to reveal the individual characteristics of each individual person. On the other is an equally ideal model of a state mechanism that completely suppresses the individual, driving him into the framework of “serving” some global idea. Between these two poles there is a fairly wide range of political systems, approaching one end or the other of the series, almost never reaching it. History knows no real state entities, which would be completely legal or completely totalitarian. But the history of any state is the development of trends that bring it closer to one or another ideal model. And for each individual person, his conscious participation in political life is determined by the ability to see these trends and, through his action, promote or hinder their development.

Consequences of industrialization and collectivization.

Main social consequences industrialization and collectivization was the formation of a massive multi-million core of industrial workers. The total number of workers grew from 8-9 million in 1928 to 23-24 million in 1940. On the other hand, employment in agriculture: from 80% in 1928 to 54% in 1940. The freed-up population (15-20 million people) moved into industry.

The policy of forced industrialization plunged the country into a state of general, war-like mobilization and tension. The choice of a forced strategy presupposed a sharp weakening, if not the complete elimination of commodity-monetary mechanisms for regulating the economy and the absolute predominance of the administrative-economic system. This version of economic development contributed to the growth of totalitarian principles in political system Soviet society, sharply increased the need for the widespread use of administrative-command forms of political organization.

Totalitarianism is a political regime in which full control and strict regulation by the state of all spheres of society and the life of every person is exercised, ensured primarily by force, including the means of armed violence.

The main features of a totalitarian regime include:

1) the supremacy of the state, which is of a total nature. The state not only interferes in the economic, political, social, spiritual, family and everyday life of society, it seeks to completely subordinate and state any manifestations of life;

2) concentration of all state political power in the hands of the party leader, entailing the actual exclusion of the population and ordinary party members from participation in the formation and activities of state bodies;

The essence of Stalinist totalitarianism

The main characteristic feature of the political regime in the 30s was the shift of the center of gravity to the party, emergency and punitive bodies. The decisions of the XVTI Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) significantly strengthened the role of the party apparatus: it received the right to directly engage in state and economic management, the top party leadership acquired unlimited freedom, and ordinary communists were obliged to strictly obey the leadership centers of the party hierarchy .

Along with the executive committees of the Soviets, party committees functioned in industry, agriculture, science, and culture, whose role in fact becomes decisive. In conditions of concentration of real political power in party committees, the Soviets carried out primarily economic, cultural and organizational functions.

The growth of the party into the economy and the state sphere from that time became distinctive feature Soviet political system. A kind of pyramid of party and state administration was built, the top of which was firmly occupied by Stalin as the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Thus, the initially secondary position of the Secretary General turned into a primary one, giving its owner the right to supreme power in the country.

The establishment of the power of the party-state apparatus was accompanied by the rise and strengthening security forces the state and its repressive bodies. Already in 1929, so-called “troikas” were created in each district, which included the first secretary of the district party committee, the chairman of the district executive committee and a representative of the Main Political Directorate (GPU). They began to carry out extrajudicial proceedings against the perpetrators, passing their own verdicts. In 1934, on the basis of the OGPU, the Main Directorate of State Security was formed, which became part of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD). Under him, a Special Conference (SCO) was established, which at the union level consolidated the practice of extrajudicial verdicts.

Policy of repression: causes and consequences

Relying on a powerful system of punitive authorities, the Stalinist leadership in the 30s spun the flywheel of repression.

According to a number of modern historians, repressive policies in this period pursued three main goals:

1) real cleansing of functionaries who have “decayed” from the often uncontrolled power;

2) suppression in the bud of departmental, parochial, separatist, clan, opposition sentiments, ensuring the unconditional power of the center over the periphery;

3) relieving social tension by identifying and punishing enemies. The data known today about the mechanism of the “Great Terror” allow us to say that among the many reasons for these actions special meaning had the desire of the Soviet leadership to destroy the potential “fifth column” in the face of a growing military threat.

During the repressions, national economic, party, state, military, scientific and technical personnel, and representatives of the creative intelligentsia were purged. The number of prisoners in the Soviet Union in the 30s is determined by figures from 3.5 million to 9-10 million people.

What consequences did the policy of mass repression lead to? On the one hand, one cannot help but admit that this policy really increased the level of “cohesion” of the country’s population, which was then able to unite in the face of fascist aggression. But at the same time, without even taking into account the moral and ethical side of the process (torture and death of millions of people), it is difficult to deny the fact that mass repressions disorganized the life of the country. Constant arrests among the heads of enterprises and collective farms led to a decline in discipline and responsibility in production. There was a huge shortage of military personnel. The Stalinist leadership itself abandoned mass repressions in 1938 and purged the NKVD, but at its core this punitive machine remained untouched.

As a result of mass repressions, a political system took hold, which is called the regime of Stalin’s personal power (Stalinist totalitarianism). During the repressions it was destroyed most of the country's top leaders. They were replaced by a new generation of leaders (“promoters of terror”), completely devoted to Stalin. Thus, the adoption of fundamentally important decisions finally passed into the hands of the Secretary General VKP(b).

Periodization

In the evolution of Stalinist totalitarianism, four stages are usually distinguished:

1. 1923-1934 - the process of formation of Stalinism, the formation of its main trends.

2. Mid-30s - 1941 - implementation of the Stalinist model of social development and the creation of a bureaucratic basis for power.

3. The period of the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945 - the partial retreat of Stalinism, highlighting the historical role of the people, the growth of national consciousness, the expectation of democratic changes in inner life countries after the victory over fascism.

4. 1946-1953 - the apogee of Stalinism, developing into the collapse of the system, the beginning of the regressive evolution of Stalinism.

In the second half of the 50s, during the implementation of the decisions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, a partial de-Stalinization of Soviet society was carried out, but a number of signs of totalitarianism remained in the political system until the 80s.