State and Human Development in the Context of the Ideological Conflict between Capitalism and Communism

State and Human Development in the Context of the Ideological Conflict between Capitalism and Communism
O. S. Zibrov

How did the change of the political system that followed the collapse of the USSR influence the development of our society? Was it for good of people or did it run counter to their interests? What advantages of the communist system could form the basis of the current capitalist regime in the country?Russia is a travesty of a social welfare state. State Duma members do not express the will of the electorate. Judges are dependent. Public authorities tend to satisfy their own interests.

State and Human Development in the Context of the Ideological Conflict between Capitalism and Communism

O. S. Zibrov

Editor Anna Stolyarova

Proofreader Olga Rybina

Cover Designer Maria Bangert

© O. S. Zibrov, 2021

ISBN 978-5-0053-6285-8

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

1. What disadvantages typify the previous political system?

1.1. Experience is not transferred. Not theoretical experience but experience as knowledge, i.e. conscious understanding of the current political processes. For most people, a theory is not enough, they need their own practical experience. This is the only way to understand mistakes and develop a deep understanding of the theory. This is precisely why the retreat of the pre-revolutionary communist generation who knew, both in theory and from their own experience, what exploitation, poverty, competition, healthcare and education inaccessibility are, turned the collapse of the USSR into just a matter of time.

1.2. Overestimated impact of economic motivations on people’s lives and disregard of other aspects. Socialism, having solved a number of economic problems, got rid of some evils and therewith gave rise to others (anger, envy, jealousy, vanity…). Human weaknesses turned into the promotion driving force.

1.3. The whole matter of political struggle was reduced to the liquidation of opposition, while the recognition of the creation of something new as a goal was just empty words.

As a result, the following conflicts were not settled:

1.3.1. The conflict between the public (social) and the private (individual). The public became the hallmark of the state both in its substance and form for the first time ever and enabled the state to discover its essence. However, the discovery of its social essence did not necessarily signify the immediate change of the public’s mind. The vast majority of people, both the society in general and public officials, still had an individualistic worldview that did not allow to decipher the difference between the social essence of the state and the public (social). As a result of the conflict between the public and private, a clear dichotomy between the individual and the state appeared. Consequently, the goal to suppress individualism as an open enemy arose. Populists hastened to take advantage of it, heading for power. It would be better if the development of the new, social, foundation of the state hadn’t clamped down on individualism completely but instead had built on its strengths. Especially since they could have counterbalanced the new downsides of the public.

1.3.2. The conflict between the old and the new. The new system took the state to a higher level and boosted the development of all spheres of public life. However, few people back then were able to realize that the victories of today had already been the past. It is also confirmed both by Stalin’s works which make it clear that even his inner circle couldn’t understand him, and by eagerness the society showed in accepting Khrushchev’s populism.

1.3.3. The conflict between the whole and the parts. The political struggle is generally regarded as a number of revolutionary spurts. Meanwhile, life is much more complicated. It features the co-existence of the old in one sphere of life and the new in another. Such diversity has to be present in the state structure system too, allowing to fight for the development and change of the conflicts and openly discuss propositions on dealing with any state issues. It is not a question of holding the propaganda endorsement against the state, it is a question of restrictions abolition. The opposition’s rights should be recognized and provided by the state.

1. 4. The merge of party and state. It is largely responsible for the fact that the party’s top echelon turned into public officials and the party deteriorated. The vanguard of political circles metamorphosed into the vanguard of bureaucracy.

1.5. Attempts to merge elements of socialism and capitalism in separate spheres. The collapse of the USSR proved that such a merge is impossible. It is also confirmed by today’s attempts of the Russian political system to portray itself as a social state, turning a penny of the poor into a seven-digit profit of the rich and reducing the socialist ideas to an absurdity.

2. What changes would allow us to improve the existing political power system?

Today, despite the capitalism comeback, all the state improvement ideas are reduced to the conflict between capitalist and communist systems. The complete opponent’s suppression continues to be the only criteria for such improvement. In the same way as before, it prevents:

– the state from acquiring the features of a truly social state;

– the private (individual) from changing and finding a new place in the state system;

– from the realization that what the new fights against is not the private (individual) but against its form, capitalism;

– from the realization that a social state cannot exist without its opposite, private (individual) manifestation;

– from the realization that just like one step forward requires both legs, the development of one thing requires the development of others.

The only way to break out of the vicious circle of the two system endless interchange is to determine what place the private and the public hold in the new political power system of the state. In order to do this, we have to determine how different they are.

The difference between capitalism and communism allows these two systems to find their real places without merging and destroying states.

Considering that the basis of a state is formed by law (statutory acts that determine the procedure of the occurrence, change, or termination of legal relations), the difference between capitalism and communism appears in the shape of the difference between the relations initiated by people for the sake of themselves (capitalism) and the relations initiated for the sake of others (communism). It would enable to put legal relations in order in all the spheres of the state structure.

2.1. Given that today the power is represented only by the capitalist system, its change requires:

2.1.1. To add Councils (state and local) to the legislative branch of power. Such Councils should be formed by appointing deputies, elected by industrial workers for each industrial district. To authorize them to enact the statutory acts that control the relations initiated for the sake of others, as well as the relations into which subjects are forced to enter against their will: Public relations (power system, protection of citizens, state property) or external circumstances driven relations (labor, consumer relations, monopolies).

To leave under the jurisdiction of other, presently acting authorities the enactment of statutory acts that control the relations initiated for the sake of self, into which subject enter voluntarily: Civil relations (contractual relations between individuals, legal entities, individuals and legal entities, associations of legal entities, commercial activity (market), art…).

The Councils and presently acting authorities should be granted the right to the joint legislative initiative through the adoption of draft statutory acts and their submission to the respective authority or through adding such drafts to the candidates’ policies in respective elections with the obligatory covering of the drafts and entitling the President to control the respective relations by decrees until the law is enacted.

2.1.2. To turn deputies into true spokesmen of their electorate.

Pursuant to Part 2 of Art. 1 of Federal Law No. 3-ФЗ dated 8/5/1994 “On the Status of a Member of the Federation Council and a Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, a deputy of the State Duma is a representative of the people elected in accordance with the federal law who is authorized to exercise legislative and other powers envisaged by the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the State Duma).

As this definition indicates, a deputy is a representative of the PEOPLE. Therefore, when representing not his, but people’s interests, they must express not their own will, but the will of the people. It raises a simple but important question: How can we say whose interests a deputy represents at the moment of decision-making? Their own? Or the people’s? No answer is provided to this question by the law. But we can find the answer if we look into the theory.

From the theoretical perspective, the representee’s will can be unraveled in the instruction’s contents (what should be done and how; what will happen if it is not done) and enshrined in the form of a document that makes it clear what the representative is authorized to do on behalf of the representee. With that in mind, representation suggests that the representee shall refer to the representative, not vice versa. A deputy does not have any of the above-mentioned, therefore, in theory, a deputy only represents their own interests. Moreover, the very addressing of a deputy to their electorate is an offer that expresses the deputy’s will, while the electorate can either accept or reject it. Basically, the electorate only estimates in this case whether the deputy’s offer meets their interests, which is not a choice but an estimation.

Furthermore, the law ends abruptly with the phrase “a representative of the people.” Nothing is said about the instruction, its form, or responsibility, and therefore, even according to the law, a deputy is not really a representative of the people. They are rather an ordinary, albeit elected, public officer, a bureaucrat. And they shall be treated like one.

Being a bureaucrat, a deputy fits perfectly well with the vicious cycle of iniquity, and that is why the people’s problems are not solved and considered to be of little value. Such fair words as “a representative of the people” began to ring hollow and are used to mislead the common people.

You may argue that a deputy’s freedom shall not be abridged, since he was elected by the people. No offense meant, but it is the electorate a deputy represents, not themselves. It is the electorate whose will they express, not themselves. It is the electorate before whom they shall be held responsible, not themselves. Don’t get the free elections and representation of the electorate’s interests confused. Don’t substitute the concept of people’s representation with the election process. If a deputy’s freedom amounts to their freedom from the electorate’s will and if they rely upon their own will, then they are not representative of their electorate. To live like this, to agree with it, to claim it to be freedom is ridiculous!