O cara usa a frase de um liberal iluminista ( Rousseau ) para atribuí-la como crença dos marxistas. O inconsequente inventa até o que não existe. Aqueles que dizem a URSS era uma ditadura não entendem o sistema soviético de governo ou os métodos do Partido Comunista. NENHUM homem ou grupo de homens pode ditar qualquer coisa. Decisões são tomadas pelo Partido e aceitas pelos seus órgãos, o Comitê Central do Politburo
" Não há a menor parcela de utopismo em Marx. Ele não inventa, não imagina, já prontinha, uma sociedade "nova". Não, ele estuda, como um processo de história natural, a gênese da nova sociedade saída da antiga, as formas intermediárias entre uma e outra. Baseia-se na experiência do movimento proletário e esforça-se por tirar dela lições práticas. "
( Lênin, " O Estado e a Revolução ).
O
Estado e a Revolução de Lenin é uma boa apresentação da teoria do Estado e da ditadura do proletariado em Marx e uma ótima
refutação da alegação que o Estado Soviético era a realização prática das concepções marxistas. Que o seu autor tenha sido também o principal mentor desta forma de estado burocrático é uma das muitas ironias da história.
O Estado soviético ( e seus derivados) era uma ditadura no sentido estrito do termo. Qualquer agrupamento político fora do partido era proibido , qualquer organização de correntes ou tendências dentro do Partido era proibida , qualquer manifestação cultural , jornalística etc.. era subemetida previamenta aos ditames do Partido , etc,etc,etc...
Ser membro do partido era fazer parte da burocracia governante e a forma de funcionamento interno era baseada no servilismo , no burocratismo e na corrupção. As eleições para os Sovietes e orgãos de "base" eram realizadas de forma a sempre garantir a unanimidade em relação ás diretrizes do Comitê Central. Não há registro de qualquer divisão interna dentro dos orgãos do Partido ( e as instãncias governamentais eram intrinsecamente ligadas ao PC) após 1930 nem qualquer registro após esta data de eleições que não tivessem a aprovação "unânime" da linha única do partido.
Discorda Daniel ?
Então apresente provas de que esta unanimidade cínica não existia , mostre uma eleição em qualquer instãncia do poder soviético em que não houve unanimidade para as diretrizes emanadas do CC...
Mostre provas de que o servilismo e a submissão aos ditames do Estado e da burocracia dominante não eram pré-requisito para a ascenção profissional e educacional.
Explique porque os trabalhadores e intelectuais se revoltaram e insurgiram na Alemanha Oriental em 1953 , Hungria em 1956 , Tchecoeslováquia em 1968 , Polônia em 1970 e 1980 , se aquele era o Estado deles ?
A literatura
soviética está cheia de referências a como era a vida e os mecanismos de poder nesta forma cínica de "democracia popular" , de
Mestre e Margarida de Bulgakhov a
Avenir Radieux ( Futuro Brilhante) de Alexander Zinoviev , de
Vida e Destino de Vassili Grossman a
A República das Putas de Alexander Skovorecky.
De um ponto de vista marxista , que a concepção bolchevique de ditadura do proletariado era uma concepção autoritária já era evidente desde 1917 , como mostra a crítica severa ( e , vista em relação aos eventos posteriores , quase profética) de Rosa Luxemburgo , principal representante da extrema esquerda marxista alemã , no texto abaixo (negrito meu):
The Problem of Dictatorship
Lenin says [in The State and Revolution: The Transition from Capitalism to Communism] the bourgeois state is an instrument of oppression of the working class; the socialist state, of the bourgeoisie. To a certain extent, he says, it is only the capitalist state stood on its head. This simplified view misses the most essential thing: bourgeois class rule has no need of the political training and education of the entire mass of the people, at least not beyond certain narrow limits. But for the proletarian dictatorship that is the life element, the very air without which it is not able to exist.
“Thanks to the open and direct struggle for governmental power,” writes Trotsky, “the laboring masses accumulate in the shortest time a considerable amount of political experience and advance quickly from one stage to another of their development.”
Here Trotsky refutes himself and his own friends. Just because this is so, they have blocked up the fountain of political experience and the source of this rising development by their suppression of public life! Or else we would have to assume that experience and development were necessary up to the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, and then, having reached their highest peak, become superfluous thereafter. (Lenin’s speech: Russia is won for socialism!!!)
In reality, the opposite is true! It is the very giant tasks which the Bolsheviks have undertaken with courage and determination that demand the most intensive political training of the masses and the accumulation of experience.
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of “justice” but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when “freedom” becomes a special privilege.
The Bolsheviks themselves will not want, with hand on heart, to deny that, step by step, they have to feel out the ground, try out, experiment, test now one way now another, and that a good many of their measures do not represent priceless pearls of wisdom. Thus it must and will be with all of us when we get to the same point–even if the same difficult circumstances may not prevail everywhere.
The tacit assumption underlying the Lenin-Trotsky theory of dictatorship is this: that the socialist transformation is something for which a ready-made formula lies completed in the pocket of the revolutionary party, which needs only to be carried out energetically in practice. This is, unfortunately – or perhaps fortunately – not the case. Far from being a sum of ready-made prescriptions which have only to be applied, the practical realization of socialism as an economic, social and juridical system is something which lies completely hidden in the mists of the future. What we possess in our program is nothing but a few main signposts which indicate the general direction in which to look for the necessary measures, and the indications are mainly negative in character at that. Thus we know more or less what we must eliminate at the outset in order to free the road for a socialist economy. But when it comes to the nature of the thousand concrete, practical measures, large and small, necessary to introduce socialist principles into economy, law and all social relationships, there is no key in any socialist party program or textbook. That is not a shortcoming but rather the very thing that makes scientific socialism superior to the utopian varieties.
The socialist system of society should only be, and can only be, an historical product, born out of the school of its own experiences, born in the course of its realization, as a result of the developments of living history, which – just like organic nature of which, in the last analysis, it forms a part – has the fine habit of always producing along with any real social need the means to its satisfaction, along with the task simultaneously the solution. However, if such is the case, then it is clear that socialism by its very nature cannot be decreed or introduced by ukase. It has as its prerequisite a number of measures of force – against property, etc. The negative, the tearing down, can be decreed; the building up, the positive, cannot. New Territory. A thousand problems. Only experience is capable of correcting and opening new ways. Only unobstructed, effervescing life falls into a thousand new forms and improvisations, brings to light creative new force, itself corrects all mistaken attempts. The public life of countries with limited freedom is so poverty-stricken, so miserable, so rigid, so unfruitful, precisely because, through the exclusion of democracy, it cuts off the living sources of all spiritual riches and progress. (Proof: the year 1905 and the months from February to October 1917.) There it was political in character; the same thing applies to economic and social life also. The whole mass of the people must take part in it. Otherwise, socialism will be decreed from behind a few official desks by a dozen intellectuals.
Public control is indispensably necessary. Otherwise the exchange of experiences remains only with the closed circle of the officials of the new regime. Corruption becomes inevitable. (Lenin’s words, Bulletin No.29) Socialism in life demands a complete spiritual transformation in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois rule. Social instincts in place of egotistical ones, mass initiative in place of inertia, idealism which conquers all suffering, etc., etc. No one knows this better, describes it more penetratingly; repeats it more stubbornly than Lenin. But he is completely mistaken in the means he employs. Decree, dictatorial force of the factory overseer, draconian penalties, rule by terror – all these things are but palliatives. The only way to a rebirth is the school of public life itself, the most unlimited, the broadest democracy and public opinion. It is rule by terror which demoralizes.
When all this is eliminated, what really remains? In place of the representative bodies created by general, popular elections, Lenin and Trotsky have laid down the soviets as the only true representation of political life in the land as a whole, life in the soviets must also become more and more crippled. Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Among them, in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously – at bottom, then, a clique affair – a dictatorship, to be sure, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but only the dictatorship of a handful of politicians, that is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, in the sense of the rule of the Jacobins (the postponement of the Soviet Congress from three-month periods to six-month periods!) Yes, we can go even further: such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shooting of hostages, etc. (Lenin’s speech on discipline and corruption.)
http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm
Editado para acrescentar destaque.
