And although a new ruling class began to form in the USSR - the nomenclature, but to the end to gain a foothold in this status (inherited!) he didn't have time - burst out 1991 year. Today the fragments of this class of nomenclature - Ponomarev, Udaltsov, Semin and a number of others - openly yearn for lost opportunities.
And these, oppressed by the brain slug, what class will be?
Here we have again spontaneously arose a discussion about the role of the proletariat in modern society.. Where is he with us, is there at all and if there is, then who can be attributed to him?
I am not the only one who has been asking these questions for a long time., "Renegade and guard", but also characters like Dvurechensky and Zhukov quite shaking hands in the left get-together (I also found a specialist in Marxism, he is, except for "Mumu" Turgenev, read nothing) they are periodically discussed.
And after the current discussion in the comments, some people asked me, is this theory outdated and is it time to create a new one instead?
certainly, outdated. But you need not create something completely new., but for a start, just consider the possibility of applying the old theory to new realities.
But since the Orthodox, and sectarians are frankly afraid to do it, so as not to be accused of revisionism (as if it's something bad), then I have to. With nothing to lose, for the sectarians still consider me an apostate (although i never said, that I am a communist).
so, here is my door, and here are my Luther theses.
1. In political economy, the introduction of a separate scientific term was promoted by David Ricardo, starting his main work with the definition of, that there are three large classes in society (landowners, capitalists, working), who share social wealth through different sources of income (land rent, profit and salary respectively).
2. Pre-Marxist researcher and historian Guizot in the work "The Government of France since the Restoration and the current ministry" (1820 year) spoke of the history of France as the history of two peoples. One people - the winner - the nobility (Norman conquerors); and the other - the vanquished - the third estate (properly, francs, Bretons, Gascons, Flemings and so on).
That is, classes are often also ethnic oppression.. It was like that in Britain (where the Welsh were oppressed, Saxons and Irish, not to mention the colonies), in bohemia, in Austria-Hungary, in the Ottoman Empire and so on.
3. Karl Marx himself in a letter to Joseph Weidenmeier from 5 Martha 1852 wrote:
“Neither merit belongs to me, that I discovered the existence of classes in modern society, us so, that I discovered their struggle with each other. Long before me, bourgeois historians outlined the historical development of this class struggle., and bourgeois economists - the economic anatomy of classes. the, what did i do new, consisted in proving the following: 1) that the existence of classes is associated only with certain historical phases of the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself is only a transition to the destruction of all classes and to a society without classes ".
4. Yet again, the classes themselves in different formations were also different:
- in the slave-owning they were slave-owners (citizens) and slaves;
- in the feudal - feudal lords and serfs (while there were also free citizens, which also must not be forgotten);
- in the capitalist - capitalists and wage workers, or, more orthodox, "Bourgeoisie and proletariat". Yet again, also not without the presence of groups, who do not belong to these two categories - the intelligentsia, peasants, officials and so on.
I think, that so far these are all well-known facts, which will not cause any special objections.
But now there will be "heresy".
5. The class system implies a clear division of society into fairly closed groups and the impossibility (or extreme complexity) transition from one such group to another.
In particular, a person will not be able to become a member of the ruling elite or an entrepreneur, if his parents did not belong to the "same circle". And marriage between representatives of different classes is considered a misalliance and is condemned in society..
We clearly see such a system in the USA., in the UK and several other Western countries. But where do you see this in modern Russia?
Yes, at the beginning of the twentieth century in the Russian Empire, definitely and undeniably, there was a class society. But the revolution destroyed him. And in the USSR, even a peasant could become the head of state (sometimes I think, looking at Khrushchev and Gorbachev, what better could not).
And although a new ruling class began to form in the USSR - the nomenclature, but to the end to gain a foothold in this status (inherited!) he didn't have time - burst out 1991 year.
Today the fragments of this class of nomenclature - Ponomarev, Udaltsov, Semin and a number of others - openly yearn for lost opportunities. Just like white officers in exile, dreaming of revenge.
The troubled decades that followed, except chaos and devastation, also characterized by the highest level of lability of social lifts - positions in society and huge fortunes were created and lost in a very short time.
Personally, in my forty-two years I managed to be an entrepreneur, loader, civil servants, assistant deputy governor, hired workers, self-employed, again an entrepreneur, almost became the director of the institute and is now an independent freelancer. What class do I belong to?
There are no "untouchables" in Russia (whatever Khazin says). Some people start to think so, but they break off very quickly. Ulyukaev thought, that he is the elite, and now he has eight years of strict regime. FSB colonels and generals fly off their posts and sit on bunks. Ivanov lazhanul with a memorial plaque to Mannerheim and instantly went into honorary retirement. Putin will snap his fingers tomorrow, and any Deripaska will repeat the fate of Khodorkovsky.
Governors in batches fly off their posts and come under investigation. Gudkov, Arashukov, Illarionov, Koch, Ponomarev - everyone thought too, that they are "inviolable ilita". Now next in line for Narusov's departure (Sobchak's widow), used office for commercial purposes.
Semibankirshchina is no more - who died, and who is on the run. Khodorkovsky served his time and on the run.
And so in everything.
On the other hand, Putin has already organized several "appeals to the elite". Social lifts in the form of competitions like "Leaders of Russia" are working - a number of federal ministers have already left their ranks, and governors.
Conclusion: we have NO classes in the traditional definition.
I do not speak, that classes will not form in the future (I am not Laocoon or Kassandra, I don't see the future), no one can know this. Furthermore, no one today can tell, what exactly these classes will be, if or when they arise and gain a foothold. But for today - they are not!
Therefore, all attempts to apply class theory to Russian society do not work.. Due to the lack of classes.
Yesterday you are an official, entrepreneur today, unemployed tomorrow. Any worker or peasant can freely change his occupation - become an entrepreneur, military or employees - or vice versa.
We today (specifically in Russia, I'm not talking about the rest of the world) we live in a specific classless society.
Although, of course, Marx and Engels imagined him, probably, in some other way (by the way, a specific description - like this - they never had).
again, perhaps in the future this will all change significantly, but today it is so.
P.S. Screams "sold out", "Guardian" and other tantrums are not considered well-reasoned objections.
