Much of what is happening today is explained by a defensive reaction to the ten-year violation by liberal radicals of the national dignity of the Russian state-forming people and the destruction of Russian statehood. Brought to the brink of destruction, the Russian national-state organism naturally strives for self-preservation through the consolidation of power, strengthening the state, and strengthening the national self-awareness of the Russian majority of the country. This is the inevitable result of what was done in the past, but it depends on contemporaries what form these processes will take. Some politicians will ignore these objective trends, thereby condemning themselves to marginalization. Someone will demagogically play the patriotic card and rush to power on a new wave in the name of selfish interests. But the very beginning of the creative processes suggests that a generation of statist politicians is being formed who understand that the revival of Russia can only be achieved through the revival of statehood. Understanding the essence of what is happening helps to navigate creatively and avoid dangers.
In this sense, the research of the Russian philosopher Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin, who at the end of the forties described the objective trends of the transition period - after the inevitable collapse of the communist regime, is very relevant. First of all, for Russian history it is obvious that “Such spaces, such a number of nationalities, such people inclined to individualism can be united exclusively by a centralized single state, can be maintained exclusively by an authoritarian (not to be confused with a totalitarian) form of government. Russia can have its own, independently emerging organized forms of an authoritarian state and a democratic state - in unity. It is this - not an accident and not the despotism of the Moscow center - that explains the fact that Russia remained a monarchy for centuries, moreover, all classes and professional workshops developed and practiced unique forms of self-government" (I.A. Ilyin). Ivan Ilyin was convinced that the transition from communism to a statehood organic to Russia was possible only through a national dictatorship - not a dictatorship itself, but an authoritarian regime. For only enlightened authoritarianism or a democratic, liberal dictatorship can avoid post-communist chaos, ochlocracy, which inevitably ends with the arrival of a dictator. It is clear that the upheavals of the nineties sharply narrowed the possibilities for the revival of Russia, but they also taught us a lot. In any case, there are now immeasurably more people who are able to hear the prophetic judgments of the Russian philosopher.
I.A. Ilyin in the book “Our Tasks” warned about the disastrousness of democratic temptations after the fall of the communist regime, when there will be no prerequisites for democracy in society:
“The Russian people will emerge from the revolution as beggars. There will be no rich, no prosperous, no middle class, not even a healthy, economic peasant at all. A poor peasantry, proletarianized around “agricultural factories” and “agro-cities”; a poor worker in industry; a poor artisan, a poor city dweller... This will be the people of a “classless society”; robbed, but not at all forgetting that they were robbed, nor what exactly was taken from them, nor those who subjected them to “expropriation”... Everyone will be poor. , overworked and bitter. The state center, which robbed everyone, will disappear; but the state coinage, left as an inheritance to the heirs, will have minimal purchasing power on the international market and will be in complete contempt on the domestic market. And it is difficult to imagine that state property, plundered and configured, was left by the communists in an economically flourishing form: for it, in all likelihood, will go through a period of fierce struggle for power. So, the poverty of the citizens and the impoverishment of the state are ahead: the classic consequence of all long revolutions and wars... All the spiritual and all social foundations of democracy have been undermined - right down to settled life, right down to faith in work, right down to respect for honestly acquired property. The fabric of national solidarity is torn to shreds. An unprecedented thirst for revenge has accumulated everywhere. The masses dream of shaking off the hypnosis of vile fear and responding to protracted organized terror with violent, disorganized terror."
This is the inevitable state of Russia after decades of communist dictatorship. Ilyin foresaw that in these conditions forces would appear that would try to use the political infantilism of society and entice it into the swamp fires of pseudo-democracy:
“And at this moment they will be offered: 1. “Democratic freedom”; 2. “The right of all self-determination” and 3. “The doctrine of popular sovereignty.” Who will be responsible for the inevitable consequences of this?.. The slogan “democracy immediately and no matter what” come what may" has already led to a totalitarian dictatorship in Russia once. He threatens the same dictatorship in the future, but this time anti-communist... Or they will try to create a new "democratic fascism" so that, while chanting freedom, they will trample on it in the name of a new, unheard-of in the history of pseudo-democracy?.. If anything can inflict new, heaviest blows on Russia after communism, then it is precisely the persistent attempts to install a democratic system in it after totalitarian tyranny. For this tyranny has managed to undermine in Russia all the necessary preconditions for democracy, without which. only a riot of the mob, general corruption and corruption, and the surfacing of more and more anti-communist tyrants is possible... If the people do not have a sound sense of justice, then the democratic system turns into a sieve of abuses and crimes. Unprincipled and sneaky people turn out to be corrupt, they know this about each other and cover for each other: people commit treason, profit from it and call it “democracy.”
As you can see, I.A. Ilyin’s analysis turned out to be very topical. What way out did the philosopher see in this situation?
“And when, after the fall of the Bolsheviks, world propaganda throws into the all-Russian chaos the slogan: “Peoples of the former Russia, dismember!” - then two possibilities will open up: either a Russian national dictatorship will arise within Russia, which will take the “reins of government” into its strong hands and extinguish this a disastrous slogan will lead Russia to unity, suppressing all and any separatist movements in the country; or such a dictatorship will not develop, and an unimaginable chaos of movements, returns, revenge, pogroms, collapse of transport, unemployment, hunger, cold and anarchy will begin in the country. Russia will be engulfed in anarchy and will betray itself headlong to its national, military, political and religious enemies... Years will pass of national remembrance, settling, calming, understanding, awareness, restoration of elementary legal consciousness, a return to private property, to the principles of honor and honesty, to personal responsibility and loyalty, to self-respect, to integrity and independent thought - before the Russian people will be able to make meaningful and indestructible political elections. Until then, it can only be led by a national, patriotic, by no means totalitarian, but authoritarian - educating and reviving - dictatorship... After the Bolsheviks, Russia can be saved - either by the greatest state discipline of the Russian people or by a national-state-educating dictatorship... Only a strict authoritarian (not at all totalitarian!) regime can save the country from destruction... Under such conditions, a national dictatorship will become a direct salvation, and elections will either be completely impossible, or will turn out to be imaginary, a fiction, devoid of legal-forming authority.”
Of course, the modern consciousness is frightened by the term “dictatorship”, but in combination with the definition “national” this concept takes on a deep and relevant meaning for us in Ilyin:
"...Many people think:... either a totalitarian dictatorship - or formal democracy. Meanwhile, in this very formulation new outcomes are already indicated: 1. Dictatorship, but not totalitarian, not communist; dictatorship organizing a new informal democracy, and therefore democratic dictatorship; not demagogic, “promising” and corrupting, but state, ordering and educating; not extinguishing freedom, but accustoming to true freedom 2. Democracy, but not formal, not arithmetic. relying not on the human atom and not indifferent to its internal unfreedom, but on the self-governing, internally free citizen it educates; a democracy of quality, responsibility and service - with suffrage understood and implemented in a new way. And behind these two possibilities lies a multitude. new political forms in a variety of combinations, starting with a new, creative, purely Russian people's monarchy."
It is obvious that the Yeltsin regime of the nineties combined exactly the opposite characteristics - the worst of dictatorship and the caricature of democracy. This dictatorship is precisely demagogic, promising and corrupting, fading freedom, and not teaching true freedom; democracy today is only formal, arithmetic, suppressing mass misunderstandings and private desires, indifferent to the inner freedom of man. What is the mission of a national dictatorship?
“Only such a dictatorship can save Russia from anarchy and protracted civil wars. In order to accustom people to freedoms, it is necessary to give them as much as they are able to accept and fill with life, without destroying themselves and their state; immeasurable and unbearable freedom has always been and always will be pure poison. In order to awaken a sense of justice among the people, it is necessary to appeal to their honor, protect them from pogrom excesses with government prohibitions and leave to the discretion of the people no more than how much they can lift and bear without destroying themselves and their state. never led to good, but only caused political intoxication and unbridled passions. And now not a single state constitution provides any people with such powers... In order to accustom people to state-faithful will, one must start with a limited right to vote: only give it. sedentary, only family, only hard-working, only never served the Communist Party, only mature in age, only acceptable to both voters and the national government. In other words: we must start with a system of non-property qualifications that provide the necessary minimum of integrity, honesty and state sense, so that in the future, as the people and the country improve, the circle of voters can be expanded. Anything else would be doctrinaire madness and the destruction of Russia... A firm, national-patriotic and in theory liberal dictatorship, helping the people to highlight their truly best forces and educating the people for sobriety, for free loyalty, for self-government and for organic participation in state building ,.. loyalty to obligations and contracts, self-esteem and honor."
What can a national dictatorship rely on? What does she demand from the national leader?
“Only a national dictatorship, relying on unfaithful military units and quickly raising cadres of sober and honest patriots from the people to the top, can shorten the period of arbitrary revenge, wanton reprisals and corresponding new destruction... A dictator saving the country from chaos needs: will, restrained by feeling responsibility, formidable imposition and all kinds of courage, military and civil... The essence of dictatorship is in the shortest decision and in the absolute power of the decider. For this, one, personal and strong will is required. Dictatorship is essentially a military-like institution: it is a kind of political commandership. , requiring an eye, speed, order and obedience... No collegial body will master chaos, because it already concludes the beginning of disintegration... In the hour of danger, trouble, confusion and the need for instant decisions-orders - a collegial dictatorship is the last of absurdities... The dictatorship has a direct historical calling - to stop the decomposition, block the road to chaos, interrupt the political, economic and moral disintegration of the country. And there are periods in history when being afraid of a one-man dictatorship means leading to chaos and promoting decay... A single dictator becomes at the head, betting on the spiritual strength and on the quality of the people he saves... This bet on the free and good power of the Russian the people must be made by the future dictator. At the same time, the way up from the very bottom should be open to quality and talent. The necessary selection of people should be determined not by class, not by estate, not by wealth, not by slyness, not by behind-the-scenes whispers or intrigues and not by imposition from foreigners - but by the quality of a person: intelligence, honesty, loyalty, creativity and will. Russia needs conscientious and brave people, not party promoters and not hiring foreigners... So, the national dictator will have to: 1. Reduce and stop the chaos; 2. Immediately begin quality selection of people; 3. Establish labor and production order; 4. If necessary, defend Russia from enemies and robbers; 5. Put Russia on the road that leads to freedom, to the growth of legal consciousness, to state self-government, greatness and the flourishing of national culture."
The primary task of a true national leader is spiritual: to awaken the creative forces of the people and create conditions for their formation into political institutions organic to Russia.
"Politics has tasks: the powerfully instilled solidarity of the people, the authoritative education of a personal, free sense of justice. The defense of the country and the spiritual flowering of culture; the creation of a national future through taking into account the national past, collected in the national present... The modern Russian politician will draw us a system in which the best and the sacred foundations of the monarchy will absorb everything healthy and strong that holds the republican legal consciousness. He will outline for us a system in which the natural and precious foundations of a true aristocracy will be saturated with the healthy spirit that holds true democracies and will be reconciled with a multitude of independent wills; with creative freedom; the individual will voluntarily and sincerely submit to super-personal goals and the united people will find their personal leader to connect with with trust and devotion. And all this must be accomplished in the eternal traditions of the Russian people and the Russian state. And, moreover, not in the form of a “reaction.” , but in the forms of creative novelty. This will be a new Russian system, a new state Russia."
All this may sound utopian, but upon deep reflection, however, it turns out to be closer to reality than much of the current one. Reality, of course, is true, and not phantasmagoric, which “rules the show” today. What Ilyin calls for is, of course, an ideal. But this super-ideal is capable of inspiring people to make a saving super-effort.
We see that the Russian philosopher foresaw what was happening and foresaw the future. But it would be in vain to look for a panacea from him. These are not recipes for salvation, but a clear analysis of the situation and clear formulations of our tasks. As it should be, all this raises even more questions, but, most importantly, it encourages a creative struggle to save one’s fatherland.
Dictatorship refers to a significant reduction or complete absence of political and civil freedoms in a country due to the concentration of power in the hands of one person or group of people. And the very word “dictator” has become synonymous with gross violations of human rights and cruelty.
We present to you most dictatorial countries in the world. The rating is based on data from the entertainment site Hubpages.
5. Zimbabwe
Opens the ranking of modern states with the most brutal dictatorial regime. After the successful start of the anti-colonial liberation war, Robert Mugabe was elected the first president of the independent republic of Zimbabwe, but over the years he increasingly emphasized his dictatorial tendencies. Mugabe's government is criticized both domestically and internationally for the torture and murder of 70,000 people, a 70% unemployment rate and a 500% inflation rate. His regime is riddled with violence and intolerance. Zimbabwe passed laws against homosexuals, and carried out “black redistribution” - the forcible seizure of land from white citizens and the transfer of their farms to landless peasants and war veterans.
4. Equatorial Guinea
Among the most dictatorial countries in the world is the tiny West African state ruled by Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. Equatorial Guinea, with its 500,000 inhabitants, was of no interest to the world until huge oil reserves were discovered offshore in its territorial waters in 1991. However, this makes 60% of Guineans neither cold nor hot, they live on 1 dollar a day. And Teodoro Obiang puts most of his oil profits into his bank account. The dictator said that there is no poverty in his country, the population is simply accustomed to living differently. Guinea has no public transport or newspapers, and only 1% of government spending is spent on health care.
3. Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries in the world that has never held even a formal election of a ruler for many decades. King of Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdulaziz since 2015. Unmarried adult women cannot travel, work, or receive medical treatment without the permission of a male guardian from a close relative. They are not even allowed to drive a car.
The kingdom uses the death penalty, torture and extrajudicial arrests. The morality police even prohibit the sale of Barbie, since this doll is a symbol of the decadence and depravity of the West.
2. North Korea
In second place on the list of the world's most brutal dictators is Kim Jong-un, the son of Kim Jong-il. He became dictator of North Korea in 2011, the day after his father died. Brilliant Comrade (one of the official titles of the North Korean leader) was initially supposed to rule the country together with his uncle Jang Song Thaek. However, in December 2013, the uncle was accused of treason and executed.
The country is believed to have 150,000 people engaged in forced labor in camps set up to punish alleged political dissidents and their families, as well as citizens who fled the country to China but were extradited by the Chinese government.
1. Sudan
In first place in the top 5 most dictatorial countries in the world in 2015 is the largest African state. It is headed by President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir. He came to power after a military coup and immediately suspended the constitution, abolished the Legislative Assembly and banned political parties and trade unions. The dictator always insisted that the people's lives should be governed by Sharia law, even in South Sudan, with its predominantly Christian population.
Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir is notorious for orchestrating the massacre of black civilians during the Darfur conflict. Due to the civil war in South Sudan between the black and Arab populations, more than 2.7 million people have become refugees. In 2009, the International Criminal Court, for the first time in its history, issued an arrest warrant for a sitting head of state. To this, al-Bashir, accused of crimes against humanity and military atrocities, replied that those who issued the warrant could eat him.
Is dictatorship possible in Russia? In some short, most critical period, it is apparently possible. The same Schmittian “autarky of large spaces,” in view of the fierce resistance to this from within and without, will require the general mobilization of the state and society, the concentration of power in strong hands. The justice and regularity of such a dictatorship was once substantiated by Carl Schmitt, who spoke and wrote about the need to make a decision in “exceptional circumstances.” In any case, a dictatorship established with the aim of strengthening the state, turning it into an empire, the geopolitical pole of the world is an undoubted blessing in comparison with the pernicious, disgusting liberal globalism that has brought chaos and devastation to our country, annually taking away a million people from the Russian population.
Which dictatorship is more likely in modern Russia - the dictatorship of the elites or the dictatorship of the people? However, there is no need to be afraid of dictatorships; life is worse. Any dictatorship is just people.
So, dictatorship. This means that power in Russia will belong to a person or group of persons who will rule it virtually independently of expressions of the people's will (although taking it into account and, perhaps, even taking on its legal forms). This person or persons will be indicated by the very outcome of the power struggle, eliminating all defeated competitors. They cannot be predetermined, elected, or offered to the country. Here almost everything belongs to historical luck, fate or Providence. Just as a monarchy makes the fate of the state dependent on the accidents of birth or heredity within one family, so a revolution exposes the people to the chance of brilliant or mediocre leaders, on whom their fate depends. In its structure, a dictatorship can be individual, party or monarchical. Let's consider a party dictatorship. If by this we mean the dictatorship of the Communist Party, then its continuation in Russia, and with changed social trends, is quite possible. This will, however, already be a pseudo-communist party, for which its faded slogans will become an increasingly greater hindrance. The day must come when they will finally be removed and the masquerade will end. But long before this moment the party dictatorship will turn into a one-man dictatorship. Perhaps this moment has already arrived in Russia. Everything shows that the party has already worn out as an independent political form, although it functions as a political apparatus. But now we are talking about another possibility: about a new party, about a national party that will replace the communists, preserving their political system. This is the project of Russian fascism, most vividly put forward by Eurasianism. The fascist project seems to us the most utopian and most harmful version of the Russian dictatorship. Wherever fascism succeeds, it triumphs as a revolution, carrying a stormy foam of radical and reactionary passions. Enormous popular unrest and the need for a radical change are the prerequisites for fascism. It has too many common roots with communism. In fascism, in its youth organizations, the same violent tyrannical activity is becoming obsolete as in the Russian Komsomol. Is it possible to fan the dying ashes of the revolution into a new fire? Plunge into a new revolution a country barely alive from fourteen years of revolutionary fever? This would contradict all the premises of folk psychology. Not only the masses, but also the active minority are already exhausted, already asking for peace, reaching for personal life. You can support a despotic government, but not a revolutionary government that plays on your nerves without a break. Not the power of ideologists. Enough political literacy, enough propaganda enlightenment. For Russia now this food is as nutritious as castor oil. But for her now it would be the most harmful political dish. The power of ideologists would mean a new strangulation of Russian creativity. The wedge is not always knocked out by the wedge, and after the Marxist poisoning, Eurasian or other poison in horse doses on a national scale could simply finish off Russian culture. Completely irrespective of the % of truth contained in it, even if this % were accessible to calculation. The very fact of nationalization of thought, science, and art means their slow death, since we are talking about the highest types of creativity, and not about its decorative or utilitarian varieties.
But a one-man dictatorship can have very different political and social contents. Its social content is quite clearly determined by the most opposing trends in modern Russia. But her political face? Will it become a bridge to monarchy or to democracy, or will it seek to perpetuate itself as a political form?
The good of Russia - as we understand it - is that the coming dictatorship has a democratic content. This means that it would set as its goal to lead the people to democracy. Whether it will act in compliance with democratic legality is not important. This may be undesirable, since legality is bought at the price of a hypocritical perversion of the institution. It is better not to hold elections than to rig them, it is better not to have a parliament than to have a bribed parliament. The democratic character of a dictatorship is that its goal (like the Roman legal dictatorship) is to make itself unnecessary. It must prepare for a future when it can transfer power to the people. But woe to her if she throws this power into space, and there are no hands capable of receiving it. This means that power will go to a new dictator who is greedy enough for it or fanatical about the idea, who will not give it up to anyone voluntarily. Then the dictatorship will require a new revolution.
people? Yes it is very good. This is the highest manifestation of the people's struggle for freedom. This is that great time when the dreams of the best people of Russia about freedom are translated into action, the work of the masses themselves, and not of lone heroes.
ON THE HISTORY OF THE ISSUE OF DICTATORSHIP134
(THE NOTE)
The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental question of the modern labor movement in all capitalist countries without exception. To fully understand this issue, it is necessary to know its history. On an international scale, the history of the doctrine of revolutionary dictatorship in general and the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular coincides with the history of revolutionary socialism and especially with the history of Marxism. Then - and this, of course, is the most important thing - the history of all revolutions of the oppressed and exploited class against the exploiters is the most important material and source of our knowledge on the question of dictatorship. Anyone who does not understand the necessity of the dictatorship of any revolutionary class for its victory has understood nothing in the history of revolutions or does not want to know anything in this area.
On the Russian scale, of particular importance, if we talk about theory, is the program of the RSDLP135, compiled in 1902-1903 by the editors of Zarya and Iskra, or, rather, compiled by G. V. Plekhanov and edited, modified, approved by this editorial board. The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is raised clearly and definitely in this program, and, moreover, it is raised precisely in connection with the struggle against Bernstein, against opportunism. But the most important thing, of course, is the experience of the revolution, that is, in Russia the experience of 1905.
The last three months of this year - October, November and December - were a period of remarkably strong, broad, mass revolutionary struggle, a period of combining the two most powerful methods of this struggle: a mass political strike and an armed uprising. (We note in parentheses that back in May 1905, the Bolshevik congress, the “Third Congress of the RSDLP,” recognized “the task of organizing the proletariat for the direct struggle against the autocracy through an armed uprising” as “one of the most important and urgent tasks of the party” and instructed all party organizations “to clarify the role of mass political strikes, which can be important at the beginning and during the very course of the uprising”136.)
For the first time in world history, such a height of development and such strength of the revolutionary struggle were reached that an armed uprising came out in conjunction with a mass strike, this specifically proletarian weapon. It is clear that this experience has global significance for all proletarian revolutions. And the Bolsheviks studied this experience with all attention and diligence, both from its political and economic sides. I will point out the analysis of monthly data on the economic and political strikes of 1905, on the forms of connection between both, and on the height of development of the strike struggle, which was then achieved for the first time in the world; This analysis was given by me in the journal “Prosveshchenie” in 1910 or 1911 and repeated, in brief summaries, in foreign Bolshevik literature of that era137.
Mass strikes and armed uprisings themselves put on the order of the day the question of revolutionary power and dictatorship, for these methods of struggle inevitably gave rise, first on a local scale, to the expulsion of the old authorities, the seizure of power by the proletariat and revolutionary classes, the expulsion of landowners, sometimes the seizure of factories, etc. . etc. The mass revolutionary struggle of this period gave rise to such organizations, unprecedented in world history, as the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, and after them the Soviets of Soldiers' Deputies, Peasant Committees.
thetas, etc. The result is that those basic questions (Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat), which now occupy the attention of class-conscious workers all over the world, turned out to be posed almost at the end of 1905. If such outstanding representatives of the revolutionary proletariat and unfalsified Marxism as Rosa Luxemburg immediately appreciated the significance of this practical experience and spoke at meetings and in the press with a critical analysis of it, then the vast majority of official representatives of the official Social Democratic and Socialist parties, including reformists and people like the future “Kautskyites”, “Longuetists”, supporters of Hillquit in America, etc., showed a complete inability to understand the meaning of this experience and fulfill their duty as revolutionaries, that is, to begin studying and propagating the lessons of this experience.
In Russia, both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, immediately after the defeat of the December armed uprising of 1905, began to sum up the results of this experience. This work was especially accelerated by the fact that in April 1906 the Stockholm so-called “Unification Congress of the RSDLP” took place, at which both the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were represented and formally united. Preparations for this congress were carried out extremely energetically by both of these factions. Before the congress, at the beginning of 1906, both factions published draft resolutions on all the most important issues. These projects, reprinted in my brochure “Report on the Unity Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (letter to the St. Petersburg workers)”, Moscow, 1906 (pages 110, of which almost half are the texts of draft resolutions of both factions and resolutions finally adopted by the congress), - are the most important material for getting acquainted with the way the question was formulated at that time.
Disputes about the significance of the Soviets were already connected with the issue of dictatorship. Even before the October Revolution of 1905, the Bolsheviks raised the question of dictatorship (see my brochure “Two Tactics of Social Democracy
in the Democratic Revolution,” Geneva, July 1905, reprinted in the collection “For 12 Years”)*. The Mensheviks had a negative attitude towards this slogan “dictatorship”. The Bolsheviks emphasized that the Soviets of Workers' Deputies “were in fact the beginnings of a new revolutionary government” - this is what the draft Bolshevik resolution literally said (p. 92 of the “Report”). The Mensheviks recognized the importance of the Soviets, stood for “promoting the formation” of them, etc., but did not consider them the beginnings of revolutionary power, did not speak at all about a “new revolutionary power” of this or a similar type, and directly rejected the slogan of dictatorship. It is not difficult to see that all the current disagreements with the Mensheviks are already in embryo in this formulation of the question. It is also not difficult to see that the Mensheviks (both Russian and non-Russian, such as the Kautskyites, Longuetists, etc.) showed and are showing themselves in their formulation of this question as reformists or opportunists, in words recognizing the proletarian revolution, in fact denying the most essential and the main thing in the concept of revolution.
Even before the revolution of 1905, in the above-mentioned pamphlet “Two Tactics,” I analyzed the argument of the Mensheviks, who accused me of “substituting in an imperceptible way the concepts: revolution and dictatorship” (“For 12 Years,” p. 459**). I proved in detail that it is precisely with this accusation that the Mensheviks reveal their opportunism, their real political nature, as echoes of the liberal bourgeoisie, conductors of its influence within the proletariat. When a revolution becomes an undeniable force, then its opponents begin to “recognize the revolution,” I said, pointing (in the summer of 1905) to the example of Russian liberals who remained constitutional monarchists. Now, in 1920, one might add that in both Germany and Italy the liberal bourgeoisie, or at least the most educated and clever
some of them are ready to “recognize the revolution.” But by “recognizing” the revolution and at the same time refusing to recognize the dictatorship of a certain class (or certain classes), the then Russian liberals and Mensheviks, the present German and Italian liberals, the Turatians, the Kautskyites precisely thereby reveal their reformism, their complete unsuitability as revolutionaries .
For when the revolution has already become an undeniable force, when it is “recognized” by liberals, when the ruling classes not only see, but also feel the invincible power of the oppressed masses, then the whole question - both for theorists and practical leaders of politics - comes down to the exact class definition of the revolution . And without the concept of “dictatorship” it is impossible to give this precise class definition. Without preparing for a dictatorship, one cannot be a revolutionary in practice. The Mensheviks did not understand this truth in 1905, and the Italian, German, French and other socialists who are afraid of the strict “conditions” of the Communist International do not understand it in 1920; people who are able to recognize dictatorship in words, but are not able to prepare for it in practice, are afraid. And therefore, it would not be inappropriate to reproduce in detail the explanation of Marx’s views that I published in July 1905 against the Russian Mensheviks, but which also applies to the Western European Mensheviks of 1920 (I replace the names of newspapers, etc., with a simple indication of whether we are talking about Mensheviks or Bolsheviks):
“Mehring says in his notes to the articles he published from Marx’s Neue Rheinische Gazeta in 1848 that bourgeois literature made, among other things, the following reproach to this newspaper: The Neue Rheinische Gazeta allegedly demanded “the immediate introduction of dictatorship as the only means implementation of democracy" (Marx" NachlaB *, volume III, p. 53). From the vulgar-bourgeois point of view, the concept of dictatorship and the concept of democracy exclude each other. Not understanding the theory of class struggle, accustomed to seeing
in the political arena, a petty squabble of different circles and coteries of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois understands by dictatorship the abolition of all freedoms and guarantees of democracy, all kinds of arbitrariness, all abuse of power in the interests of the dictator’s personality. In essence, it is precisely this vulgar-bourgeois point of view that is evident among our Mensheviks, who explain the Bolsheviks’ passion for the slogan “dictatorship” by the fact that Lenin “passionately wants to try his luck” (“Iskra” No. 103, p. 3, column 2) . In order to explain to the Mensheviks the concept of dictatorship of a class as opposed to the dictatorship of the individual and the task of a democratic dictatorship as opposed to a socialist one, it will not be useless to dwell on the views of the Neue Rheinische Gazeta138.
“Any temporary state structure,” wrote the Neue Rheinische Gazeta on September 14, 1848, “after the revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that. From the very beginning we reproached Camphausen (the head of the ministry after March 18, 1848) for not acting dictatorially, for not immediately breaking up and removing the remnants of the old institutions. And while Mr. Camphausen was lulling himself into constitutional illusions, the defeated party (i.e., the party of reaction) strengthened its positions in the bureaucracy and in the army, and even began to venture here and there into open struggle.”139
These words, rightly says Mehring, summarize in a few points what the Neue Rheinische Gazeta developed in detail in long articles about the Camphausen Ministry. What do these words of Marx tell us? That the provisional revolutionary government should act dictatorially (a situation that the Mensheviks could not understand, who shunned the slogan: dictatorship); — that the task of this dictatorship is to destroy the remnants of the old institutions (precisely what is clearly stated in the resolution of the Third Congress of the RSDLP (Bolsheviks) on the fight against counter-revolution and what is omitted from the Menshevik resolution, as we showed above). Finally, thirdly, from these words it follows that Marx castigated bourgeois democrats for “con-
institutional illusions" in the era of revolution and open civil war. The meaning of these words can be seen especially clearly from the article of the Neue Rheinische Gazeta dated June 6, 1848.
“The Constituent People’s Assembly,” wrote Marx, “must first of all be an active, revolutionary-active assembly. And the Frankfurt Assembly140 is engaged in school exercises in parliamentarism and leaves the government to act. Let us assume that this learned council would succeed, after mature discussion, in developing the best order of the day and the best constitution. What good will be the best order of the day and the best constitution if the German governments at this time have already put the bayonet in the order of the day?
This is the meaning of the slogan: dictatorship...
Great questions in the life of nations can only be resolved by force. The reactionary classes themselves are usually the first to resort to violence, to civil war, “putting the bayonet on the order of the day,” as the Russian autocracy did and continues to do systematically and steadily, everywhere and everywhere, starting from January 9142. And since such a situation has arisen, since the bayonet has really become the head of the political order of the day, since the uprising has turned out to be necessary and urgent, then constitutional illusions and school exercises in parliamentarism become only a cover for the bourgeois betrayal of the revolution, a cover for how the bourgeoisie is “recoiling” from the revolution. The truly revolutionary class must then put forward precisely the slogan of dictatorship."*
This is how the Bolsheviks talked about dictatorship before the October Revolution of 1905.
After the experience of this revolution, I had to consider in detail the question of dictatorship in the brochure “The Victory of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Workers' Party,” St. Petersburg, 1906 (the brochure was marked March 28, 1906). From this brochure I will give all the most significant considerations,
making a reservation that I am replacing a number of proper names with simply an indication of whether we are talking about Cadets or Mensheviks. Generally speaking, the pamphlet is directed against the Cadets and partly against non-party liberals, half-Cadets, half-Mensheviks. But in essence, everything that has been said about dictatorship applies specifically to the Mensheviks, who at every step slipped towards the Cadets on this issue.
“At the very time when the shots died down in Moscow, when the military-police dictatorship celebrated its frenzied orgies, when executions and mass tortures were taking place throughout Russia, speeches were heard in the cadet press against violence on the left, against the strike committees of revolutionary parties. Selling science at the expense of the Dubasovs, cadet professors went so far as to translate the word “dictatorship” with the word “reinforced security.” “People of science” even distorted their high school Latin in order to belittle the revolutionary struggle. Dictatorship means—take this into account once and for all, gentlemen, Cadets—unlimited power, based on force, and not on law. During a civil war, any victorious government can only be a dictatorship. But the fact is that there is a dictatorship of a minority over the majority, a small group of police over the people, and there is a dictatorship of the gigantic majority of the people over a group of rapists, robbers and usurpers of popular power. With their vulgar distortion of the scientific concept of “dictatorship”, with their cries against violence on the left in an era of rampant the most lawless, most vile violence on the right, the Cadets showed with their own eyes what the position of the “compromisers” is in the intensified revolutionary struggle. The “Compromiser” cowardly hides when the fight heats up. When the revolutionary people won (October 17), the “compromiser” crawls out of his hole, preens himself boastfully, philanders with all his might and shouts into frenzy: it was a “glorious” political strike. When the counter-revolution wins, the “compromiser” begins to shower the vanquished with hypocritical admonitions and edifications. The winning game
The meeting was “glorious.” The defeated strikes were criminal, wild, senseless, anarchic. The defeated uprising was madness, a riot of nature, barbarity, and absurdity. In a word, the political conscience and political mind of the “compromiser” consists in groveling before those who are now stronger, in order to get in the way of those who are fighting, to interfere with one side or the other, to dull the struggle and dull the revolutionary consciousness of the people waging a desperate struggle for freedom"*.
Further. It would be extremely timely to provide clarifications on the issue of dictatorship directed against Mr. R. Blank. This R. Blank outlined the views of the Mensheviks in an essentially Menshevik, but formally non-party newspaper in 1906143, praising them for the fact that they “strive to direct the Russian Social Democratic movement along the path along which international Social Democracy, led by the great Social -Democratic Party of Germany."
In other words, R. Blank, like the Cadets, contrasted the Bolsheviks, as unreasonable, non-Marxist, rebellious, etc. revolutionaries, with the “reasonable” Mensheviks, passing off the German Social Democratic Party as a Menshevik one. This is a common technique of the international trend of social liberals, pacifists, etc., who in all countries praise reformists, opportunists, Kautskyites, and Longuetists as “reasonable” socialists, as opposed to the “madness” of the Bolsheviks.
This is how I answered Mr. R. Blank in the said brochure of 1906:
“Mr. Blank compares two periods of the Russian revolution: the first embraces approximately October - December 1905. This is a period of revolutionary whirlwind. The second is the current period, which we, of course, have the right to call the period of Cadet victories in the elections to the Duma, or, perhaps, if we risk getting ahead of ourselves, the period of the Cadet Duma.
About this period, Mr. Blank says that the turn of thought and reason has come again, and it is possible to return to conscious, planned, systematic activity. Mr. Blank characterizes the first period, on the contrary, as a period of divergence between theory and practice. All social democratic principles and ideas disappeared, the tactics always preached by the founders of Russian social democracy were forgotten, even the very foundations of the social democratic worldview were uprooted.
This is Mr. Blank's main statement - purely factual. The entire theory of Marxism diverged from the “practice” of the period of the revolutionary whirlwind.
Is it so? What is the first and main “foundation” of Marxist theory? The one that the only completely revolutionary class in modern society and therefore the most advanced in any revolution is the proletariat. The question is whether the revolutionary whirlwind uprooted this “foundation” of the Social-Democrats. worldview? On the contrary, the whirlwind confirmed it in the most brilliant way. It was the proletariat that was the main, almost the only initially, fighter of this period. Almost for the first time in world history, the bourgeois revolution was marked by the largest, unprecedented even in the more developed capitalist countries, use of a purely proletarian weapon of struggle: a mass political strike. The proletariat went to fight, directly revolutionary, at a time when Messrs. Struve and Messrs. Blanki were calling to go to the Bulygin Duma, when Cadet professors were calling on students to study. The proletariat, with its proletarian weapon of struggle, won Russia the entire, so to speak, “constitution”, which since then has only been spoiled, cut down and stripped. In October 1905, the proletariat applied the tactical method of struggle that had been discussed six months earlier in the resolution of the Bolshevik Third Congress of the RSDLP, which paid increased attention to the importance of combining a mass political strike with an uprising; - it is this combination that characterizes the entire period of “revolutionary
whirlwind", the entire last quarter of 1905. Thus, our ideologist of the petty bourgeoisie has distorted reality in the most shameless, most blatant way. He did not indicate a single fact indicating the divergence between Marxist theory and the practical experience of the “revolutionary whirlwind”; he tried to obscure the main feature of this whirlwind, which gave the most brilliant confirmation of “all social-democratic principles and ideas”, “all the foundations of the social-democratic worldview.”
What, however, is the real reason that prompted Mr. Blank to come to this monstrously incorrect opinion that during the period of the “whirlwind” all Marxist principles and ideas disappeared? Consideration of this circumstance is very interesting: it exposes to us again and again the true nature of philistinism in politics.
What was the main difference between the period of the “revolutionary whirlwind” and the current, “cadet” period from the point of view of various methods of political activity, from the point of view of different methods of historical creativity of the people? First of all and mainly in the fact that during the period of the “whirlwind” some special methods of this creativity were used, alien to other periods of political life. Here are the most significant of these methods: 1) “seizure” of political freedom by the people - its implementation, without any rights and laws and without any restrictions (freedom of assembly at least in universities, freedom of the press, unions, congresses, etc.); 2) the creation of new bodies of revolutionary power - Councils of workers, soldiers, railway, peasant deputies, new rural and city authorities, etc., etc. These bodies were created exclusively by revolutionary sections of the population, they were created outside of any laws and norms entirely by revolutionary means , as a product of original folk art, as a manifestation of the initiative of the people who have gotten rid of or are getting rid of the old police shackles. These were, finally, precisely the authorities, despite all their infancy, spontaneity, lack of formality, vagueness
in composition and functioning. They acted as authorities, seizing, for example, printing houses (St. Petersburg), arresting police officials who prevented the revolutionary people from exercising their rights (there were also examples in St. Petersburg, where the corresponding body of the new government was the weakest, and the old government was the strongest). They acted as authorities, appealing to all the people not to give money to the old government. They confiscated the money of the old government (railroad strike committees in the south) and used it for the needs of the new, people's government - yes, these were undoubtedly the embryos of the new, people's, or, if you like, revolutionary government. In terms of its socio-political character, it was, in its infancy, a dictatorship of the revolutionary elements of the people - are you surprised, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter? Don’t you see “heightened security” here, which for the bourgeoisie amounts to a dictatorship? We have already told you that you have no idea about the scientific concept: dictatorship. We will now explain it to you, but first we will indicate the third “method” of action in the era of the “revolutionary whirlwind”: the use of violence by the people in relation to the rapists against the people.
The authorities we described were, in embryo, a dictatorship, because this government did not recognize any other authority and no law, no norm emanating from anyone. Unlimited, extralegal, power based on force, in the most literal sense of the word, is a dictatorship. But the force on which this new power relied and sought to rely was not the force of the bayonet captured by a handful of military men, not the force of the “site,” not the force of money, not the force of any previous, established institutions. Nothing like this. The new bodies of the new government had no weapons, no money, no old institutions. Their strength - can you imagine, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter? - had nothing to do with the old instruments of power, nothing to do with “increased security”, if you do not mean increased security
people from oppression by the police and other bodies of the old government.
What was this strength based on? She relied on the masses. This is the main difference between this new government and all previous bodies of the old government. They were the organs of power of a minority over the people, over the mass of workers and peasants. These were the authorities of the people, workers and peasants, over the minority, over a handful of police rapists, over a handful of privileged nobles and officials. This is the difference between dictatorship over the people and the dictatorship of the revolutionary people, remember this well, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter! The old government, as a dictatorship of a minority, could maintain itself solely with the help of police tricks, solely with the help of removal, the removal of the popular masses from participation in power, from monitoring power. The old government systematically did not trust the masses, was afraid of the light, and relied on deception. The new government, as a dictatorship of a huge majority, could and did hold on solely with the help of the trust of the huge masses, solely by attracting in the freest, broadest and most powerful way the entire masses to participate in power. Nothing hidden, nothing secret, no regulations, no formalities. Are you a working person? Do you want to fight to rid Russia of a handful of police rapists? You are our comrade. Choose your deputy, now, immediately; choose as you see fit - we will willingly and joyfully accept him as a full member of our Council of Workers' Deputies, the Peasant Committee, the Council of Soldiers' Deputies, etc., etc. This is a government open to everyone, doing everything in full view of the masses, accessible to the masses, emanating directly from the masses, a direct and immediate organ of the masses and their will. - Such was the new power, or rather, its beginnings, for the victory of the old power trampled the shoots of the young plant very early.
You may ask Mr. Blank or Mr. Kiesewetter, why is there “dictatorship” here, why “violence”? isn't it
a huge mass needs violence against a handful, can tens and hundreds of millions be dictators over a thousand, over tens of thousands?
This question is usually asked by people who have seen the term dictatorship used for the first time in a meaning that is new to them. People are accustomed to seeing only police power and only police dictatorship. It seems strange to them that there can be a government without any police, there can be a non-police dictatorship. Are you saying that millions do not need violence against thousands? You are mistaken, and you are mistaken because you are not considering a phenomenon in its development. You forget that the new power does not fall from the sky, but grows, arises along with the old, against the old power, in the struggle against it. Without violence against the rapists who have the tools and authorities in their hands, it is impossible to rid the people of the rapists.
Here is a simple example for you, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter, so that you can assimilate this wisdom, inaccessible to the cadet mind, “dizzying” for the cadet thought. Imagine that Avramov mutilates and tortures Spiridonova. On Spiridonova’s side, for example, there are tens and hundreds of unarmed people. There are a handful of Cossacks on Avramov’s side. What would the people do if Spiridonova’s torture did not take place in a dungeon? He would use violence against Avramov and his retinue. He would have sacrificed, perhaps, several fighters shot by Avramov, but by force he would still have disarmed Avramov and the Cossacks, and, very likely, he would have killed some of these, so to speak, people on the spot, and would have put the rest in some kind of prison. or prison to prevent them from further mischief and to bring them to the people's court.
You see, Mr. Blank and Mr. Kiesewetter: when Avramov and the Cossacks torture Spiridonova, this is a military-police dictatorship over the people. When a revolutionary (capable of fighting against rapists, and not just exhortations, edifications, regrets, condemnations, whining and whining, not petty-bourgeois-limited,
and the revolutionary people use violence against Avramov and the Avramovs - this is the dictatorship of the revolutionary people. This is a dictatorship, because this is the power of the people over Avramov, power not limited by any laws (a tradesman, perhaps, would be against forcefully recapturing Spiridonova from Avramov: they say, this is not according to the “law”! Do we have such a “ law” to kill Avramov? Haven’t some philistinism ideologists created theories of non-resistance to evil by violence?). The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing more than power that is unrestricted by anything, not constrained by any laws, absolutely not constrained by any rules, and directly based on violence. The concept “dictatorship” means nothing more than this—remember well, Messrs. cadets. Further, in the example we took, we see the dictatorship of the people, because the people, the mass of the population, unformed, “accidentally” gathered in a given place, themselves and directly appear on the stage, they themselves carry out justice and reprisals, apply power, create new revolutionary law. Finally, this is the dictatorship of a revolutionary people. Why only the revolutionary people, and not the whole people? Because in all the people who constantly and most cruelly suffer from the exploits of the Avramovs, there are people who are beaten physically, intimidated, people who are beaten morally, for example, by the theory of non-resistance to evil by violence, or simply beaten not by theory, but by prejudice, custom, routine , indifferent people, what are called ordinary people, philistines, who are more capable of distancing themselves from an acute struggle, passing by, or even hiding (as if they didn’t get into a fight here!). That is why the dictatorship is not carried out by the whole people, but only by the revolutionary people, who are not at all afraid of the whole people, who reveal to the whole people the reasons for their actions and all the details of them, who willingly attract the whole people to participate not only in governing the state, but also in power, and to participate in the very structure of the state.
Thus, the simple example we took contains all the elements of the scientific concept: “dictatorship
revolutionary people”, as well as the concept: “military-police dictatorship”. From this simple example, accessible even to a learned cadet professor, we can move on to more complex phenomena of social life.
A revolution, in the narrow, immediate meaning of the word, is precisely such a period of people’s life when centuries of accumulated anger towards the exploits of the Avramovs breaks out in actions, not words, and in the actions of millions of people, not individuals. The people wake up and rise to free themselves from the Avramovs. The people deliver the countless Spiridonovs of Russian life from the Avramovs, use violence against the Avramovs, and take power over the Avramovs. This happens, of course, not as simply and not as “immediately” as in the example we simplified for Mr. Professor Kiesewetter - this struggle of the people against the Avramovs, a struggle in the narrow, immediate sense, this throwing off the Avramovs from the people stretches out for months and years of “revolutionary whirlwind”. This throwing off of the Avramovs by the people is the real content of what is called the great Russian revolution. This shedding, if we consider it from the side of the methods of historical creativity, occurs in those forms that we have just described when speaking about the revolutionary whirlwind, namely: the seizure by the people of political freedom, that is, the kind of freedom the implementation of which was prevented by the Avramovs; - the creation by the people of a new, revolutionary power, power over the Avramovs, power over the rapists of the old police system; - the use of violence by the people against the Avramovs to eliminate, disarm and neutralize these wild dogs, all the Avramovs, Durnovos, Dubasovs, Minovs, and so on and so forth.
Is it good that the people use such illegal, disorderly, unplanned and unsystematic methods of struggle as the seizure of freedom, the creation of a new, formally recognized and revolutionary power, and use violence against the oppressors?
people? Yes it is very good. This is the highest manifestation of the people's struggle for freedom. This is that great time when the dreams of the best people of Russia about freedom are translated into action, the work of the masses themselves, and not of lone heroes. This is as good as the liberation of Spiridonova from Avramov by the crowd (in our example), the forced disarmament and neutralization of Avramov.
But here we come to the central point of the cadets' hidden thoughts and fears. The reason why a cadet is an ideologist of philistinism is that he brings to politics, to the liberation of the entire people, to the revolution the point of view of that philistine who, in our example of Avramov’s torture of Spiridonova, would hold back the crowd, would advise not to break the law, not to rush to free the victims from the hands of the executioner acting on behalf of legitimate authority. Of course, in our example, such a philistine would be a downright moral monster, and when applied to all social life, the moral ugliness of a philistine is, we repeat, not a personal quality at all, but a social one, conditioned, perhaps, by the prejudices of the bourgeois-philistine science of law that are firmly ingrained in the head .
Why does Mr. Blank consider it not even necessary to prove that during the period of the “whirlwind” all Marxist principles were forgotten? Because he distorts Marxism into Brentanism144, considering such “principles” as the seizure of freedom, the creation of revolutionary power, and the use of violence by the people as not Marxist. This view runs through the entire article of Mr. Blank, and not just Blank, but all the Cadets, all the writers of the liberal and radical camp who are now praising Plekhanov for their love for the Cadets, right up to the Bernsteinians from “Without a Title”145, Messrs. Prokopovich, Kuskova and tutti quanti*.
Let us consider how this view arose and why it should have arisen.
* - similar to them. Ed.
It arose directly from the Bernsteinian or, more broadly, opportunist understanding of Western European social democracy. Those errors in this understanding, which were systematically and comprehensively exposed by the “orthodoxies” in the West, are now being transferred “on the sly,” under a different sauce and for a different reason, to Russia. Bernsteinians accepted and accept Marxism with the exception of its directly revolutionary side. They view the parliamentary struggle not as one of the means of struggle, especially suitable in certain historical periods, but as the main and almost exclusive form of struggle, making “violence”, “seizures”, “dictatorship” unnecessary. It is this vulgar, petty-bourgeois distortion of Marxism that the Messrs. are now bringing to Russia. Blanks and other liberal praisers of Plekhanov. They have become so accustomed to this perversion that they do not even consider it necessary to prove the oblivion of Marxist principles and ideas during the period of the revolutionary whirlwind.
Why should such a view arise? Because it most deeply corresponds to the class position and interests of the petty bourgeoisie. The ideologist of a “purified” bourgeois society allows for all methods of struggle of social democracy, except those that are used by the revolutionary people in the era of the “whirlwind” and which revolutionary social democracy approves and helps to apply. The interests of the bourgeoisie require the participation of the proletariat in the struggle against the autocracy, but only such participation that does not translate into the supremacy of the proletariat and peasantry, only such participation that does not completely eliminate the old, autocratic serfdom and police authorities. The bourgeoisie wants to preserve these organs only by subordinating them to its direct control - it needs them against the proletariat, for which the complete destruction of these organs would make its proletarian struggle too easy. That is why the interests of the bourgeoisie, as a class, require both a monarchy and an upper house, require the prevention of the dictatorship of the revolutionary people. Fight autocracy
The bourgeoisie says to the proletariat, but don’t touch the old authorities - I need them. Fight "parliamentarily", that is, within the limits that I will prescribe for you by agreement with the monarchy, fight through organizations - just not such as general strike committees, Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' Deputies, etc., but through such , which recognizes and limits, neutralizes in relation to capital the law issued by me in agreement with the monarchy.
It is clear from this why the bourgeoisie speaks about the period of the “whirlwind” with disdain, contempt, malice, hatred, and about the period of constitutionalism protected by Dubasov with delight, rapture, with endless petty-bourgeois love... for reaction. This is the same constant and unchanging quality of the cadets: the desire to rely on the people and the fear of their revolution
Probably none of the dictators of the Soviet camp was as despised as Ceausescu. During his reign, hunger grew year after year in the country, and the police killed up to 15 thousand people a year. When his power was overthrown in 1989, the military had to restrain the people from spontaneous reprisals against him. And yet modern Romanians miss him.
In 2010, the Romanian Institute for Assessment and Strategy conducted a public opinion poll asking questions about the country's life under communism.
It's hard to believe, but 63% said that life was better then; only 29 percent disagreed. To the question “Would you vote for Ceausescu today?” More than 40% of respondents responded positively.
It seems absurd, but today Romania is one of the poorest countries in the EU (second in poverty) and the most corrupt. The people see in the communist dictatorship at least some guarantees of employment and security - albeit in exchange for freedom.
Park Chung Hee
Between 1961 and 1979, South Korea was ruled with an iron fist by Park Chung Hee. Under his rule, surprise secret police searches and torture became commonplace. His opponents disappeared without a trace; it is said that he personally killed the most senior of them in his home. How do Koreans see his figure today?
They consider him the greatest president in history. According to the Korean Times, citing sociological survey data, Park Chung-hee is far ahead in popularity of any other leader in Korea.
Indeed, during his reign there was an economic boom. In the 1970s, South Korea's economic growth rate outpaced that of the United States. This is all the more impressive when you remember that in the 1950s, South Korea was poorer than North Korea. Today, the brutality of the regime is forgotten, only economic successes remain in memory.
Antonio Salazar
Anotonio Salazar was one of the longest-living dictators - and one of the most invisible. For almost 40 years he ruled Portugal, which became a semi-fascist state. During this time, the secret police penetrated every school, every business and every other organization in the country. The network of state terror worked like clockwork. Many dissatisfied people went to concentration camps located in Africa.
Salazar's regime collapsed in 1974, but today his popularity is growing. About a fifth of Portuguese people think Salazar has done more good than bad. On his birthday, his grave is covered with flowers, and a portrait of the dictator hangs in many bars and restaurants.
This may be due to the economic crisis that broke out in the country in 2010.
Francisco Franco
General Franco is lost against the background of his famous contemporaries - Hitler and Mussolini, but he was no less cruel. During the “White Terror,” 114 thousand Spaniards were killed, many were tortured and raped. Up to 500 thousand people died in concentration camps. Despite this, he remains a popular figure in Spain.
A 2006 poll by El Mundo newspaper found that a third of Spaniards believed Franco's actions in overthrowing the previous government were correct. A 2013 book about Franco by the Royal Academy of History called him a "pacifist" and his political opponents "terrorists."
A significant part of the Spaniards see Franco as the savior of the country from the communists, who also killed about 40 thousand people during the Spanish Civil War. It is generally accepted that the communists would have plunged the country into an even bloodier horror than Franco.
"Black Colonels"
In 1967, the Greek democratic government fell and was replaced by a group of officers who ruled the country through repression for almost 10 years. The junta was particularly notable for its use of rape and abusive sexual acts as torture. When the junta lost power, the new government had to make a lot of efforts to hold official trials, preventing popular lynching.
In 2013, a Metron Analysis poll found that a third of Greeks believed dictatorship was better than democracy. More than 50% think the junta provided better security, and 46% think the economic situation was better.
In recent years, Greece has been experiencing serious problems in the economy; many people, mainly civil servants, have lost their jobs.
Ferdinand Marcos
From 1965 to 1986, Ferdinand Marcos was the sole ruler of the Philippines. During his time in power, he killed 3,257 political opponents, tortured 35,000, and imprisoned 70,000. He is also considered one of the most corrupt officials to ever live on the planet, ranking him second on Transparency International's list.
It would seem that this should not inspire much sympathy, but in 2011, the majority of Filipinos were in favor of Marcos’ reburying in the state cemetery for heroes.
In 2014, on the 28th anniversary of his removal from power, there was a wave of tweets on Twitter calling Marcos “the greatest president of all time.”
He is also considered a savior from communism. But, unlike Spain, in the Philippines this danger was not real. It simply served as an excuse for Marcos to steal more than 10 billion dollars from the treasury.
Erich Honecker
You may not remember his name, but you know the name of his country: the German Democratic Republic, the realm of the Stasi political police. Intimidation of the country's residents was the norm, but in the GDR, an economic fiasco was added to this. The East Germans tightened their belts while their Western relatives could not deny themselves anything. When Germany reunited, no one imagined that the GDR would be missed.
But in 2009, the results of a survey conducted by Der Spiegel magazine were made public. Most of the inhabitants of the eastern states of Germany defended the life they led in the GDR. 49% reported that living there was “good.” Some even claimed that there was "less dictatorship" than modern Germany. Most considered the Stasi to be a normal intelligence service.
In German there is a special term for this: Ostalgie (from Ost - east and nostalgie - nostalgia). One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that the standard of living in the western and eastern lands has not yet become equal.
Haji Muhammad Suharto
If you're unimpressed by the Marcos story, check out Suharto. From 1967 to 1998, he stole $35 billion from the state budget, occupied East Timor and carried out two genocides. And now he is again experiencing people's love.
In many parts of Indonesia, the anniversary of Suharto's massacre of his countrymen is still celebrated today. Four years ago he became a “national hero”, according to the results of a sociological survey.
This is another “hero who saved the country from communism.” And, as in the case of Marcos, it was just an excuse. Under the guise of the fight against communism, Suharto killed at least 500 thousand (according to other estimates - up to two million) ethnic Chinese, carrying out executions along ethnic lines.
Benito Mussolini
Benito Mussolini ruled Italy and was an ally of Hitler. The US and British troops did not have time to get to him - the Italians themselves hanged him. But in the 21st century it was in demand again.
His image can be found on souvenirs for tourists, in restaurants and shops. And this is not just irony - politicians such as Silvio Berlusconi allow themselves to publicly praise Mussolini.
Joseph Stalin
Collect all the previous characters - and they will all give in to Stalin. An approximate estimate of the number of those repressed (executed or sent to prison) during his reign is 20 million. He used the labor of political prisoners as free labor. And he is very popular in Russia.
A 2011 poll by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that 45% of Russians had a “generally positive” assessment of Stalin’s personality. In his home country of Georgia, the figure was 68%. A few years ago, according to a poll for a popular TV show, Stalin was ranked third among Russia's national heroes.
In general, Russians are aware of Stalin's crimes. But he is seen as the conqueror of Hitler and this, as it were, atones for his guilt. In other words, he is a monster, but he defeated a worse monster.