Pipes

Totalitarian regimes: comparative characteristics. Comparative analysis of political regimes What were the differences between totalitarian regimes

Most people know very well, or democracy. These terms are constantly used by TV presenters in the news. Even the inhabitants of remote villages with a secondary education will be able to explain the difference between them. But most people don't know how it differs from authoritarian. Moreover, some even believe that these terms mean the same thing. Actually, it is not. Let's try to find out how it differs from authoritarian.

Formulation of authoritarianism

Authoritarianism, or an authoritarian regime, is a phenomenon in which power is concentrated in the hands of one person or within one group of like-minded people. At the same time, opposition forces in power are allowed, but only if they are politically weak. For the most part, the opposition under authoritarianism has a decorative function, and only in public does it oppose official power. However, in areas that are not related to politics (culture, economics, private life), a manifestation of the personality and character of a person is possible. However, it is still important that freedom does not harm the current government and does not expose it in a negative light.

It is worth noting that almost any authoritarian regime will sooner or later come to the format of a one-man dictatorship, and even if it started with the power of a certain group, it will still transform into a dictatorship regime. States based on an authoritarian regime have always existed. Today, such a country can be called Morocco or Saudi Arabia.

Totalitarianism

The totalitarian regime is figuratively called the "son of authoritarianism", because it is almost always a continuation of the authoritarian development of the state. In such a state, power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose rights are unlimited. There are many such cases in history, although the leader has always been called differently: tsar, dictator, general secretary, leader, Fuhrer, etc. And although there may be a semblance of collective control in a country, power is always concentrated in one hand. Our recent past is a great example. In the USSR, there was a leading party body of the Central Committee of the CPSU, although real power was concentrated only in the hands of one person - Secretary General parties.

If we compare the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, then first of all we can single out the sphere of social life. Under authoritarianism, the manifestation of character and personality is allowed, under totalitarianism - no. The latter regime seeks to control all spheres of society, including even thoughts. Any opinion that goes against the government is considered a crime and punished with cruelty. The most striking examples are easy to find: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin. And this list can be continued for a long time.

Let us give a simple example in order to more accurately understand how a totalitarian regime differs from an authoritarian one.

Authoritarianism in Germany

Germany was defeated in World War I. In the middle of the 20th century, the National Socialist Party came to power in a broken country and established authoritarian rule. Basically, the actions were aimed at strengthening the economy and military power of the country, but very quickly the power passed into the hands of one person - Adolf Hitler, who was the leader of the party. From that moment on, the regime in the country began to transform from authoritarian to totalitarian. It is worth noting that the very system of authoritarian rule in Germany was vague. Even historians mention it only in passing, most often they talk about totalitarianism, which played a key role in the history of this country.

The formation of a totalitarian regime

After the final formation of totalitarianism, the forced imposition of Nazi ideology began. At the same time, a powerful ideological-police apparatus was created - a tool for effective control of the country's citizens. Moreover, the tool made it possible to control citizens not only within the borders of the country, but also beyond its borders. In general, everything that could be controlled was controlled in the state: sports, medicine, the press, culture, etc. All areas of activity of citizens came under strict supervision. As a result, Germany turned into a very cruel, but well-oiled machine, where every screw had its place. The consequences of such a transformation are well known to all. Fortunately, the Hitler regime did not last long, but even in a short period of time it brought a lot of misfortune to the whole world.

In principle, Germany is a demonstration of how a totalitarian regime differs from an authoritarian one, because here one method of government was abruptly replaced by another. The results are in.

Ideology

It is secondary in an authoritarian regime of power. Here the main task is to get people to perform tasks that are acceptable to them. And this is the difference between an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian one. The latter needs a very powerful and clear ideology, which is promoted by all possible media. It is also an excuse for crimes that can be committed by the authorities (leader) even against their own people. It is absolutely impossible to build totalitarianism without ideology - it will be doomed to failure.

Opposition

People who think differently don't like any power. But authoritarianism allows the opposition to be used for its own purposes. Usually, in this mode of management, they create the appearance of opposition to the authorities, but in fact they do not take any action. Such "pocket opposition" can cast a vote at the command of the ruling party and hold peaceful protests that do not interfere with anyone.

A totalitarian regime differs from an authoritarian one in that it generally does not allow opposition to power. Even the very idea that someone can give the appearance of fighting against the authorities is strictly prohibited. Any troublemaker will be punished with extreme cruelty. Consequently, even a completely controlled opposition under totalitarianism is excluded - there is not even a foundation for it.

freedom

Authoritarianism gives the citizens of their country the opportunity to express themselves, it guarantees privacy and in those areas that are not related to politics at all. This applies to economics, medicine, sports, etc. However, culture is necessarily checked for the presence of a political component, the same applies to the spiritual sphere. If criticism of the existing government is found, then negative consequences for the authors of this criticism are possible.

The totalitarian regime keeps all spheres under tight control. Citizens should not go beyond the dictated rules in any area, everything must comply with the regulations and be strictly scheduled.

The common features of the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are manifested here in the censorship of culture and the spiritual sphere. Both systems are concerned about criticism in these areas, only totalitarianism also interferes in other areas of citizens' lives, authoritarianism stands aside.

The role of the leader

Under both regimes there is a leader, only under authoritarianism his role is not so great. The main thing for authoritarianism - political device countries. Given the fact that the "king" under this method of government does not particularly interfere in the lives of citizens, then his influence on them is weak. This leads to the fact that citizens are critical of their leader. There are quite common cases when citizens openly laugh at the leader of their country and express dissatisfaction. In the expanses of the former USSR, this phenomenon is a classic.

Under totalitarianism, the role of the leader is extremely great. All sorts of propaganda equates the leader of the state practically with a deity that all citizens are obliged to worship. At the same time, the leader must have strong charisma, and the people must love him, believe in him. Moreover, people sincerely love him, and only a small part of the population may be dissatisfied with him, only they do not show this even in kindred circles.

Finally

Finally, we note that both systems are inefficient and regressive, because in the end they lead to revolutions, war, and even the death of the state. There are many such examples in history. Now you know how a totalitarian political regime differs from an authoritarian one. The answer to such a question cannot be concise, since there are always several important differences.

The term "totalitarianism" comes from the late Latin word totalitas meaning "wholeness", "completeness". It originated and became popular in the 1920s and 1930s. of the last century and was used to refer to political systems in fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Bolshevik USSR.

With their origins, these systems date back to the beginning of the last century, and they declared themselves in full voice in the 1920s-1930s, i.e. during the transformation of capitalism from free-enterprise to corporate capitalism. Moreover, in a short period of time, they turned from insignificant groups into influential socio-political movements that managed to subjugate hundreds of millions of people from many countries and peoples to their dominance.

By totalitarian, as a rule, is meant the type political system, which existed until the end of World War II in Nazi Germany and Italy, and also until about the 50s. of the last century in the USSR, in the People's Republic of China from its foundation in 1949 until about the 1970s. and in some underdeveloped countries.

There are two types of totalitarian regime: fascist and national socialist regimes, respectively, in Italy and Germany on the right flank of the ideological and political spectrum, and Bolshevik in the USSR - on the left flank. At the same time, it should be noted that totalitarianism is by no means a kind of monolith: there were significant differences between its individual regimes.

The Mussolini regime was characterized by a lesser concentration and absolutization of power. Along with the fascist party, the military, the aristocracy, the church, and the state bureaucracy enjoyed significant influence in the country, as before. The senate continued to function, however, purely formally. It is also a paradox that Italy remained a monarchy. Moreover, Mussolini sent reports to King Victor Emmanuel III from time to time. Italian fascism was also notable for less than in Germany, the intensity of terror and repression.

Considering these factors, it can be argued that the essential characteristics of the right variety of totalitarianism were embodied in the most complete form in German National Socialism.

For the Russians, the question of the relationship between Bolshevism and National Socialism is more relevant and at the same time painful. Nevertheless, this question exists, and it cannot be ignored, because the history of your homeland, with all its achievements, failures and zigzags, needs to be known in order to learn the appropriate lessons from it. For all the complexity and controversy of this problem, it must be stated that fascism and Bolshevism have both points of contact of a conceptual and typological nature, as well as divergences.

If "Marxism-Leninism" arose as a reaction against bourgeois-liberal democracy, then fascism - as a reaction against both this latter and "Marxist-Leninist" internationalism. There were also a number of other systemic differences between them.

As already mentioned, fascism and Marxism-Leninism are located at the two extreme poles of the ideological and political spectrum. It is no coincidence that they waged a struggle between themselves not for life, but for death. In this context, the initial incompatibility of their ideologies is striking. Here it suffices to mention such dichotomous pairs as internationalism-nationalism, the theory of class struggle - the national-racial idea, materialism-idealism, with the help of which the opposition of Marxism-Leninism and fascism is determined.

If in Marxism-Leninism the class was taken as the main theoretical and analytical tool for interpreting world history, then in fascism, the nation or race served as such. As a result, the place of the Marxist concepts of "surplus value" and "class struggle" in National Socialism was taken by the concepts of "blood" and "race".

If Marxism-Leninism adhered to a materialistic (and often economic-deterministic) interpretation of history, then fascism from this point of view is characterized by anti-materialism, irrationalism, mysticism and the belief that spiritual principles, honor, glory and prestige constitute powerful goals and motives for human behavior. .

If National Socialism completely rejected the very idea of democracy and liberalism, the Soviet regime declared its intention to put into practice truly democratic principles (of course, understood in its own way), eliminating party rivalry. It is no coincidence that its leaders and adherents operated with the concepts of "democratic centralism", "socialist democracy", "people's democracy", "democratic principles", etc.

Marxism-Leninism was guided in theory by the noblest aspirations of mankind - the communist ideal of building a perfect and just social order. From this point of view, the Soviet regime was inspired by the lofty humanistic goal, which is the age-old dream of many generations of people.

We must not forget that during a certain, although short by historical standards, period, the communist ideal became a guide to life for almost 40% of modern humanity. However, an important problem is that in order to achieve the set goal, ruthless, inhumane means were adopted. In this context, the "mortal sin" of the Bolsheviks is that they have discredited the great communist ideal.

stated that fascism, like communism, is a totalitarian reaction to liberalism and democracy. were characterized as totalitarian and destructive to freedom. Gentile spoke of fascism as a total concept of life. Mussolini who called his regime nothing more than a totalitarian state.

Share work on social networks

If this work does not suit you, there is a list of similar works at the bottom of the page. You can also use the search button

Page 28

PLAN

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

1. Theoretical basis totalitarianism …………………………………………….. 5

2. Totalitarian regimes: Comparative characteristics …………….....……12

2.1. Similarities between the totalitarianism of the USSR and Germany ……………………………..…12

2.2. The opposite of the totalitarian regimes of the USSR and Germany ……..….. 20

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………..…. 26

List of references ……………………………………..………28

Introduction

The term "totalitarianism" arose and became widespread in the 20s 30s XX in. and was used to refer to political systems in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and the Bolshevik USSR. One of the first to use this term was the Italian left-wing author J. Amendola, who in his speech on March 20, 1924 stated that fascism, like communism, is "a totalitarian reaction to liberalism and democracy." In the liberal journal Rinashita Liberale on January 5, 1925, the elections held in Italy in April 1924 were described as totalitarian and destructive to freedom. A little later, the official fascist theorist J. Gentile spoke of fascism as a total concept of life. B. Mussolini often used this term, who called his regime nothing more than a totalitarian state. As for A. Hitler and his henchmen, at least initially, they preferred to use the term "authoritarian" when describing their regime. 1

However, the 1933 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences does not contain this term. In the supplementary volume of the Oxford Dictionary of English language(1933) first mentions the word "totalitarian" from the April issue of the Contemporary Review (1928), where, in part, it was said: "Fascism denies that it performs its functions as a totalitarian regime, and enters the electoral sphere on an equal footing with its adversaries." Gradually, in the democratic countries of the West, this term is becoming more and more popular. wide application to designate first the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, and then the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union. 2

This term was first extended to the USSR, apparently, in November 1929 by the English newspaper The Times, which in one of its leading articles wrote about the reaction against parliamentarism in favor of a "totalitarian" or unitary state, both fascist and communist . The attack of Nazi Germany on the USSR and the latter's entry into the second world war forced Western authors to somewhat soften their assessments of the Soviet regime and direct the sharp edge of criticism mainly against fascism and Nazism. During the war, "totalitarianism" served as a general term for them to characterize the fascist and National Socialist regimes and distinguish them from Soviet socialism. Since the beginning cold war in the West, communism was again seen as a kind of total ideology, and the Soviet state as a totalitarian regime.

Among the researchers involved in the study of totalitarianism, such scientists as K. G. Ballestrem, V.S. Tolstikov, I. Mazurov, Yu. I. Igritsky, N. V. Zagladin, M. Dzhilas, and others. In their works, studies of the essence, history, and significance of totalitarianism were carried out.

Object of work characteristics, distinctive features of totalitarian regimes.

Subject of work comparison of totalitarian regimes existing in history.

The purpose of the work is to study the nature, sources and types of totalitarianism.

Tasks:

1) to study the essence and typology of totalitarianism;

2) compare the totalitarian regimes in the USSR and Germany.

1. Theoretical foundations of totalitarianism

The essential characteristic of a totalitarian system is the orientation towards fusion, the total unity of all spheres of life in society without exception. This, in particular, manifested itself in the denial by totalitarianism of the most important, one might say the central, element of modern Western civilization - civil society and its institutions, which constitute the fundamental aspects of human existence. As mentioned above, civil society is the focus of many diverse centers and sources of power and influence competing with each other, ensuring the freedom to realize the possibilities of each individual, primarily the freedom of economic choice. The historical experience of both democratic and totalitarian systems has shown that there can be no personal freedom where there is no diversity of sources of livelihood and freedom of economic choice.

Obviously, control over the most important resources of society, both material and intangible, will be with those in whose hands control over economic power is concentrated. As F. von Hayek emphasized, "the idea of central planning is that not a person, but society solves economic problems, and, consequently, society (more precisely, its representatives) judges the relative value of certain goals." Where there is no freedom of economic choice, and the only employer is the state (or, under National Socialism, private enterprises completely devoted to the regime or completely controlled by it), there can be no question of free political, intellectual and any other will of people. Property owned by the state or tightly controlled by it is inevitably politicized, since it gives rise to a monopoly of power that subjugates all the levers of politics and economics, merging into a single whole. As for property itself, it becomes impersonal, supra-individual, alienated. Moreover, both property and the economy turn out to be not just politicized, but politicized with a significant militarization of their most important components and characteristics. 3

Man is an abstraction, a kind of mental construction, if we neglect such characteristics as race, gender, age, nation, culture, faith, etc. It is no coincidence that the ideologists and leaders of totalitarianism set as their goal the transformation of economic, social, socio-cultural, spiritual relations, beliefs, values, attitudes of people. Moreover, the task was to consciously and purposefully remake human existence itself. From this point of view, totalitarianism, unlike all forms of traditional despotism, absolutism and authoritarianism, is a phenomenon of the 20th century. For the latter, with all their differences, the dominance of tradition, custom, legend, etc. was characteristic, the power occupied a subordinate position in relation to them, it was based on tradition. Unity in traditional society was based on rootedness in social structures family, community, family ties, tribe, ethno-national community, church, etc. People, sometimes occupying almost a slavish position in relation to those in power, nevertheless found support in these structures.

Tradition is a mechanism for the reproduction of social institutions and norms, in which the maintenance of the latter is justified, legitimized by the very fact of their existence in the past. Therefore, one should not be surprised that totalitarianism sets the annihilation of traditions as one of its main goals. This attitude was expressed in the renaming of the ancient names of cities, streets, avenues, museums, etc., in restricting access to certain types of historical and critical literature, in the rejection of some "outdated" traditions in the field of architecture, painting, sculpture, theater, individual festivities, customs of folk life, which allegedly contradicted the new cultural traditions, prevented them from forming and developing normally. From this point of view, totalitarianism is distinguished by a kind of amnesia of historical memory, a kind of mankurtism. 4

One of the most important prerequisites and conditions for a totalitarian system is the erosion of the achievement of cultural, social, moral, even ethno-national (in theory) homogeneity by destroying all associations, organizations that could serve as reference groups for a person, such as a nation, neighboring and kindred communities, a church. , real, not official organizations, unions, associations, estates, classes, etc. The totalitarian system breaks all the organic roots that bind the individual to society; it is built on the ultimate unification of all human ties, exposing to the public the most inviolable aspects and aspects of private life. The state remains the only reference group for the individual. Here, perhaps, in the most visual form and on a universal scale, the principle of "divide and rule" was implemented. "Religion and nationalism, wrote E. Fromm, like any customs, any prejudices even the most ridiculous and humiliating ones, save a person, if they connect him with other people, from the most terrible isolation". The ideologists and leaders of totalitarianism, realizing this, did everything to fragment and atomize society, deprive a person of social and other ties inherited from the past, and thereby isolate people from each other. As a result, each individual is left face to face with a huge omnipotent apparatus of coercion. 5

Nowadays, in the scientific literature, most authors adhere to the thesis according to which in the political system of a totalitarian type, fascist and national socialist regimes in Italy and Germany stand out on the right flank of the ideological and political spectrum and the Bolshevik regime in the USSR on its left flank. At the same time, it should be noted that totalitarianism is by no means a kind of monolith; there were significant differences between its individual regimes.

Such differences can be traced both between Bolshevism and fascism, and within the latter. Thus, the fascist regime in Italy was guided by the theory of the supremacy of the state, while the National Socialist regime was guided by the theory of the supremacy of the nation or nation-state. The Italian regime was notable for its desire to preserve traditional structures, as evidenced, for example, by the so-called Lateran Accords (1929) concluded between B. Mussolini and the Vatican and regulating relations between the Catholic Church and the fascist regime. The Mussolini regime was characterized by a lesser concentration and absolutization of power. Along with the fascist party, the military, the aristocracy, the church, and the state bureaucracy continued to enjoy significant influence in the country. The Senate continued to function, though purely formally. It is also a paradox that Italy remained a monarchy. Mussolini sent reports to King Victor Emmanuel III from time to time. Italian fascism was also distinguished by less terror and repression than in Germany. 6

Considering these factors, it can be argued that the essential characteristics of the right variety of totalitarianism were embodied in the most complete form in German National Socialism. For us Russians, the question of the relationship between Bolshevism and National Socialism is more relevant and at the same time painful. This question exists, and it cannot be ignored, because the history of one's homeland, with all its achievements, failures and zigzags, must be known in order to draw appropriate lessons from it.

In a totalitarian system, the logic of the absurd often prevails over the logic of common sense. Fictitious, illusory, artificially constructed reality is put in place of real reality. This is achieved either by an arbitrary interpretation of the facts in favor of the political and ideological conjuncture, or by ignoring them. A totalitarian state and its leadership need constant justification for their legitimacy, and even infallibility. Hence the need for constant reshaping of both the past and the present, depending on the turns in the political course of the leaders of the party and state.

The most important indicator of the penetration of these principles into all spheres of everyday life is the so-called newspeak, which, as J. Orwell said, is "the linguistic equivalent of the main idea of the official ideology." Although Newspeak is a literary invention of George Orwell, it is a reality. The essence of this phenomenon is the almost complete replacement real world some kind of surreal, absurd vision of a world in which everything is turned upside down, where truly twice two equals five. In everyday life, one must adapt to the irrationalism of language, in which speech about the world hides rather than explains the real state of things. 7

Moreover, the task is to completely transform a person, to construct a new type of personality with a special mentality, mental and behavioral characteristics, etc. through standardization, unification of the individual principle, its dissolution in the mass, reduction of all individuals to a certain statistical average denominator, sterilization or, in any case, suppression of the individual, personal principle in a person. 8

It should be emphasized that totalitarianism as a special socio-political phenomenon is impossible without a mass base, the dissolution of the individual in the mass, the crowd. He never puts up with control only with the help of external means, namely the state and the mechanism of physical violence. Unlike all other movements and social phenomena, totalitarianism presupposes the complete and unconditional loyalty of the individual person of society to the regime, party or leader. Totalitarianism discovered the means of domination and terrorizing people from within. Here the Fuehrer-Leader and the masses are merged into an inseparable unity: the Fuhrer-Leader depends on the masses to the same extent as they depend on him, without him they will remain an amorphous crowd, devoid of external representation. In turn, the Fuhrer leader himself is nothing without the masses.

Mass is a special education. It does not necessarily involve some gathering of many people in a square, street, stadium, or other open space. From the point of view of the parameters of consciousness, adherence to certain stereotypes of behavior and reaction, a person can belong to the crowd, the mass, without leaving his own apartment. The mass, as J. Ortega y Gasset noted, is not the same as, say, the workers, the proletariat. Its essential constant is the average, ordinary person. In this sense, the mass as an accumulation of many people or the number of people acquires the qualitative parameters of the socially typical. Ordinary, average become common social characteristics of a person without individuality. The most important characteristic of this type of person is his conviction, confidence in his perfection. Personality, a person as an individual or, let's say otherwise, an elitist person ("elitist" in the sense of a high intellectual flight or depth of penetration into the essence of things, which is also possible at the ordinary, rational level, level common man) is not convinced either of his own perfection or of the perfection of the world. This type of person cannot imagine life without serving something higher - society, people in general, a noble cause in his understanding, etc. His life is subject to self-discipline, which implies exactingness, first of all to himself, responsibility for his actions. 9

In the totalitarian consciousness, the inner connection of the individual with being is lost. The main miscalculation of the totalitarians, who set out to create a new man, was that their project was based on the denial of the mystery and mystery of life, which includes, along with aspiration upward, into the sphere of the superpersonal, divine, also the mystery of sin, the sinful principle, the denial that the universe , and, accordingly, life as its integral part is full of fatal contradictions that fallen life, bitterness and perishability of the world are the same legitimate characteristics of human existence as the highest bliss, the highest flight of the intellect and spirit.

Ignoring these realities, totalitarianism set the goal of achieving the unity of man and society, the state, the party, the fusion of all structures of social life. Since the state does not exist for people, but on the contrary, people exist for the state, then the individual is sacrificed to the citizen, and the citizen, in turn, is sacrificed to the subject. This naturally hinders the free manifestation of social forces. Conformism wins, the people turn into a mass, the population acquires the attributes of a crowd.

2. Totalitarian regimes: comparative characteristics

2.1. Similarities between the totalitarianism of the USSR and Germany

Many authors already in the 20s 30s XX in. noted certain similarities in the methods of political struggle, the seizure and exercise of power by the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. For all the complexity and controversy of this problem, it must be stated that fascism and Bolshevism have points of both conceptual and typological contact, and divergence. 10

In the traditional typology, fascism and Marxism-Leninism are located at the two extreme poles of the ideological and political spectrum. It is no coincidence that they waged a life-and-death struggle among themselves due to the initial incompatibility of their ideologies. Here it suffices to mention such dichotomous pairs as internationalism nationalism, class struggle theory national-racial idea, materialism idealism, etc., which determine the confrontation between Marxism-Leninism and fascism. If in Marxism-Leninism the class was taken as the main theoretical and analytical tool for interpreting world history, then in fascism the nation served as such. The first gave moral and theoretical priority to the concept of class, and the second to the concept of nation and even race. As a result, the place of the Marxist concepts of "surplus value" and "class struggle" in National Socialism was taken by the concepts of "blood" and "race". If Marxism-Leninism adhered to a materialistic (and often economic-deterministic) interpretation of history, then fascism is characterized by anti-materialism, irrationalism, mysticism and the belief that spiritual principles, honor, glory and prestige are powerful goals and motives for human behavior. 11

Fascists and National Socialists, both in theory and in practice, giving a decisive role to politics and ideology, retained private ownership of the means of production and market mechanisms for the functioning of the economy. The Bolsheviks, who assigned a decisive role in theory to the basis, or economy, took the path of complete socialization of the means of production. If the Bolsheviks destroyed the market, then the National Socialists saddled it, tamed it. Hitler considered it more important to socialize, first of all, a person, and the Bolsheviks took the path of socializing first the economy, and then a person. National Socialism rejected the very idea of democracy and liberalism, while the Soviet regime declared its intention to put into practice truly democratic principles (of course, understood in its own way), eliminating party rivalry. It is no coincidence that its leaders and adherents operated with the concepts of "democratic centralism", "socialist democracy", "people's democracy", "democratic principles", etc.

Marxism-Leninism was guided in theory by the communist ideal of building a perfect and just social order. We must not forget that during a certain, although short by historical standards, period, the communist ideal became a guide to life for almost 40% of modern humanity. However, it is important that in order to achieve the set goal, ruthless, inhumane means were taken into service. The mortal sin of the Bolsheviks is that they have discredited the great communist ideal. 12

For all that, the fact of proximity and a certain relationship between fascism and Bolshevism in a number of parameters is undeniable. First of all, the almost complete synchronism of their appearance in the historical arena cannot but attract attention. Their origins are at the very beginning of this century, and they declared themselves in full voice in the second and beginning of the third decade, i.e. during the period of the so-called great transformation of capitalism from free-enterprise to corporate (or, as we used to call it until recently, state-monopoly) capitalism. Without going into details, we note that Bolshevism and fascism acted as respectively left and right alternatives to the centrist reformist path of development of capitalism in the socio-economic sphere and liberal democracy in the political sphere. In a short period of time, they turned from insignificant groups into influential social and political movements that managed to subjugate hundreds of millions of people from many countries to their dominance.

An important unifying principle for these alternatives was that they postulated the goal of implementing socialist principles, of course, in their own understanding: international and nationalist. Especially in the initial period, the representatives of fascism and Bolshevism were inclined to openly admit this closeness.

Hitler, in conversations with G. Rauschning, persistently emphasized that he had learned from Marxism and Marxists the methods of political struggle. Moreover, he argued: "National Socialism is what Marxism could become if it freed itself from its absurd artificial connection with the democratic order." 13

Indeed, fascism and Bolshevism had a number of similar or common elements in terms of their functional system-forming, methodological purpose. This, in particular, is a single all-encompassing goal (although for each of them it differs significantly in its content); domination by one revolutionary party of a new type; mono-ideology that rejects other ideologies; similar means and methods for achieving ideal goals; merging into a single whole of the party, state and society; politicization of all spheres of life without exception; physical and moral terror, etc. It is these characteristics, which will be analyzed in more or less detail below, that make it possible to evaluate fascism in its various variants and Marxism-Leninism in its Bolshevik interpretation as two opposite manifestations or two alternative (right and left) variants of a special socio-historical phenomenon - totalitarianism.

At the same time, it must be emphasized that the signs and characteristics of totalitarianism singled out below should be understood in an ideal-typical sense, and not as an accurate reflection of the real situation in society, since, in general, both in Hitler's Germany and in the Stalinist Soviet Union, even in the very apogee of totalitarianism, it would hardly be legitimate to speak of a universal totalization of consciousness. AT real life everything was much more difficult.

In addition, we must not forget that totalitarian regimes were subject to certain changes. It seems correct to speak of a more or less purely totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union in relation to the Stalinist period, covering the end of the 1920s and the first half of the 1950s. In subsequent years, there was a gradual "liberalization" of the regime, associated with the rejection of the most odious forms of mind control and terror. 14

A popular opinion is that the Bolshevik regime in the USSR and the Nazi Reich in Germany were rooted in the national historical traditions of the two countries and, in essence, represented a continuation of their history in new conditions. Such an opinion, which is true in principle, needs substantial reservations. Of course, objectively, no nation can escape its history, and in this sense, both regimes bore the ancestral stamp of the national-historical traditions of the German and Russian peoples, their culture, self-consciousness, religion, etc. In addition, the leaders and ideologists of both variants of totalitarianism had no shortage of assurances about their commitment to the historical beginning. Moreover, it was they who presented themselves as the true heirs and successors of the most worthy, in their opinion, ancestors and guardians of national culture, greatness and traditions. Hitler and his henchmen liked to present their ideas and plans as a return to history, as a restoration of the interrupted chain of times. Thus, considering the period when the Germans pushed the Slavs to the East as a starting point, Hitler argued: “Thus, we National Socialists begin where we ended the battle six centuries ago. We stopped the endless migration of the Germans to the south and west and turned our eyes are on the lands to the east." As for the leaders of Bolshevism, they claimed to realize all the best and progressive in the historical heritage not only of the peoples of Russia, but of all mankind. 15

With all this, it is well known that both variants of totalitarianism, at least in ideology and propaganda, defended the claims to destroy the old world "to the ground" and build a new world on its ruins in accordance with their actually artificially constructed models.

As you know, one of the most important traditional pillars on which the personality is based, the mirror through which the individual recognizes himself as a member of society and acquires a sense of self, is the nation. It is symptomatic that the right and left variants of totalitarianism, approaching this problem from seemingly opposite positions, managed to use it each in their own way to establish the total domination of the state.

With certain reservations, we can say that Marxism is the same age as the national idea and nationalism, understood broadly (and not only negatively). From this point of view, it represents not only a challenge to classical political economy, not only a critique of capitalist production relations, but also a critique of nationalism and religion. As a program for the liberation of people from intermediate formations that prevent the transformation of an individual into a "world historical personality", Marxism postulated the formation of the proletariat as a force that transcends national commitments and operates at a supranational level. In order to subordinate people to the fulfillment of this goal, the task was to destroy national-cultural traditions and values, to tear them away from national roots. Therefore, it is natural that from the very beginning Marxism considered nationalism, as well as religion, as an adversary against which it was necessary to wage a resolute and uncompromising struggle.

Evaluating the national question entirely from the point of view of the goals of the class struggle of the proletariat, the founders of Marxism proceeded from the postulate that any society is built on horizontal class differences that cross national boundaries and commitments, and therefore play a more fundamental role compared to all other differences, including national and ethical. The idea was formulated that nationalism is a product of capitalist development and is destined to disappear with the disappearance of capitalism. K. Marx and F. Engels argued that the liberation of the proletariat from the capitalist yoke would lead to the accelerated disappearance of national differences and antagonisms. It was assumed that with the establishment of the rule of the proletariat and with the establishment of the principles of socialism, the division of people according to the national principle would lose all meaning, and it would be completely replaced by class division. At the same time, the idea was especially emphasized that only the proletariat can become the force that is capable of fulfilling the historical task of uniting peoples into a single whole. 16

It should be noted that Marxists, including Russians, were fiercely arguing about the future of the nation and national relations in the conditions of transition to socialism and in the course of socialist construction. But with all the disputes about federalism, autonomization, the realization of the right of nations to self-determination, up to the complete separation of V.I. Lenin and his associates generally remained convinced that in the process of socialist construction, socio-economic and national-cultural differences between regions, national-state formations would gradually be smoothed out and, ultimately, overcome, and this would create conditions for the victory of the international principle. over national. 17

Marxism-Leninism, by its very nature, could not accept the national idea, the national principle, especially nationalism, since they were considered (and were such) as the most important obstacle to the international unity of peoples on the principles of class solidarity and class struggle. Therefore, it is not surprising that the program proposed by the communists was aimed, in fact, at a conscious, forced, systematic reworking of the very nature of the ethnos, ethno-national. Such a goal is due, in fact, to the very installation of Bolshevism and Sovietization of all aspects of the life of a huge, many-sided empire, its state-administrative system, culture, social sphere etc., even the realities of everyday life. As you know, rulers Russian Empire they were rather tolerant (or looked at it through their fingers) to the preservation of traditional forms and organs of government, religion, etc. in many ethno-national formations. Bolshevization and Sovietization assumed the destruction of all this and the rigid unification and standardization of everything and everyone according to the standards drawn up in the center. 18

From this point of view, all nations and nationalities were really equal. As if ignoring the laws of socio-historical development, which prescribe to each people their own path and their own place in society, called human, the task was set to make happy many peoples who remained under feudalism, by transferring them to socialism, bypassing capitalism, and those peoples who " stuck" in tribal relations, to attach to the benefits of socialism, bypassing both feudalism and capitalism. Large-scale repressions and the eviction of the most hard-working stratum of the population from the countryside under the slogan of eliminating the kulaks as a class, the forced relocation of people from the countryside to the city or remote regions of the country led to the undermining of nutritious roots, the centuries-old foundations of the national way of life, weakening commitment to work, home, national history . As a result, the Soviet people were declared to be members of an absolutely incredible and paradoxical entity - an international people, a nationless nation - a "new historical community".

It seemed even more paradoxical that the ideology of internationalism had already acquired, in a peculiarly inverted form, the functions of the ideology of nationalism. This was largely facilitated by the interests and needs of preserving Russia as a single state in the face of the revival of separatist aspirations of individual national regions within the country and the constant threat of external intervention, which created an atmosphere of a besieged fortress. The ideology of internationalism essentially turned out to be put at the service of state interests. Its functions were similar to those performed by nationalism in the ideology of German Nazism. It is no coincidence that the concepts of anti-communism and anti-Sovietism became somewhat synonymous, and support for the policies of the Soviet Union was considered a key element of proletarian nationalism.

In the ideology of fascism, an organic merger of socialism and nationalism took place, which ultimately gave grounds to A. Hitler and his associates to talk about national socialism. Here the definition of a socialist, which Hitler gave in one of his speeches in 1922, is of interest: our national anthem "Germany above all" in the sense that for him there is nothing in the world higher than his Germany, people and land, he is a socialist." 19

2.2. The opposite of the totalitarian regimes of the USSR and Germany

Obviously, in this aspect, Marxism-Leninism and fascism held diametrically opposed positions. The militant racism and nationalism of the latter are well known. We will only point out that in the methodological plan of establishing totalitarian structures and mentality, they played a role similar to that played by the theory of class struggle and the idea of internationalism in Marxism-Leninism. In a similar way, racism and nationalism were turned into universal system-forming attitudes that determine the structure of actions and thoughts of all members of society. From the very beginning, fascism considered the nation as a kind of synthesis of all material and spiritual values without exception, having priority over the individual, groups, layers, classes. As Hitler stated in his speech to the industrialists in 1932, the determining factor is "the implementation of the will of the nation, for only this will can be the starting point for political actions." He spoke about this even more definitely and unequivocally at the Nuremberg Congress of the NSDAP in 1938. According to him, in order to consolidate the "miracle of the German resurrection" begun in the 1920s, the party must declare a ruthless war on class and estate prejudices. It must see to it that, regardless of birth or origin, a strong-willed and talented German can find access to the highest levels of the social ladder. 20

Therefore, an important place in the Nazi ideology was given to the destruction of all classes, but unlike Marxism-Leninism, which supposed to carry it out on the basis of proletarian internationalism, adherents of fascism tried to achieve this goal by subordinating everything and everything to a purely national principle. In contrast to the "bourgeois and Marxist-Jewish outlook," Hitler confided, the idea of the National Socialist "people's state" assesses "the meaning of humanity in its basic racial terms." Therefore, he continued, this idea rejects the equality of races and, recognizing the existence of superior and inferior races, considers it necessary to promote the triumph of the former. It cannot recognize the right to the existence of any ethical ideas if this idea poses a threat to the racial existence of the carriers of a higher ethics. Therefore, it is natural that the cornerstone of the thousand-year-old Third Reich was proclaimed the idea of preserving the purity of the Aryan race, and the idea of the dominance of the Aryan race of a new order for the rest of the world. The activities of the fundamental public institutions were entirely subordinated to this universal task. As Hitler believed, the family is not an end in itself, but serves a higher task - to increase and preserve the human race and race. This is the meaning of the family and its task. What kind of human race and what kind of race was discussed, it hardly makes sense to remind. 21

An important characteristic of the Nazi ideological and political structure was the identification, organic fusion of the concepts of "nation" and "national state". The state was seen as the legal embodiment of the nation, endowed with the responsibility for determining its nature, goals and interests in each specific historical period. As Hitler believed, the state has nothing to do with the economy, since it is not an economic, but a racial organization. As a result, as R. Farnacci rightly remarked, fascism identified society with the nation, nation with the state, economic activity with political activity.

Thus, starting, it would seem, from directly opposite positions, Hitler and his associates came to a conclusion that, in terms of its functional significance, was close to the position of the Bolsheviks. Only if the latter had classes as subjects of a deadly fight, then the Nazis had a line of demarcation between the German people, on the one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other. As correctly noted by V.N. Ilyin, "pagan nationalism, red internationalism", with all the necessary reservations, turned out to be put at the service of identical goals - the justification and ideological service of the fascist and Bolshevik regimes. 22

It was noted above that in a totalitarian political system, the separation between the state and civil society practically disappears. The state dominates society. Here, Nazism and Bolshevism, starting from opposite poles of the ideological and political spectrum, came to the same result. So, if the former from the very beginning considered the state to be the highest value, then the adherents of the latter defended the inevitability of its disappearance (at least in theory).

Nazi theorists proceeded from the fact that any form of organized, autonomously associated life is inspired by the state. The formal element in the state is its sovereign political and legal power. Fascist theorists, such as S. Nunzio, recognized that organized associations within the state can formulate rules for regulating relations between their members, but these rules will be effective only if they are sanctioned by the state. All associations and organizations in the State enjoy autonomy insofar as they are able to manage their internal affairs. But, nevertheless, the state is the only and final source of power, since it has the exclusive right to use violence. Thus, the fascists actually rejected any restrictions on the political and legal sovereignty of the state. The state is inherently integral and total, within its framework there is no place for the private apart from the public. This idea found doctrinal expression in Mussolini's following aphorism: "Everything is within the state, nothing is outside the state, and nothing is against the state." 23

From this point of view, the measures taken by Hitler already in the first year of his stay in power are of interest. So, on April 4, 1933, a ban was introduced on the free exit of citizens from the country, as well as exit visas; April 11 May 1 is declared the National Labor Day; April 14, 15% of professors are expelled from universities and other educational institutions; On May 7, a "cleansing" was carried out among writers and artists, "black" lists of non-(true) German writers" were published; on September 22, a law was issued on the "imperial cultural guilds" of writers, artists, musicians, which introduced a de facto ban on publication, performance, exhibitions all those who were not members of the guild, and on December 1 the law on ensuring the unity of the party and the state, etc. 24

Something similar was deliberately carried out in our country with the coming to power of the Bolshevik Party in 1917. Already at the beginning of 1918, the Constituent Assembly was dispersed. This act marked the beginning of the destruction or subjugation by the Bolsheviks of all independent institutions and non-Bolshevik parties. The years of war communism became the period of the establishment of political dictatorship. Publishing activities were gradually curtailed, all non-Bolshevik publications were banned, the leaders of the opposition parties were arrested, who were then outlawed. More and more growing power was acquired by political investigation in the person of the Cheka and its successors, the trade unions were placed under the complete control of the Bolshevik Party. The process of consolidating and tightening the dictatorship acquired a particularly wide scope with the coming to power of I.V. Stalin. 25

As a result, both variants of totalitarianism were characterized by the complete dominance of the state over society, the elimination of differences between the state and society. Moreover, both society and the state were actually absorbed by the ruling party.

The totalitarian state used all its might to assert the mythological version of its ideology as the only possible worldview. It was actually turned into a state religion with its dogmas, sacred books, saints, apostles, with its god-men (in the person of leaders, Fuhrers, Duce, etc.), liturgy, etc. Here the state is almost a system of theocratic government, where the high priest-ideologist is also the supreme ruler.

Therefore, it is natural that Marxism, considered as the completion of all world philosophy, was taken out of criticism, and its provisions were made the criteria for evaluating all other philosophical systems. Already F. Engels, and then the most devoted followers of the founders of Marxism, laid a solid foundation for a position that placed K. Marx beyond criticism and thus made him an inviolable prophet of the new teaching.

The status of a religious faith with significant elements of mysticism and even spiritualism was acquired by fascist ideology, especially in its Nazi incarnation. Her sacred books were the work "Fundamentals of the Nineteenth Century" by H.S. Chamberlain, which Hitler's newspaper "Völkischer Beobachter" in 1925 called the gospel of the Nazi movement, "The Myth of the Twentieth Century" by A. Rosenberg and others. Reich". 26

Totalitarian variants of political philosophy postulate the identity of individual and collective goals, promising that the normal goals of individual people will be realized as the goals of the people, nation, country, state, etc. are fulfilled.

An invariable attribute of totalitarianism is the close relationship between truth and power: here the power determines the truth. The Nazi death camps and the Soviet Gulag are the essential characteristics of totalitarianism. As special political constructs, they are unique in their ability to combine cruelty with rationalism, the abnormal with the normal, the evil with the banal.

A distinctive feature of the totalitarian regime is that here terror and fear are used not only as a tool for the destruction and intimidation of real or imagined enemies and opponents, but also as a normal everyday tool for controlling the masses. To this end, the atmosphere is constantly cultivated and reproduced. civil war. Terror is unleashed without any apparent reason or prior provocation. This was the case in Nazi Germany, where terror was unleashed against the Jews, i.e. people united by certain common racial and ethnic characteristics, regardless of their behavior. In the Soviet Union, unlike in Nazi Germany, the leadership never admitted that they could use terror against innocent people. But, nevertheless, here, too, terror served as a tool for the destruction of the so-called class enemies, or enemies of the people. 27

The totalitarian regime in its purest form consists not only in the fact that the party, any clique or the Fuhrer-leader establishes an all-encompassing control over all spheres of public life and the state, as if completely absorbing them, but also in the fact that the overwhelming mass of the population is slightly Li does not firmly believe in the main goals, attitudes, orientations postulated by the party leadership or the Fuhrer-leader: both sides, in fact, are merged in total unity to achieve a universal goal. From this point of view, the Stalinist regime in our country and the National Socialist regime in Germany can be considered purely totalitarian.

Conclusion

Totalitarianism as a special socio-political phenomenon is impossible without a mass base, the dissolution of the individual in the mass, the crowd. He never puts up with control only with the help of external means, namely the state and the mechanism of physical violence. Unlike all other movements and social phenomena, totalitarianism presupposes the complete and unconditional loyalty of the individual person of society to the regime, party or leader. Totalitarianism discovered the means of domination and terrorizing people from within. The essential characteristic of a totalitarian system is the orientation towards fusion, the total unity of all spheres of life in society without exception. This, in particular, manifested itself in the denial by totalitarianism of the most important, one might say the central, element of modern Western civilization - civil society and its institutions, which constitute the fundamental aspects of human existence.

A totalitarian state and its leadership need constant justification for their legitimacy, and even infallibility. Hence the need for constant reshaping of both the past and the present, depending on the turns in the political course of the leaders of the party and state.

Nazism and Bolshevism had a number of similar or common elements in terms of their functional system-forming, methodological purpose. This, in particular, is a single all-encompassing goal (although for each of them it differs significantly in its content); domination by one revolutionary party of a new type; mono-ideology that rejects other ideologies; similar means and methods for achieving ideal goals; merging into a single whole of the party, state and society; politicization of all spheres of life without exception; physical and moral terror, etc. It is these characteristics, which will be analyzed in more or less detail below, that make it possible to evaluate fascism in its various variants and Marxism-Leninism in its Bolshevik interpretation as two opposite manifestations or two alternative (right and left) variants of a special socio-historical phenomenon - totalitarianism.

It should be said that the totalitarian state dominates society. Here, Nazism and Bolshevism, starting from opposite poles of the ideological and political spectrum, came to the same result. So, if the former from the very beginning considered the state to be the highest value, then the adherents of the latter defended the inevitability of its disappearance.

List of used literature

Ballestrem KG Aporia of the theory of totalitarianism. // Questions of Philosophy. - 2012. - No. 6. pp.56-68.
Bessonov B. Fascism: ideology and practice. M.: Progress, 2015. 224p.
Gadzhiev K.S. Introduction to political science. M.: Logos, 2013. 544p.
Gozman L., Etkind A. From the cult of power to the cult of people. Psychology of political consciousness. // Questions of history. - 2013. - No. 7. pp.54-68.
Djilas M. Face of totalitarianism. M.: Novosti, 2012. 234p.
Zagladin NV Totalitarianism and democracy: the conflict of the century. // Centaur. 2014. - No. 5-6. S.23-31.
Zerkin D.P. Fundamentals of political science. Rostov N.D.: Phoenix, 2015. 576p.
Igritsky Yu. I. Concepts of totalitarianism: lessons from many years of discussions in the West. // Political studies. 2014. - No. 6. pp.45-62.
Mazurov I. Fascism as a form of totalitarianism. // Social sciences and modernity. - 2015. - No. 5. pp.23-45.
Rakhshmir P. Yu. The latest concepts of fascism in the bourgeois historiography of the West. M.: Thought, 2011. 220p.
Semykina T.V. Political regimes. // Guidelines. M.: MSU, 2014. S.124-145.
Tolstikov V. S. Working class and totalitarianism. // sociological research. - 2014. - No. 1. pp.78-90.

1 Gadzhiev K.S. Introduction to political science. M., 2008. P.240

2 Ibid.

3 Zagladin NV Totalitarianism and democracy: the conflict of the century. // Centaur. 1992. - No. 5-6. P.28.

4 Zerkin D.P. Fundamentals of political science. Rostov n./D., 2006. P.322.

5 Ibid.

6 Bessonov B. Fascism: ideology and practice. M., 2005. P.43.

7 Djilas M. Face of totalitarianism. M.: News, 2002. P.87.

8 Ibid.

9 Gadzhiev K.S. Introduction to political science. M., 2008. P.264.

10 Bessonov B. Fascism: ideology and practice. M., 2005. P.54.

12 Gadzhiev K.S. Introduction to political science. M., 2008. P.243.

13 Gadzhiev K.S. Introduction to political science. M., 2008. P.246.

14 Zagladin NV Totalitarianism and democracy: the conflict of the century. // Centaur. - 1992. - No. 5-6. P.25.

15 Zagladin NV Totalitarianism and democracy: the conflict of the century. // Centaur. - 1992. - No. 5-6. P.26.

16 Ballestrem KG Aporia of the theory of totalitarianism. // Questions of Philosophy. - 2007. - No. 6. P.58.

17 Ballestrem KG Aporia of the theory of totalitarianism. // Questions of Philosophy. 2007. - No. 6. P.59.

18 Ibid.

19 Semykina T.V. Political regimes. // Guidelines. M.: MSU, 2004. P.127.

21 Semykina T.V. Political regimes. // Guidelines. Moscow: Moscow State University, 2004. P. 132.

22 Mazurov I. Fascism as a form of totalitarianism. // Social sciences and modernity. - 2008. - No. 5. P.23.

23 Rakhshmir P. Yu. The latest concepts of fascism in the bourgeois historiography of the West. M., 2006. P.143.

24 Tolstikov V.S. The working class and totalitarianism. // Sociological research. - 2004. - No. 1. P.82.

25 Ibid.

26 Igritsky Yu. I. Concepts of totalitarianism: lessons from many years of discussions in the West. // Political studies. 2007. - No. 6. P.48.

27 Igritsky Yu. I. Concepts of totalitarianism: lessons from many years of discussions in the West. // Political studies. 2007. - No. 6. P.49.

Other related works that may interest you.vshm>
18832.		Comparative characteristics of methods for determining ESR	14.82MB
	Currently, special equipment is offered to determine the ESR, which makes it possible to speed up and automate the method. The standard method is based on the fact of stratification of blood taken with an anticoagulant in a vertical vessel.
10504.		Comparative characteristics of modern teaching methods	5.83KB
	Questions: Comparative characteristics of audiolingual audiovisual suggestive intensive methods of teaching a foreign language. Methodology of teaching foreign language in universities. Practical methodology for teaching foreign language.
19363.		COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF RUSSIAN AND FRENCH FAIRY TALES	114.71KB
	Pragmatics as a science. The hero of a fairy tale as the embodiment of the personification of morality in fairy tales. One of the most popular and frequent types is a fairy tale, which can be presented as a heterogeneous work both in content and in form. As you know, a fairy tale is a classic example of folklore.
832.		Centrally controlled and market economic system: comparative characteristics	34.52KB
	The essence of the economic system. The concept and content of the economic system. In the last two and a half centuries, the world has acted different types economic systems: two market systems dominated by the market economy market economy free competition, pure capitalism and the modern market economy, modern capitalism, as well as two non-market systems, traditional and administrative-command. In addition, the transition of the former socialist countries of Russia to other member countries ...
14051.		Comparative characteristics of the legal status of private and public notaries	15.17KB
	The notary in Russia is a system of justice bodies and officials who, in accordance with the Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on notaries, are granted the right to perform notarial acts. This system includes the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, the ministries of justice of the republics that are part of the Russian Federation, the departments of justice of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, state notary offices, notaries, officials of executive authorities engaged in private practice ...
20535.		Comparative characteristics of children's and youth tourism on the example of Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey	312.91KB
	Excursions trips can give the younger generation the opportunity to improve their intellectual level of development of observational ability to perceive the beauty of the surrounding world. Target term paper: To give comparative characteristics of children's and youth tourism in Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey To achieve the goal, I consider it appropriate to solve the following tasks: Consider definitions of the types of features of children's and youth tourism. Domestic tourism: excursions for schoolchildren sports tourism in...
19026.		COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE USE OF ANTITHROMBOTIC DRUGS IN PATIENTS WITH MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION DURING EMERGENCY PERCUTANEOUS INTERVENTION	1.75MB
	Acute occlusive thrombosis results in acute events such as recurrent myocardial infarction and/or acute coronary death. It is because of the primacy of platelet activation in the development of ischemic complications of PCI that antithrombotic treatment in these procedures is based on antiplatelet agents. Modern antiplatelet therapy involves the simultaneous use of two oral antiplatelet drugs
21212.		Comparative characteristics of the throughput capacity of Russian ports. Analysis of throughput capacity of foreign ports	206.16KB
	Comparative characteristics of the throughput capacity of Russian ports. Analysis of throughput capacity of foreign ports. Features of the development of ports in various sea basins. Analysis of the competitiveness of Russian seaports based on foreign experience...
19521.		Political Regimes	38.34KB
	The term authoritarianism was introduced into scientific circulation by the theorists of the Frankfurt School of neo-Marxism and meant a certain set of social characteristics inherent in both political culture and public consciousness in general. There are 2 definitions of authoritarianism; authoritarianism as a socio-political system based on the subordination of the individual to the state or its leaders. authoritarianism as a social attitude or personality trait characterized by the belief that strict and unconditional allegiance must exist in society ...
1948.		The main modes of movement of the mechanism	597.11KB
	From this conclusion it follows that the increment of kinematic energy per cycle does not occur and the angular velocity at the beginning and end of the cycle is the same. For a dynamic model: Then, using the equation of the theorem on the change in kinetic energy, we can write: with a sufficient degree of accuracy Neglecting small values and terms with these values, t. from this kinematic...

There are two forms of state government that are quite close in their essence - authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But there is a difference between them, and a significant one at that. What are these political phenomena?

What is authoritarianism?

Under authoritarianism refers to a political regime in which the state is ruled by one person or a relatively small group of people with minimal restrictions on powers. Nominally, they can refer to any particular branch of government - executive (most often) or legislative.

Authoritarian rule is exercised without significant control by society or other branches of government. Therefore, the formation of the relevant bodies or the appointment of the head of state occurs by non-democratic methods - through the administrative resource or still in the elections, but with falsifiable results. There is no real political opposition in the country. The activities of the power structures are carried out in the interests of the ruling circles.

At the same time, significant economic freedoms can be observed under authoritarianism. The authorities are able to offer private business favorable conditions for development, not to form significant bureaucratic barriers for the registration and entry of new enterprises into the market. This is understandable: authoritarian rulers are interested in large tax revenues. The more active the business, the more intensive the payments to the budget are. However, authoritarian authorities can (and usually with impunity) intervene in the affairs of big business- up to the forcible appropriation of the assets of enterprises.

Quite a lot of attention is paid to solving social problems - such as the payment of pensions, support for the needy, and the development of education. Moderately active social activity is allowed - the main thing is that it should not be connected with politics. The official ideology under authoritarianism, as a rule, is not imposed. Authoritarian power is interested in the stability of its positions, in that citizens do not express dissatisfaction with the current political system - therefore, special attention can be paid to social policy.

What is totalitarianism?

Totalitarianism- this is a political regime in which power is also concentrated in the hands of one person or a narrow group of persons, acting with minimal restrictions in terms of authority. However, the appointment of the head of state or the ruling elite is carried out exclusively by undemocratic methods. People get to the appropriate positions as a result of behind-the-scenes games at the level of the highest echelons of power or as a result of armed coups. As a rule, under totalitarianism there is no pronounced separation of powers. If it is, then it is nominal.

Totalitarianism is similar to authoritarianism in terms of the closeness of political processes from society. However, it is distinguished by a more pronounced penetration of the state into social processes. If under authoritarianism, as we noted above, an official ideology is usually not formed and implanted, then such an ideology necessarily accompanies totalitarianism. Disobedience to her is punishable. Public activity of citizens outside the official ideology is extremely limited.

As well as entrepreneurship - in a totalitarian state it can be banned altogether or allowed in the form in which very few people express their willingness to do business. It becomes more profitable to get a job.

At the same time, the standard of living in a totalitarian state is, as a rule, quite acceptable for the majority of its inhabitants. The authorities are more or less concerned about social equality, income security, employment, financial support for those in need. Therefore, the likelihood of dissatisfaction with the current political system is very low.

Comparison

The main difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that the first form of government does not involve significant interference of the authorities in social and economic processes. Under full control - only the political system of the country. Under totalitarianism, power controls, in turn, all types of institutions - political, social, economic.

Totalitarianism and authoritarianism are forms of government that can from time to time approach each other according to some signs or, conversely, move away. The fact is that both of them are characterized by an unlimited concentration of power in the hands of individuals. The political factor in this case is primary in relation to the social and economic. In the presence of completeness of power, the government can always create an economy and society that is “convenient” for itself - with a greater or lesser set of freedoms.

Table

Authoritarianism	Totalitarianism
What do they have in common?
Power is formed by non-democratic methods, concentrated in the hands of one person or a narrow group of persons with a wide range of powers, whose activities are not accountable to citizens
Authoritarianism can flow into totalitarianism and vice versa - depending on the interest of the ruling circles in the liberalization of entrepreneurial and social activities of citizens or, on the contrary, in tightening control over these areas
What is the difference between them?
The ruling elite controls only the political sphere	The ruling elite controls all institutions - political, social, economic
Community groups allowed (outside politics)	Public initiatives of citizens are mostly prohibited
No official ideology	There is an official ideology
Private business allowed	Entrepreneurial activity is prohibited or may be carried out with significant restrictions

One of differences connected with the understanding of the purpose, the historical purpose of the regime . Totalitarianism is associated with a utopian idea. Authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, do not set the task of a radical, revolutionary reorganization of society. Their goal is to fulfill a specific task, namely, to lead the country out of the historical impasse.

If in a totalitarian society universal control and violence are established, then authoritarianism implies the existence of areas of public life that are inaccessible to state control. The principle of a totalitarian society is "what is ordered by the authorities is allowed," and of an authoritarian society - "what is not related to politics is allowed."

In a totalitarian society, there is systematic terror against opponents, and in an authoritarian society, tactics of selective terror are carried out, aimed at preventing the emergence of opposition.

AT In a totalitarian society, omnipotence is required from the authorities, and obedience and modesty from the people (“keep your head down”). Under authoritarianism, competence is required from the authorities, and obedience and professionalism from the people.

General

The desire to exclude political opposition (if any) from the process of articulating political positions and making decisions;

The desire to use force in resolving conflict situations and the lack of democratic mechanisms for monitoring the exercise of power;

The desire to take control of all potentially oppositional public institutions - the family, traditions, interest groups, the media and communications, etc.;

The relatively weak rootedness of power in society and the resulting desire and, at the same time, the inability of the regime to subordinate society to comprehensive control;

Permanent, but most often not very effective search by the regime for new sources of power (traditions and charisma of the leader) and a new ideology capable of uniting the elite and society;

The relative closeness of the ruling elite, which is combined with the presence of disagreements within it and groups fighting for power.

34. Totalitarian political regime: formation conditions and characteristics.

Totalitarian regime- this is a political regime that seeks to establish absolute (total) control over various aspects of the life of each person and society as a whole.

Signs of a totalitarian regime:

› the state strives for global dominance over all spheres of public life, for all-encompassing power;

› society is almost completely alienated from political power, but it does not realize this; in the political consciousness, the idea of "unity", "fusion" of power and people is formed; monopoly state control over the economy, the media, culture, religion, up to personal life, to the motives of people's actions;

› absolute "legal", or rather anti-legal, regulation of social relations, which is based on the principle "only what is expressly permitted by law is allowed";

› state power is formed in a bureaucratic way, through channels closed to society, surrounded by an impenetrable wall and inaccessible to control by the people;

› violence, coercion, terror becomes the dominant method of management;

› the dominance of one party, the actual merging of its professional apparatus with the state, the prohibition of opposition-minded forces;

› the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are of a declarative, formal nature, there are no strong guarantees for their implementation;

› the economic basis is large property: state, monopoly, communal;

› the presence of one official ideology, pluralism is actually eliminated; centralization of state power in the hands of the dictator and his entourage;

› the impossibility of control by society over the activities of repressive state bodies;

› state power is exercised at its own discretion, arbitrariness, without taking into account the opinion of the majority, in contradiction with democratic mechanisms, norms and institutions.

AT as conditions for the formation of totalitarianism, the following are distinguished: a sharp breakdown of established structures, the marginalization of various social groups; destruction or absence of spheres of activity of civil society; the emergence of modern media; deformation of political consciousness; the absence of democratic traditions, the predisposition of the mass public consciousness to violent methods of resolving issues; accumulation of state experience in solving social problems by mobilizing the multi-million masses of the population; availability of opportunities for creating an extensive apparatus of repression and violence.

Authoritarian (from Latin "autoritas" - power) regime- the state-political structure of society, in which political power is exercised by a specific person (class, party, elite group) with minimal participation of the people. The main characteristic of this regime is authoritarianism as a method of ruling and management, as well as a kind of social relations.

Character traits.

♦ concentration of power in the hands of a political leader or certain persons;

♦ the state has only key levers of influence on public life;

♦ restriction and strict regulation of political rights and political behavior both individual citizens and socio-political organizations;

♦ the absence of a huge repressive apparatus;

♦ allowing citizens everything that is not prohibited by the state;

♦ the presence of certain elements of democracy (elections, parliamentary struggle).

Authoritarian regime occurs in countries where there is a change in the social system, accompanied by a sharp polarization of political forces; in countries where there are long economic and political crises, overcoming which by democratic means becomes impossible. In the second half of the 20th century, authoritarian regimes arose in a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America that had liberated themselves from colonialism.

36. Democratic political regime: characteristic features, conditions of functioning.

Democratic regime - this is a way of functioning of the political system of society, based on the recognition of the people as the main source of power, on their right to participate in solving public and state affairs and endowing citizens with a wide range of rights and freedoms.

Character traits.

election of representative bodies of state power and local self-government through universal, equal and direct elections by secret ballot;

the existence of the exclusive right of Parliament to issue national laws;

separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches with a mechanism of checks and balances in relations between them;

multi-party system, the presence in the party system of political parties, both standing on the basis of the existing system, and denying it, but operating within the framework of the constitution;

making political decisions by the majority while respecting the interests and rights of the minority;

the absence of direct public-power relations among political parties.

Conditions for the functioning of a democratic regime.

› the presence of a system of control by civil society over the activities of state bodies and the state apparatus;

› lack of a system of privileges associated with the possession of power;

› availability of opportunities and conditions for timely and complete political information of citizens;

› availability of a simplified procedure for recalling deputies and changing officials;

› guarantees of equality of citizens, recognition of the right of every person to criticize the authorities and any of its representatives.

The Democratic Regime Works Effectively only in case that if citizens have the right and conditions to independently make decisions on political issues and oppose the actions of the authorities if these actions do not satisfy their interests.

37. State: essence, common features, structure and functions. Customs Code of the Russian Federation on customs authorities as a state institution.

State- This is a political community that has a certain structure, organization of political power and management of social processes in a certain territory. The state is the most important institution of the political system. Significance the state is defined by the maximum concentration in its hands of power and resources, allowing it to effectively and decisively influence social change.

signs states:

1. the presence of public power, isolated from society and not coinciding with the population of the country, materialized in specific coercive institutions and extending to the entire territory of the country and to all persons located there (the state necessarily has an apparatus of control and coercion, for public power is officials, the army , police, prisons);

2. a system of taxes, taxes, loans (necessary for the material support of state policy: economic, social, defense, for the maintenance of the state apparatus, people who do not produce material values and are engaged only in managerial activities);

3. territorial division of the population (the state unites by its power and protection all the people inhabiting its territory, regardless of belonging to any clan or tribe, religion);

4. sovereignty (supremacy inherent in the state on its territory and independence in international relations);

5. law (the state cannot exist without law, since the latter legally formalizes state power and thereby makes it legitimate, determines the legal framework and forms for exercising the functions of the state);

6. monopoly on the legal use of force, physical coercion (the ability to deprive citizens of the highest values, which are life and freedom, determines the special effectiveness of state power).

Structure states

On the division of power:

the system of legislative (representative) institutions; executive and administrative bodies; judicial authorities.

By function.

Bodies implementing domestic features:

Law enforcement, security (police, court, prosecutor's office);

Socio-economic regulation (financial and tax apparatus, communications, utilities, transport;

Spiritual production (institutions of education, culture, information agencies).

Bodies implementing external features:- armed forces; - intelligence service;

Bodies of interstate relations.

State functions- these are the main directions of the state's activity in solving the tasks facing it. The state performs a number of functions that distinguish it from other political institutions. They are divided into internal and external.

Internal functions : economic; social; organizational; legal; political; educational; cultural and educational.

economic function the state is expressed in the organization, coordination, regulation of economic processes with the help of tax and credit policies, creating incentives for economic growth or the implementation of sanctions.

social function consists in meeting the needs of people in work, housing, maintaining health; in providing social guarantees to the elderly, disabled, unemployed, youth; in life, property and health insurance.

legal function includes the provision of law and order, the establishment of legal norms that regulate social relations and the behavior of citizens, the protection of the social system from the destructive actions of extremists.

Cultural and educational function aimed at creating conditions for "satisfying the cultural needs of the population, familiarizing them with the achievements of world artistic culture, the possibility of self-realization in creativity.

political function of the state consists in providing political stability, exercising power, devising a policy that meets the needs and aspirations of the general population, or maintaining the political dominance of the possessing class.

ecological function. With the help of legislation, the state establishes a legal regime for rational use of natural resources, assumes obligations to its citizens to ensure a healthy, more normal living environment.

External functions - functions of mutually beneficial cooperation in the economic, social, technological, cultural, trade fields with other states, the function of protection against external threats - the defense of the country.

[Customs Code of the Russian Federation] [Chapter 39] [Article 401]

1. Customs authorities constitute a single federal centralized system.

2. Bodies of state power of the subjects of the Russian Federation, bodies of local self-government, public associations may not interfere in the activities of customs authorities in the exercise of their functions.

Similar information.