The significance and consequences of vanguardism for democracy

An element of mistrust is an integral part of liberal democracy, which is based on the doctrine of constitutional law on the sharing of power, in which the executive, legislative and judicial authorities are kept separate.

This is the system of controls and balances, where each branch is given certain governmental control, executive or congressional powers - to control potential violations of power from the other branches.

Therefore, democracy is about limiting power to protect rights.

The aim of my blog, however, is to claim that the introduction of socialist 'democracy' in the Soviet Union and communist Eastern Europe played rather abstractly, as in reality it only drowned in ideological nonsense with a clear goal of deceiving the masses and legitimizing dictatorship and poverty. / P>

Socialism, Vanguardism and Democracy

There was no clear definition of socialism in the constitutions of the Soviet Union or its Eastern European satellites. [1]

Soviet history reveals that those who practiced 'democratic centralism' exploited the ambiguity of the concept of socialism to convey the true meaning of democracy. [2]

The scientific inevitability of the proletarian revolution, predicted by Karl Marx in his social theory of evolution, was not realized during Marx's lifetime, and the Russian Revolution of 1905 was a failure. The masses began to doubt his scientific laws, which in advance could not be called scientific unless they were materialized.

However, devout Marxists believed that ideology was not to blame:it was rather "the inability of a majority whose attitudes [had] been" distorted "by a" degraded "society to realize in thought or deed its full human potential." [3]

Despite the classical Marxist definition of the formation of socialist consciousness as a natural and organic product that had to arise from the proletarian involvement in the class struggle, Vladimir Lenin concluded that those who had been 'infected' by capitalism could not have been morally revived except from a vanguard-led revolution. [4]

Vanguard was to decide what had to be done to lead the liberation of the masses away from their sufferings caused by the industrial revolution and capitalism.

However, why should the rule of an enlightened vanguard be considered democratic?

It should be noted that Marxists saw society as a business entity, and not as a random collection of independent individuals. [5] They believed that in a classless post-revolutionary society it was necessary to create a unified popular consciousness that could have transcended the actual thoughts of only individuals. [6]

This belief is reminiscent of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's view of the "general will", which argued that diversity of opinion arose "only when individuals lost sight of the public and pursued their own private interests." [7]

Rousseau distinguished between

the 'general will', which is constant and pure,
and 'everyone's will', which is no more than a sum of 'certain', selfish wills. [8]

The former exists independently of one's desire, and it indicates the true state of the event:"it is the 'real', moral will of the individual, as opposed to his or her arbitrary (selfish) will." [9]

It follows that by submitting to the 'general will', one liberates oneself by attaining a 'higher self'.

Thus, according to Rousseau, freedom and observance meet in the selfless achievement of common good. And if an individual resists submission to the 'general will', he may rightly be 'forced to be free' by a 'superior intelligence' and bound to abide by his pure and natural self. [10]

Leninist contribution to Marxist thinking

Like Rousseau, Lenin was a moralist who aimed to free the masses from their selfish nature and the harmful effects of their disruptive social environments. [11]

The vanguard, like Rousseau's 'superior intelligence', was thus to determine the 'true' (as opposed to the selfish) will of the people.

This view may seem deeply undemocratic.

How does the vanguard know what the 'true' will of the people is to force upon them?

For Marxists, history was an answer, since it provided its own objective recommendations, progressive solutions, and unified "'what is' and 'what should be'." [12]

The Marxist laws thus inscribed socialism in the historical process - the scientific inevitability of the proletarian revolution, which was to trigger in response to the long-term capitalist exploitation.

Thus, socialism was an objective necessity, and as such it meant the indisputable truth and how people should have lived.

Marxist laws thus legitimized Lenin's view that the vanguard could have assumed the 'objective' interests of the workers without actually asking for their opinion. [13]

Since the validity of a scientific theory is free from the notion of how many people actually accept it, Lenin decided to wonder why revolutionaries had to take into account the spontaneous perception of ordinary people. For example, on a passenger plane, no one argues that the pilot should submit navigation questions to the passenger's democratic critique, for these are technical concerns that require appropriate knowledge. [14]

Like pilots on passenger planes, revolutionary scientists (the Marxist-Leninist) had technical knowledge of the solution to proletarian suffering.

Thus, they were the arbitrators of 'objective truth', and therefore it was up to them to discover the 'real' interests of the people and thus their 'real' will.

Lenin believed that if proletariats were perfectly 'rational' and not 'infected' by capitalist tendencies, they would have understood Marxism as the most natural or appropriate for their material situation. [15] But since capitalism downgraded them to "belly dummies, lacking a real voice of their own" [16], freedom had to be imposed on them.

Although the Western interpretation of democracy is based on the rule of the majority, the Russian view was therefore based on the interests of the majority:"Not government of the people, but government of the people" [17], which did not require their consent.

The Consequences of Vanguardism

However, Lenin and his followers have clearly overused their duties as a frontrunner for communism.

The liberal, democratic principles, such as competition, freedom of expression, and majority rule, now seemed worthless if the interests of the people could be defined by revolutionary scientists, ordained by 'history'.

But what was seen in the West as a clear abandonment of democracy, the Marxist-Leninist portrayed as a higher form of democracy — that is, a democracy that was above "venal and rotten parliamentarism." [18]

It should be noted, however, that Karl Marx opposed the introduction of constitutional restrictions on collective action. [19] He did not call for 'revolution from above', and by talking about activists who were to impart to the proletarians a scientific understanding of the historical process, he did not suggest the establishment of a vanguard. [20]

He proclaimed:"the liberation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, that the struggle for the liberation of the working classes does not mean a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties and the abolition of all class rule." [21]

Therefore, he did not envision a post-revolutionary dictatorship of a minority ruling in the name of the proletariat.

Reality, however, has become the manipulation of Marxist intellectual elitism by Marxist-Leninist populism. The latter's populist strategic goal was to ensure the regime's endurance "by preserving bourgeois apathy, inhibiting mobilization and legitimizing the" scientific "approach to governing the communist nomenclature." [22]

The Communist Party as a new vanguard

In the revolutionary period after 1917, the Communist Party became "the vanguard of the proletariat, able to seize power and lead the whole people to socialism [...], to be a teacher, guide, leader" [23] of the proletariat.

This was a key feature that separated the communist from the socialist parties. [24]


Constitution of the Soviet Union (Constitution). There were three versions of the Constitution of the Soviet Union that applied from January 31, 1924 to December 26, 1991. On the surface, the Soviet constitutions were similar to those adopted in the West, but the differences between the two have greatly overshadowed their similarities. "Soviet constitutions served primarily as a means of legalizing and justifying the one-party state and totalitarian rule of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). The latter two Soviet constitutions declared the CPSU's 'leading role' in government and society. Many constitutional rights were not respected, citizens openly because of the widespread political oppression and purges in the Soviet Union.Citizens had no recourse if the state did not respect its rights because Soviet law emphasized economic and social rights over civil and political rights.Legally suppressed constitutional rights by designing laws that suit their needs, or invalidate them by contradicting other Soviet laws. The Constitution of the Soviet Union was effectively repealed by the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991. " Credits:Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library, https://www.prlib.ru

As a vanguard, the party took complete control of everything, including human rights.

The rights were not upheld, even though the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens were emphasized in all Soviet constitutions, and despite Stalin's proclamation that the Soviet constitution not only proclaimed equality for human beings, "but also ensured it by legislative implementation. to the fact that the exploitation regime [had] been abolished, to the fact that the inhabitants [had] been liberated from all exploitation. "[25]

Under Soviet law, it was impossible to appeal to any court to uphold its rights by simply referring to the norms of the Constitution:in order to have such a lawsuit accepted for review, it was necessary to refer to specific legislative acts. [26] If such acts were absent, the constitutional rights became mere decorations. [27]

It was believed that since proletarian democracy was for the majority of the population and "the necessary oppression of the exploiters" [28] was to be forced to 'crush', there was no need for civil liberties or human rights. Moreover, "since the 'general will' is the individual 'real' will, [had] no meaning in the notion that individuals should [have] been [protected] from it through constitutional limitations." [29]

The masses were thus taught that while the capitalist government defined each freedom "as a guarantee of the freedom of all, the socialist government guaranteed the freedom of all as a guarantee of the freedom of each individual." [30] Therefore, the rights rest with the party and not with the people. , and communist leaders gave 'rights' instead of recognizing them.

Democracy was further limited by the Marxist notion of homogeneity in a classless society:since there would have been no separate class of the prosperous bourgeoisie, who exploited the working class, all people would have developed equal interests throughout society. [31]

Per Marxists, the parties always represented the antagonistic interests of social classes, and therefore there was no need for multi-party systems in the homogeneous post-revolutionary society. [32] Therefore, the popular will should be built into a simple, unchallenged party. The party became 'polymorphic', since it took many forms, including the 'state', which became inseparable from it. [33]

Organization of Communist Parties

All communist parties were organized on the basis of democratic centralism, which was defined by the collective leadership, periodic elections of all central party bodies, strict party discipline and "the absolute binding force in the decisions of the higher bodies for the lower bodies and members." [34]

The parties were structured in a pyramidal way, where the lower levels (primary / base party organizations) were organized in workplaces, while the higher levels were structured on a geographical basis - in the villages, towns or regions. [35]

The party had five general functions:goal setting, goal achievement, socialization, recruitment and affiliation. [36]

1) The goal setting function

The party's objective function was to maintain the said vanguard role by not only telling the masses "where they [should], but also which way they [should] go" [37] through the establishment of general guidelines.

The driving force for such an objective was provided by the Politburo and approved by the Central Committee and the Congress.

2) The socialization function

The party's socializing function was the imprinting of Marxist-Leninist ideas [38] - that is, the promotion of various indoctrination campaigns aimed at generating "indisputable conformity with official values." [39]

For example, students were encouraged to be more aware of the collective by reprimanding each other for misconduct, as well as being forced to learn facts rather than ask questions. [40]

In addition to the compulsory study of Marxism-Leninism, even the non-political subjects such as mathematics or life sciences were taught in a way that would bring these subjects closer to the official culture. [41]


Radio was used as one of the most central propaganda tools to gain support from illiterates. Radio receivers were placed in common places where the poor and illiterate could gather to hear the news. Credits:Parcast, https://www.parcast.com


The Communist Party suppressed all newspapers that opposed it, and kept unfavorable events in the Soviet Union, such as crimes against humanity, ie massacres, famines and nuclear disasters, from being published. Credits:Parcast, https://www.parcast.com

Furthermore, the media was also highly censored by the party, with far less sensational news broadcasts, which mainly portrayed domestic events in the positive light that was meant to portray how well the party did, while alternative sources of information, such as Western newspapers, were extremely difficult to obtain. i. [42]

It should come as no surprise that socialization campaigns were even stricter against party members, as it was expected that vanguards would show much greater knowledge of and commitment to Marxism-Leninism.

3) The link function

The party's connecting function was to introduce changes in order to retain the support of those who had favored it, as well as to receive support from younger generations. [43]

In fact, communist leaders could not simply ignore the Marxist goal of "self-governing workers through mass participation in the day - to - day activities of politics." [44] for them as consumers.

Thus the party began to function more in a bi- than in its former one-way way by not only conveying populist slogans from the leadership to the people, but also by demonstrating a greater willingness to listen to people and to discover what made them dissatisfied with the regime. [45]

In fact, just listening to people's complaints tended to make these people more favorable to the regime. Moreover, Communist leaders reassured responders to these complaints "in their belief that they enjoyed a spiritual communion with the masses." [46]

Participation in communist systems thus encompasses two main forms:direct involvement and voting in elections. [47]


Deputies of the First Soviet (Workers 'Council), 1905. The first Workers' Council was formed in May 1905 in Ivanovo, Russia, during the Russian Revolution of 1905. "In 1905, when the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) increased the burden on Russian industrial production, the workers began to strike and revolt, representing an autonomous labor movement, one that broke free from government oversight of labor unions and played a major role in the Russian Revolution of 1905. The Soviets sprang up through the industrial centers of Russia, and They usually disappeared after the revolution in 1905, but reappeared under socialist leadership after the revolution in 1917. The Soviets emerged as inclusive bodies for leading workers, organizing strikes, and for fighting politically and militarily the government of the Russian Empire mainly. through direct action, with the main actors as non-totalitarian leftists, including the socialist revolution sionaries and anarchists. " Credits:Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org

For example, village councils and workers' councils allowed ordinary citizens to express their views on the effectiveness of local administrations. [48]
- To be sure, Communist parties sought out popular complaints and suggestions only as long as they did not challenge official policy. [49]
  
  Credits:dreamstime, https://www.dreamstime.com

Despite the fact that voters could have voted against this list, only a small fraction of the population (less than one percent) had enough courage to do so. [51]
- Ironically, this "undisputed communist hegemony made fundamental opposition to the party program unthinkable." [52]
In general, elections reinforced "verticality", as they had no bearing on politics or important questions about who should have been elected. Instead, they served three main purposes:
1. providing a public display of the regime's legitimacy,
2. crucial pedagogical and propaganda tool, "provides a golden opportunity to emphasize the party's wisdom and achievements" [53],
3. and the evidence of an unaffected control system. [54]
Therefore, while Western elections were designed to guarantee the government from below, communist elections strengthened the government from the top:not participation in policy formulation, but in its implementation and celebration.

4) Recruitment function

The party's recruitment function was assigned to the party itself and to all important positions in society. [55]


The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) (or the Soviet Communist Party (SCP)), was the founding and governing political party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU was the only governing party in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1990, when the Congress of the Folketing amended Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution of 1977, which had previously given the CPSU a monopoly on the political system. Credits:Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org

In order to join a communist party, the application, accompanied by recommendations from three party members for at least two to five years, had to be sent to the party organization at primary / base level. [56]

If the basic organization approved the application, it went to the committee at the next party level for ratification,

The Communist Party in the USSR membership card.
Credits:Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org

which, upon further approval, guaranteed the applicant's access to the party. [57]
However, a new member did not obtain full membership rights, such as the right to vote, since he was first carefully assessed during the trial period to see if he paid dues, attended meetings regularly and did not overdo excessive alcohol consumption. [58]
Only after the candidate met all the above criteria, the ratification of full membership was completed by the basic organization and the committee at the next level. [59]
Membership did not automatically extend for life, since the behavior of party members was constantly examined and less satisfactory members could not have received a new card or been reduced to candidate status again. [60]


Overall effect of Stalin's purges on department heads and ambassadorial posts (100% =65). Credits:Jstor, https://www.jstor.org

It should be noted that most members were not self-motivated since they were contacted by the party.

For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, most of the Eastern European countries called for 'repoletarization' of the communist parties, as many leaders wanted to demonstrate that they were not too far from the masses, and aimed to prevent them from growing political power for technical intelligence. [61]
By appearing to be pursuing a policy of encouraging more proletarians to join, the party maintained its populist agenda, while removing opposition.
- It was clear that the policy of repolarization was more for show than a serious goal, since the party member would probably be guaranteed for those who were further up the social hierarchy, as the party would consist of the 'best' members of society:
  - In the Soviet Union, over 99 percent of industry leaders were party members, which was a far higher proportion than working class party membership. [62]
- Moreover, there was "remarkably little of a truly proletarian aspect to the appeals of communism between the Eastern Wars in Eastern Europe" [63], as more and more communist parties began to consist mainly of the middle class and disillusioned sections of national intelligentsia dedicated more to agitation against the dominant political elites / ideologies rather than for the effective leadership of a proletarian movement. [64]
- As the opposition was systematically torn down, persuasion became less useful as opposed to naked coercion, paving the way for a new 'cleansing' era, reducing the Communist parties to the blindly loyal and obedient who lacked critical thinking and imagination. [65] Thus, [the parties] had really been Stalinized instead of being purified in the sense of becoming truly proletarian. [66]
- Orders of terror have really played an important role, as previous examples from history proved that communist parties, which were built on this model, immediately become vulnerable and can easily disintegrate when the curbs of terrorism are used. [67]


Members of the Politburo Central Committee, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, USSR, 1986. They filled the basic nomenclature posts. Credits:Reddit, https://www.reddit.com

The party was not only responsible for the selection and placement of top party cadres, but also ensured that each central state and social organizational position was occupied by the most appropriate candidate through the nomenclature system. [68]

Therefore, the party was responsible for filling all important positions in society:both appointed and elected.
- In fact, all election candidates first had to be approved by the Communist Party, while the top national leaders had already reserved parliamentary seats and resisted. [69]
At each party level, the committee had two lists of posts:the basic nomenclature and the 'registration and supervision nomenclature. [70]
- The basic nomenclature was a list of the most important items, such as central party, state and education items. [71]
  - Thus, those who wanted to climb the career ladder had to be extremely reliable and politically loyal.
- The Registration and Supervision Nomenclature was a list of lower-status posts, such as Deputy Managers and Directors of Small Factories. [72]
  - The party was not directly involved in appointing people to such positions with lower status, but the departments in the party committee had to be informed about and approve the appointments to these positions.
  - This list was thus a kind of reserve of cadres for further marketing to the basic nomenclature. [73]


"Hver posisjon i" kapitalismens pyramide "ble ganske enkelt erstattet av en kommunistisk ekvivalent. Konger ble erstattet av sekretærer og formenn, presteskap erstattet av propagandaministre og de borgerlige erstattet av medlemmer av partiet. Å opprettholde kontrollen over en regjering krever en strøm av belønninger til ens etterfølgere. De som støtter regimet får mer enn de som ikke gjør det, og da er du tilbake til ulikhet. Å skape likestilling gjennom vold er selvtapende. Evnen til vold er ikke en kropp som ikke er kroppsløs, den krever grupper av mennesker som er villige til å bruke den. De må være motiverte og kontrollerte, og det krever hierarki. ” Studiepoeng:Azmytheconomics, https://azmytheconomics.wordpress.com

Det skal påpekes at så kompliserte rekrutteringsprosedyrer også har skapt en diskusjon i Vesten om kommunistpartienes elitære karakter.[74]

Siden partene var så vanskelige å bli med, ble de faktisk eksklusive organisasjoner.
Vanligvis hadde partimedlemmene et høyere gjennomsnittlig utdanningsnivå sammenlignet med befolkningen generelt, og derfor var funksjonærene sterkt overrepresentert.[75]
Ironisk nok var eller var populister selv, som fortsatte å bruke anti-elite-anmodninger for å delegitimere motstanderne, eliten som "de har kommet for å representere selve etablissementet de angrep."[76]
- Partimedlemmer utgjorde en økonomisk elite siden gjennomsnittsinntekten var langt over gjennomsnittlig gjennomsnittlig inntekt for befolkningen generelt, og de pleide å nyte et stort antall privilegier, for eksempel tilgang til spesialbutikker og retten til å reise utenlands som ikke var tilgjengelig for resten.[77]
- Som politiske eliter hadde partimedlemmene langt mer makt til å påvirke fattingen av viktige beslutninger enn noen annen gruppe, siden de viktigste beslutningsorganene ble fylt av dem.
  - Det skal også bemerkes at det var en hierarkisk inndeling i et parti i profesjonelle partifunksjonærer på heltid (apparatchiki), som inntok nøkkelposisjonene i et parti og dermed hadde mye mer innflytelse, og det vanlige partiet (rang-and-file) ) medlemmer.[78]
  - Apparatchiki var dermed elite i eliten, siden de likte de fleste privilegier og dominerte fyllingsprosessen for nomenklatura -innleggene.[79] Dette var menneskene som virkelig likte monopol på administrasjonen av parti og stat.[80]
- Derfor, uavhengig av de faktiske konstitusjonelle bestemmelsene, hadde kommunistiske eliter (og spesielt apparatchiki) reelle og eksklusive krefter.
- Imidlertid var det en pris å betale, ettersom kommunistiske fortropper blindt måtte underkaste seg sovjetiske direktiver, kunne de aldri anses å være i "ekte" kontakt med massene, mens "lydighet, disiplin og rituell utførelse av byråkratiske oppgaver fått en eksepsjonell ”[81]
  - For å utvide ekspertene, i stedet for å rekruttere de dyktigste kandidatene ved universitetene, trakk kommunistpartiene hovedsakelig fra den kommunistiske ungdomsorganisasjonen byråkrati, og prioriterte dermed det politisk pålitelige til de objektivt mer kvalifiserte menneskene.[82]

5) Måloppnåelsesfunksjonen

Til slutt, som sin måloppnåelsesfunksjon, overtok partiet til og med den formelle funksjonen til statsmaskinens utførelse og implementering av politiske detaljer.[83]

I teorien måtte partiet imidlertid bare utøve kontroll (tilsyn), og det var derfor ikke meningen at det skulle være direkte engasjert i politikkimplementering.

Arbeidsfordelingen mellom partiet og staten var ment å garantere at partiet var ansvarlig for generelle politiske retningslinjer, kontroll og nomenklatura, mens staten var ansvarlig for lovgivning, som var basert på det generelle partiets retningslinjer, så vel som for administrasjon av implementering.[84]

Dermed var parti og stat ment å utfylle hverandre.

I stedet ble partitjenestemenn sterkt kritisert for å prøve å erstatte statlige tjenestemenn, siden det førte til uskarpe splittelser og personelloverlapping på alle myndighetsnivåer.[85]

: Studiepoeng:UI-nedlasting, https://www.uidownload.com/free-psd/rubber-stamp-logo-mockup-513572

For eksempel var sjefen for partiet ofte statsoverhode, og i noen kommunistiske land var sjefen for partiet også sjef for de væpnede styrkene.[86]
De fleste kommunistiske lovgivere har også blitt gummistempelorganer- enkle verktøy for automatisk ratifisering av partipolitikk.[87]
Videre var flertallet av statlige tjenestemenn også medlemmer av det kommunistiske partiet.
- Derfor ble det hevdet at staten i sin snevre forstand- det vil si atskilt fra partiet- var 'visnet bort'.[88]

Denne uttalelsen var i samsvar med den klassiske marxistiske prognosen som fastsatte at det ikke lenger ville være en distinkt statskaste over befolkningen generelt, siden staten ville vært underordnet folket og dermed ikke lenger over dem.[89]

Faktisk hevdet klassiske marxister at den moderne vestlige staten var et verktøy der den herskende klassen undertrykte befolkningen generelt.[90] De hevdet at i et klasseløst postrevolusjonært samfunn ville regjeringsfunksjoner ha blitt omgjort til enkle administrative funksjoner, varamedlemmer ville ha blitt betalt i arbeidernes lønn og hæren ville ha blitt erstattet av folks milits.[91]


Studiepoeng:Reddit, https://www.reddit.com

Til tross for noen uklarheter om Marx faktisk hevdet at staten nødvendigvis ville forsvinne, var han fast på at den undertrykkende staten ville forsvinne.[92]

Lenin så også på staten som et organ som eliten brukte for å holde andre klasser undertrykt.[93] Imidlertid hevdet han at i de tidlige stadiene etter den sosialistiske revolusjonen, "restene av det borgerlige statsmaskineriet"[94] måtte forbli, men nå under kontroll av proletariatet ('proletariatets diktatur').[95] Et slikt konsept betydde i hovedsak et gammelt statlig system som ble drevet av den nye og (midlertidige) eliten.

Dermed visnet staten i sin snevre forstand visstnok, mens den i sin brede forstand (sammen med partiet) ble styrket.

the conclusion

Marxismen hadde dermed uunngåelig unnlatt å lage en sammenhengende og troverdig demokratisk løsning.

Mens Marx selv tydelig håpet på noen aspekter av deltakende demokrati, frigjort fra de 'parasittiske' politikerne, med beskyttet privat sfære, personlig uavhengighet og meningsfrihet, foretrakk han også en sentralt planlagt, storstilt industriell økonomi.[96] Hans tilhengere innså umuligheten av å forene de to aspektene sammen og utviklet dermed en fortroppende oppfatning av demokrati, noe som betydde å lede arbeiderklassen vekk fra deres lidelser før de kunne ha fått den marxistiske klassebevisstheten til å kjempe for seg selv.

Nøye inspeksjon viser imidlertid at dette sosialistiske 'demokratiet' var en parodi- en dyp negasjon av alt som ekte demokrater står for.

Den sanne indre despotiske virkeligheten til totalitære regimer ble dermed innrømmet av utseendet til det tradisjonelle demokratiske antrekket, som valg, massemøter og representative forsamlinger.

Derfor var sosialistisk demokrati ikke annet enn et pseudodemokrati, "der ritualer knyttet til den demokratiske ideen ble bevart på overflaten, men gitt et autoritært innhold."[97]

Bibliografie

Bass, Robert. "Østeuropeiske kommunistiske eliter:deres karakter og historie." Journal of International Affairs 20, nr. 1 (1966):106–17. https://www.jstor.org.
Bustikova, Lenka. "Staten som firma:Forstå de eneveldige røttene til teknokratisk populisme." Østeuropeisk politikk og samfunn og kulturer 33, nr. 2 (mai 2019):302–30. https://journals-sagepub-com.
Chalidze, Valery. "Perestroika, sosialisme og grunnloven." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 506 (november 1989):98–108. https://www-jstor-org.
Femia, Joseph V. "Marxistisk demokrati?" I marxisme og demokrati, 68–142. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1993.
Holmes, Leslie. "Politisk kultur og sosialisering." I politikk i den kommunistiske verden, 76–95. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1986.
Holmes, Leslie. "Staten og valg." I politikk i den kommunistiske verden, 148–76. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1986.
Holmes, Leslie. "Festen." I politikk i den kommunistiske verden, 119–47. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1986.
Marx, Karl. "Generelle regler." For The International Workingmen's Association, 1864. https://www.marxists.org.
Stalin, Joseph V. "Om utkastet til grunnlov for Sovjetunionen" -rapport levert på den ekstraordinære åttende sovjetkongressen i Sovjetunionen, 25. november 1936. https://www.marxists.org.
Vaxberg, Arkady I. "Borgerrettigheter i Sovjetunionen." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 506 (november 1989):109–14. https://search-proquest-com.

Merknader:

[1] Valery Chalidze, "Perestroika, Socialism, and Constitution", The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 506 (november 1989):s. 98-108, https://www-jstor-org, 103.

[2] Chalidze, Ibid, 103.

[3] Joseph V. Femia, “Marxist Democracy ?,” in Marxism and Democracy (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1993), s. 68-142, 118.

[4] Femia, Ibid, 118.

[5] Femia, Ibid, 119.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Femia, Ibid, 120.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Femia, Ibid, 126.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Femia, Ibid, 127.

[15] Femia, Ibid, 121.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Femia, Ibid, 122.

[19] Femia, Ibid, 123.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Karl Marx, "Generelle regler", for The International Workingmen's Association, 1864, https://www.marxists.org.

[22] Lenka Bustikova, "Staten som et firma:Forstå de autokratiske røttene til teknokratisk populisme," Østeuropeisk politikk og samfunn og kulturer 33, nr. 2 (mai 2019):s. 302-330, https://journals-sagepub-com, 305.

[23] Femia, Ibid, 122.

[24] Leslie Holmes, "The Party", in Politics in the Communist World (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1986), s. 119-147, 130.

[25] Joseph V. Stalin, "Om utkastet til grunnlov for Sovjetunionen", rapport levert på den ekstraordinære åttende sovjetkongressen i Sovjetunionen, 25. november 1936, https://www.marxists.org.

[26] Arkady I. Vaxberg, "Civil Rights in the Soviet Union," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 506 (november 1989):s. 109-114, https://search-proquest-com, 111.

[27] Vaxberg, Ibid, 111.

[28] Femia, Ibid, 123.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Vaxberg, Ibid, 111.

[31] Femia, Ibid, 124.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 119.

[34] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 121.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 131.

[38] Holmes, "Politisk kultur og sosialisering", Ibid, 83.

[39] Holmes, "Politisk kultur og sosialisering", Ibid, 84.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Holmes, "Politisk kultur og sosialisering", Ibid, 83.

[42] Holmes, "Politisk kultur og sosialisering", Ibid, 84.

[43] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 140.

[44] Femia, Ibid, 130.

[45] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 140.

[46] Femia, Ibid, 134.

[47] Femia, Ibid, 130.

[48] Femia, Ibid, 131.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Femia, Ibid, 132.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Femia, Ibid, 133.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 131.

[56] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 132.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 133.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 134.

[63] Robert Bass, "Østeuropeiske kommunistiske eliter:deres karakter og historie," Journal of International Affairs 20, nr. 1 (1966):s. 106-117, https://www.jstor.org, 108.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Bass, Ibid, 111.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 134.

[69] Femia, Ibid, 132.

[70] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 135.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 136.

[74] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 141.

[75] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 143.

[76] Bustikova, Ibid, 307.

[77] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 143.

[78] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 144.

[79] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 145.

[80] Bass, Ibid, 112.

[81] Bass, Ibid, 109.

[82] Bass, Ibid, 114.

[83] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 131.

[84] Holmes, "Staten og valg", Ibid, 173.

[85] Holmes, "The Party", Ibid, 131.

[86] Holmes, "Staten og valg", Ibid, 174.

[87] Femia, Ibid, 132.

[88] Holmes, "Staten og valg", Ibid, 175.

[89] Holmes, "Staten og valg", Ibid, 149.

[90] Ibid.

[91] Ibid.

[92] Holmes, "Staten og valg", Ibid, 150.

[93] Ibid.

[94] Ibid.

[95] Ibid.

[96] Femia, Ibid, 141.

[97] Ibid.