«Well said is half a lie». Observations on Jörg Baberowski's «Criticism as Crisis, or why the Soviet Union still Collapsed»
«Well said is half a lie». Observations on Jörg Baberowski's «Criticism as Crisis, or why the Soviet Union still Collapsed»
复制标题
“说得好，半是谎言”。对约尔格·巴贝罗夫斯基的《作为危机的批评，或苏联为何仍然解体》的观察。
DOI：
10.17104/1611-8944_2011_3_289
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
Manfred Hildermeier
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Manfred Hildermeier
在过去的几年里，约尔格·巴贝罗夫斯基为关于东欧的学术辩论引入了一种新的基调。在一系列精心撰写的文章中，他挑战了支撑多数派观点的一些受人喜爱的假设，并提出了一些令人惊讶、甚至可以说是挑衅的论点。然而，在这个过程中，他倾向于将自己的论点推向极限，他的直言不讳并不是每个人都喜欢的。这可能有助于它们的传播，但它也带来了相当大的片面性的危险，打破了可核实的东西的界限。人们可能同意讨论中的文章中的几乎所有论点，归根结底是对第二次世界大战后几十年苏联行政和社会秩序的简短介绍性描述，包括其运作机制和愿望与现实之间的典型差异。这些论点反映了在后苏联时代形成的共识，当时几乎没有任何捍卫者发表自己的意见。1只有少数读者可能拒绝赞同其中一些主张的笼统基调以及它们与所谓的制度特点相联系的方式。人们不一定同意“货物或特权的权利”与“提供的服务”无关的说法，并认为这保证了旧的“赞助制度”的不间断存在，而这一制度在斯大林时期特别突出。可以说，这种尖锐的观察大大低估了竞争的重要性--尤其是在一个职业发展主要依赖于垄断政党成员身份的社会，在斯大林去世后，该政党的新领导人重新开放了队伍。我们可以补充一句，1953年的分裂确实比那些继续支持“极权主义”等术语的人所隐含的假设更深。无论谁在意识形态或模式的基础上行事，都很容易忽视已知的破坏曼弗雷德·希尔德迈尔(Manfred Hildermeier)“说得好是半个谎言”对约尔格·巴贝罗夫斯基(Jörg Baberowski)“批评为危机，或为什么苏联仍然解体”的看法的差异。
Over the last few years, Jörg Baberowski has introduced a new tone into the scholarly debate over Eastern Europe. In a series of well-formulated essays he has challenged some pet assumptions underlying the majority view and advanced some surprising, not to say provocative, arguments. He is, however, inclined to push his arguments to the limit in the process, and his bluntness is not to everyone’s taste. This may contribute to their dissemination, but it also carries with it the danger of considerable one-sidedness, pushing the envelope of what is verifiable. It is possible to agree with almost all of the arguments in the essay under discussion, which boils down to a brief introductory characterisation of the Soviet administrative and social order in the decades following the Second World War, including its functional mechanisms and the typical discrepancy between aspiration and reality. These arguments reflect the consensus that had developed in post-Soviet times, when there were barely any defenders to voice their opinions.1 Only a handful of readers may refuse to go along with the sweeping tone of some of these claims and the way they are linked with alleged peculiarities of the system. One must not necessarily agree with the claim that «entitlement to goods or privileges» stood in no relation to «services rendered», and that this guaranteed the unbroken existence of the old «system of patronage», which had been particularly prominent under Stalin. Arguably this trenchant observation substantially underestimates the importance of competition – particularly in a society where career advancement depended chiefly on membership of a monopolist party whose new leaders had reopened the ranks following the death of Stalin. We might add that the rupture in 1953 was indeed deeper than is implicitly assumed by those who continue to subscribe to terms such as «totalitarian». Whoever proceeds on the basis of ideologies or models can easily overlook differentiations known to undermine the value of such Manfred Hildermeier «Well said is half a lie» Observations on Jörg Baberowski’s «Criticism as Crisis, or why the Soviet Union still Collapsed»