This view holds that the Soviet Union was seriously divorced from the masses, and even when the flag of the Soviet Union was lowered at half mast, the masses were indifferent. "No one came out to defend the country and defend the country", which was the main reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
This is meaningless, but we can't simply say that "the Soviet Union disintegrated because it was divorced from the masses". There is no concept of time here, and it is easy to completely deny the 70-year history of the Soviet Union.
First of all, most Russians have now expressed their remorse for their "indifference" to the disintegration of the country. Several recent opinion polls in Russia show that more than 70% of Russians feel sorry for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Secondly, it is not accurate to say in general that "Su * * * is divorced from the masses". When did Sue break away from the masses? During Lenin's period, if the Soviet Union divorced from the masses, could the October Revolution win? Bolshevik Party won the broadest masses with the slogan of "peace, land and bread", while Menshevik and Social Revolutionary Party lost their support. Of course not during Stalin's time. At that time, without the flesh-and-blood ties between the Soviet Union and the people, we could have made achievements in industrialization and agricultural collectivization and won the anti-fascist war? Judging from summing up historical experience and lessons, the Soviet Union did make many even serious mistakes in governing for the people at that time, which harmed the interests of the masses and undermined the relationship between the party and the masses. However, on the whole, the policies pursued by the Soviet Union are basically in line with the interests of the Soviet people.
It was during Gorbachev's time that Sue really lost the support of the masses. Due to a series of wrong routes of the Soviet Union, the domestic economic situation deteriorated and ethnic contradictions were sharp ... People lost trust in the Soviet Union. Eventually lead to the disintegration of the country.
Therefore, the disintegration of the Soviet Union did have the factor of "the Soviet Union divorced from the masses", but it should be noted that this factor was most obvious during the Gorbachev period.
It is believed that the main reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union is ideological dogmatic understanding of Marxism. This view only covers one aspect of the problem, and the real ideological root of the disintegration of the Soviet Union lies in its betrayal of Marxism.
"The main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union lies in the dogmatic understanding and rigid thinking of Marxism in the ideological field and the lack of theoretical innovation", which is also widely circulated in the society at present. It can't be said that this view is wrong, but it seems to only cover one aspect of the problem. In the 70-year-old ideological circle of the Soviet Union, there was both the insistence and development of Marxism and the deviation from Marxist ideological trend. There are both dogmatic attitudes towards Marxism and dogmatic worship of western political and economic systems ... often all kinds of ideas are intertwined, and sometimes one tendency covers up the other. As for when and what trends prevail, it is necessary to analyze them in detail. All the ideological characteristics of the Soviet Union can never be summarized by a form of "dogmatism", let alone being the main reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The most obvious feature of the Soviet guiding ideology in Gorbachev's period was the betrayal and abandonment of Marxism–Leninism, which was embodied in the general line of "humane and democratic socialism" formulated by the 28th Congress of the Soviet Union, the revision of the Soviet Constitution, and the abolition of the leading position of the * * * production party and the guiding ideology of Marxism. Of course, there was also "dogmatism" in this period, which was mainly manifested in Gorbachev's dogmatic worship of the western political and economic system. Of course, the reform and opening up of socialist countries should absorb the beneficial experience and achievements of all mankind, including capitalist countries. But if we worship everything about capitalism without thinking, and even regard its dross as the essence, the consequences will be devastating.
Of course, we must not underestimate the harm of dogmatism in hindering the innovation of Soviet thought. Because we can't always carry out the study style of combining Marxism with our own reality and proceeding from reality, we can't make great progress on major theoretical issues such as social development stage, socialist commodity economy and promoting world revolution, which hinders the further development of society to some extent. But it should also be clear that the real ideological root of the disintegration of the Soviet Union lies in the betrayal of Marxism.
It is believed that the corruption of the privileged class and cadres in the Soviet Union led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This view deserves attention, but we should have a correct interpretation of corruption in the privileged class and the Soviet Party.
First of all, it should be affirmed that this view is correct and worthy of attention. The style of the ruling party is related to the image of the party, the people's heart and the life and death of the party and the country.
But what is the connection between this privileged class and the disintegration of the Soviet Union? Some questions need further clarification:
First, what is privilege, who belongs to the privileged class and how big is this privileged class? At present, academic circles generally believe that the number of privileged classes in the Soviet Union is around 500,000-600,000. The word "privileged class" in Russian originally meant "a list", some translated into "official rank list", and some simply translated into "privileged class". But who is it made of? What kind of "privileges" do you enjoy? No one has explained this accurately.
During the period of 1998, when the author visited the Russian National Modern Archives, sakharov, the deputy curator, personally showed the author the list of so-called "privileged classes", which generally included officials of state organs, heads of large factories, presidents of famous collective farms, presidents of universities and famous professors. They are said to be privileged because their wages have risen to a certain level relative to the general public and even enjoyed some special treatment. For example, the leaders of the Soviet Union, from andropov to Gorbachev, earned 800 rubles a month, while the average monthly salary of ordinary workers in the country was about 200 rubles. Although the gap is not big, these leaders enjoy other benefits that can't be measured by money, such as gifts received, villas in various places and so on. We should also see the serious influence of these privileges on the image of the Soviet Union. The crux of the problem is: what is an unreasonable privilege and what is a necessary difference? It may not be accurate to describe this difference with "privilege". Therefore, anything on the "list" cannot be counted as a "privileged class".
The real "privileged class" refers to those who use their power to "abuse power for personal gain". How many people are there? What is the proportion of 500,000-600,000 people in the so-called "privileged class"? So far, I haven't seen this material. Of course, we can't underestimate the role of these people in ruining the prestige of the Soviet Union, affecting the relationship between the party and the masses, and the relationship between cadres and the masses. But we can't just use "a mouse excrement spoils a pot of soup" to illustrate its influence on the disintegration of the Soviet Union. If you don't even know how many people are in the "privileged class", how can you estimate their role in the disintegration of the Soviet Union?
Second, in fact, in the distribution system of Soviet society, on the one hand, there are problems of unfair distribution, such as "privileged class", but the main drawback is "big pot rice" There is little difference between mental labor and manual labor, and there is little difference between complex labor and simple labor. Even the brain is upside down. 1985, the average wage ratio of workers and technicians in the industrial sector was100:110; Agriculture is100:135; The construction industry, in turn, is 100: 98. It can be seen that the wages of people working in various fields in the country do not differ much in different types of work.
Therefore, the correct interpretation of this proposition should be as follows: first, we should see the seriousness of corruption within the Soviet Union, even the corruption of the privileged class, which aroused serious dissatisfaction among the masses and had a profound impact on the disintegration of the Soviet Union; Meanwhile, how many people are there in this privileged class? To what extent the corruption within the Soviet Union has developed, further research is needed to give a scientific answer. More importantly, it is necessary to distinguish between "differences" and "privileges" in the distribution system, and reasonable differences such as wages and treatment cannot be regarded as privileges.
From the day things came into being, according to the law of unity of opposites, everything has two sides. Su * * * has made great achievements, but at the same time, it has accumulated some disadvantages (highly centralized economic management system, dogmatism, privileged class, being divorced from the masses ...), and each development is fatal enough to deny itself. However, it is a bit simple to say that "these shortcomings are the fundamental reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union". Because at the same time, there is still a "positive" side for Sue. For example, in the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union was still a world superpower. A society with shortcomings in a certain period may not necessarily perish, and people who are seriously ill will die. Mikhainov, a former minister of the Russian Federation, firmly denied that the disintegration of the Soviet Union was inevitable. He believes that although there were factors that led to disintegration in society at that time, there were also strong enough mechanisms to eliminate these factors and safeguard national unity. The key here is to see how its leaders carry forward their achievements and correct their shortcomings when formulating major policies.