The reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union were comprehensive and multifaceted. This article discusses and discusses four factors. 1. Institutional factors: It was the fundamental reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It refers to the fact that the Soviet social system, characterized by the Stalinist system or model, had lost its vitality and cohesion during its evolution. By the early 1980s, it had fallen into a comprehensive crisis, thus bringing the entire society into a period of pause and stagnation. . Second, the leadership factor: the reforms they initiated dismantled the existing system and opened the floodgates for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Third, the ethnic issue factor: the powder keg that destroyed the alliance. Ethnic disputes and conflicts were released like a huge pressure under open conditions, leading to tensions between the center of the alliance and the participating countries and countries, and ultimately the destruction of the alliance. Fourth, the factors of the war in Afghanistan: promoted the reform process and weakened the status of the military.
1. Institutional factors: the fundamental reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union
Institutional factors are the fundamental reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It refers to the fact that the Soviet social system, characterized by the Stalinist system or model, had lost its vitality and cohesion during its evolution. By the early 1980s, it had fallen into a comprehensive crisis, thus bringing the entire society into a period of pause and stagnation. . Such a system renders all tinkering useless, and a fundamental reform of it kills it, that is, it turns into a revolution that replaces the system.
In the 69-year history from the establishment to the disintegration of the Soviet Union (74 years if counted from the Soviet Union after the October Revolution), except for the short period of Lenin, it was basically the Stalin system or Stalinism. model of socialist system to unify the world. Although the Stalinist system made great achievements in industrialization, urbanization, culture and education in the Soviet Union, Due to its repressive nature of society and repression of human nature, it was unable to complete the historic task of building Russia into a modern democratic country. History has proven that the Stalinist system could not keep up with the times and conform to the trend of historical development. It was unable to solve the problems and difficulties faced by Soviet society, and as time went by, it exhausted all its potential and came to an end.
The Stalin system was the economic, political and cultural system of the Soviet Union established by Stalin from the late 1920s to the mid-1930s. It was born and developed in the stormy class struggle, and was strengthened and consolidated in the continuous political purges and ideological criticism movements. The national industrialization, agricultural collectivization and "Great Purge" movement from the late 1920s to the 1930s were the driving force and catalyst for the formation of the Stalinist system.
The industrialization movement that began in 1926 was carried out under the conditions of external capitalist siege. Its purpose was to establish and maintain a strong military system by turning backward agricultural countries into advanced industrial countries. This is also the reason why heavy industry and military industry constitute the center of gravity of industrialization and the national economy after industrialization. [12] It took a little more than two five-year plans to complete the industrialization path that took capitalist countries hundreds of years. However, this proud achievement cannot cover up the subjective behaviors and negative phenomena that violate economic laws in the process of industrialization. That is, industrialization did not develop the national economy in a planned and proportional manner, but instead emphasized heavy industry one-sidedly, sacrificing agriculture and squeezing out light industry. , ignoring the material interests and consumption needs of the people. The result of industrialization is a highly centralized command planning system that excludes markets and a narrow island economy that is disconnected from the unified world market. Temporary high-speed development comes at the expense of subsequent slow and low-speed development.
The comprehensive agricultural collectivization launched in 1929 was carried out in the form of fierce class struggle. During the movement, administrative orders and even violent methods were commonly used to force farmers to join collective farms. In the process, the kulaks were regarded as the mortal enemies of the Soviet power and were ruthlessly eliminated. The collectivization movement artificially intensified class contradictions and class struggle in an extreme way, causing great turmoil in rural society and great destruction of productivity. In this way, Stalin completed Stalin's socialist transformation of the rural individual economy.
At the same time, the debate within the United Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on issues such as agricultural development and the speed of industrialization evolved into an anti-rightist movement, which resulted in the discovery of the "Bukharin Group". Prior to this, Stalin had successively defeated the Trotsky opposition, the Zinoviev-Kamenev opposition and the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition. But Stalin seemed to be unsatisfied. His famous judgment was: "As we progress, the resistance of capitalism will intensify, and the class struggle will become more acute...". By the mid-to-late 1930s, a large-scale "Great Purge" campaign was launched to suppress "enemies of the people", spearheaded by the interrogation of former opposition leaders. The "Great Purge" caused incurable wounds to all aspects of Soviet society.
In the three major movements of national industrialization, agricultural collectivization and the "Great Purge", the Stalin system established through forceful means became the only option that the Soviet people must accept without doubt. Stalin's system has three distinct characteristics. In the economic aspect, it implements a highly centralized central management system, denies the role of the commodity economy and the law of value, and uses administrative means to manage the economy. It is incompatible and incompatible with the world economy, so it must be isolated from the unified world economic market.
In terms of politics, class struggle is regarded as the only driving force for social development, which expands and normalizes class struggle and constantly sets off various political movements and purges in the country. Therefore, it has never been able to create a peaceful and stable environment for the people in the country to truly live and work in peace and contentment. environment. In terms of ideology and culture, censorship of books and newspapers and control of public opinion are implemented, basically denying and rejecting all foreign culture, and criticizing it as bourgeois things, causing the national culture to continue to shrink and weaken. The Stalinist system with these characteristics is a closed semi-military system that is divorced from the entire development process of human civilization. It is instinctively opposed to the outside world.
In the Soviet society based on the Stalinist system, everything from objects to people became the subject of state jurisdiction and governance: not only the means of production and workers themselves were nationalized, but also people’s thoughts It was also nationalized. All areas of society, from the economic base to the superstructure, are controlled by the state.
In 1953, after Khrushchev became the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Soviet Union, he carried out drastic reforms to the political and economic system during the Stalin period. But Khrushchev, who grew up in the Stalin era, ultimately failed to escape the shackles of the Stalin system. His reforms were highly emergency, arbitrary, contradictory and limited. In the end, the top group within the party deposed Khrushchev because they could not tolerate his reforms.
Stalin’s model of socialism did not undergo any essential changes during Brezhnev’s 18 years in power, except that personal dictatorship and autocracy evolved into the rule of an upper-level bureaucratic group. By the mid-1980s, Soviet society was already in trouble: the trend of political conservatism increased, and the so-called elite groups in the party, state, and military departments became a new elite group. They were completely separated from ordinary workers and farmers and controlled all areas of Soviet society. ; Economic growth is declining; cynicism and centrifugal tendencies are growing; corruption and bribery are endemic; national movements are difficult to control; and dissent cannot be eradicated. In short, during the Brezhnev period stability had turned into stagnation, and the entire society was in a state of rigidity. The economic and technological gaps with the West are deepening and widening.
When summarizing the history of Soviet society from development to stagnation, Gorbachev wrote: "Decades of living under conditions of personality cult and totalitarianism cannot but lead to apathy, malaise and loss of initiative. Sexuality cannot help but lead to the decline of social energy." He pointed out: "After the revolutionary energy became history, after the patriotic enthusiasm generated by the war faded, after the joy caused by the 20th Congress of the Soviet Union was eliminated by the advocates themselves. , society seems to have ossified. Efficient labor, people's conscious participation in public affairs, and any motivation for enterprise except crime have disappeared. Egalitarian psychological and political consistency have become deeply rooted. The stagnation of society threatens society with serious consequences, which have been exposed in all aspects. In the years of stagnation and stagnation, the country has slipped into the cliff."
Gorbachev in 1985. After serving as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 2001, he was determined to reform Stalin's system in the face of difficulties and crises. At the beginning, he was convinced that all the deformities and abnormalities in Soviet society caused by the Stalinist system could be corrected and overcome through governance.
He first proposed an acceleration strategy and carried out economic reforms. After economic reforms failed to achieve results, rapid political reforms were launched. It is political reform that has brought fatal danger to this seriously ill system, making what started as improvements to the system turn into negation and change of the system itself.
The results of political reform are: the abolition of the long-standing censorship of books and newspapers and the control of public opinion, the disintegration of traditional ideologies, the promotion of the emergence of unofficial organizations, and the end of the Soviet Union's control of power. Monopoly, thereby destabilizing and destroying the system itself, creating conditions in which the alliance cannot survive.
2. Leadership factors: Reforms dismantled the existing system and opened the door to the disintegration of the Soviet Union
Many people pointed out when analyzing the disintegration of the Soviet Union that it was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself. problem. This is certainly true. But why did Su *** have a problem? Tracing back to the source, it was actually the leaders of the Soviet Union, especially the supreme leader Gorbachev, who had the problem. It was the political reforms he initiated that weakened and then disintegrated the Soviet Union. No matter what his subjective wishes were, the openness and democratization he advocated damaged the image of the Soviet Union and weakened the power of the Soviet Union; he agreed to cancel the clauses on the leadership role of the Soviet Union in the constitution, Ending the Soviet Union's monopoly on power, he resigned as General Secretary after the August 19th Incident, leaving the party in a paralyzed state without a leader, which actually led to the Soviet Union's demise.
But why did Gorbachev have problems? In other words, why did Gorbachev want to carry out reforms? What was the purpose of his reforms? Judging from the process of reform and Gorbachev's own subsequent summary, the main issue is his concept of key issues such as the past, present and future of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's ideology and existing system, the role of the party, and ethnic relations. and a significant change in outlook that was fundamentally different from that of all his predecessors.
We might as well take a look at Gorbachev’s views on the above issues in his book "Reflections on the Past and the Future".
About the October Revolution and socialism.
He said, "...it is absolutely certain that the October Revolution was a historical necessity under the specific circumstances at home and abroad in Russia at that time." "A major conclusion is that the October Revolution undoubtedly reflected the people and the broadest strata of it. The most urgent demands for fundamental social change are the slogans of this revolution, which were not invented by one man but came from below: freedom, universal peace, factories for workers, land for peasants, bread for the hungry - clearly reflected these demands."
"The October Revolution was called a socialist revolution. The Soviet Union was declared a socialist country, and it was later proved that we were already. Developed Socialism'. The question is, did a socialist revolution really take place in October 1917? And was the system established a socialist system? ”
“My point is: What was achieved in the Soviet Union? What prevailed was a harsh and even brutal totalitarian system. Of course, it evolved, and its cruelty was somewhat weakened and softened after Stalin's death. ”
About. socialist ideas. "Of course Soviet totalitarianism cannot be a model for anyone. There is no doubt about this. However, the victory of this system in the Soviet Union cannot in any case be a reason to oppose socialist ideas."
"I His point of view is certain: socialist thought has not lost its meaning and its historical reality, not only because this idea, which contains concepts such as justice, equality, freedom and democracy, will never disappear, but also because. The entire development of human society strongly confirms every day that the demand for justice, equality, freedom and democracy, the demand for unity has not disappeared, but on the contrary is growing. ”
About the one-party system and totalitarianism in the Soviet Union. socialist system. "The banning of non-*** political parties and the cancellation of freedom of speech after the victory of the revolution are clear signs of breaking away from democracy. Under extraordinary circumstances, similar temporary measures can be taken. In social life, the one-party system and 'viewpoints' The implementation of "unanimity" as a principle will inevitably lead to reversal of the normal course of things and arbitrary behavior, with serious consequences.
I believe that no matter what reasons are used to justify the suppression and crushing of Russia after 1917. Other parties were necessary, and the eventual establishment of a one-party system was perhaps one of the most serious mistakes that prevented the October Revolution from becoming the basis for strong democratic development and real prosperity for the country by the 1920s. By the end of the decade, Soviet society had been completely monopolized by the party and its ideology, and a repressive and actually totalitarian system had been established in the country. "...The characteristics of this system are: the denial of political pluralism and the 'party-state'. (One), all-encompassing, severe and excessive centralized management of the country based on state monopoly ownership."
About the ideology of the Soviet Union. "The ideological framework and the theory of Stalin's ideology have brought great damage to social development." "It is proposed to establish a society in which socialist ideology is completely dominant, absolutely socialist characteristics are absolute, and socialist power is absolutely dominant. The problem may not be reasonable and promising. ”
About the Soviet Communist Party during the reform period. "During the reform period, the policy of substantive reorganization of the party's activities and the policy of democratization within the party were adopted, and finally the policy of changing its role in society was implemented. However, the structure, working methods of the Soviet Union, and its celebrities The ruling group is so steeped in old habits, traditions and rules that it is very difficult to reform it and transform it into a normal political organization... In the final analysis, the Soviet Central Committee agrees. Democracy, political pluralism, free elections, the establishment of a mixed market economy, reform of the federation, etc. were later approved at the 28th Congress of the Soviet Union in 1990, but the Soviet Union ultimately failed to withstand it. The test became a test for the Reform Party. It actually supported - the majority of the Central Committee and many state and regional party committees - the August 1991 rebellion, thus passing its own verdict on the nation."
question. "... As in other areas of social life, very contradictory things also emerged in the national process. As totalitarianism was established in the country, the cultural characteristics of each nation began to be forcibly incorporated into the external ideological framework. By The revolutionary changes imposed in Moscow were to a large extent an artificial product alien to the traditions and established spirit of the majority of the population."
Summary of the Soviet years. "In any case, the revolution brought historical innovation to Russia at all its costs, liberated Russia from the legacy of its feudal absolutist past, and enabled the country to begin modernizing. In doing so, it relied on the wisdom of the people, Labor and heroic deeds. It would be dishonest to forget all this and simply paint the decades of the Soviet regime as almost sad years…
Yes, the price paid was extremely high. This is right. And this is first and foremost the result of totalitarian system rule, a derivative of Stalinism and its aftermath. One of the most important lessons of the past years is to unconditionally condemn and abandon totalitarianism...
The other side of the story is that Soviet history once again proved that totalitarianism, which was so stable and powerful on the surface, ultimately doomed the country to weakness.
At the same time, totalitarianism separates people from the state, ownership, politics, and culture, attempts to suppress the smallest diversity in society, and deprives society of the stimulation of self-development, thus dooming itself to failure.
Another conclusion drawn from the opposite side is that only democracy can become the basis for a healthy and vigorous development of society, the basis for revealing and utilizing all opportunities in society. ”
It can be seen that Gorbachev believes: First, what was established in the Soviet Union after the October Revolution was not a socialist system but Stalin’s totalitarian system, and this system was inevitable. failed; secondly, the one-party system and "uniformity of views" have brought serious consequences to society; thirdly, there are ethnic problems in the Soviet Union; fourthly, there are negative consequences in the Soviet era. There are positive things, and it is not possible to simply deny everything. It was the totalitarian system that failed in the Soviet Union, not the socialist idea.
Of course, it is difficult to judge accurately. Which of Gorbachev's above-mentioned views existed before the reform, which ones emerged during the reform process, and which ones were summarized after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
However, no matter what, it is certain. Yes, although Gorbachev knew that there were serious difficulties and even crises in Soviet society when he came to power, he did not have a clear and complete reform plan. Gorbachev later made the following remarks after frankly admitting it. Justification: “In a period of profound and substantive changes in the foundations of social development, it is not only meaningless but impossible to propose some previously formulated “model” or clear diagram of reforms. ”
However, the lack of a clear and complete reform plan does not mean that Gorbachev’s reforms were messy. Judging from the subsequent reform process and Gorbachev’s self-report, his reforms were He has a role model; his reform ideas and plans have deep roots and foundations; his determination and confidence in reform are extremely strong.
He regarded Khrushchev as a pioneer of reform, he said. : “The main thing is what Khrushchev left behind – discrediting Stalinism. The attempt to remake it during the Brezhnev era failed. It was impossible to restore the Stalinist order. This is the prerequisite and condition for starting reform. So, I admit that there is a certain connection between reforms and what Nikita Sergeyevich (Khrushchev) did. In short, I highly value his historical role. "Therefore, he actually regarded the reforms he initiated in the mid-1980s as a continuation of Khrushchev's reforms in the 1950s.
He regarded the dissident movement as the spiritual basis of his reforms. He said: “A clear sign of maturity in reform is the activity of dissidents. They were suppressed and expelled from the country, but their moral stance and the proposals they put forward (such as Sakharov's ideas) played no small role in preparing the spiritual prerequisites for reforms. "
He also absorbed some things from some external events and external factors that were beneficial to the formation of his reform ideas. He said this: "It should be said that external factors also have their own significance. For example, the "Prague Spring" of 1968 caused deep thinking in our society. … I would like to point to the role of phenomena such as Brandt’s “Eastern Policy” or the search for new avenues of social progress through “European communism”. All of this contributes to deep thinking in our country – about the values ??of democracy, freedom and peace and how to achieve them. ”
It was on the basis of summarizing the history of the Soviet Union’s previous reforms and absorbing what he considered useful abroad that Gorbachev formed his own concepts and thoughts on reform.
The focus of his initial reforms was on the economic field. But when the economic reform ran into trouble, he turned his perspective to the political field. He believed, "In those days, the dialectics of our development was that there was no political liberation of society and no guarantee of freedom. That is to say, it is impossible to destroy the totalitarian political structure and carry out major reforms in the economic field. "
The content of political reform is the openness and democratization he advocated. He called for "comprehensive development of the democratic nature of the socialist system" and "thorough restoration of Lenin's principles of openness, social supervision, criticism and self- Criticism." [32] He advocated "...commitment to restoring the Leninist appearance of the new system under the current conditions, clearing away its filth and deformation, and getting rid of everything that restricts the progress of society and prevents it from fully realizing its socialist potential. "This means that within the scope of the existing system, we must remove what he calls deformations and restore the original appearance of Leninism.
However, with the development of the reform process, Gorbachev's thoughts and positions have changed. Extremely important changes have taken place. He became suspicious of the existing system and believed that improving the existing system was an illusion. He later concluded: "The illusion is that I thought like most of us at that time: This can be achieved by improving the existing system [34]. However, as experience accumulated, it became clear that the crises that damaged the country in the late 1970s and early 1980s were not local but systemic. The logic of development leads to the conclusion that it is not necessary to perfect the system, but to penetrate into its foundations and change those foundations. What this refers to is the gradual transition to a social market economy and a transition to a democratic political system based on law and full protection of human rights.
”
From this point of view, when he proposed a comprehensive transformation from the economic base to the superstructure in 1989, its meaning is actually not to improve but to change the existing system. Its symbol is to implement a differential electoral system and accept Pluralistic politics and the revision of Article 6 of the Constitution, which guarantees the party's leadership and role.
In this way, the purpose of Gorbachev's reforms changed from improving the existing system in the early stage to changing the existing system in the later stage. At the same time, the reformed alliance was retained. In his words: "The purpose of the reform is to qualitatively renew society and defeat the totalitarian system on the road to democracy. "At the same time, he insisted that the alliance can be retained.
But the problem is that a multi-ethnic unitary alliance like the Soviet Union is precisely based on the existing system. Shaking and disintegrating the system itself will also It was tantamount to opening the floodgates for the disintegration of the Soviet Union.