Chapter 75 Chapter Thirteen "Socialism in Reality" 2

2 Except for the Soviet Union, other communist countries only emerged after World War II, and the ruling communist parties in them also followed the example of the Soviet Union, that is, Stalin's model.In a way, even the Chinese Communist Party, although it gained de facto autonomy from Moscow as early as the 1930s under Mao Zedong.As for the new members of the "socialist camp" in the third world, they may be less close to them—such as Castro's Cuba, and those who rose in Asia, Africa and Latin America in the 1970s and tried to formally assimilate with the Soviet model. Small and short-lived regimes.In all of these countries, one-party centralized political systems, official cultural ideology, and centralized state-planned economies can be seen.In addition, even in countries directly occupied by the Soviet army and secret agents, the local government was often forced to follow the Soviet example, such as Stalin's model of conducting public trials and liquidation of local Communists.However, the local Communist factions did not actively participate in this kind of judicial farce. In Poland and Germany, they even found ways to avoid it completely. Therefore, not half of the local Communist Party leaders were killed or sent to Soviet intelligence units.But after the break with Tito, local leaders in Bulgaria and Hungary - Traicho Kostov of Bulgaria and Laszlo Rajk of Hungary - were executed respectively.In the last year of Stalin's life, there was an unbelievable wave of trials within the Czech Communist Party, and many important figures were robbed.This storm of liquidation carried a strong anti-Semitic atmosphere, and the original leadership of the local Communist Party was smashed.These phenomena are related to Stalin's increasingly severe delusional symptoms, and it is difficult to judge.Because at this time, his health and mental state were declining day by day, and he even planned to eliminate his most loyal supporters.

Although the new regimes that emerged in the 1940s were all related to the victory of the Red Army in Europe, there were only four of them, Poland, the German part occupied by the Soviet Union, and Romania (the original local Communist Party had no more than a few hundred members at most, and most of them were Not native to Romania), plus Hungary, whose government was brought to power directly by the Red Army.As for Yugoslavia and Albania, the communist regimes can be regarded as self-growth.The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia won 40% of the vote in 1947, proving that the people really supported them at that time.As for the Bulgarian Communist Party's influence, it was reinforced by the country's general pro-Soviet sentiment.The communist forces in China, North Korea, and the former French Indochina—or, after the Cold War situation became clear, the communist forces in the north of these countries—had nothing to do with the Soviet army. After 1949, other smaller communist regimes even benefited from Chinese support for a time.As for the new members who joined the "socialist camp" one after another starting with Cuba in the future, they all relied on their own strength to earn their membership qualifications.However, the guerrilla liberation movement in Africa had the great help of the Soviet bloc.

However, even in a communist country that was fully supported by the Red Army, the new regime enjoyed a brief period of legitimacy at the outset and won the sincere support of the people for a considerable period of time.As we saw in Chapter 5, rebuilding a new world on a scorched earth where everything was ruined inspired many young people and intellectuals.No matter how unpopular the party and government were, the energy and determination they put into post-war reconstruction won the unanimous, if reluctant, approval.In fact, the achievements of the new regime in this regard cannot be denied.We have already seen that in some agricultural countries with a relatively backward degree, the Communist government is fully carrying out industrialization actions that represent progress and modernity. The echoes of these measures are not limited to senior officials within the party.Who dares to doubt that countries like Bulgaria and Yugoslavia will progress at a speed that seemed unimaginable before the war.Only those areas that were originally relatively backward, but occupied or forcibly conquered by the Sioux, or those areas with developed cities, such as the places handed over to the Soviet Union in 1939-1940, and the Soviet-occupied areas in Germany (1954 The establishment of the German Democratic Republic), for a long period of time, due to the urgent need for reconstruction of the Soviet Union after 1945, their resources were plundered, which made these areas in the red on the balance sheet.

Politically, these communist countries, whether indigenous or imposed by external forces, are all united into one group under the leadership of the big brother of the Soviet Union based on the unity of anti-Western forces.Even China, where the Communists took full power in 1949, although Moscow's influence on it has been rather weak since Mao Zedong became the party's unanimous leader in the mid-1930s, supports it.On the one hand, Mao expressed his allegiance to the Soviet Union, but on the other hand, he acted on his own.As for the practical Stalin, he was also careful not to spoil the relationship with this actually extremely independent brother party in the East.By the 1950s, however, Khrushchev had soured the relationship between the two sides, leading to a major rupture in which China began to challenge the Soviet Union's leadership in the international communist movement—albeit with little success.However, Stalin's attitude towards the countries and communist regimes occupied by the Soviet army in Europe was not so gentle. Part of the reason was naturally that he had something to rely on, and Soviet troops were still stationed in Eastern Europe.Also because he also believed that he could rely on the genuine loyalty of the local party to Moscow and to him personally.Therefore, when the leaders of the Yugoslav Communist Party dared to defy the will of the Soviet Union in 1948, even approaching the point of breaking openly, Stalin was naturally taken aback.You know, the Yugoslav leadership has always been very loyal, and it was only a few months ago that it was awarded the honor of being designated as the headquarters of the reorganized Cold War Comintern (Communist Intelligence Bureau).The Soviet Union went beyond Tito and tried to appeal directly to its loyal Yugoslav brethren, but there was no significant response.Stalin's shock was no small matter, and his typical reaction was, of course, to strike at the Communist leaders of other satellite regimes and set off a big liquidation.

However, the departure of Yugoslavia did not affect other members of the Communist Party circle.It was not until the death of Stalin in 1953 that the Soviet bloc gradually collapsed politically.This phenomenon became more obvious when the Soviet Union officials also began to criticize Stalin and cautiously judged Stalin at the "Twentieth National Congress" of the Soviet Union in 1956.Although the contents of the attack were only released to a small audience inside the Soviet Union—Khrushchev’s secret speeches were kept secret from foreign Communist parties—the rumors that Soviet politics had split soon spread outside.This matter immediately aroused repercussions in the European region controlled by the Soviet Union.Within a few months, the new leadership of Poland's reformist Communist Party was peacefully accepted by Moscow (perhaps because of Chinese advice).A revolution broke out in Hungary.The reformist Imre-Nagy has announced the end of one-party rule, a claim the Soviet Union may tolerate because it is divided within itself.However, Najib's actions went too far, and at the same time announced that Hungary would be neutral from now on and withdraw from the Warsaw organization.This move was absolutely intolerable to the Soviet Union. In November 1956, the Hungarian Revolution was suppressed by the Russian army.

The great internal crisis that occurred in the Soviet bloc did not take advantage of the Western Alliance (it just took the opportunity to publicize it), which proved the stability of the relationship between the East and the West, and both sides tacitly accepted each other's sphere of influence. In the 1950s and 1960s, with the exception of Cuba, there were no major revolutionary changes that would upset this delicate balance. Since the political level is firmly controlled, it is difficult to distinguish between its development and the economy.So in Poland and Hungary, where the people had clearly demonstrated a lack of enthusiasm for communism, the governments had to make economic concessions.Poland re-collectivized its countryside, although this did not necessarily improve the efficiency of the country's agriculture.Most importantly, the political power of the working class has been greatly strengthened in the tide of industrialization, and it has also been acquiesced by the government.Speaking of which, the series of events that occurred in Poznan (Poznan) in 1956 were caused by the industrialization movement.From that time until the final victory of the Solidarity trade union in the late 1980s, the political and economic dynamics of Poland were a confrontation between an irresistible force (the communist regime) and an unsubdued working class.The unorganized working class at first eventually formed a general classical labor movement, formed an alliance with intellectuals, and finally developed into a political movement, just as Marx predicted.Alas, the disciples of Marx could not help but lament that, far from being anti-capitalist, the ideology of this movement turned around and shot at socialism, reducing the burden of the government's large subsidies for basic living costs.Workers go on strike, often in the end, often after a political crisis, with government concessions.As for Hungary after the 1956 revolution was suppressed, the leadership established by the Soviet Union in the country had more sincere and effective reforms.First, Janos Kadar (Janos Kadar, 1912-1989) systematically liberalized the Hungarian regime (mostly with the tacit approval of important figures in the Soviet Union) and made peace with the opposition.So in fact, within the limit allowed by the Soviet Union, the original revolutionary goal of 1956 was completed without a single soldier.In this regard, Hungary was quite successful until the 1980s.

But the development of Czechoslovakia is completely different.Since the murderous storm of reckoning in the early 1950s, the people, politically apathetic but cautious, have begun to try to lift Stalin's spell.This development snowballed into the second half of the 1960s (including Slovaks within the Communist Party), providing potential opposition within the party. In 1968 there was a coup in the party, and the Slovakian Alexander Dubcek was elected party secretary, so it is not surprising. But a different issue, namely, the urgent pressure for economic reform and how to inject a little rationality and flexibility into the Soviet-style system, also became an irresistible torrent in the 1960s.As we shall see below, this feeling generally infected the entire Communist group at this time.Although the demand for economically dismantling central totalitarianism itself is not politically explosive, once it is combined with the call for intellectual liberation or even political liberation, it will immediately become extremely explosive.In Czechoslovakia, the voice for this demand is particularly strong. On the one hand, it is because Stalin’s style has been implemented in the Czech Republic very cruelly and for a long time. The Communists were shocked (this feeling was especially strong among the intellectuals in the party. Before and after the Nazi rule, the Communist Party did have the sincere support of the people).Like many European regions occupied by the Nazis, the Communist Party was once the core of the underground resistance movement, attracting so many young idealists, and their commitment to dedication was a kind of selfless guarantee at that time.In addition to the beacon of hope, plus the suffering and death that may be faced, when a person joins the Communist Party (as a friend of the author felt when he joined the Communist Party in Prague in 1941), can there be any What else to expect?

As usual, the impetus for reform often comes from the top—that is, from within the party. In fact, looking at the structure of various communist countries, this situation cannot be avoided at all. The "Prague-Spring" of 1968, preceded by political and cultural unrest, coincided with the outbreak of the then global student movement (see Chapter 10).This global student movement is one of the very few events that can cross geographical barriers and social class gaps.So from California, Mexico, to Poland, Yugoslavia, many social movements were launched at the same time, most of them centered on students.Whether the "programme of action" of the Czechoslovak authorities would have been accepted by the Soviet Union is hard to say, but it was indeed quite dangerous when it attempted to shift from one-party dictatorship to multi-party democracy.The cohesion of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe (perhaps even its basic existence) seemed to be in turmoil, and the "Prague Spring" exposed and deepened this internal rift.On the one hand, there are hard-line regimes that lack popular support (for example, Poland and East Germany, who are afraid that the influence of Czechoslovakia will lead to instability in their own countries), and they are very critical of the events in Czechoslovakia; And the people of Czechoslovakia, enthusiastically supported by the reformist Hungarians.The support for the latter still comes from outside the bloc, including Yugoslavia’s independent communist regime led by Tito, and Romania, led by Ceausescu in 1965, whose nationalist position has drifted away from Moscow (but with respect to domestic affairs). , Ceausescu was the complete opposite of the Communist reformers).Both Tito and Ceausescu visited Prague and received a heroic welcome from the local people.This situation is tolerable or unbearable. Even though there are differences and hesitation within Moscow, it has decided to make a decisive decision to overthrow the Prague regime by force.The Soviet Union's move brought an end to the Moscow-centered international communist movement—in fact, it had already cracked in 1956—but it also helped the Soviet bloc survive another 20 years.From then on, though, its union could only barely exist under the intimidation of Soviet military intervention.In the last 20 years of the Soviet bloc, even the leaders of the Communist Party, who were in power, lost true faith in what they were doing.

At the same time, demands for reform of the Soviet-style centrally planned economic system became more urgent, independent of political events.On the one hand, the non-socialist advanced economy began to boom at this time, and the prosperity was unprecedented (see Chapter 9), which further deepened the gap between the two systems.This phenomenon is particularly evident in Germany, where two systems coexist within one country.On the other hand, the socialist economy, which had been ahead of the West until the 1950s, was clearly beginning to lag behind.The gross national product of the Soviet Union fell from an annual growth rate of 5.7% in the 1950s (almost at the same speed as the industrial construction in the first 12 years from 1928 to 1940), falling all the way down to 5.2% in the 1960s,70 3.7% in the first half of the 1990s, and 2.6% in the second half. By the five years before Gorbachev came to power (1980-1985), it had already fallen into the abyss of 2% (Ofer, 1987 p. 1778) , the record of Eastern European countries is equally miserable.In order to make the system more flexible, in the 1960s, countries in the Soviet bloc began to carry out reform attempts, basically a means to dismantle the central overall plan, even the Soviet Union where Kosygin was prime minister was no exception.But with the exception of Hungary, they were generally not particularly successful, and some even got off to a rough start and were fruitless.Or, for political reasons like Czechoslovakia, it is not allowed to be implemented at all.As for the lone ranger in the socialist family, Yugoslavia, out of hostility to Stalinism, even abolished the centrally planned state-run economy in one fell swoop. In the 1970s, it entered a new period of uncertainty. Without any expectation of the "socialist" economy in China, it was decided that it was absolutely impossible to catch up with the non-socialist economy—and, I'm afraid, it would be difficult to even keep pace.But at that time, although looking at the road ahead, it seemed that there were more clouds and fog on the road than before, but in a short period of time, it seemed that there was nothing to worry about.However, this situation is about to change soon.