Chapter 91 Chapter 16 The Fall of Socialism 3

3 Having talked about economics, let us now turn to politics (of socialism in reality).Because it was political issues that led to the disintegration of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in 1989-1991. Politically, Eastern Europe was the Achilles' heel of the Soviet system, and Poland (and to a lesser extent Hungary) was its most vulnerable.We have already seen that since the "Prague Spring", the large and small vassal regimes in this region have obviously lost their orthodox legal status.They continued only under high pressure from the state, backed by the threat of Soviet intervention—or at best, as in Hungary, by granting people material living conditions far superior to those of the rest of Eastern Europe, and considerable Only a certain degree of freedom was able to survive, but it was soon paralyzed under the pressure of the economic crisis.However, with the exception of Poland, no significant organized political force or open opposition has emerged in any country.Poland was able to produce this power because of the confluence of three factors.First, the country's public opinion is very consistent, because people not only hate the current regime, but also have anti-Russian (and anti-Semitic) sentiments, so they can unite under Polish nationalism dominated by Roman Catholicism.Second, the church has always had an independent national institution in Poland.Third, the working class in Poland, since the mid-1950s, has repeatedly proved its political strength through large-scale strikes.For too long, the Polish regime has been resigned to popular sentiment, acquiescing to its actions, and even showing signs of retreat—such as the 1970 strike that brought down the then-communist leader—as long as opponents do not form an organized force.Although the scope of the regime itself has actually shrunk, it is on the verge of danger.From the mid-1970s, however, the Polish authorities began to face an organized labor movement of a political nature, backed not only by dissident intellectuals skilled in political movements - mainly "ex-Marxists" Mainly—with the support of a church that seeks to grow.The reason why the church is motivated is that in 1978 the Roman Catholic Church elected the first Polish pope in history, namely Paul II.

In 1980, the triumph of the trade union movement "Solidarity" was in fact a national public opposition movement armed with general strikes.Its victory proved two things: the communist regime in Poland was at the end of its rope, but it could not be overthrown by mass riots. In 1981, the church and the state cooperated silently to suppress the danger of a Soviet armed intervention (the Soviet side was actually seriously considering intervening). The two sides agreed to implement martial law for several years, and the commander of the armed forces would maintain the political situation.The latter has both the identity of the Communist Party and the legal status of the country, so it should be reasonable.So the police instead of the army came forward, and law and order were quickly restored.But the government, always at a loss for what to do about economic problems, has no good strategy for dealing with the opposition forces that continue to exist and serve as an outlet for organized public opinion.There are only two paths left: Either the Russians decide to intervene, or the authorities step aside and give up the one-party rule.But while the other satellite states watched developments in Poland nervously while trying in vain to prevent their own people from following suit, one thing was important: the Soviet Union had no intention of intervening again.

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev, an enthusiastic reformer, became general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.The emergence of Gorbachev is not accidental.Had it not been for the death of Yuri Andropov (1941-1984), the former general secretary of the Soviet Union who was seriously ill, the head of Soviet security, the era of reform would have begun a year or two ago (Andropov himself had In 1983, the Brezhnev era had already been drawn).It was clear to all other communist governments, both inside and outside the orbit of the Soviet Union, that a major shift was imperative.Yet even for the new general secretary, the ramifications of the reforms remain murky.

The "age of stagnation" condemned by Gorbachev was in fact also an era of intense political and cultural turmoil for the Soviet elite.These include not only the small group at the top of the Soviet Federation ladder (where the real and only decision on political course is made) and the self-selected head of the Communist Party; class; and the economic managers who are actually in charge of running the country, including scientific and technological intellectuals of various academic circles.Experts, supervisors, etc.In a way, Gorbachev himself also represents the educated backbone of this new generation—he studied law.However, according to the old path that Stalinist cadres climbed up step by step, they came from a factory and entered the party and state machinery with a degree in engineering or agricultural economics (surprisingly, this orthodox old path still seems to be unabated).And the depth of the commotion cannot be judged by the actual number of dissidents who are now openly present—perhaps in the hundreds at best.All kinds of banned or semi-legal criticism or self-criticism penetrated into the cultural circle of Soviet cities during the Brezhnev era, including important departments within the party and government, especially the security and foreign agencies.Otherwise, when Gorbachev shouted "open" loudly, it is really difficult to find other possible explanations for the phenomenon of response from all directions.

The response of the political and intellectual classes, however, should not be confused with that of the broad masses of the Soviet Union.Because the people of the Soviet Union are different from the people of most communist countries in Europe, they always accept the Soviet Union as their legal regime.At the very least, perhaps because they did not know, and had no way of knowing, that there were other governments in existence (except for the period 1941-1944, under German occupation. German rule, of course, was impossible for them to appreciate). In 1990, all Hungarians over the age of 60 had more or less memories before the Communist rule, perhaps in their youth, or in their adulthood.However, within the original borders of the Soviet Union, no one under the age of 88 could be found who had such first-hand experience.If we say that the Soviet government has a long history of being in power, which can be traced back to the civil war period, and has never been interrupted; then Russia as a country has a longer-lasting continuity, almost without interruption (between 1939 and 1940, those newly acquired or regained with the exception of the acquired Western Frontier Territory).Today's Soviet Union is nothing more than the old Tsarist Russia's replacement operation.This is why, before the late 1980s, there was no major political separatism in the Soviet Union, except in the Baltic region, and in the west of Ukraine, and perhaps Bessarabia (now Moldova). (The Baltic states were independent states from 1918 to 1940, Ukraine was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire rather than the Russian Empire until 1918, and Bessarabia was part of Romania from 1918 to 1940.) But even in the Baltics, public There are not many more dissenting opinions than in Russia (Lieven, 1993).

What's more, the Soviet regime is not only rooted in this country, but also a home-grown product (over time, even the party itself, which initially had a strong Great Russian flavor, began to absorb other European and Transcaucasian republics. Newcomers), and even the people within them, in ways that are hard to describe, likewise adapt themselves to the regime; and of course the regime tries to adapt to them.As the satirist and dissident Zinoviev pointed out, there is indeed a so-called "new Soviet man" in the world-although, like everything in the Soviet Union, the new man's appearance is different from his appearance. There is a big difference in the public image (of course, it is the same if he is replaced by her, but there are very few "female" people in the new Soviet).He or she is at ease within the system (Zinoviev, 1979).Here, life is guaranteed and benefits are complete. Although the standard is mediocre, the genuine products are not fake at all.This is indeed a society in which all beings are equal, socially and economically, and it is at least the realization of one of the traditional ideals of socialism, which is what Paul Lafargue called "the right to do nothing" (Right to Do Nothing). Idleness, Lafargue, 1883).What's more, for most of the Soviet people, the Brezhnev years were not a "period of stagnation" but the best that they, their parents, and even their grandparents knew and lived. era.

No wonder the reformers found themselves confronted not only with the Soviet bureaucracy, but with the masses of the Soviet Union as well.A certain reformer, in the typical tone of the anti-pleasure class, wrote with displeasure: Our system has produced a group of socially supported individuals who are far more interested in "taking" than "giving."The so-called egalitarianism has completely eroded the Soviet Union, and this is the result of this policy... Society is divided into two parts, one side is made by those who make decisions and distribution, and the other side is those who obey others and accept others people.This situation has formed a major braking effect on the development of our society.The Homo sovieticus . . . is both a ballast and a brake to stop progress.On the one hand, he was against reform, and on the other hand, he was the basis for maintaining the existing system (Afanassiev, 1991, pp. 13-14).

Socially and economically, much of Soviet society maintained considerable stability.Some of the reasons undoubtedly come from high pressure and censorship of speech, as well as the ignorance of the Soviets about other countries, but this is definitely not the whole reason.Unlike Poland, Czechoslovakia, or Hungary, the Soviet Union never had anything like the 1968 student uprising.Even under Gorbalchev, his reform movement was unable to mobilize the young (except in the nationalist parts of the west).This reform movement, as some people say, is a "rebellion of thirty or forty-year-olds", that is, a group born after World War II but before Brezhnev's not so sad paralysis years. generation.Various circumstances, but by chance?Wherever the pressure for reform in the Soviet Union came from, it was certainly not from the grassroots.

In fact, its impetus comes from above, and only from this direction.Under what circumstances did this enthusiastic and sincere reformer of the Communist Party inherit Stalin's throne and become the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on March 15, 1985?The reason for this is still unclear to the outside world.I am afraid that this secret will not be revealed until the last few decades of the Soviet Union become the object of study by historians—rather than now when they are still attacking each other or defending themselves.But in any case, the important thing is not who is in the Kremlin to fight against dissidents, who rises and falls from power, but the existence of two conditions that allow people like Gorbachev to rise to power.One is the growing and increasingly veiled corruption of the Brezhnev-era Communist Party leadership, seen in the eyes of those in the party who still believe in communist thinking (however distorted that belief may be). form), naturally feel angry.And a Communist Party, no matter how degenerate it is, if it lacks some socialist leaders, it is like a Roman Catholic Church without Catholics as bishops and cardinals; because both are based on true faith above the system.Second, those people who are educated, have technological capabilities, and truly keep the Soviet Union in operation, they all deeply feel that if drastic measures are used to carry out fundamental changes, the Soviet economy will come to an end sooner or later.Not only because the system is inherently inefficient and inelastic, but also because it intends to ascend to the throne of military hegemony, which further deepens its weaknesses—an economy in decline like this is simply impossible to support its military needs.Since 1980, the pressure of military demand on the Soviet economy has reached a dangerous level, because suddenly the Soviet army found itself in the field for the first time in many years - the Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan to help build a stabilize the situation.Afghanistan has been ruled by the communist people's Democratic party since 1978, then has been divided by conflict.But both sides of the conflict were blindsided and advocated land reform and women's rights, offending the local landlord class, Islamic clerics, and others who believed that maintaining the status quo was the best policy. Since the early 1950s, Afghanistan has sat quietly in the circle of influence of the Soviet Union, and nothing major has happened that raised the blood pressure of Westerners.However, the United States chose to view the actions of the Soviet Union as a large-scale military invasion of the free world. Therefore, through Pakistan, the United States began to pour in money and force, and sent advanced weapons and equipment to the mountain fighters of the Islamic fundamentalist faction. .As expected, with the support of the Soviet Union, the fighting Afghan government easily defended the major cities in the country, but the price the Soviet Union paid for this war was not trivial.In the end—and apparently in Washington, there were strong intentions—Afghanistan became the Vietnam of the Soviet Union.

But what else could the new leader of the Soviet Union think of other than ending the second Cold War with the United States immediately—and as soon as possible—to end this confrontation that was bleeding the Soviet economy?This decision, of course, was Gorbachev's immediate goal and his greatest achievement.For in an astonishingly short amount of time he even convinced skeptical Western governments that the Soviet Union really meant it.This achievement, which has won him great acclaim and lasting fame in the West, is in contrast to the growing lack of enthusiasm for him in the Soviet Union, and finally in 1991, he finally became a victim of this situation.If anyone single-handedly ended the 40-year global cold war, then, of course, this honor must go to Gorbachev.

Since the 1950s, the goal of the Communist Party's economic reformers has been to use market prices and the means of calculating the profits and losses of enterprises in an attempt to make the centrally planned economy more rational and flexible.The Hungarian reformers have gone a long way in this direction: if the Soviet Union did not send troops to occupy it in 1968, the reformers of Czechoslovakia would have made greater achievements.Both countries also hope that this method can also contribute to the liberalization and democratization of the political system.This is also Gorbachev's position, which he believes can restore or establish a socialist system that is better than "real socialism".As for abandoning socialism altogether, influential reformers in the Soviet Union may have thought so, but in fact it is extremely unlikely.Regardless of anything else, it is extremely difficult to implement in terms of politics alone. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union began to conduct systematic research and analysis of its own shortcomings and mistakes for the first time, but it was too late. Economists who had reform experience elsewhere had already seen that the system could no longer be changed Internal reforms have been made.