Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate?

At present, there is a mainstream view in the west about the explanation of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, including two aspects:

First, the planned economy is not feasible. As early as the 1980s, the Soviet planned economy began to collapse, and the Soviet Union had no choice but to implement marketization and privatization.

Second, this is the choice of the Soviet people. In socialist countries, once people are endowed with real democracy and freedom, they will propose to abolish socialism and establish a capitalist system.

The Soviet Union is the country that has conducted socialist experiments for the longest time. Has made remarkable achievements. In my opinion, it is unconvincing to explain the reason of disintegration with the above viewpoint, because it is not in line with history. Let's review the history.

The planned economic system of the Soviet Union was established in 1928. From 1928 to 1975, the Soviet economy developed rapidly. Whether using official statistics of the Soviet Union or western data, it can be proved that the speed of Soviet economic development in this period exceeded that of all capitalist countries except Japan. The premise of the Soviet Union's economic development is to "achieve the greatest social justice", which I'm afraid capitalist countries can't do.

Due to the implementation of the socialist system and the establishment of the planned economy system, the Soviet Union was built into an industrialized country from a backward agricultural country as early as 1940. According to western statistics, the import proportion of Soviet industrial machine tools reached 85% ~ 90% in 1930s. After the beginning of World War II, all of them were made in China, which greatly promoted industrialization and technological progress. From 1950 to 1975, the annual growth rate of the Soviet Union's gross national product was 4.8%, while that of the United States was 3.3% in the same period. Western statistics also show that in the former eastern European socialist countries, the economic development speed under the planned economy system is much faster than that of western countries. Of course, this does not mean that there is no problem with the planned economic system established by the Soviet Union.

From 1975 to 1989, the economic development of the Soviet Union began to slow down, which was relative to the previous decades and did not collapse. The first absolute decline began in the summer of 1990, which was not caused by internal contradictions in the Soviet economic system.

1990 In March, Yeltsin was elected as the largest Russian parliamentarian in the Soviet Union at that time. In June of the same year, he was elected as the chief executive of Russia through a surprising election. At this time, Ye and his assistants began to take a series of political measures to destroy the planned economy of the country, resulting in a sharp decline in the national economy, about 2%. 199 1 year, Russia led by Ye destroyed the central plan on a larger scale, and he intercepted most Russian taxes and did not turn them over to the central finance. The Soviet economy fell 13% that year. It can be seen that the economic problems of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s did not lie in the internal system at all, but were the result of man-made destruction.

How do we view the second aspect of the western mainstream view? As far as I know, around 1990, in order to study the trend of Soviet reform, many western countries, including American opinion polling agencies, conducted many opinion polls in the Soviet Union. The results show that the number of people who support capitalism is around 5% ~ 20%, and as many as 80% people want to stick to socialism. For example, in May of 199 1, a polling agency in the United States conducted a public opinion survey on the Soviet Union 1000 people. One of the contents is "Do you agree to implement American-style free market economy in the Soviet Union?" Only 17% people agree and 83% people disagree. In this way, most of the Soviet public did not want to abolish socialism and establish capitalism.

My research conclusion is based on historical facts.

The real reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union comes from within the Soviet Union. I mean the elite group with hundreds of thousands of people holding important leadership positions in the party and government organs. It is this elite group that tries to practice capitalism so that they can enjoy greater power and more wealth. So I named the topic "Top-down Revolution".

I don't think everyone in this elite group is in favor of capitalism. For example, ryzhkov is different from most party cadres. I had a conversation with him at 1992, and found that he was a firm socialist and felt extremely painful for the socialist reform to finally move towards the capitalist road. But in the Soviet elite, such people are too few anyway. Most of them want to take the capitalist road and form a strong alliance with intellectuals who share the same views in the city.

Below, I provide a survey result from the United States.

1991June, an American social problem investigation agency conducted an ideological survey in Moscow, targeting party and government officials who hold high-level power. The survey takes the form of special group discussion, which usually takes 4-5 hours to talk with the respondents to determine their thoughts and opinions.

The analysis results show that about 9.6% people have * * *, and they explicitly supported the socialist model before the reform; 12.3% people have the view of democratic socialism, support reform and hope for socialist democratization; 76.7% people think that capitalism should be practiced. As the longest-standing and most influential socialist Soviet Union in the world, it is really shocking that so many party cadres advocate taking the capitalist road.

Let me briefly analyze this phenomenon. From 1975 to 1985, the Soviet Union experienced a period of stable development for ten years. At this time, there was a force brewing in the Soviet Party, and that was to seek reform. Gorbachev was elected as the general secretary of the Central Committee as a representative of the reformists. At the beginning of the reform, Gorgo tried to overcome some problems existing since the establishment of the socialist system through reform, and made the Soviet Union embark on the road of economic and political democratization. Specifically, it is to implement decentralization in politics, introduce market mechanism in economy and reduce control in the ideological field.

As a result, the power and prestige of the Soviet Union were weakened, which led to the struggle of the three forces within the party.

First, we must adhere to the party's leadership reform and socialist reform.

Second, we should return to the more traditional socialist road.

Third, some people openly advocate replacing socialism with capitalism. Yeltsin is just the representative of the third force. He is a member of the Political Bureau and the first secretary of the Moscow Municipal Committee. His speech and political influence are enormous.

In the early 1990s, after Ye was elected as the chief executive of Russia, there were actually two regimes in the Soviet Union, one was the central regime controlled by the Soviet Union and the other was the Russian regime controlled by Ye. Due to the absolute superiority of Russian population and territorial area, Ye gradually gained the upper hand. According to the Soviet constitution, Russia does not have its own army, and Ye does not rely on the support of the army. His foundation is the capitalist elite in the Soviet Party.

According to my research, the collective leadership of the Soviet Union was still composed of idealistic revolutionaries in the 1970s, but it was completely different in the 1980s. The elites who occupy an important position in the party and government organs of the Soviet Union began to give up the ideology of * * * and replaced it with typical materialism and pragmatism.

Although these elites are still repeating the official views, few people believe them, and they begin to consider what reform plan is most beneficial to them. Many people think that democratic socialism will weaken their own power. Although socialism before the reform gave them some privileges, it restricted them from passing on power to their children and accumulating more wealth.

Obviously, capitalism is in the best interests of elite groups. In this way, it is not only the manager of the means of production, but also the owner of the means of production, which can not only realize the faster growth of personal wealth, but also legally allow children to inherit power and wealth. In my opinion, Yeltsin was able to force the disintegration of the Soviet Union in a peaceful way because of the support of the elites in the * * * production party who advocated the capitalist road, thus enabling Russia to make a smooth transition to capitalism.

199 1 in the summer of, I talked with a senior Soviet cadre named nikula yafu in Moscow. He works in many hot spots in the world and may be a member of the KGB. I asked him, "Are you a capitalist?" At that time, Sue * * * still existed. He said, "I am a producer of party member, but I am not a producer of * * *." I found it incomprehensible after listening to it. Now I know clearly that his answer clearly revealed the ideological basis of the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with the elite of the former Soviet Union who want to take the capitalist road. The richest person in Russia today is the elite of the party. For example, chernomyrdin was the general manager of the Soviet Natural Gas Company in the 1980s. After 1992, the natural gas company was privatized and Chernomyrdin became the largest shareholder of the natural gas joint-stock company. He controls more than 40% of the world's natural gas resources and is one of the richest individuals in the world. Kolkovski, secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League of the former Soviet Union, also took advantage of his position to set up a big bank, turning the wealth originally belonging to the people into personal property.

There are many inducing factors about the disintegration of the Soviet Union. For example, during the coal miners' strike from 1989 to 199 1, Yeltsin and his allies skillfully made full use of this key. Then, the media control of the party and the government fell into the hands of intellectuals who tried to implement capitalism, as well as ethnic contradictions and various struggles around parliamentary elections. But fundamentally speaking, it is the problem of the elite itself.

What I want to explain below is why an alliance composed of the party's elite group and urban intellectuals can pursue the capitalist road regardless of the opposition of the broad masses of Soviet people.

In my opinion, under the socialist system of the Soviet Union, the broad masses of people have indeed benefited a lot in their lives, but they are relatively passive politically and lack political rights. When the elite alliance wants to engage in capitalism, they can't take effective boycott measures to defend the socialist system. Of course, in the early days of Yeltsin's coming to power, he was still concerned about the people's choice of system. In various public speeches, he tried to hide his true views and did not expose his attempt to establish capitalism. On the contrary, he said that he would introduce a market economy through reform and gradually eliminate the privileges of political elites. This is undoubtedly the cheapest deception compared with some people who openly say that they want to carry out the capitalist revolution in the Soviet Union.

The disintegration of the socialist Soviet Union does not mean the failure of socialism, nor does it prove that capitalism is superior to socialism. On the contrary, to transform an agricultural society into an industrialized society, the most superior system is still the socialist system, which has been confirmed by the history of the Soviet Union after the October Revolution 19 17. People choose socialism not only because it is more conducive to social development, but also because this system is conducive to the realization of social justice to the greatest extent and to the highest degree.

The lesson of the disintegration of the Soviet Union is that once the older generation of revolutionaries die in a socialist country managed by a few elites, it is difficult to ensure that the successors do not want to gain more benefits for themselves through the implementation of capitalism.

I believe that after a long development process, socialism will gradually solve the above problems and truly realize that most workers and peasants not only have the right to education, but also have the right to work and the right to directly participate in and manage state affairs. Such socialism is definitely superior to capitalism and will certainly exist as a lasting social system.

Regarding the role of the United States in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, some people think that the sharp increase in military spending during the Reagan period forced the Soviet Union to engage in an arms race, which dragged down its own economy. If this is the result of the Reagan administration showing off its weakening of capitalism, it is understandable. If I am responsible for history, then I will tell you that according to American data, the absolute amount of Soviet military expenditure increased greatly in the 1980s, but its proportion in national economic development was exactly the same as that in the 1950s.

It should be said that the United States and the West did play a great role in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but this role was not mainly political or economic, but the ideology represented by liberalism penetrated into the minds of Soviet intellectuals and party cadres very effectively. 199 1 American economists study the ideological tendency of Soviet economists and compare them with British economists, and find that they support marketization more.

To be fair, when I first read this article, I didn't pay special attention to Professor Coates' point of view. However, with the increasing corruption of government officials, the degree of corruption of individual corrupt officials is shocking enough; While the so-called mainstream schools among intellectuals are clamoring for privatization, I began to seriously study Professor Coates' views. When I carefully combed all the views of Professor Coates, temporarily put aside some of his arguments and highlighted the core points, I was suddenly surprised. I don't know whether Professor Coates is analyzing the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union or describing the reality in China.

After studying the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Professor Coates reached the following core views:

1. There are two mainstream views in the west about the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union:

(1) The socialist planned economy of the Soviet Union began to collapse in the 1980s, and the Soviet Union had no choice but to implement marketization and privatization.

(2) In socialist countries, once people gain real democracy and freedom, they will propose to abolish socialism and establish capitalism.

Second, Professor Coates denied the above two viewpoints with a large number of conclusive facts.

(1) The collapse of the planned economic system of the Soviet Union was not caused by the internal contradictions of the Soviet economic system, but Yeltsin and his assistants intercepted the taxes that should have been turned over to the central finance by Russia after taking control of the Russian regime, thus undermining the central plan and leading to the collapse of the Soviet economy. The disintegration of Soviet economy is not in the system at all, but the result of man-made destruction;

(2) Many western countries, including American polling agencies, have conducted many public opinion surveys in the Soviet Union. The results show that the number of people who support capitalism is around 5% ~ 20%, and as many as 80% people want to stick to socialism. Most of the Soviet public did not want to abolish socialism and establish capitalism.

Third, the real reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union came from within the Soviet Union. The basic strength is a powerful alliance composed of elite groups with hundreds of thousands of people holding important leadership positions in party and government organs and intellectuals with the same views in the city.

Gorbachev, as a representative of reformists, tried to overcome some problems since the establishment of the socialist system through reform, and made the Soviet Union embark on the road of economic and political democratization. Specifically, it is to introduce market mechanism in economy, implement decentralization in politics and reduce control in ideological field. As a result, the power and prestige of the Soviet Union were weakened, which led to the struggle of three forces within the party:

(1) is to adhere to the party's leadership and socialist reform;

(2) Returning to the more traditional socialist road;

(3) Some people openly advocate replacing socialism with capitalism. Yeltsin is only the representative of the third force. Moreover, Yeltsin's success depends not on the support of the army, but on the alliance formed by the capitalist elite group of the Soviet Union and urban intellectuals.

5. Why did the elite group with hundreds of thousands of people holding important leadership positions in the party and government organs in the Soviet Union abandon socialism and move towards capitalism despite the opposition of 80% of the Soviet people? The answer is simple: profit-driven.

Before and during the reform, elite groups used the power entrusted to them by the people to greedily embezzle the property of the country and the people, and shamelessly pocketed the property of the country and the people. But they are worried, because as long as socialism exists, their lives will not be peaceful. Because even professors in capitalist countries like Coates know that the purpose of socialism is to "achieve the greatest social justice".

If the socialist state machine is allowed to operate normally, many of these elite groups may be sent to the judgment seat of history like China's Cheng and Li, and even pay the price of their lives. Is there any way to maintain long-term stability? Looking around the world, they finally found that on the banner of the bourgeoisie and the code of capitalism, it was written in big letters: "Private property is sacred and inviolable."

As Professor Coates said: Capitalism is in the best interests of the elite. In this way, it is not only the manager of the means of production, but also the owner of the means of production, which can not only realize the faster growth of personal wealth, but also legally allow children to inherit power and wealth. There is nothing wrong with those former Soviet elites who want to take the capitalist road. The richest person in Russia today is the elite of the party.

For example, chernomyrdin was the general manager of the Soviet Natural Gas Company in the 1980s. After 1992, the natural gas company was privatized and Chernomyrdin became the largest shareholder of the natural gas joint-stock company. He controls more than 40% of the world's natural gas resources and is one of the richest individuals in the world. Kolkovski, secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League of the former Soviet Union, also took advantage of his position to set up a big bank, turning the wealth originally belonging to the people into personal property.

6. Why can the alliance composed of the party's elite group and urban intellectuals pursue the capitalist road regardless of the opposition of the vast Soviet people? Under the socialist system of the Soviet Union, the broad masses of the people really benefited a lot in life, but they were politically passive and lacked political rights. When the elite alliance wants to engage in capitalism, they can't take effective boycott measures to defend the socialist system.

7. The disintegration of the socialist Soviet Union does not mean the failure of socialism, nor does it mean that capitalism is superior to socialism. On the contrary, to transform an agricultural society into an industrialized society, the most superior system is still the socialist system, which has been confirmed by the history of the Soviet Union after the October Revolution 19 17. People choose socialism not only because it is more conducive to social development, but also because this system is conducive to the realization of social justice to the greatest extent and to the highest degree. The lesson of the disintegration of the Soviet Union is that once the older generation of revolutionaries die in a socialist country managed by a few elites, it is difficult to ensure that the successors do not want to gain more benefits for themselves through the implementation of capitalism.

Eight, after a long process of development, socialism will gradually solve the above problems, and truly realize that most workers and peasants have not only the right to education, but also the right to work, and the right to directly participate in and manage state affairs. Such socialism is definitely superior to capitalism and will certainly exist as a lasting social system.

Nine, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the United States and the West did play a great role, but this role was not mainly political and economic, but the ideology represented by liberalism penetrated into the minds of Soviet intellectuals and party cadres very effectively. 199 1 American economists study the ideological tendency of Soviet economists and compare them with British economists, and find that they support marketization more.

At this point, the author's inner fear is beyond words. Although I am not familiar with politics, I have some clues about the current situation in China.

Why is the gap between the rich and the poor growing in China? Because, today's rich people in China who directly or indirectly use power to seize state and people's property are the overlord of China land in the future-the emerging bourgeoisie! Don't! To be exact, they should be called "intellectual class". Because they are no longer capitalists who simply manipulated capital in the past, but with the help of high technology produced by the information society, they have embarked on the "knowledge family"-the new ruling class-in China's economic, cultural and political arena with tangible capital and intangible intelligence.

Poor Lang Xianping still doesn't know whose cheese he touched, which brings him trouble. Sadly, Lang Xianping didn't even know who he was challenging. He doesn't know that there are actually ghostly power groups behind the business predators such as Haier and TCL that he challenges. Many netizens are indignant at Lang Xianping's failure to become an economic figure of CCTV in 2004. I think, be content, Mr. Lang. You are lucky that I didn't see you on the recent list of martyrs.

Why is the wind of corruption getting worse? The level of corrupt officials is getting higher and higher? Corruption is becoming more and more organized? Today's officials have a limited term of office and have unlimited scenery when they are in office; Once out of officialdom, the world is cold and frightening. If you don't use power for a rainy day, you will find yourself in three caves, and no one will take care of it after losing power. It's really sad. For officials, in peacetime, although life is not needed as a cost, the human foundation of daily communication allowed by traditional ethics, especially the superiors who control their own promotion destiny, can only be maintained by "filial piety" in kind or money. Otherwise, if you don't know Samadhi, you will go to bring disgrace to oneself and ask for trouble.

Officials not only have no time to deal with government affairs, but also need money to please their superiors. However, a few wages can't support the cost of human operation, so we have to look to the "ignorant people" and extend our black hands to the people's sweat.

Most importantly, those who use their power to seize state and people's property are worried that their fate will be destroyed under the normal operation of the socialist state machine. Therefore, they are desperately looking for the amulet of the system. As Professor Coates said, capitalism is in the best interests of the elite, because on the banner of the bourgeoisie and the code of capitalism, it is written in big letters: "Private property is sacred and inviolable." In this way, the original frightening criminal behavior will not only stop because of changing the signboard, but also become the pioneer of the new system, not only the manager of the means of production, but also the owner of the means of production, which can not only realize the faster growth of personal wealth, but also legally let children inherit power and wealth.

Everyone in the elite group knows very well that the most effective way to rule people's hearts is to manipulate public opinion, and intellectuals are most familiar with making public opinion. As a result, some so-called mainstream scholars, after gaining a little sweetness and petty profits, began to betray their conscience, help others wave their flags and cry, and spare no effort to clamor for "killing the rich without saving the poor." "The biggest threat facing China is that the national government infringes on private property rights and embezzles private property."

In fact, these mainstream scholars may never dream of it. They earnestly hope that China will take the road of privatization, and capitalism will never be realized.

Because, unlike the former Soviet Union, the particularity of China's social structure lies in the fact that social replacement is a mode of "fire phoenix self-immolation and rebirth". After the legendary fire phoenix set itself on fire, it was reborn as a new fire phoenix in the place where it set itself on fire. From the historical evolution of China feudal society: at the end of the feudal dynasty, various contradictions were intertwined, or new forces split within the dynasty to take charge of the imperial power, such as Wu Zetian in the Tang Dynasty; Or Zhu Yuanzhang, Li Zicheng peasant uprising and other external forces overthrew the former dynasty and established a new dynasty. Or foreign invasion, ethnic minorities in charge of state affairs, such as the Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty. However, in any case, the dynasty perished, just like the fire phoenix set itself on fire. After the demise of the dynasty, a new dynasty with a similar structure to the previous dynasty came into being. Like a fire phoenix, a new phoenix was born in the place where she set herself on fire.

Zhu Yuanzhang, Li Zicheng and Hong Xiuquan are representatives of peasant uprisings in the history of China. At the beginning of the uprising, their excellent quality was commendable, which won the hearts of the people and laid a solid class foundation for the success of their cause. However, when they mastered all or part of the power, the absolute power in China society without any restriction brought them benefits that they had never dreamed of before, which made people dazzled and ecstatic. Especially in the face of people's admiring eyes, the expressions and behaviors of awe, submission, worship and taming make them like drinking nectar and climbing into fairyland. The dreamland and ecstasy of orgasm after drug abuse cannot be compared with them. Why change or even foolishly overthrow such a wonderful system that can meet all your needs? There is a world-class problem in the history of mathematics: Fermat's last theorem. Someone offered a reward to the person who cracked it. Later, someone asked the great mathematician Hilbert why he didn't solve this problem. Hilbert replied humorously, "Why kill a goose that lays golden eggs?"

In a word, even if China realizes "privatization" and "capitalism" one day, she is by no means western-style capitalism, but still feudalism under the egg wing of capitalism. Will China repeat the mistakes of the disintegration of the Soviet Union? In terms of form, the future development of China is similar to that of the Soviet Union, but the result is quite different, because what is happening now is another redistribution and repositioning of power.