Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate?

what was the reason for the disintegration of the Soviet union?

-lecture by David coates, an economics professor at the university of Massachusetts, USA, in Tsinghua University

The research on the disintegration of the Soviet Union was written in my book "Top-down Revolution-the disintegration of the Soviet Union".

There are two mainstream views on the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the West: First, the Soviet economic system has been proved to be

infeasible in a long period of operation. The inherent contradictions in the economy in the 198s led to the collapse of the economy, and there was no choice but to establish capitalism. Second,

, politically, once Gorbachev practiced freedom of speech and free elections, the Soviet people used their newly acquired rights to abolish socialism and establish capitalism. The essence of this mainstream view is that socialism failed after a long attempt in a big country. I spent six years from 1991 to 1996 studying the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. During this period,

I met with senior officials, politicians and entrepreneurs of the former Soviet Union. A

study was made on the Soviet Union from the 192s until its disintegration. My research proves that these mainstream views in the west are not in line with the facts.

on the causes of the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. From 1928 to 1975, the Soviet Union experienced a period of rapid growth, from an agricultural society to an industrial society. According to western estimates, from 1928 to 194, the Soviet Union grew at an average annual rate of 5.8%, which was very fast at that time. In 195, the Soviet Union realized industrialization, and until 1975, its development speed was faster than that of the United States. During this period, the average annual growth rate of the Soviet Union was 4.8%, while that of the United States was only 3.3%, which is the western data. In the same period, Eastern Europe is also faster than Western Europe. After 1975, it was worse than before, slowed down, and technological progress slowed down. At this time, the growth rate was lower than that of the United States < P >, but there was still a growth rate of 1.9% or 1.8%, and there was no negative growth, which could not be called economic collapse. At this time, the consumption of water < P > is faster than the production growth. Then Yeltsin disintegrated the planned economy. Therefore, since 199, there has been an absolute economic decline. In 1991, the planned economy no longer worked. Yeltsin does not pay taxes to the central government. The planned economy of the Soviet Union did not collapse for its own reasons, but was politically lifted by Yeltsin. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the economy collapsed.

look at the second mainstream view in the west, that is, political reasons. The Soviet Union conducted many opinion polls. Poll

shows that only 5-2% are in favor of capitalism. In May 1991, the largest popular

test conducted by the United States was conducted in the European part of the Soviet Union. Among the sample population, 1% are in favor of socialism before the reform; 36% are in favor of more democratic socialism; 23% are in favor of Swedish socialism; Only 17% are in favor of free market capitalism. This < P > was established by Yeltsin after 1992. Therefore, there is no evidence that free market capitalism is the will of the people of the Soviet Union. In the vote on whether to retain the Soviet Union, most of them are also in favor of retaining it.

My explanation for the disintegration of the Soviet Union is that the elite of the Soviet Union held separate discussions to determine their ideology. Among them, 9.6% are in favor of * * * materialism and nationalism; 12.3% are in favor of democratic socialism; 7 6.7% are in favor of the social form of capitalism < P >; 1.4% took other attitudes. This is in stark contrast to the attitude of the people. Most people at the top are in favor of capitalism. They formed alliances with other groups, and with a part of the underworld, the rich and the city intellectuals. They formed an alliance, seized political power and established capitalism.

The process of the formation of this alliance is discussed in detail in my book. From 1975 to 1985, there was a great pressure to reform. Because of this pressure, Gorbachev came to power. Gorbachev's aim is to

reform socialism and democratize it. Gorbachev's aides believed that the Soviet Union's democratization and decentralization reform introduced limited < P > market factors, thinking that this could overcome the stagnation of the Soviet Union. However, the effect of Gorbachev's reform was unexpected. There is a power struggle between big interest groups. The first is freedom of speech, and the * * * production party no longer controls the mass media.

In p>199, a new democratic system emerged, that is, the new Soviet system, and the power of the former Soviet Central Committee was decentralized. Began a political struggle related to the future direction of the Soviet Union. Generally speaking, there are three positions: continue to reform and democratize the society; Return to Soviet socialism before the reform; Completely abandon socialism and replace it with capitalism. The emergence of the third position is beyond Gorbachev's expectation. No one expected the change of the party's elite group. Yeltsin became a pro-capitalist leader. Yeltsin became the president of the Russian Federation, and in fact, two regimes coexisted in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev controls the Soviet Union and Yeltsin controls Russia. At that time, Russia had no legal basis, neither law nor army. From 199 to 1991, the upper class accepted the position of supporting capitalism. This is related to the changes of social collectives in the Soviet Union. In the 198s, the high-level group of 1, people was different from before. This fuzzy group is very pragmatic and materialistic, and has no ideological position. They will repeat the official ideological words without believing them, and only care about their privileges and interests. Among them, only a few believe in socialism. When they debated the

direction of the development of the Soviet Union in the late 198s, they began to think selectively: if the reform reached democratization, it would reduce privileges and powers;

if we go back to socialism before the reform, although we have relative privileges and status, our privileges are limited by the original socialist system, and we can't accumulate too much wealth, let alone pass them on to our descendants. Therefore,

the elites believe that capitalism can provide them with the greatest opportunity, not only to manage, but also to possess wealth and pass it on to future generations

. This can explain the rapid change of their views. This can push Gorbachev aside and give Yeltsin power. The specific measures involve many details, such as coal mine strikes, media competition, and nationalist sentiment around the Soviet Union. Yeltsin used these to seize power, leaving Gorbachev there helpless.

this pro-capitalist force is mainly in Russia and the Republic of China. They realized that the Soviet Union must be disintegrated in order to gain great power. Soviet elites believe that the transition to capitalism will make them rich. Facts have proved that

this is correct. I studied the senior officials of the Soviet Union, such as chernomyrdin, who was the prime minister for many years. In 8

, he became the natural gas minister. In 92, he became the owner of a natural gas monopoly company, mastered 4% of the natural gas reserves, and became the richest man in the world. Kolkovsky, when I interviewed him in 1993, he described how he used state funds to build his own private bank when he was the leader of the Youth League in the 198s. They set up

capitalism in spite of people's opposition.

The working people have benefited from socialism, but they have not fully exercised their rights. Under the socialist system, the masses are in a passive position. They have no experience in taking action to defend their own interests. When the elite broke up the Soviet Union, they couldn't organize resistance.

Yeltsin covered up his real purpose. He never talked about establishing capitalism, but only talked about democracy, reform and market reform. Until he left the presidency, he didn't talk about establishing capitalism. At this point, other members of Yeltsin's leadership group < P > are more straightforward, and Gaidar is sincere in carrying out the capitalist revolution. He became the first prime minister.

lessons from the disintegration of the Soviet union. According to the west, the disintegration of the Soviet Union proved that socialism was a huge mistake, that planning was not feasible, and that only capitalism could bring about technological progress and improvement of living standards. My conclusion is different. The disintegration of the Soviet Union can neither prove the failure of socialism nor prove the superiority of capitalism. It just proves that this system is superior to capitalism in transforming agricultural society into industrial society, and it has faster development and more fairness than capitalism. This is proved by the early history of the Soviet Union.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union proves that it is not lasting and unstable for some elites to take power. These people in power finally realized that it is not in their own interest to protect socialism. It is capitalism rather than socialism that suits one's own interests. At the same time, they

have the power to turn to capitalism. This applies not only to explain the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but also to explain the drastic changes in Eastern Europe. This does not prove that the socialist system is not feasible. It tells us that if socialism is to last for a long time, people who benefit from socialism must be empowered at the same time. The people must have real sovereignty. I'm not referring to the capitalist democratic system. But socialism must master the principle of bottom-up production, not the upper level. Only in this way can socialism be maintained.

Socialism is produced through revolution. For a period of time, power was held at the top to consolidate the revolution. But this

brought a problem to later socialism: it is difficult for a party accustomed to exercising power to transform into a democratic party. But

as long as the older generation of revolutionaries are in power, there is no problem. When the old generation dies and the new generation comes to power, this becomes a problem < P >. The new leading group has no history of oppression and social progress in the old society. Therefore, it itself has a tendency to turn to

capitalism. This is not inevitable. If the power relationship is changed, the transition to capitalism can be avoided.

you don't have to have your own grave digger.

Socialism can also be produced in a so-called democratic country without going through a harsh struggle. Socialism there can be

in a democratic way with the participation of the people from the beginning, and it is not easy for the upper elite to form. However, it is difficult for the United States. American rulers will resort to violence and will not respect the rights of the people stipulated in the Constitution.