This is an amazing piece: well-researched, full of insight as well as concrete details, and still relatively accessible. I can’t imagine how much time you spent in a chair for this piece, whether reading source materials or writing this up. Thank you and bravo!
Thank you for this remarkable essay. Your core analysis, of perestroika botched due to Gorbachev's unwillingness to allow pricing reforms, rather than stymied by populist dissent and reactionary Party members, is insightful. I understand why PM Ryzhkov was a hero to Hough!
The Larry King interview was good. Gorbachev didn't contradict his 1985 era Marxist-Leninist beliefs that reform could emerge organically by "mobilizing bottom up enthusiasm and unleashing the latent potentialities of socialism that were being bureaucratically stifled" per footnote 71 and https://www.cogitations.co/i/154994363/a-revolution-from-above-and-below
I enjoyed your droll description of Uncivil Society and the peculiarities of the late Soviet welfare state which was largely captured by well-off urban elite! I agree that understanding Gorbachev and the demise of the USSR political system is helpful to those studying China's transition since 1973. A related question please?
You noted that in Sept 1988, Gorbachev "neutered the traditional power of the Politburo and Secretariat" much like Xi Jinping acted to "dominate the policy-making process." The 1989 CIA intel analysis is a great find! Gorbachev's "overall goals appear to go far beyond simply creating a new administrative apparatus, extending to reducing party control in general and enhancing his own power." Gorbachev's power as Gen Sec and President was greater than any predecessor since Stalin. Might Gorbachev have been striving for a Soviet version of market Leninism, with himself in an analogous role in the USSR that Xi JinPing now occupies in China?
Edit needed? (Missing “not”): “But Gorbachev’s ability to undertake such massive personnel reshuffling does comport well with an image of a “helpless” leader beset by entrenched bureaucratic enemies.”
Thanks for the thoughtful question. Though I think this essay makes clear the answer is in the negative. G’s stated goal initially was socialism + democracy which would seem to indicate he was aiming for a bit of an inversion of market Leninism: a mishmash of socialist planning with more bottom up political and social input. Ultimately that evolved into a decisive push for genuine democratization, well before much of the planned economy was dismantled or marketization had been cultivated. A bit of this hinges on the definition of Leninism, a sometimes slippery and vague term. But I think genuine multi-party elections are inconsistent inconsistent with any typical conceptualization of “market Leninism”, wherein a one-party state rules unilaterally via ‘democratic centralism’ as a vanguard on behalf of some other group (eg the proletariat or in China post three represents, ostensibly the broader masses).
Amazingly comprehensive with hardly any of the Yeltsin “nudge” in the system included. Like a cosmonaut who was removed from the photo.
What that means for the future of yellow journalism in PRC is as obvious as glasnost is dense.
But it is best for all of us if the continued genocide of the Uyghurs and other minorities in slave labor within China continues unabated under the tariff and price reforms of the BRICS’ed in wine connoisseur.
What would it mean for China if such slavocracy policies were to be abolished? What would it mean for bought politicians in DC?
Such questions, like the influence of Yeltsin in the Soviet collapse, are best left unvoiced in “Real History(SM).”
All rights of color revolution CIA copyright holders of “Real History(SM)” reserved [under Minnesota Reserve corpus].
I m reacting to some comments. Here and on another forums about this article.
Most people from US, reading this do not really comprehend what were limits/bounds of what was possible to do in east Europe in that age. And politics is only possible in between these bounds / limits.
This was NOT "US population and just add communism" type of thing.
East European vs US population had different experiences throughout whole 20th century. Parallel universe.
In east Europe from 1917 to 1939 there were millions of people killed by own fellow citizens.
1939-1945 there were another millions killed, by hand of citizens of another countries AND by fellow citizens.
1945-1987 another tens of millions killed. By executed, slaughtered, starved, beat or
tortured to death, or otherwise killed, by fellow citizens.
So what i am trying to say is that these killings and emigrations, were reason that many "good", hardworking, educated, rational people LEFT "pool of available people", in one way or another in MILLIONS. So you can only choose your "allies", your "elites" from "what was left there". And it is not only just about quantity it is about what those who stayed had in their mind after living thru something which US population did NOT live.
Russian citizens killed multiple times more fellow citizens in 20th century (2WW excluded) than whole industrialization of murder in 2WW did.
And they had to live with it.
And this minefield was what these people were walking on every single day.
This is an amazing piece: well-researched, full of insight as well as concrete details, and still relatively accessible. I can’t imagine how much time you spent in a chair for this piece, whether reading source materials or writing this up. Thank you and bravo!
Excellent work. Thank you!
This was quite a read. Loved it. Amazing effort, coherent structure…and reads super well. Thanks for this
Thank you for this remarkable essay. Your core analysis, of perestroika botched due to Gorbachev's unwillingness to allow pricing reforms, rather than stymied by populist dissent and reactionary Party members, is insightful. I understand why PM Ryzhkov was a hero to Hough!
The Larry King interview was good. Gorbachev didn't contradict his 1985 era Marxist-Leninist beliefs that reform could emerge organically by "mobilizing bottom up enthusiasm and unleashing the latent potentialities of socialism that were being bureaucratically stifled" per footnote 71 and https://www.cogitations.co/i/154994363/a-revolution-from-above-and-below
I enjoyed your droll description of Uncivil Society and the peculiarities of the late Soviet welfare state which was largely captured by well-off urban elite! I agree that understanding Gorbachev and the demise of the USSR political system is helpful to those studying China's transition since 1973. A related question please?
You noted that in Sept 1988, Gorbachev "neutered the traditional power of the Politburo and Secretariat" much like Xi Jinping acted to "dominate the policy-making process." The 1989 CIA intel analysis is a great find! Gorbachev's "overall goals appear to go far beyond simply creating a new administrative apparatus, extending to reducing party control in general and enhancing his own power." Gorbachev's power as Gen Sec and President was greater than any predecessor since Stalin. Might Gorbachev have been striving for a Soviet version of market Leninism, with himself in an analogous role in the USSR that Xi JinPing now occupies in China?
Edit needed? (Missing “not”): “But Gorbachev’s ability to undertake such massive personnel reshuffling does comport well with an image of a “helpless” leader beset by entrenched bureaucratic enemies.”
thanks!
You’re welcome. There are a few more if you want to know. Minor stuff.
This is beyond amazing. Thank you for letting us to read it for free.
Thanks for the thoughtful question. Though I think this essay makes clear the answer is in the negative. G’s stated goal initially was socialism + democracy which would seem to indicate he was aiming for a bit of an inversion of market Leninism: a mishmash of socialist planning with more bottom up political and social input. Ultimately that evolved into a decisive push for genuine democratization, well before much of the planned economy was dismantled or marketization had been cultivated. A bit of this hinges on the definition of Leninism, a sometimes slippery and vague term. But I think genuine multi-party elections are inconsistent inconsistent with any typical conceptualization of “market Leninism”, wherein a one-party state rules unilaterally via ‘democratic centralism’ as a vanguard on behalf of some other group (eg the proletariat or in China post three represents, ostensibly the broader masses).
Amazingly comprehensive with hardly any of the Yeltsin “nudge” in the system included. Like a cosmonaut who was removed from the photo.
What that means for the future of yellow journalism in PRC is as obvious as glasnost is dense.
But it is best for all of us if the continued genocide of the Uyghurs and other minorities in slave labor within China continues unabated under the tariff and price reforms of the BRICS’ed in wine connoisseur.
What would it mean for China if such slavocracy policies were to be abolished? What would it mean for bought politicians in DC?
Such questions, like the influence of Yeltsin in the Soviet collapse, are best left unvoiced in “Real History(SM).”
All rights of color revolution CIA copyright holders of “Real History(SM)” reserved [under Minnesota Reserve corpus].
I m reacting to some comments. Here and on another forums about this article.
Most people from US, reading this do not really comprehend what were limits/bounds of what was possible to do in east Europe in that age. And politics is only possible in between these bounds / limits.
This was NOT "US population and just add communism" type of thing.
East European vs US population had different experiences throughout whole 20th century. Parallel universe.
In east Europe from 1917 to 1939 there were millions of people killed by own fellow citizens.
1939-1945 there were another millions killed, by hand of citizens of another countries AND by fellow citizens.
1945-1987 another tens of millions killed. By executed, slaughtered, starved, beat or
tortured to death, or otherwise killed, by fellow citizens.
So what i am trying to say is that these killings and emigrations, were reason that many "good", hardworking, educated, rational people LEFT "pool of available people", in one way or another in MILLIONS. So you can only choose your "allies", your "elites" from "what was left there". And it is not only just about quantity it is about what those who stayed had in their mind after living thru something which US population did NOT live.
Russian citizens killed multiple times more fellow citizens in 20th century (2WW excluded) than whole industrialization of murder in 2WW did.
And they had to live with it.
And this minefield was what these people were walking on every single day.
We'll argued and persuasive. I don't think that's just because it confirms my priors...