There are many who say that the fall of the Soviet Union was
the consequence of bad policy. That is the sum total of their
political analysis explaining why the Soviet Union collapsed. Some
people blame the policies of Gorbachov, some people blame
Khrushchev. They even make a fetish of pinpointing the exact time
of the betrayal of socialism, when bad policies began to destroy
socialism.
Reciting the policies and the results of policies of the
former Soviet regime is not a scientific reflection of what
occurred there, or anywhere else for that matter. Policy is a very
definite formulation by a group of people who want to advocate
certain things. However, if the internal basis for those certain
things is not present, no amount of good or bad policies will bring
them about. If the internal basis for the destruction of the Soviet
Union had not existed, the policies of Khrushchev, Gorbachov and
all the other revisionists would not have resulted in the
destruction of the Soviet Union. The reasons, the internal basis,
is much more profound than that.
There is the simple example of the egg that is kept at a
certain temperature until it hatches. If a stone were placed there
instead of the egg, it doesn't matter what temperature or
conditions are employed it will not hatch. By the 1950s the Soviet
Union had developed to the initial stage of socialism. The
socialist journey had barely begun. Even the economy was far from
fully socialized. All the fundamental questions were yet to be
resolved: in the spheres of philosophy, and economic and political
theory, and all other spheres of thought. Instead of dealing with
these problems of the socialist system and finding a way forward;
in place of making a contribution to resolve the problems that had
arisen in the relationship of human beings to the socialist society
and amongst themselves, in the relations among the individuals,
collectives and society; the problems of consciousness and being;
and other issues that needed answers; there was capitulation to the
old, to the old way of thinking and doing things.
Objectively, there was in existence two groups of people which
consolidated the old and together constituted the anti-human factor
for the restoration of capitalism: the overthrown classes were
still very strong, they had connections both within the Soviet
Union and abroad and they carried out extensive activities to serve
their interests; secondly, there were degenerate elements within
the state structures, within the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union and the mass organizations and military. These elements were
primed to be bought out by imperialism and capitulate to the
pressure for the restoration of capitalism. Externally there was
the pressure of the imperialist countries, especially the U.S. All
this together constitutes an objective basis for the destruction of
socialism and the restoration of capitalism.
However, having said this, the situation was far from
disastrous. These problems were a result of the successes of
socialism and the leadership of J. V. Stalin: socialist
industrialization, collectivization of the peasantry; the defeat of
Nazism and fascism; the spread of communist parties throughout the
world. These successes cried out to be consolidated in victory. If
the Soviet Union after the death of Comrade Stalin had still been
led by a genuine Communist Party, and if that Party had persisted
in a stepwise way on the same socialist road of opposing those
elements who were for the restoration of capitalism, those
reactionary elements who were inside the Communist Party and the
state structures; if the CPSU had sorted out the problems of theory
that had emerged, the Soviet Union would have triumphed; it would
not have collapsed but would have moved socialism to an entirely
new stage. They would have accomplished this even if the U.S.
imperialists had unleashed all-out war on them.
In the 1970's, Brezhnev introduced a massive program of
militarization of the Soviet Union. He fully committed the country
to the arms race. It was openly stated that the military might of
the Soviet Union was the way to protect the Soviet Union.
Superiority of arms would guarantee the survival of socialism and
the Soviet Union, Brezhnev stated. He also presented the
imperialist thesis of "limited sovereignty" to justify the
conversion of the countries of eastern-Europe into satellites of
the Soviet Union, and justify the existence of the Warsaw Pact as
an aggressive military alliance in contention with NATO.
All of this talk to promote the arms race was merely the gibberish
of those who were fully engaged in restoring capitalism. Even a
simple comparison with the 1930s shows the difference of who was in
control. Stalin stood against those who insisted on militarizing in
the face of the Nazi threat. This was a big accusation against
Stalin, that he was deliberately keeping the Soviet Union
militarily weak and a sitting duck for the imperialists. Stalin
firmly advocated that if the Soviet people had something to fight
for, that positive sentiment for socialism and the motherland would
be the greatest and only sure defense of the Soviet Union. If the
wellbeing of the people was at the heart of the economy, if it was
the aim of the socialist economy; if the people were the masters of
their own country, they would defend it heroically. He was right.
The capitalist world threw at the Soviet Union the worst enemy
imaginable but they could not break the back of a people who had
something to defend.
But what happened to the Soviet Union of the 1970s and 1980s
that was militarized and armed to the teeth? Even the General
Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union emerged as a
champion of U.S. imperialism and capitalism. Virtually every
significant leader for capitalist restoration was a so-called
communist, including the present president, Boris Yeltsin. How did
they appear? They were supposed to be communists, leading the
working class and defending socialism. They appeared spontaneously
in the same way as millionaires appear in the state monopolies and
other enterprises of every modern country, in the
military-industrial complex and in the organs of the state and
party. They appeared as a wealthy elite whose interest it was to
restore capitalism and defend their newfound positions and riches.
The basic economic laws of value began to dictate that they take
harsher and harsher measures against the working class and the
social programs that had been established under socialism. They
also began to fight with one another in an effort to establish
their capitalist hegemony in various sectors of the economy. An
atmosphere of lawlessness was created that serves the interests of
the huge monopolies that are using the situation to appropriate the
assets of all small and medium sized establishments and all those
assets of the state that have not been seized. This will continue
until there is a third wave of the Russian working class movement.
The first was 1905, the second was 1917, and the next will be even
more dramatic.
In the 1950s the problems of economic and political theory and
other questions had to be settled to move the Soviet Union forward
and defeat those forces that were nestled within the party and
state structures, those who were for the restoration of capitalism
and the defence of their privileged positions. By the end of the
1950s, it was obvious that if the Soviet Union were to move
forward, it had to basically eliminate the army; it had to arm the
entire populace to defend itself; the Party structures had to be
brought down to size; political mechanisms had to be developed to
hand the administration of the country over to the working class,
other working people, and the intelligentsia. Far from these
changes occurring, the opposite happens. There was an unprecedented
growth of the state bureaucracy, the military, the police and the
secret service using the excuse of the arms race and the threat of
imperialist attack and subversion. The people became increasingly
estranged from the running of the country, similar to what has
happened in all the imperialist countries.
When Khrushchev went to visit Albania in 1959, he saw that all
Albanians had firearms, even semi-automatic military weapons.
Alarmed, Khrushchev asked Enver Hoxha why all the people were
armed. Khrushchev remarked that maybe the people will use them
against the party, against you. Enver replied, yes they may. If we
do not do our work well, the people will be forced to use their
weapons against those who are oppressing them. Today in Albania,
which is propped up by Anglo-American imperialism, the government
has said that one of their greatest problems is to collect those
guns before they are turned against the present regime.
Throughout the capitalist world it is the army, the police and
other mercenaries that protect the system and private property from
the threat posed by the people. The property of the capitalists and
their institutions are more important than the people. At the
universities there are security forces assigned to defend
university property but not the right of the youth and students to
learn and participate in practical politics. In a socialist system,
the army, which plays a definite role, has to be gradually
eliminated and replaced by the armed people. It is in the same
manner that the government bureaucracy and structures have to be
replaced with the active participation of the masses of the people
in governing and administering production and human relations. In
the Soviet Union, right at the point when they were called upon to
move forward, they strengthened the army, the bureaucracy, and the
secret police and other police forces as the pillar of the rule of
those who were for the restoration of capitalism. It was not a
matter of good or bad policies; it was a matter of class struggle,
of defeating the remnants of the old system and those elements that
had arisen within the socialist system who were objectively for the
restoration of capitalism. The working class lost the battle for
the time being; it was not able to consolidate the successes of the
Soviet Union as a decisive victory.
TML Daily
Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
