Yu Haiqing and Yang Xiaojun: The 30th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall—Reflections and Discussions by the Western Left
As a landmark event at the watershed of 20th-century world socialist development, the fall of the Berlin Wall holds an important historical status due to its political symbolism. Western leftist parties, think tanks, newspapers, websites, and independent leftist scholars have focused on this major historical event, offering interpretations and critiques of its causes and consequences. Contemporary Western leftists are complex in composition and diverse in character, and their understandings and views on specific issues vary. However, they exhibit certain similarities and common characteristics in defending socialist values and adhering to the future direction of socialist development. On the 30th anniversary of the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Western Left’s review, reflection, and forward-looking analysis of these major events that changed the course of world history help us investigate historical truths from multiple perspectives and dimensions. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the successes and failures of socialist construction in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the drawing of lessons from socialist setbacks, and a better exploration of the path for socialism to rise from its low point toward resurgence.
I. The construction of the Berlin Wall was the result of objective developments
On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, an important topic triggered a socialist defense among the Western Left: why exactly did the German Democratic Republic (GDR) build the Berlin Wall? In 2019, heavy coverage by Western mainstream media attributed the primary reasons to "stemming the outflow of people from the communist East to the more prosperous West Germany" and "preventing the mass migration of the GDR population to the democratic enclave of West Berlin." [1] Consequently, the Berlin Wall was portrayed as an "obstacle to freedom" for the people of the GDR and a symbol of socialist "dictatorship," "tyranny," and "oppression."
The Western Left opposes this narrow position of blaming and accusing GDR-style socialism. The Communist Party of Italy criticized Western media for failing to conduct any analysis or examine history, directly equating socialism with terror and darkness, and polarizing the Berlin Wall into a symbol of "evil socialism" in an attempt to construct a false popular consciousness across Europe and the West. [2] The critique from the Communist Party of Greece was even more direct and intense, denouncing it as "imperialist lies" and a typical erroneous view of bourgeois propaganda. They argued that for 30 years, bourgeois historiography and media have waged a distorted war on the history of the Berlin Wall within an anti-communist framework, aiming to disparage the achievements of the GDR and socialist construction while attempting to manipulate public opinion, especially targeting the younger generation. [3]
On this issue, most Western leftists tend to take a more comprehensive view, emphasizing that the Berlin Wall was "by no means merely a totalitarian pillar used during anniversary marches to prove the so-called superiority of capitalism over socialism." Its construction was the result of long-term development difficulties in the GDR caused by the international and domestic situation following the Cold War. John Wojcik, an American communist, published an article on the CPUSA website People’s World suggesting that the GDR faced nine major unfavorable factors at the time, including a weak economic base, external political and economic blockades, international tensions, the brain drain of experienced talent, unjust trade competition, and an unfair exchange rate system. Thus, he emphasized that the construction of the Berlin Wall was a measure taken by GDR socialism to cope with these difficult circumstances. [4] Victor Grossman, a firsthand witness to GDR socialism and an influential researcher of GDR history among the Western Left, argued in his 2019 book A Socialist Defector: From Harvard to Karl-Marx-Allee that various strategies adopted by the United States and West Germany after the 1950s to sabotage the GDR's economic development and standard of living, coupled with intensifying military tensions between the US and USSR, ultimately led the GDR to build the Berlin Wall in 1961 to save the state from collapse. [5]
Many other Western leftists, standing on the side of defending GDR socialism, uphold the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart" theory [N1] and the positive consequences of the Wall's construction. For instance, both the Portuguese Communist Party and the Communist Party of Ireland emphasized that building the Wall was an act of security and sovereignty, a defensive measure by the GDR against Western offensive policies, and an effort to ensure the security of socialism. [6] The British Communist Party newspaper Morning Star also published an article arguing that Germany's internal border was a dangerous flashpoint in the Cold War, and that regulating the border (by building the Wall) both stabilized the political system and served as the foundation for the GDR's miraculous economic recovery. [7]
II. The status and nature of the fall of the Berlin Wall within the drastic changes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
How should the fall of the Berlin Wall be understood? This is another question of central focus for the Western Left. Currently, most Western leftists agree on the ideological importance of the Berlin Wall, viewing it as a symbolic barrier between two diametrically opposed social systems. They emphasize that its fall played a key role in the overall upheaval in Eastern Europe, triggering the only major change in the geographical map of post-war Europe. It was a microcosm of the series of events occurring across Eastern Europe in 1989, and the beginning of the end for socialism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, as well as the end of the Cold War between East and West.
On the question of the nature of the upheavals in Eastern European countries represented by the fall of the Berlin Wall, there are differing views within the Western Left; "revolution theory" and "counter-revolution theory" are the two currently divergent perspectives.
Those holding the "revolution theory" are primarily radical Trotskyist socialists of the Fourth International. However, unlike the mainstream Western narrative that promotes "peaceful revolution," "true revolution," and the "great victory of ideals of freedom and peace" with the capitalist system as the only way out, Trotskyist socialists fundamentally deny the socialist nature of the former Eastern European countries, and thus reject the narrative of the "failure of socialism." For example, the Trotskyist organization Socialist Equality Party (Germany) noted at a commemorative meeting in Berlin on November 12, 2019, that the upheaval in Eastern Europe was only a failure of Stalinism or the Soviet model, not a failure of socialism. [8] Marie Frederiksen, editor of the Danish Trotskyist newspaper Revolution, also wrote that the fall of the Wall showed that "it was not true communism that collapsed, but a communist monstrosity—a caricature—that had been strangled or suffocated by the growth of a massive bureaucracy." [9] Consequently, Trotskyist socialists refer to the events of 1989 in Eastern Europe as "revolutionary movements with counter-revolutionary consequences" [10] or the "reversal of a mass revolutionary movement striving for true socialism." [11]
Communist parties in many countries—including Portugal, Ireland, the United States, Greece, Italy, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Sweden—are staunch supporters of the "counter-revolution theory." They emphasize that if revolution means a fundamental change in the way society is organized, then the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was a total counter-revolution. For instance, the Communist Party of Ireland criticized the "peaceful revolution theory" as a completely deceptive description, arguing that the disintegration of GDR socialism was the result of a counter-revolutionary movement launched by West Germany through the media and its sympathizers in the GDR after the borders were opened, and that the reunification of the two Germanys was essentially a takeover of the GDR by West Germany. [12] The Communist Party of Greece posited that the fall of the Wall marked the subversion of GDR socialism and the restoration of capitalism, because behind the "victory of the world of democracy and freedom" began an unprecedented "plunder" of GDR public property, manifested primarily in mass privatization, the unemployment of millions of GDR citizens, the privatization of public hospitals, and the spread of corruption between West German political parties and German multinational corporations. [13]
Anders Carlsson, former chairman of the Communist Party of Sweden, is also a supporter of the "counter-revolution theory." In his new book, The Revolution is a Journey into the Unknown, he proposes that the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a "counter-revolution" launched from above by a small group of people within Soviet society aimed at restoring capitalism. In this book, Carlsson also responds to the views of Trotskyist socialists and others who deny the socialist nature of the former Soviet and Eastern European states, pointing out that the key point of disagreement lies in how to define "socialism." In his view, socialism is a transitional process, and the core question is whether the socialist regime in question has abolished the constituent elements of capitalism, such as private property, market relations, and the profit system. In this sense, despite many problems, the former Soviet and Eastern European states were undoubtedly socialist. At the same time, Carlsson opposes those Western leftists who characterize the former Soviet and Eastern European states as "state socialism," emphasizing that socialism does not mean implementing purely decentralized workers' self-management; a socialist planned economy must be centralized and managed by a central planning agency, otherwise, there would be no central plan. [14]
In the discussions surrounding the nature of the 1989 Eastern European events, many Western leftists have pointed out an important fact selectively ignored by mainstream Western society: at the beginning of these events, the protesting masses did not demand a turn to capitalism or Western political models. Instead, they hoped to improve the socialist system, reform the bureaucracy, restore the principles of popular participation and economic democracy, and deepen the links between socialism, democracy, and the rule of law. However, "illusions" about capitalism later dominated the movement, leading to a catastrophic turn for socialism. Dagmar Enkelmann, chair of the executive board of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Germany, suggested that the 1989 protest movement in Berlin was an attempt to reform socialism, which had opened a brief window of opportunity for another democratic and eco-socialist GDR, but it failed to succeed. [15] Catherine Samary, a radical French leftist economist, also argued that the historical transformation that ended the "bipolar world" in 1989 was ambiguous. This is because the protest movement opposed the commandism of the ruling parties but also did not favor the major economic and social changes introduced after 1989. Therefore, it was closer to the 1968 Prague movement against Soviet occupation than to neoliberal "shock therapy," but the seeds of this "third way" were obscured by Cold War concepts and the subsequent capitalist transformation. [16] Ladislav Zemanek, a Czech scholar, cited polling data from late 1989 regarding the events in Czechia, noting that at the time only 3% of respondents favored a transition to capitalism, while 92% favored sticking to a socialist or mixed system. He emphasized that the reason current Western politics and media do not touch upon these issues is that such contrary notes would disrupt the mainstream narrative of the "Velvet Revolution." [17]
III. Reasons for and lessons from the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
On the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Western Left conducted profound reflections on the reasons for the failure of socialism. Most do not shy away from the internal problems of the former Soviet and Eastern European socialist states—such as bureaucratism and a lack of democracy—while also proposing the following representative viewpoints.
First is the External Factor Theory. This perspective focuses on the role of external factors in the upheavals of Eastern European countries, emphasizing the important role played by changes in US-Soviet relations. For example, Constantin Crețu, chairman of the 21st Century Communist Party of Romania, pointed out when discussing the Romanian events of 30 years ago that what happened in 1989 was not a revolution but a counter-revolutionary military coup. The fundamental reason was that Gorbachev traded ideological security for economic security and pursued the "Sinatra Doctrine," [N2] destroying the socialist system across Europe. Therefore, the Romanian military coup was the result of a "hybrid war" led by the East and West. [18] Zemanek also analyzed an important view within Czechia: that the 1989 events were not a revolution in the broad sense but a transfer of power from the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, primarily because the US and USSR reached a consensus and Gorbachev sought Soviet interests; popular protests did not play a substantive role in the process. [19]
Second is the Dual Factor Theory. This viewpoint starts from classical Marxist argumentation to critically analyze problems in the practice of Soviet socialist development. It proposes that the failure of Soviet socialism was the result of a combination of objective immaturity and subjective loss of capacity. Lucien Sève, a famous French Marxist philosopher and former member of the French Communist Party, argued in his 2019 book Communist?...
In his book Thinking with Marx Today, it is noted that the October Revolution marked the beginning of the communist era. After the Russian Civil War, Lenin realized that the Soviet Union could not transition to socialism in the short term; thus, through the New Economic Policy, he worked toward achieving the material and cultural prerequisites for a genuine transition. However, subsequent Soviet leaders did not continue along this path but instead practiced a "nation-statism" that ran contrary to the Marxist objective of communism. He argues that because the objective conditions for revolution in countries with underdeveloped material culture were immature—and because communists in their socialist praxis failed to subjectively learn how to truly apply Marxist thought—it resulted in a "dramatic illusion" [3] of building communism. Therefore, the system that died at the end of the 20th century under the misleading name of "communism" was not communism in the true Marxist sense, and this was precisely the reason for its demise. [22]
Third is the theory of multiple factors. This perspective emphasizes that socialist development is not a linear process; therefore, the failure of socialism in Eastern Europe was caused by a combination of factors rather than a single one. Victor Grossman and Hans Modrow, the last Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), adhere to this analytical perspective. When evaluating the reasons for the failure of the GDR, they both discuss the Western threat, the lack of foreign aid, Soviet restrictions, and economic pressures faced at the time, placing particular emphasis on the impact of economic difficulties exacerbated by reforms after the 1980s. Grossman argues that this led to rising public discontent and increased pressure on the GDR government’s legitimacy, thereby forming an irreversible "negative spiral." [23] Modrow, meanwhile, believes that the reforms of the 1980s were not genuine economic reform plans but originated from Gorbachev’s so-called "more democracy equals more socialism" initiative. These did not focus enough on economic issues themselves, allowing the economy to be led in an increasingly decentralized manner. This resulted in a gradual increase in public distrust toward the Party's leading role, lead to instability in the relationship between the Party and the masses, and ultimately formed an "implosion" as events unfolded. [24]
In exploring the lessons learned from the development of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the Western Left mostly affirms the great achievements made in socialist construction, while also pointing out that the era of "actually existing socialism" offers profound enlightenment for 21st-century socialism. John Bachtell, former Chairman of the Communist Party USA, comprehensively summarized these lessons into nine areas, including: upholding the diversity of socialist development paths; meeting people's needs, economic and political democracy, and ensuring environmental sustainability; a vibrant civic culture and collective and individual rights; maintaining reflection and flexibility and implementing necessary reforms; insisting that socialism is a long-term historical process; ensuring internal and external peace for socialism; maintaining economic openness; actively responding to the new challenges of the revolution in mass communications; and persisting in discussion, debate, and education to win people’s hearts and minds. [25]
Among these, the idea that socialist countries should follow their own development paths is an important conclusion generally reached by the Western Left through deep reflection. Gyula Thürmer, President of the Hungarian Workers' Party, profoundly noted that the painful lesson of the former Eastern European Communist Parties losing power and the drastic shifts in socialist countries was that these parties and states failed to find good methods consistent with their own national traditions, customs, and characteristics. He emphasized that there are no universal rules or standards for socialist construction. Communist and Workers' parties also lack a common ideological and political program, possessing instead a broad ideological and political diversity. Each country and party should decide its development path and methods based on its own national characteristics; mechanically copying [4] the models of other countries leads nowhere. [26]
IV. Economic and Social Development in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe 30 Years After the Transition
In 1990, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl promised the people of East Germany a future of "blooming landscapes" [5]. He said: "No one will be worse off than before, and for many, things will be much better." [27] So, has the 30-year transition brought a "brighter future"? The Western Left has expressed differing views on this.
First, the coexistence of "two worlds" is a prominent feature of development in the former Soviet Union and Eastern European regions. Kristen Ghodsee, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a renowned expert on Russian and Eastern European studies, and others have found in their research on the 30-year transition that the consequence of the 1989 events was the formation of a situation where two worlds coexist. On the one hand, compared to the scarcity and isolation of the socialist period, societies in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia now have more opportunities, which have indeed brought positive changes for a minority. On the other hand, it has subjected the majority to an economic catastrophe, leaving deep scars on the collective psyche of the "post-communist" world. By comparing the scale of the "transitional recession" in these countries over the 30-year period with the American Great Depression, she categorizes the region into three types: the most successful countries were similar to the Great Depression period (GDP per capita fell by 30%); median countries saw their economies destroyed beyond the depth of the Great Depression (GDP per capita fell by 40% for as long as 17 years); and the hardest-hit countries and regions, such as Moldova, Georgia, Kosovo, Serbia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine, have never achieved economic recovery, with GDP per capita remaining lower than it was during the late socialist period. She points out that for these countries, the transition brought unprecedented economic pain, and except for a few elites, the gains for the majority were negligible. The post-communist economic disaster caused millions of excess deaths, mass migration, and social ills unheard of during the communist era, such as unemployment, organized crime, and intensified income polarization masked by total GDP figures. Due to rising mortality rates, falling birth rates, and a surge in migration, these countries have become the fastest-shrinking nations in the world. She thus concludes that "the new pain caused by the transitional recession is a new memory that will influence the political and economic choices of the region for decades to come." [28]
Second, the gap between East and West Germany is difficult to bridge. Many Western Leftists speak of the developmental quandaries in the former GDR regions after German reunification. In their view, reunification itself was not a process of mutual integration but an annexation of the East by the West—a German version of "shock therapy"—namely, the rapid and brutal introduction of capitalism, which triggered the largest and fastest industrial collapse in history. This has resulted in Germany remaining a divided country in practice 30 years after reunification. Economically, GDP per capita in the East is 20% lower than in the West, the same as 15 years ago; wage levels are generally lower, and the population continues to decline: from 16.4 million in 1989 to 13.6 million currently, with a further 25% decline projected by 2035. [29] Meanwhile, the psychological gap for Easterners is also significant. Although Easterners make up 17% of the total German population, they hold only 1.7% of high-level positions in business, the military, the judiciary, and politics. A 2019 poll showed that only 38% of Easterners believe reunification was successful, while 57% feel like second-class citizens. [30] Furthermore, more people hold a pessimistic view of the future prospects of the Eastern region. In April 2019, the Ifo Institute for Economic Research interviewed 136 economics professors at German universities, 69% of whom believed that the economic development levels of the East and West are unlikely to converge in the coming years or decades. [31]
Third, the growth of nostalgia and the "fertile ground" for the breeding of populism. In analyzing the socio-psychological changes of the people in this region over the 30-year period, the Western Left more or less mentions "nostalgia for the communist past" or the "nostalgia syndrome." [32] The Western Left believes the emergence of this nostalgia is closely related to the state of economic development. By comparing statistical data from polling agencies such as Pew over the last 30 years, they found that during the financial crisis around 2010, nostalgia in some countries facing severe economic problems rose sharply or remained at a high level. [33] Kristen Ghodsee and others point out that it is precisely growing economic pressure that has fueled public distrust in society, leading to a growing nostalgia for the secure and stable life of the socialist period. [34] Economic difficulties have also brought another chain consequence: providing fertile ground for the massive rise of populists who exploit public discontent. Especially in Germany, differences in economic levels have further developed into political rifts. Some Western Leftists point out that Easterners oppose Germany's support for Syrian refugees more strongly than Westerners and show a greater degree of enthusiasm for the right-wing populist party "Alternative for Germany" (AfD). [35]
Fourth, historical revisionism impacts left-wing socialist forces. An important feature of political development in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is that "certain national and international institutions have repeatedly used or even abused history to achieve political-ideological ends"—a tendency referred to by the Western Left as "historical revisionism." [36] During the 30 years of transition, historical revisionism has been rampant in the region. By constantly tampering with, forging, and revising the history of World War II, denying the Soviet Union's role in the anti-fascist struggle, and equating communism with fascism, anti-communism has been resurrected from the historical ruins of the post-WWII era. It has even gradually developed into an institutionalized phenomenon; for example, in many former Soviet and Eastern European countries, communist names and symbols are banned by law, and Communist Parties have been declared illegal. In an atmosphere where the communist and socialist past has been long distorted and demonized, radical anti-capitalist left-wing forces have suffered a subversive impact. This area, where socialist regimes were once established and existed for a long time, has become one of the weakest regions for the development of the world socialist movement today. Serbian scholar Svetlana Slapšak summarizes the current development of left-wing forces in the "post-socialist" world of Eastern Europe since 1989 with three characteristics: first, no generally accepted or reliable left-wing ideology has emerged, as this is the primary target of the anti-communist wave; second, some leftists have adopted evasive mechanisms, confining Marxism within safe intellectual and academic spaces to ensure its status as a necessary objective method and to prevent political vulgarization; third, young leftists are either addicted to radical thinking or integrated into anarchist, environmentalist, and feminist groups. [37]
V. The Validity and Future Prospects of Socialism
Looking back at the past and forward to the future, the Western Left resolutely rejects the idea that the fall of the Berlin Wall means the end of the socialist ideal and value system. They insist on the practical validity of socialism, the diversity of paths to its realization, and its future development prospects.
First, the end of Soviet and Eastern European socialism has not changed the essence of capitalism; instead, the capitalist political and social ecosystem is increasingly deteriorating. Francis Wurtz, a member of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party, believes that an important lesson from the development of the past 30 years is the proof that the history of capitalism is far from "ending," but is instead undergoing an existential crisis. Explosive inequality and social disintegration, the ecological crisis threatening human security, intensified unilateralism, and an illusory obsession with the hegemony of liberal democracy indicate that capitalism is self-destructing. [38] Albano Nunes, a member of the Central Committee of the Portuguese Communist Party, also argued in a reflective article that the world today remains in a state of unrest and danger, the most direct cause of which still bears the mark of the "fall of the Berlin Wall."
That is, the disappearance of socialism as a world system and the global expansion of imperialist rule. Its most fundamental cause is the deepening structural crisis of capitalism, where the most reactionary ruling classes attempt to find a way out of their insoluble contradictions through exploitation, fascism, and war. The evolution of the international situation over the past 30 years transcends the delusional claims of the "end of class struggle" and the "death of communism"; rather, it demonstrates that socialism is more important and necessary than ever before.[42]
Second, constructing a new strategy for the Left and exploring diverse new forms of socialism more suited to the actual development of contemporary capitalism. The Western Left argues for a profound reflection on the history of socialism rather than indulging in nostalgia for the socialism of the past. They emphasize that progress for socialism can only be achieved by focusing on resolving the actual contradictions of capitalism under new conditions and by formulating new strategies for struggle.[43]
Slapsak argues that the Left should integrate its protest actions with community-centered activities, knowledge production, and ideological work. The focus should be on reimagining the concepts of work organization, class struggle, and political power to create conditions for the resurgence of a new, progressive Left.[44] Bechtel proposes the possibility of opening paths to socialism in various countries based on their respective political and social realities, histories, and democratic traditions. He points out that humanity is currently at a crossroads, facing unprecedented existential threats, and that the rise of modern socialism is rooted in humanity's response to these urgent global challenges. For the CPUSA, the pursuit of struggles to expand economic and political democracy and workers' rights, to overcome social, racial, and gender inequalities, to pursue sustainable development paths, and to demilitarize the economy and society will open broad prospects for building a green, peaceful, and democratic socialism.[45]
Finally, the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is merely an interlude in the historical process of socialism; socialism still marks the direction of development and progress for human society. This is the common conviction and firm ideal of the Western Left. The conclusion of the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) in looking toward the future of the working class and human development is particularly representative. It notes: once the ghost of socialism is released from the bottle, it will never go back. Regardless of the twists and turns, history always has its path forward; temporary defeat is not the end of the road, but merely a setback encountered on humanity’s Long March [6] toward communist freedom. The world’s working class will eventually establish a socialist society. In a socialist society, they will be able to develop their respective talents and rationally plan a bright, hopeful, and sustainable human way of life through collective labor.[46]
VI. Conclusion
The year 2019 marked the 30th anniversary of the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, and 2021 marked the 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Significant chronological nodes often evoke historical memory and reflection. Overall, the reflections and discussions of the Western Left constitute a continuous process with distinct characteristics that reflect their identity, such as a greater focus on the conflicts within transitional societies, defending the interests of the laboring masses, upholding the legitimacy of socialist values, and adhering to socialist convictions and directions of development. At the same time, the understanding of the Western Left has been an increasingly deepening process. With the passage of time and the further manifestation of the dilemmas of social transformation, their thoughts and observations on major historical and practical issues of socialism, as well as the social fracturing and anxiety in transitional countries, have become increasingly profound, penetrating, and comprehensive.
These reflections and inquiries by the Western Left possess a dual significance. On the one hand, with their characteristic criticality and spirit of resistance, the Western Left actively speaks out on major historical and practical issues and refutes fallacies. By engaging in a discourse struggle against the anti-communist and anti-socialist rhetoric of Western mainstream public opinion—as well as against historical nihilism [7]—they help guide public opinion to distinguish truth from falsehood, clear the ideological mist of the "post-communist" world, and clarify various distortions of communism. On the other hand, a more important function of the Western Left’s retrospection and commemoration of history is to gain insight into and master the laws of socialist construction and development on the basis of profoundly summarizing the historical lessons of socialism. This provides further experience and enlightenment for the practice of socialism as both a system and a movement under new historical conditions. For the global Left and socialist forces, only by clearly recognizing where they came from can they find a way forward, thereby expanding the space and dimensions of socialist action, increasing the influence of socialism, and promoting the movement of world socialism from its current low ebb toward revitalization.
The discussions of the Western Left also centrally reflect a long-standing and difficult problem within the Left and socialist movements: namely, internal divergence or fragmentation. The split within the Western Left has historical origins, while its ideological and theoretical roots lie in differing perceptions of Marxism and socialism. This leads to different understandings of socialist history and different judgments regarding the nature of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. These differences extend to current evaluations regarding the theory and practice of socialist countries, including China, as well as to disagreements or even fierce debates over the strategies, tactics, and means for achieving socialism. Viewed historically, pluralism and diversity are the normal state of development for the Left and socialist movements. However, in the face of the current joint offensive of international capital, the Left in all countries similarly needs to unite to carry out a more powerful and effective response. Standing at the starting point of the third decade of the 21st century, the international political and economic landscape is undergoing tremendous change and reshaping, which will inevitably have a profound impact on the development of the global Left and socialist movements. Under this new historical opportunity, the Left and socialists urgently need to construct new strategies and explore new directions for development. This especially requires them to adopt a more open vision, dialectical thinking, and long-term perspective to consciously discard differences, bridge rifts, resist fragmentation, and seek unity and cooperation to build consensus and a win-win situation, thereby better exploring the path toward the resurgence of world socialism.
III. The Developmental Dilemmas of Central and Eastern Europe 30 Years After the "Drastic Changes"
The impact of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the "Drastic Changes" in Eastern Europe [8] on the development of these sovereign states remains a focal point of reflection for the Western Left. While mainstream Western discourse continues to celebrate these events as a "victory for democracy," many Left-wing scholars and political figures point out that the past three decades have been a process of "peripheralization" for Central and Eastern European countries within the global capitalist system.
First, the "Economic Shock" and the Myth of Prosperity. Following the fall of the Wall, the "Shock Therapy" implemented in Central and Eastern European countries led to the rapid privatization of state-owned assets and the dismantling of the original social welfare systems. Left-wing critics argue that the "blooming landscapes" promised by then-West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl did not fully materialize. In the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), the currency union and subsequent privatization led to the collapse of the East German industrial base. Victor Grossman, a journalist who lived in the GDR, noted that while the shops became full of goods, many people lost the "social mortgage" of guaranteed employment and affordable housing [9].
Second, the Widening Gap between East and West. Thirty years later, the economic disparity between the former East and West remains stubborn. Data from the ifo Institute for Economic Research (Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich) indicates that the economic strength of the east remains significantly lower than that of the west. This persistent inequality has birthed "Ostalgie" (East German nostalgia) [10]—not necessarily a desire to return to the specific political structures of the past, but a yearning for the social security and sense of community that existed before the "Drastic Changes."
Third, the Crisis of "Bourgeois Democracy." Left-wing intellectuals observe that the "Third Wave" of democratization in Central and Eastern Europe has not led to the stable liberal democratic order that Francis Fukuyama predicted. Instead, these regions have seen a rise in right-wing populism and "illiberal democracy." Ladislav Zemánek and others have noted that the "Velvet Revolution" [11] in the Czech Republic and similar movements elsewhere are being re-evaluated 30 years later as the "reality of bourgeois democracy hits home," characterized by political polarization, corruption, and the marginalization of the working class.
Furthermore, Constantion Cretu, President of the 21st Century Communist Party of Romania, emphasized in an interview that the "Drastic Changes" facilitated a massive "brain drain" and labor migration from East to West. This has turned Central and Eastern European countries into a source of cheap labor and a market for Western European capital, deepening their status as a "semi-periphery" in the capitalist world-system. The Western Left argues that this transformation was not a liberation of productive forces, but rather a reorganization of the global value chain to the detriment of Eastern European workers.
In summary, the reflections of the Western Left on the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall demonstrate that the historical verdict on this event is far from settled. While the dominant neoliberal discourse continues to frame 1989 as a "victory for liberty," Western Leftist intellectuals and communist parties have used this anniversary to deconstruct the myths of the "End of History" [12]. By analyzing the sharpening contradictions of global capitalism, the rise of the far-right in the former Eastern Bloc, and the persistent "Ostalgie" [13] among the working classes of Central and Eastern Europe, they argue that the collapse of the socialist camp did not bring about the promised "universal prosperity," but rather led to a regression in the relations of production and a crisis in the superstructure of Western liberal democracy.
The Chinese academic community must pay close attention to these theoretical developments. In the New Era, as we promote the high-quality development of Chinese-path modernization, the reflections of the Western Left serve as a cautionary reminder of the complexities involved in the transition of social systems and the necessity of upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground. By strengthening the study of the history of the international communist movement and the current state of world socialism, we can better implement the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four Comprehensives, ensuring that the Sinicization of Marxism continues to advance with the times. Ultimately, the survival and revitalization of the socialist cause depend on the continuous development of productive forces and the unswerving commitment of the Party to its original aspiration and founding mission. In the face of a "century of changes unseen in a hundred years" [14], we must persist over the long term to build a community with a shared future for humanity and prove through "seeking truth from facts" that socialism remains the only viable path for the emancipation of mankind.