Li Shenming et al.: The Fundamental Causes, Lessons, and Inspirations of the Collapse of the Soviet Union (Part 2)
II. Important Lessons from the Collapse of the Soviet Party and State
As previously stated, the most profound warning and lesson from the collapse of the Soviet party and state is that the construction of the Communist Party itself—specifically problems arising within the Party's leadership group—was the decisive factor.
(1) The self-construction of a major party concerns not only the rise and fall of the party itself, but also the future and destiny of the country, the people, and even humanity.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) once created unprecedented and brilliant achievements. It not only established the world's first socialist state but also vigorously developed the cause of socialism, profoundly changing the global landscape and the direction of human social development. Consequently, Marxism-Leninism gained extensive worldwide influence.
During the eras of Lenin and Stalin, the CPSU’s efforts in political, ideological, organizational, stylistic, disciplinary, and institutional building enabled it to adapt to the needs of revolution, war, construction, and development. This propelled Soviet socialist construction and the international communist cause forward in giant strides. Under the firm leadership of the CPSU, the Soviet people made enormous sacrifices and paid a heavy price to defeat foreign invasions and build a powerful nation. During World War II, they defeated the overbearing aggressive forces of German and Japanese fascism. Subsequently, the socialist revolution expanded from one country to many, forming a socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union.
Soviet power realized the people's management of their own country through the leadership of the CPSU. This meant that the task of the Party’s self-construction was arduous; it had to consistently maintain its character as a servant of the people and keep firmly in mind its purpose of serving the people. To whatever stage the cause of the Party and the people developed, the Party’s construction had to advance to that same stage. However, beginning with Khrushchev’s tenure as supreme leader, serious problems emerged in various aspects of the CPSU's building—especially in ideology, politics, and work style. Particularly during the latter period of Leonid Brezhnev’s leadership, bureaucratic phenomena spread and corruption became increasingly severe, forming a bureaucratic privileged stratum that stood in opposition to the fundamental interests of the masses [1]. The image of the CPSU among the masses was seriously damaged, and the foundations of its governing legitimacy began to waver.
This bureaucratic privileged stratum was stuck in its ways, unwilling to or actively opposing any reforms involving its own interests. More seriously, this stratum became completely divorced from the broad masses, causing the Party's prestige and the reputation of socialism to decline. This cultivated the soil for the growth of anti-communist and anti-socialist forces during the Gorbachev period. To legalize the national resources they had illegally seized, the privileged stratum exerted every effort to push for the evolution of the Soviet social system, while anti-communist and anti-socialist forces led the Soviet Union toward disintegration.
Marxism is a theory of the people, and the people's position is the fundamental political position of a Marxist party. Having weathered the trials of revolution and war, the CPSU led the people in socialist modernization, and the Party and the people established a "flesh-and-blood" connection. However, during the years of peaceful development, the CPSU gradually neglected Party building. Party leaders pursued fame and wealth, remained perched high above, and were self-opinionated. Forgetting their original aspiration and founding mission, they gradually detached themselves from the masses and became alienated from the people. Ultimately, it was only logical that they were abandoned by the people and by history.
The history of the CPSU’s defeat and fall shows that while it is relatively easy to establish a political party and seize power, it is exceptionally difficult to attempt a resurgence once the party and state have collapsed. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) participated in the country's political life through peaceful means to strive for the restoration of socialism, once exerting significant influence. However, since entering the 21st century, the development of the CPRF has been unstable. In the seventh presidential election held in March 2018, Gennady Zyuganov, the CPRF leader who had lost four previous elections, did not run; the CPRF instead nominated the non-party figure Pavel Grudinin as its candidate. In September 2021, official Russian results for the eighth Duma elections showed United Russia receiving 49.82% of the vote and the CPRF 18.93%. However, the CPRF’s actual vote share was [reputedly] 30% while United Russia’s was 35%. Putin met with Zyuganov both before and after the election to pressure the CPRF.
After the change of regime, the situation for ordinary people and communists became extremely difficult. Ruslan Grinberg, a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a renowned economist, provided this interpretation of Russia's economic development 25 years after the Soviet collapse: "If there are many poor people, the economy will not succeed." He believes that contemporary Russia is experiencing a scale of mass poverty unprecedented since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which symbolizes the failure of Russia's 25-year economic transition. Economic inequality is not only shameful but also extremely detrimental to national economic development. In 2019, Grinberg pointed out again that the wealthiest 3% of Russian citizens owned 89% of the country’s financial assets, which was the result of a reckless rejection of "Soviet justice" and clearly indicated that Russia had chosen the wrong path.
On December 8, 2021, Vyacheslav Volodin, Chairman of the Russian State Duma, recalled the collapse of the Soviet Union in a post, stating that top CPSU leaders chose to betray their ideals, their country, and their people during the nation’s most difficult period. Meanwhile, political elites reaped benefits from the country’s collapse, and the United States and Europe were able to eliminate a powerful ideological rival, splitting the Soviet Union into different nations. Yet, in this process, not one of the 15 Soviet republics benefited from the state's collapse. Volodin emphasized that the economic and industrial links between these republics were severed and industrial capacity was lost; all these factors combined led to a major crisis, the tragic consequences of which they are still bearing today.
Conversely, the United States—which used "unconventional warfare" (namely ideological, economic, and financial warfare) as its primary means to crush the socialist countries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe—harvested enormous wealth from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the upheavals in Eastern Europe. High-tech industries such as computing and the internet, originally used for military confrontation, were converted to civilian use. This further fostered the combination of financial capital and technological capital, jointly driving high economic growth in the U.S. Economic globalization, based on dollar hegemony and dominated by the United States, reached a new pinnacle. This was equivalent to the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries handing over their wealth to nurture their own competitors.
(2) The faith, convictions, theoretical literacy, worldview, and values of leaders are directly related to the success or failure of the great cause of socialism.
From the lessons of the rise and fall of the CPSU, the leaders of a Marxist party must be, as Lenin said, "the most authoritative, influential, and experienced people, those who are elected to the most important positions and called leaders." They must possess the political foresight to look far ahead and steer the ship, steadfast and extraordinary revolutionary courage, and the superb leadership ability to break new ground and manage complex situations. More importantly, they must always stand on the correct side of history and the development of the times, leading the Party and the people consistently along the correct direction.
Since Lenin and Stalin, the ideological and political literacy of the CPSU's primary leaders declined, and the quality of their will deteriorated; some even became obstinate defenders of the interests of the privileged stratum. As the saying goes, "The meat-eaters are contemptible and lack far-sightedness" [2]. They considered the interests of themselves, their families, and small cliques more than anything else. By the Gorbachev period, the CPSU leadership group could neither withstand the test of complex situations nor the temptation of material interests. Fundamental changes occurred in their ideals, convictions, character, worldview, and values, making the downfall of the Soviet socialist cause inevitable.
History is the best teacher. During the periods of Lenin and Stalin, the CPSU grew from weak to strong and led the socialist cause to flourish because of the existence of strong and forceful leadership cores and collectives like Lenin and Stalin. After Stalin's death, the reason the CPSU declined from its peak and the socialist cause it led eventually collapsed was precisely because the CPSU lacked a strong and forceful leadership core and collective. The Communist Party of China has grown from small to large and from weak to strong, achieving brilliant successes through a century of trials precisely because it has had strong and forceful leadership cores and collectives—Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping. Consequently, the cause of Chinese revolution, construction, and reform has been invincible.
(3) Ideological, theoretical, and political lack of clarity, correctness, and firmness will inevitably lead the party and state astray or even down an evil path.
If the leaders and the leadership collective of a party lack the scientific armament of Marxist ideology and theory, they will easily lose their direction and impetus in the face of complex and volatile domestic and international situations. The CPSU's lack of clarity, correctness, and firmness in ideology, theory, and politics greatly harmed the cause of the Party and the people.
During the periods when Khrushchev and Brezhnev served as supreme leaders, the CPSU failed to see the nature of imperialism clearly and downplayed the international class struggle. They unilaterally proposed "peaceful coexistence," "peaceful competition," and "peaceful transition" [3]. Driven by the political need for "Soviet-U.S. cooperation to dominate the world," they practiced "big-party chauvinism" and "great-power chauvinism" within the socialist camp and pursued hegemonism globally. To strengthen control over Eastern European allies, Brezhnev put forward the so-called "Socialist Community Theory," "Limited Sovereignty Doctrine," and "International Dictatorship Theory" to control fraternal countries, even going so far as to openly launch an armed invasion of Czechoslovakia and engage in aggression and expansion in the Third World under the banner of "supporting national liberation movements." These erroneous practices of the CPSU tarnished the reputation of Marxist parties and led to serious consequences, such as the split of the international communist movement.
Gorbachev pursued "New Thinking" in foreign policy, preaching that "the interests of all mankind are above all else," identifying Western values as "universal human values," and abandoning the Marxist doctrine of class struggle and the method of class analysis. He directed domestic reforms according to Western values and completely capitulated to the Western countries led by the United States in both thought and action—even selling out core Soviet interests to gain Western trust. The result was the tragedy of the collapse of the party and state, while the Western world celebrated. The lesson of the Soviet Union profoundly demonstrates that if a socialist country takes the road of yielding and surrendering to Western countries by "changing its banner," it will inevitably bring about its own destruction.
To avoid taking the "evil path" of changing its banner, a party must persist in the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method. It must fully recognize that in an era where the socialist and capitalist systems coexist and contend, and where the international monopoly bourgeoisie still dominates the world, one must never yield to imperialist pressure or engage in compromises and concessions that ignore principles or consequences. It must be clearly seen that since the emergence of socialist states, international reactionary forces have never abandoned their strategic plot to be hostile toward and subvert the socialist system. On the international stage, there has always been a struggle between penetration and counter-penetration, subversion and counter-subversion, which at times reaches an extremely acute level. Facing a complex and sharp international struggle, the governing party of a socialist country must be adept at seizing opportunities and adjusting policies to steer international relations toward peace, development, and the progress of humanity as much as possible. At the same time, it must maintain a clear and correct political mind at all times, adhere to principles, have the courage to struggle, and ensure domestic peace, stability, and development.
(4) The fundamental system embodying the people's will must be reflected in the text of the Constitution and implemented in practice; these fundamental principles must never be shaken, undermined in disguise, or abolished.
The historical mission of the proletariat can only be gradually realized under the leadership of its vanguard organization. Therefore, after the proletariat seizes power, it must formulate a fundamental law that embodies the will of the working class and the laboring people. The socialist nature of the state’s people’s democratic dictatorship and the core leadership position of the Communist Party in the socialist state must be explicitly confirmed and maintained through constitutional and legal texts. These fundamental systems must be resolutely implemented in all aspects of the people's economic, political, cultural, and diplomatic life through various basic and important systems. This fundamental system must never be left as a mere "empty shell" in legal provisions, nor should these unshakable principles be directly removed from such provisions. Only in this way can the socialist nature of the party and state be ensured and the fundamental interests of the broad masses be maintained. Otherwise, such a party and state will inevitably be abandoned by the people.
After 1989, under the banners of political "pluralism" and social "democratization," Gorbachev adopted so-called "free" and "fair" methods to conduct direct elections for People's Deputies and members of the Supreme Soviet (parliamentarians). The result was the election of a large number of radicals, leading anti-Soviet and anti-communist figures, and dissidents. The "Inter-Regional Deputies Group" [4] proposed that "all power belongs to the Soviets" and demanded the abolition of Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution concerning the leading position of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). At the February 1990 Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the CPSU, it was decided to renounce the Party's status as the ruling party and to implement a multi-party system in the Soviet Union. In March of the same year, the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union officially abolished Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution, stipulating that the Soviet Union would implement a multi-party system and a presidential system, and establish a state political system based on the separation of powers. This fundamentally destroyed the legal and theoretical foundation of the CPSU's governance, dealing a fatal blow to Soviet power and the Soviet socialist system.
In a constitution, it is of extreme importance to establish and maintain the ruling status of the Communist Party, and to establish and maintain the fundamental, basic, and important systems of socialism. The lessons of the Soviet Union have sounded an alarm for us. For some time, a trend of so-called "constitutional democracy" [5] emerged in our country. Under the banners of "democracy" and the "rule of law," it demanded revisions to the expressions in our Constitution regarding the leading position of the Communist Party and sought to use the experience of the United States and other Western countries to implement "constitutional democracy." This included the so-called lifting of "bans on parties" and "bans on the press," promoting a multi-party system, parliamentary democracy, and the separation of powers, as well as pushing for "judicial independence," "political neutrality," and the "depoliticization" of the military, with the goal of "establishing a Chinese Federal Republic under a framework of democratic constitutionalism." These propositions are identical to the rhetoric of "transforming the CPSU" during the Gorbachev era. Their essence is to set the Party's leadership in opposition to the Constitution and the law, to negate the Party's leadership, and to abolish the people's democratic dictatorship. Their substance is to negate our country's Constitution and the systems and principles it establishes, ultimately achieving a "change of flag" [6] by transplanting Western political system models to China. Our Constitution has always been clear in maintaining the leading and ruling status of the Communist Party of China. The 2018 Constitutional Amendment added the content "The leadership of the Communist Party of China is the most defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics" to Article 1 of the main text; this was absolutely correct. Facts show that it was not "constitutional democracy" that could save the Soviet Union; rather, it was precisely "constitutional democracy" that brought down the Soviet Union.
(5) Only by upholding the lofty ideal of communism and a firm belief in the inevitable victory of socialism can the Party possess cohesion and combat effectiveness
The fundamental reason the CPSU became weak and relaxed, losing its combat effectiveness, lay in its abandonment of the nature, tenets, and goals of a Marxist party, and its abandonment of the noble pursuit of seeking happiness for the people and liberation for humanity. In particular, the CPSU leaders diluted, abandoned, and deviated from socialist and communist ideals and beliefs, which served as a terrible "role model" for all Party members. The lessons are extremely painful.
Khrushchev promoted the notions of a "party of the entire people" and a "state of the entire people" [7] in ideological and political spheres, propagating an abstract, supra-class view of humanism. He demanded that so-called "great humanism" be treated as "our ideology," thereby diluting the guiding status of Marxism-Leninism. During the later period of Brezhnev's leadership, phenomena such as discrepancy between words and deeds, formalism, boastful talk, and all talk and no action were widespread within the CPSU, seriously weakening the Party's influence and causing its prestige to decline continuously. By the Gorbachev era, the CPSU completely abandoned the guiding status of Marxism-Leninism. The Party fell into ideological confusion, was riddled with factions, and became characterized by chaos and a loss of will, eventually suffering the fate of dissolution.
The tragic lessons of the Soviet Union show that firm ideals and beliefs are of great significance for a Marxist party and for a socialist country. In a certain sense, whether ideals and beliefs are firm or not is directly related to the life and death of the Party and the state. Education in the Party's ideals and beliefs must be consistently maintained and strengthened. Ideals and beliefs are the political soul and spiritual pillar of Communists, and the ideological guarantee for overcoming all difficulties and achieving all successes. The Communist Party of China has persistently strengthened the Party's ideological and theoretical building, insisted on ideological Party building, promoted strengthening the Party through theory, attached great importance to socialist ideological work, strengthened the construction of ideological positions, and firmly grasped the leadership over ideological work. This series of major measures is entirely correct.
(6) Abandoning the guiding status of Marxism and violating the principles of scientific socialism will inevitably lead to the disastrous consequences of "changing the flag" and the fall of the Party and the state
Regarding the issue of reform, two different views of reform have always existed. One views reform as the self-perfection and development of the socialist system, organically unifying the persistence in the fundamental and basic socialist systems with the perfection of specific systems that do not adapt to the requirements of the development of productive forces. This view regards reform as a revolutionary change to eradicate the defects of systems and mechanisms and to break through the barriers of solidified thinking and interests, while also adhering to the basic principles of scientific socialism to ensure that reform always proceeds along a socialist direction and path. This is the Marxist view of reform that has been proven correct in practice. The other view of reform advocates changes that are not socialist in nature. Under the guise of "reform," it fundamentally negates the fundamental and basic systems of socialism, transplants the entire set of capitalist social systems, and realizes the capitalization of the country. Gorbachev's reform belonged to this type.
Looking at Soviet history, if reform began with Khrushchev, then from Khrushchev until Gorbachev took power, the CPSU leadership group had already begun to deviate from and renounce the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and the fundamental socialist systems on an ideological and political level. On the other hand, they only took some patchwork measures under the original systems and mechanisms. From the time Gorbachev served as the supreme leader until the collapse of the Soviet Union, what was implemented was a so-called "reform" that completely negated the socialist system and deviated from the principles of scientific socialism, targeting the socialist system itself and fundamentally negating the fundamental and basic systems of socialism.
From the lessons of the CPSU, we see that on the issue of reform, we must neither follow the old path of rigidity and isolation, nor the evil path of "changing the flag." [8] Among these, not taking the evil path of "changing the flag" and avoiding subversive mistakes is particularly crucial. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has emphasized that our country's reform has a firm and correct political direction, stance, and principle. The core is to uphold and improve the Party's leadership and to uphold and improve the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It emphasizes that we must enhance our political resolve, adhere to political principles and bottom lines, and never allow reform to become a "change of direction" or a total replacement of the socialist system [9]. These important judgments are entirely correct.
(7) Attach great importance to ideological work, respond timely to various non-Marxist and anti-Marxist trends of thought, and maintain the Party's revolutionary nature, advancement, and purity in ideological and political theory at all times
Looking back at the more than 70 years of history of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union, the CPSU's ideological work underwent a process of evolution and transformation. During the Lenin period, the Party adhered to Marxism as its guide. In long-term revolutionary practice, Lenin established the principles, policies, and theoretical guidance for the Bolshevik Party's ideological work, pioneering Marxist ideological work. Ideological work during the Stalin period achieved great successes but also saw deviations; however, the general direction was correct, and it persisted in and developed Marxism-Leninism. During the periods of Lenin and Stalin, the CPSU's criticism and liquidation of various anti-Marxist trends of thought were resolute and thorough, allowing the Party for a long historical period to consciously resist the erosion of various bourgeois trends of thought. In particular, its understanding of the essence of democratic socialism and its predecessor, social democracy, was profound and clear-headed. This was clearly directly related to the long-term resolute struggle Lenin and Stalin waged against the right-wingers of the Second International.
Starting with Khrushchev, the CPSU's ideological work moved further and further away from the Marxist track, and various non-Marxist and anti-Marxist trends of thought in the Soviet Union began to resurface. Additionally, we must see that after World War II, the opposition and struggle between the two fundamentally different social systems of capitalism and socialism, and between the two major classes of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, eased to an extent. The then-popular democratic socialism and Western bourgeois ideas, taking advantage of Khrushchev's grand opposition to Stalin and the anti-communist wave caused by the Hungarian Incident and the Poznań Incident, also exerted great efforts to expand their influence.
During the Khrushchev period, "humanization" appeared within the CPSU, and the Marxist beliefs of Party members were greatly impacted. At that time, "Neo-Marxist" [10] factions appeared in some Eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. Under the name of shaking off the shackles of "traditional Marxism," these factions negated Leninism and the principles of scientific socialism. Socialists in Western European countries held high the banner of democratic socialism, serving the needs of imperialism in promoting the strategy of "peaceful evolution" [11] toward socialist countries. Khrushchev's "humanism" and his ideas of the "Three Peaces" and "Two Wholes" [12] were formed in this international environment. This erroneous trend of thought was not corrected within the CPSU for a long time, to the point that it evolved into the so-called "humane, democratic socialist" reform.
After Brezhnev’s formalistic management, various erroneous trends of thought increased rather than decreased, significantly affecting the Party's ideological purity and creating a breeding ground for anti-Marxist sentiments within the CPSU. By the time of Gorbachev, the CPSU leadership group embarked on the erroneous path of completely and thoroughly negating Marxism-Leninism, and various erroneous trends of thought ran rampant.
Gorbachev abandoned the laws of human social development revealed by the historical materialist conception of history and blindly followed the abstract bourgeois theory of human nature to analyze the problems existing in Soviet society. He believed that Soviet socialism did not conform to so-called human nature and even devastated it, "emasculating the humanistic essence of the socialist structure." He also distorted the statement in the Communist Manifesto that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all," regarding it as a "humanistic program" that embodied "great humanistic principles." He further viewed humanism as the essential requirement of socialist society, the goal and task of socialist reform, and the objective for which Communists strive, thereby falling completely into the quagmire of the idealist conception of history.
As a banner for the bourgeoisie to oppose feudal autocracy and theological rule, "humanism" had its progressive significance in history. However, the "human" and "human nature" spoken of by the bourgeoisie are abstract; they are so-called "natural and eternal" things that do not possess class attributes and are the so-called "standard and measure of all things, including human history." Attributing the power of historical development and social progress to the kind nature of humanity or human rationality is a typical manifestation of the idealist conception of history. The abstract theory of human nature could neither see the essence of Soviet social problems nor the laws of human social development, causing the CPSU to lose its direction and causing the revolutionary nature, advancement, and purity of the Marxist party to vanish completely.
History has proven that the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Deng Xiaoping as their primary representative, were entirely correct in the early 1980s to clearly conduct the struggle against "spiritual pollution" [13] and to criticize the abstract theory of human nature and abstract humanism. This played a huge role in helping our country escape the negative influence of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, and in pushing our reform forward in the correct direction.
The lesson of the fall of the CPSU and the Soviet Union shows that the value of ideological work lies in "nipping problems in the bud" and "preventing trouble before it happens" (防微杜渐 [14], 防患于未然 [15]). If Marxism does not occupy the ideological battlefield, non-Marxist and anti-Marxist trends of thought inevitably will. Socialist countries must attach great importance to ideological work, firmly grasp the leadership over it, unswervingly adhere to the guiding status of Marxism, strengthen the Party's ideological and theoretical building, persistently temper Party spirit, and resolutely struggle against all anti-Marxist trends of thought, ensuring that the ideological and public opinion positions are firmly held by Marxists.
Social existence determines social consciousness. As long as capitalist private ownership exists, the social basis for various non-Marxist and anti-Marxist trends of thought based on private ownership will always exist. History shows that the struggle between Marxism and non-Marxism/anti-Marxism is long-term, and Communists must maintain sufficient vigilance.
The Communist Party of China (CPC) has consistently attached great importance to and exerted efforts toward ideological work. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has emphasized that ideological work is of extreme importance. It has called upon the entire Party to fully recognize the long-term, arduous, and complex nature of this work, to maintain a firm grip on leadership over ideological work, to carry forward the spirit of struggle, and to improve their ability to struggle. The goal is to build a socialist ideology with strong cohesive and guiding power, constantly securing new victories in the Great Struggle [16] of the New Era. These major judgments and decisions are wise and correct.
(8) Unwaveringly Adhere to the Party's Absolute Leadership over the Military; Never Sever One’s Own Backbone or Become Meat on the Chopping Block of Reactionary Forces
Since its founding, the Soviet Red Army followed Lenin's principles of army building, establishing the CPSU's absolute leadership over the Red Army and keeping the proletarian military firmly in the hands of the proletarian party. The historical experiences and lessons of the international communist movement have proven time and again that it is of extreme importance to adhere to the fundamental principle and system of the Party's absolute leadership over the military and to prioritize ideological and political development in all aspects of military building.
During the "August 19 Incident" of 1991 in the Soviet Union, paratrooper units and the KGB "Alpha" action group ordered into Moscow refused to follow superior commands. They turned their guns around and supported Boris Yeltsin of the "Democratic Platform" faction. At a critical moment when the nation faced a life-or-death crisis, the very military created by the CPSU not only failed to fulfill its mission and responsibility but defected on the battlefield, accelerating the collapse of the CPSU and the disintegration of the state. The root cause was the bitter fruit of Gorbachev's so-called "nationalization of the military" and "de-partyization of the military" carried out in the name of "reform," which caused the CPSU to completely relinquish its leadership over the armed forces.
Ideologically, Gorbachev vigorously promoted the "depoliticization," "de-partyization," and "nationalization" of the military. The essence of this was to transfer the highest command authority over the military from the CPSU Central Committee to the President of the Soviet Union. Politically, he abolished the General Political Department of the Army and Navy, downsized political organs at all levels of the military, discharged tens of thousands of officers, and abolished the political vetting system for officer promotions. This led to a rapid decline in the military's loyalty to and reliability for the Party and the state. Furthermore, the "Law on the Establishment of the Presidency of the USSR and Amendments and Additions to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the USSR" enacted in March 1991 legally stripped the CPSU of its supreme power to lead and command the Soviet military.
To achieve the goal of wresting military leadership from the CPSU, the trend of historical nihilism [17] in the Soviet Union became even more rampant. Public opinion aimed at subverting the state began to be manufactured, directing the spearhead of negation toward the Soviet military and Soviet heroes. Anti-Soviet and anti-communist publications and extremist forces specialized in exposing and attacking the so-called "problems" of the Soviet military. They shifted the blame for the consequences caused by Gorbachev's erroneous reforms onto the military. The Soviet military was cast as the "sinner" responsible for the tension between the USSR and other countries, while the economic recession was described as the result of the military "monster" sucking the nation's blood and sweat dry. Slandering Soviet soldiers and negating the history of the Soviet military became fashionable. Soviet national heroes and heroic collectives, such as Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, Alexander Matrosov, Fyodor Kryuchkov, and the Young Guard, were subjected to vilification. The Soviet military was labeled an accomplice of a "fascist regime," and the victory in the Great Patriotic War was dismissed as nothing more than the "Great Fascist" Soviet Union defeating the "Small Fascist" Germany. On November 14, 1990, Marshal of the Soviet Union Sergei Akhromeyev published an article in Sovetskaya Rossiya (Soviet Russia) pointing out that the overall anti-military campaign had ceased to be a localized issue since the middle of that year. Separatist and anti-socialist forces combined their strategy of discrediting the military with the practice of squeezing out the Communist Party, instigating large-scale unrest aimed at demanding the government's resignation.
At that time, Zoya was by no means the only hero tarred by lies. Hostile forces at home and abroad slandered and insulted almost all the heroic figures the Soviet people took pride in. For example, Alexander Matveyevich Matrosov, a private in the Soviet Guards, blocked a German bunker's machine-gun port with his own unyielding chest during the battle for Chernushki village near Velikiye Luki in Pskov Oblast on February 23, 1943. Matrosov sacrificed his precious life at the age of 19 for the sake of victory. On June 19, 1943, he was posthumously recognized as a "Hero of the Soviet Union." Nine years later, a Matrosov-style hero also appeared on the Korean battlefield—Huang Jiguang, a Special Class Combat Hero of the Chinese People's Volunteers. However, during the Gorbachev era, this "Soviet Huang Jiguang" was vilified as a "juvenile delinquent" and a "prisoner soldier" sent to the front from the Gulag. Fabricators further slandered him, saying: Matrosov was short and weak, while the German machine gun had a 40mm caliber and multiple barrels firing simultaneously from an aperture 1.5 meters wide, making it impossible for him to block it. Even the testimony of Hamza Tagirov, a comrade who witnessed Matrosov’s sacrifice, was questioned on the grounds that his memory was unreliable. How similar these claims are to the rumors and slanders that once appeared in our country regarding Huang Jiguang! It is only that since the 18th National Congress of the Party, these heresies of historical nihilism have been criticized by the masses like "rats crossing the street" [18]. Simultaneously, our country has enacted legislation to protect the reputation of heroes, severely punishing the tarnishing of the deeds of people's heroes and role models.
A society that negates its heroes is destined to have no future. The swarms of lies [19] not only disrupted public opinion and confused the domestic audience—robbing the five-million-strong Soviet military of its former glory and depriving the Soviet people of its strong backbone for defending their political power—but also led the CPSU, with its nearly 20 million members, toward collapse along with the 70-year history of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union. The final fate of the powerful Soviet military is a cause for deep sighs, providing a historical mirror that we must always remember.
(9) Maintain High Vigilance Against the Western Strategy of Peaceful Evolution; Never Allow a Fifth Column to Run Amuck Within the Country or Even Within the Party, Especially to Prevent the Phenomenon of "The Dove Occupying the Magpie's Nest" Within the Party's Leadership Core; Otherwise, the Overthrow of the Party and State Will Become Inevitable
"Peaceful evolution" is a strategic concept proposed for the US government to "contain" socialist countries between 1953 and 1961 by the brothers John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles. In 1945, as World War II was drawing to a close, Allen Dulles, then a high-ranking official in the US intelligence services, outlined in detail how to use peaceful means to promote the evolution of the Soviet Union: "The war will end, and everything will be worked out and arranged. We will spend all we have, all our gold, all our material wealth, to mold people into what we need them to be, and make them listen to us." "Human brains and human consciousness can change. As long as we throw the brain into chaos, we can imperceptibly change people's values." "We must find people within Russia who agree with our ideology, and find our allies." "We will imperceptibly but actively and constantly promote the arbitrary behavior of officials, making them infinitely corrupt and devoid of principle." "We will gradually erase their social existence from literature and art." "With superb skill, we will sanctify all of this imperceptibly, let it blossom into a brilliant flower... Only a few people, a very few people, will feel or recognize what is actually happening. But we will place these people in a state of isolation and helplessness, making them the objects of public ridicule; we will find ways to slander them and declare them the dregs of society." On January 15, 1953, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles claimed that the threat of socialism to the free world must, and can be, destroyed through peaceful methods. He argued that those who do not believe that spiritual pressure and the pressure of propaganda can produce results are too ignorant.
The Western hostile forces implemented the strategy of peaceful evolution against the Soviet Union first by cultivating powerful internal forces—commonly known as the "fifth column"—within the Soviet Party and state leadership at all levels and in various sectors of society, especially within the top leadership. The West utilized cultural exchanges, economic activities, and personnel visits to conduct ideological and cultural infiltration and cultivate spokespersons for the West in the Soviet Union. This was primarily achieved through the extensive recruitment of experts and scholars from various disciplines, using propaganda, mutual visits, reconnaissance, and espionage to conduct a large-scale psychological war. They supported Soviet dissidents through support and bribery; utilized ethnic tensions to create national divisions and incite dissatisfaction within Soviet society; and spread political rumors to vilify the images of Soviet leaders like Lenin and Stalin, inciting mass resentment and hatred toward the Soviet system and a longing for Western society.
In September 1956, the US government decided to take advantage of Khrushchev's advocacy for "peaceful coexistence" between socialism and capitalism to encourage "large-scale people-to-people exchanges" between the USSR and the USA. They advocated for inviting 10,000 Soviet university students to study in the US, with all expenses covered by the US government. The hope was that one day, this group of people cultivated by the US would hold power in the Soviet Union. Subsequent facts proved that the Americans' efforts were not in vain. By attracting large numbers of Soviet youth to study in the US and other methods, they conducted anti-communist propaganda and cultivated a group of pro-American, pro-Western, anti-communist, and anti-socialist forces. Alexander Yakovlev is a typical representative of this group. According to disclosures by Vladimir Kryuchkov, the former chairman of the KGB, Yakovlev was bribed by US intelligence agencies while studying at Columbia University in 1960 and received instructions from the US during the Soviet "reform" period.
The West also utilized the Nobel Prizes, various foundations, and non-governmental organizations under its control to influence and dominate the intellectual community of Soviet society, cultivating a "knowledge elite" to promote Western ideological theories and values. The Nobel Prizes for Literature and Peace, as well as Economics, all possess a distinct Western ideological character. The Soviet Union received a total of five Nobel Prizes in Literature and two Nobel Peace Prizes. With the exception of the famous Soviet writer Mikhail Sholokhov, author of And Quiet Flows the Don, who won in 1965, the works of the other four literature laureates were all known for negating and vilifying the October Revolution and the Stalin era—the most famous being Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, known for writing The Gulag Archipelago. One of the two Peace Prizes was awarded to the famous Soviet "dissident" and scientist Andrei Sakharov, who had been engaged in anti-Soviet and anti-communist political activities since the 1970s; his award in 1975 stemmed from the West's affirmation of his political activities. The other Peace Prize was given to Gorbachev in 1990 as a reward for his "outstanding contribution" to the disintegration of the CPSU and the promotion of "democracy" in Eastern Europe. Thus, the black hand of the "Nobel Prize" operating behind the scenes was finally exposed.
Western non-governmental organizations also played an important role in disintegrating CPSU ideology and promoting the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Friedrich Hayek, a representative of neoliberalism known for his anti-communism and anti-Marxism, used the Mont Pelerin Society [20] (funded by British financial syndicates) to actively participate in Western ideological infiltration of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. He focused on funding a group of Soviet scholars to study in the West, including Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais. Under the influence of Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society, Gaidar and Chubais vigorously spread neoliberal ideas in the Soviet Union and Russia, implementing "shock therapy" based on neoliberal theory, which became an important driver leading to the collapse of the Soviet and Russian economies.
George Soros, the founder of the Open Society Foundations in the United States, established the Soviet Soros Foundation in Moscow in 1987. He actively funded anti-Soviet and anti-communist liberal elements engaged in political activities aimed at the disintegration of the Soviet Union, such as the famous "dissident" and historian Yuri Afanasyev. Beyond this, the Soros Foundation in 1990 funded a working group composed of Grigory Yavlinsky and others, which intended to formulate a program for the Soviet transition to a free-market economy (the "500 Days Program" [21]). The foundation also funded a large number of journalists and television anchors, cultivating a group of so-called independent television media experts to act as mouthpieces for anti-Soviet and anti-communist rhetoric and to actively engage in subversive activities.
The West, led by the United States, placed particular emphasis on cultivating agents within the various levels of Soviet leadership. The Freemasons, a mysterious Western organization, also played an important catalytic role in the process of promoting the disintegration of the Soviet Union. According to revelations by Russian historian Oleg Platonov in his book Russia’s Crown of Thorns: The History of Freemasonry (1731–1995), between 1945 and 1994, more than 400 high-ranking party and government officials within the former Soviet system joined the Freemasons or international organizations affiliated with them (such as the "Bilderberg Club," the "Great Europe" Committee, and the "International Russian Club"). These included senior CPSU leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Yakovlev, Eduard Shevardnadze, and Boris Yeltsin.
As General Secretary of a major party and major power like the Soviet Union, one should have been a firm and clear-headed Marxist-Leninist who served the vast majority of people in one's own country and the world—that is, possessing the spirit of "I will forgo my self for the sake of the people" [22]. Regrettably, however, this crucial and important position was gradually subject to the strange phenomenon of "the dove usurping the magpie's nest" [23], being seized by degenerate elements within the Party and traitors to the cause of communism. The emergence of this peculiar phenomenon certainly had extremely complex internal Party and domestic causes, but it was also directly linked to extremely complex international factors. Much conclusive evidence proves that Gorbachev, a man who had completely lost his communist faith, was able to be elected General Secretary of the CC CPSU in close connection with the inducement and cultivation of Western forces led by the United States. The famous Soviet dissident Alexander Zinoviev claimed that around 1979 he spoke with a staff member of the British intelligence services, who told him: "Soon they (the Western forces) will arrange for their own man to sit on the Soviet throne." Although this staff member did not mention Gorbachev by name, Zinoviev concluded from this that the prophecy was prescient. As early as 1983, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) possessed a great deal of intelligence regarding Gorbachev, leading US intelligence departments to believe that they "could utilize him to serve their own political interests." Subsequently, the West, led by the US, repeatedly attempted to establish secret contacts with Gorbachev and viewed him as the optimal candidate for the leadership of the CPSU. Margaret Thatcher also spoke bluntly: "It was we who made Gorbachev the General Secretary." Some commentators believe that London approved Gorbachev’s election as General Secretary even before Moscow did. In fact, while studying at Moscow University in 1953, Gorbachev became close friends with a Czech student, Zdeněk Mlynář. Mlynář was a "dissident" whom the United States had long focused on cultivating in Czechoslovakia. In 1968, Mlynář served as a Secretary and member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and was one of the leaders of the "Prague Spring"; he was expelled from the Party in 1970. In 1977, Mlynář, along with 240 other Czechoslovak intellectuals and figures from other sectors and strata, signed and released Charter 77, a declaration demanding the protection of so-called basic human rights, challenging the so-called "Stalinist" autocratic rule. On the surface, Gorbachev had almost no contact with Mlynář, but Gorbachev’s biographer Andrey Grachev once quoted Gorbachev’s words to Komsomolskaya Pravda in 1994: "Zdeněk was my closest friend, closer than anyone else." In 2002, Gorbachev further confirmed: "I had a friend named Zdeněk Mlynář; until the final moments of his life, we maintained a friendly relationship." After being elected General Secretary, Gorbachev immediately invited Mlynář to Moscow, but his meeting with him was not made public.
In his book The Art of Intelligence, published in the mid-1960s, senior CIA official Allen Dulles admitted that Western intelligence agencies closely monitored "Communist Party members at all levels, from the highest to the grassroots, in socialist countries, carefully establishing dossiers and recording their activities, speeches, and details of their personal and social lives in detail." Soviet KGB General Andrey Sidorenko recalled: "In the mid-1960s, the KGB obtained the first intelligence from its sources regarding the CIA and other US intelligence agencies shifting toward recruiting so-called 'agents of influence' [利益代理人]." "The recruitment of these agents of influence was for future use—that is, counting on them to be promoted at some unknown future moment into the Party and state apparatus, influential social institutions, and the Soviet military, and to work there." In his book Who Positioned Gorbachev?, Russian historian Alexander Ostrovsky proposed: "Gorbachev’s name appeared on CIA biographical data cards no later than 1968, when he was serving as the Second Secretary of the Stavropol Krai Party Committee."
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, CIA Director Robert Gates walked through Moscow's Red Square and remarked with no small measure of pride: "We knew that whether through economic pressure or an arms race, or even through the use of force, we could not take it down. It could only be destroyed through an internal explosion." Former Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Nikolai Ryzhkov, stated: "If there were not a 'Fifth Column' within that actually fully pursued the goals set by the enemies of the Soviet Union, no one could have done anything to our country relying only on external forces." Former Soviet Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov said: "There was a so-called 'Fifth Column'; these people relied on the Americans for their livelihood. There were not many of them, but it was precisely they who crippled the Soviet Union."
Following Gorbachev’s death, Western leaders such as Joe Biden gave him extremely high praise, sparing no effort in showering him with various encomiums. US President Biden stated: "Mikhail Gorbachev was a man of remarkable vision. When he came to power, the Cold War had gone on for nearly 40 years and communism for even longer, with devastating consequences. Few high-ranking Soviet officials had the courage to admit that things needed to change. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I saw him do that and more." British Prime Minister Boris Johnson expressed: "I am saddened to hear of Gorbachev's death. I have always admired the courage and integrity he showed in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion."
The existence of this "Fifth Column" allowed the US-led Western strategy of peaceful evolution [24] to achieve a comprehensive "victory." This was a "victory" the West had never seen since the establishment of socialist states. The harm caused by the Soviet "Fifth Column" tells us that while battles on the military battlefield are often thrilling because they are visible, battles on the invisible battlefields of the economy, ideology, and culture—though seemingly calm on the surface—often become more lethal due to their high degree of concealment and deceptiveness.
It is an indisputable fact that the "Fifth Column" instigated and positioned by the US-led West in the Soviet Union—including Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, Yeltsin, and others—collaborated with Western anti-Soviet forces from within and without to bring down the Soviet Party and state. The process is shocking and highly worthy of our study. (To be continued)
(Author: Li Shenming, Honorary Dean of the School of Politics and Public Administration at Zhengzhou University and Director of the World Socialism Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
(Project: This article is a staged result of the National Social Science Fund's special commissioned research topic "New Changes in Capitalism, the Essence and Development Trends of Imperialism, and Our Strategic Response." Project Leader: Li Shenming; Project Members: Liu Shulin, Wang Tingyou, Li Ruiqin, Zhang Shuhua, Fan Jianxin, Zhao Diqi.)
Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: World Socialism Studies, Issue 10, 2022