The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Gorbachev's reforms aroused fierce opposition amongst many in the nomenclatura who rightly feared that these reforms would be their own undoing. The Soviet system never considered that the whole system could be taken down by a determined General Secretary. Gorbachev used events to put allies into key positions. My sense has been that, while he wanted to steer a more moderate course, in the face of resistance from hard-liners, Gorbachev essentially ended up using the political power he had as General Secretary to bulldog the existing system by pushing through a new Constitution, holding elections, breaking the political monopoly of the Communist Party, breaking up state enterprises into smaller private enterprises and shedding the buffer states.
I suspect that he thought he could more successfully influence the future direction of the Russian state and society and its relations with the former buffer states than in fact proved possible. Less drastic reform efforts may well have failed and left the old system largely intact. I consider Gorbachev to be a great historical figure. We need a similar determined reformer in the USA. May we be so fortunate as to have one. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I hadn't noticed much of the fierce nomenclature opposition to him from the contemporary media or behavior of officials. It seemed that Gorby had control right from the start; the media promoted him quite innovatively (by the Soviet standards). He did change a lot of top party officials... stirring some "unheard" national tensions, in particular... if that goes for a democratic change. The election of Gorbachev himself is said to be controversial.
Seeing how much bullshit posting is there in today's politics, I am more ready to consider the possibility that some of the glorious historic events (like the end of the Cold War) have elements of Potiomkin village in them. Gorbachev did everything right for break-up of the Soviet model (for better and worse). If he left a vacuum, there was once wild force ready to fill it in.
How did Gorbachev know not-so-totalitarian alternatives, and new economic relations?
I agree that the demise of the Soviet Union, when and how it died, was largely the result of Gorbachev's actions. I do not think it turned out anything as well as he would have liked. He certainly put his own position and the future of his family in play and is probably fortunate to have emerged as well as he did. I give him credit for having the courage to push his society in the direction of greater openness and of detente with the USA in the face of great uncertainty.
Meanwhile, Reagan was posturing for public approval with his "evil empire" rhetoric and doubling the national debt of the USA with military spending. I think Gorbachev saw that neither side could win the Cold War militarily, while the Republicans in the USA claimed that this is exactly what they had done. Point Gorbachev. Absent a credible geo-political rival, US triumphalism under "W" inflated to gigantic proportions and then proceeded to pop, like a giant bubble gum balloon, all over our face and society, unfortunately smothering the world economy in the process.
Gorbachev could have elected to "stay the course" and try to keep a lid on change in Soviet society. Hard to know how that would have worked out. He could have taken a course more like that of China, but I think that is what he had in mind when overtaken by events. The Chinese undoubtedly found the Soviet example instructive. I think what Gorbachev needed was better domestic rivals and a way to slow down the process. A sober Yeltsin might have helped. The USA was fortunate at its founding to have a number of first rate players and the luxury of time in which to hash out a 2.0 version of our government.
I watched these events from afar and through English language coverage. I do not know your reasons not to cheer anything Soviet, but you appear to have had a closer perspective. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I've read somewhere (tm) that he envisioned a transformation into a Scandinavian welfare state. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by gmoke - Nov 30
by gmoke - Nov 24
by gmoke - Nov 7
by gmoke - Nov 11
by Oui - Jan 15
by Oui - Jan 14
by Oui - Jan 141 comment
by Oui - Jan 132 comments
by Oui - Jan 13
by gmoke - Jan 138 comments
by Oui - Jan 12
by Oui - Jan 121 comment
by Oui - Jan 11
by Oui - Jan 112 comments
by Oui - Jan 10
by Oui - Jan 101 comment
by Oui - Jan 9
by Oui - Jan 8
by Oui - Jan 83 comments
by Oui - Jan 78 comments
by Oui - Jan 69 comments
by Oui - Jan 61 comment
by Oui - Jan 6