Socialism Betrayed

1. Gorbachev's Policies, Not Inevitable Forces, Triggered the Soviet Collapse

The story of the last Soviet power struggle is not, I believe, one that is best understood in terms of an irresistible unfolding of large historical forces and trends.

Policies, not forces. The collapse of the Soviet Union was not the result of inevitable historical forces, but rather the specific policies pursued by Mikhail Gorbachev after 1986. While underlying problems existed, it was Gorbachev's reforms that ultimately led to the system's demise. This perspective challenges the notion that the Soviet Union was destined to fail, highlighting the role of individual leadership and decision-making in shaping historical outcomes.

Extravagant claims. The political right made extravagant claims that the Cold War was over and capitalism had won. However, the Soviet collapse had momentous implications but did not alter the usefulness of Marxism for understanding a world that more than ever was shaped by class conflict and the struggles of oppressed people against corporate power, nor did it shake the values and commitment of those on the side of workers, unions, minorities, national liberation, peace, women, the environment, and human rights.

Alternative explanations. The book challenges the idea that the Soviet collapse was inevitable, exploring alternative explanations such as foreign military threats or subversion. It also questions the notion that "human error" alone was responsible, emphasizing the need to understand the systemic factors that contributed to poor leadership and decision-making.

2. Two Conflicting Ideologies Shaped Soviet Politics

Two—opposing tendencies existed in the CPSU—proletarian and petty bourgeois, democratic and bureaucratic.

Class interests. Soviet politics were shaped by two conflicting tendencies: a working-class tendency that favored strengthening the working class and the Communist Party, and a petty bourgeois tendency that favored incorporating aspects of capitalism. These tendencies reflected the class interests of the working class and the petty bourgeoisie, respectively.

Historical roots. These tendencies had roots in the early days of the Russian Revolution, with debates over the New Economic Policy (NEP) highlighting the tension between socialist and capitalist approaches. The left position favored pushing forward class struggle, the interests of the working class and the power of the Communist Party, and the right position favored retreats or compromises and the incorporation of various capitalist ideas into socialism.

Gorbachev's shift. Gorbachev's policies initially resembled the left-wing tradition but later shifted to the right, incorporating social democratic ideas that weakened the Communist Party and compromised with capitalism. This shift was influenced by the growth of a "second economy" of private enterprise and a new petty bourgeois stratum within Soviet society.

3. The Second Economy Fostered Corruption and Undermined Socialism

The USSR’s shadow economy and the rest of its underground—misappropriation, corruption, organized crime—in the end contributed to the system’s collapse…

Private gain. The development of a "second economy" of private enterprise within socialism, both legal and illegal, played a significant role in the Soviet collapse. This sector fostered relations, values, and ideas that were different from collective economic activity, posing a danger to socialism.

Corrosive effects. The second economy led to widespread corruption, criminality, and the development of ideas and sentiments that justified private enterprise. It also became a source of funds for critics and opponents of the system, providing a material basis for social democratic ideas.

Growing influence. The second economy grew significantly after 1953, particularly under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, eventually penetrating all aspects of Soviet life. By the 1980s, it involved a substantial portion of the population and accounted for a significant share of their income, effectively re-creating a petty bourgeois stratum.

4. Early Reforms Showed Promise but Contained Seeds of Destruction

Gorbachev’s first days and months were electrifying. His speeches and person-to-person talks with Leningrad workers put the first cracks in the ice of stagnation.

Initial optimism. Gorbachev's early reforms, such as promoting new cadre, increasing discipline, and modernizing production, were met with enthusiasm and showed some signs of success. These initiatives were seen as a continuation of Andropov's policies and were widely supported.

Problematic aspects. However, some of Gorbachev's early policies, such as the anti-alcohol campaign and the emphasis on quantity over quality, proved to be problematic. These measures led to unintended consequences and undermined the overall reform effort.

Shift in focus. Gorbachev began to shift his focus from economic reform to political and ideological changes, emphasizing glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). This shift, while initially welcomed, would ultimately lead to the unraveling of the Soviet system.

5. 1987-88 Marked a Decisive Shift Towards Marketization and Political Liberalization

In place of the old corrupt elements that for decades had been festering in the body of the Communist Party and the society at large, suddenly, in the space of a year or two, came even more horrible and more absolutely corrupt forces that stifled the healthy start made in the Party and the country after April 1985.

Radical changes. The years 1987-88 marked a turning point in perestroika, with Gorbachev and his advisors adopting policies that undermined the foundations of Soviet socialism. These policies included weakening the Communist Party, promoting private property, and abandoning international solidarity.

Key events. The January 1987 Central Committee Plenum and the Nineteenth Party Conference in June 1988 were pivotal events in this shift. These gatherings saw the adoption of "radical political reform" and "radical economic reform" policies that transformed perestroika into a demolition project.

Underlying forces. The shift towards marketization and political liberalization was driven by the growing influence of the second economy and the emergence of a petty bourgeois stratum with a stake in private enterprise. This sector provided a ready-built constituency for Gorbachev's pro-market policies.

6. The Soviet Union Unraveled Amid Economic Crisis and Separatist Fury

During 1989 the worst fears of those who had foreseen the potential of the changes wrought at the Nineteenth Party Conference were realized.

Economic decline. By 1989, the Soviet economy was in a state of crisis, with production declining, shortages multiplying, and inflation rising. These economic problems fueled popular discontent and undermined support for the Communist Party.

Separatist movements. Nationalist movements in the republics gained momentum, leading to declarations of sovereignty and ultimately secession from the Soviet Union. Gorbachev's attempts to negotiate a new Union Treaty proved futile.

Loss of control. The Communist Party lost its grip on power, with the rise of Boris Yeltsin and the "democrats" further weakening the system. By 1991, the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse.

7. The Soviet Collapse: A Cautionary Tale for Socialist Construction

A struggle still lies ahead for the party. Khrushchev was no accident. We are primarily a peasant country, and the right wing is powerful.

Lessons learned. The Soviet collapse offers valuable lessons for socialist construction, highlighting the importance of maintaining Party standards, restricting the market, and addressing the national question. It also underscores the need to be vigilant against opportunism and to defend socialist principles.

Avoiding past mistakes. The Soviet experience demonstrates the dangers of complacency, ideological weakness, and the failure to adapt to changing circumstances. It also highlights the importance of maintaining a strong connection between the Party and the working class.

The future of socialism. The Soviet collapse does not invalidate the socialist project but rather serves as a reminder of the challenges and pitfalls that must be avoided. By learning from the past, future socialist movements can strive for a more successful and sustainable path.

8. The Soviet Union's Demise: A Loss for the Oppressed

For those who believe that a better world—beyond capitalist exploitation, inequality, greed, poverty, ignorance, and injustice—is possible, the demise of the Soviet Union represented a staggering loss.

Counterweight to imperialism. The Soviet Union served as a counterweight to colonialism and imperialism, providing support for national liberation movements and socialist governments around the world. Its collapse meant the disappearance of this crucial ally for oppressed peoples.

Model for development. The Soviet Union offered a model of how newly freed nations could develop themselves without mortgaging their futures to the United States or Western Europe. Its demise meant the eclipse of this alternative path.

Setback for progress. The collapse of the Soviet Union represented a setback for socialist and people's struggles around the world. It meant the disappearance of a leading non-capitalist country and the main support of national liberation movements and socialist governments.

Last updated: March 31, 2025