In socialist nations, progressive policies such as rights for minorities, abortion, strong public health care and good health care systems, and effective educational reforms become law. This is primarily because the state controls the country’s economy, output, and pieces. One can get more resources; in most cases, the poor people are catered to in terms of necessities. Therefore, growing up in a socialist regime can be desirable to some individuals.
Unfortunately, people who have grown up in socialist regimes have their freedoms disregarded. Under socialism, enjoying political freedom and stable institutions is impossible. This failed regressive ideology serves the leaders or those in top positions in the government as it impoverishes the masses. Therefore, most people are deprived of rights and freedoms such as expression and deprived of their necessities. This shows how socialism contributed to the suffering of low-income individuals.
How Propaganda Functioned and Forms Used
Socialist regimes have survived due to the leader’s mastery of propaganda. Remarkably, it entails the artistic and social promotion of ideologies. For Instance, a leader like Josef Stalin used documentary photographs with his pockmarked face to ensure he eliminated competition to his power and controlled everything (Prof. B, 2021b, 00: 00: 01). Consequently, Stalin did so by ensuring that editors retouched the same photo repeatedly.
Leaders who believed in socialism adapted photographic manipulation to shape their public image. Leaders under Stalin made editors spend several hours smoothing the blemishes of his complexion. Such actions contributed to the falsification of reality. Stalin doctored photos to become accepted truth and used the portraits to present himself as an all-knowing and only leader of the USSR. In sum, socialism has failed morally, politically, and economically.
How the Soviet Ideology Reflected in the Style of Architecture and Ornaments
A nation’s ideology may exist in material structure. Soviet ideology reflected in the style of architecture was characterized by abundant use of highly ornamental and luxurious massive concrete buildings. It is identifiable that Soviet architecture had lavish buildings featuring arches, porticos, and columns (Prof. B, 2021a, 00: 00: 41 – 00: 02: 20). The big, stark, and extravagant massive constructions were primarily guided by Soviet’s ideologies of forced collectivization.
On December 26, 1991, the world woke up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. No one had predicted such an outcome. It was as a result of declaration 142-H, which led to the acknowledgment of the former Soviet republics during the creation of The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The fall was of great significance to the West. It was seen as proof that capitalism was superior to socialism.1 The country had no social classes. It had achieved a socialist status in the 1930s. The US also felt triumphant as the fall meant the end of the cold war. The disintegration led to significant changes in the world in relation to political, socioeconomic, and military alliances.2
In this paper, the author will analyze some of the factors that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. A critical analysis of the issue reveals that a combination of internal and external factors led to the collapse. The major external forces included the intervention of the US in the affairs of the Union.
Analyzing the Collapse of the Soviet Union
Internal Factors
Poor governance
Mikhail Gorbachev oversaw the dissolution of the Union. During his tenure, the president enacted the Perestroika reforms and Glasnost policy programs. The policies were aimed at positioning the country as a global powerhouse. However, these reforms led to the fall of the Soviet Union. It was mainly because Mikhail developed technical ideas to deal with challenges but failed to justify the solutions. Historians claim that it was easy to manipulate him as most of his reforms benefited few people, especially his advisors.3
Corruption
In spite of the reforms put in place by Gorbachev, corruption was rampant in the Soviet Union. The grass root reforms were meant to counter this problem. Increased corruption led to disappointments and instabilities in the Union.4 In August 20th, 1991, there was an attempted coup d’état. The revolt was based on the desire for a centralized form of government instead. The attempt greatly destabilized the Soviet Union. It led to the death of the Communist Party and later the Union itself.5
The American Interference
The Ronald Reagan’s administration played a crucial role in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. For example, the arms race had a negative effect on the USSR economy.6 In addition, the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Balkans meant that the Soviet Union lost important trade partners. Yugoslavia was a strong ally, which shared political systems with the Union. The 1989 revolution and the Baltics independence further led to the weakening of the USSR. Other countries in the world overthrew their communist governments, which was a huge loss to the Soviet Union.7 Most of these external forces were sponsored by the US.
The Collapse of the USSR from a Theoretical Perspective
The Balance of Power Theory
In international relations, this theory holds that nations protect themselves from a threat arising from other countries. As a result, countries compete with each other to acquire new territories and alliances.8 Before the 1900s, the global political arena was characterized by various autonomous balance-of-power structures. They included Europe, the US, and the Chinese. World War II interfered with the balance of power amongst the traditional players in the Western and Central Europe. It gave rise to the US and the Soviet Union. The result was a bipolar balance of power between the two blocs.
The west of Europe sided with the US, while countries from Central and Eastern Europe became allies of the Soviet Union.9 The superpowers almost engaged in a nuclear war. They were involved in an arms race as they tried to interfere with the military and political fabrics of the third world countries. The European balance of power became irrelevant as a result of the demise of the Soviet Union. The competitive nature forced the Union to incur huge expenditure on its military, leading to its end. The USSR was unable to manage the region.10
The Collective Security Theory
The theory holds that a group of nations, usually in the same region, agree on security arrangements based on a given system that they all adhere to. For instance, an attack on one of its members is seen as a threat to the rest.11 The Soviets were already facing challenges during the First World War. The US supported German’s Nazism as they approached Eastern Europe. At the time, the Soviet Union was a superpower. As such, it was expected to uphold the security of the entire region.12 The Union’s struggling economy and poor leadership could not manage this task. The situation weakened the economic and political influence of the country. The Anglo-French appeasement and domestic opponents further threatened the region’s collective security. The US managed to gain more power and control given that it did not face such challenges in its region of operation. It increased its propaganda against the Soviet Union, leading to its fall.13
Other Causes of the Collapse
Economic Stagnation in the 1970s
The Soviet Union was going through tough economic times well before the 1980s. In spite of the ongoing arms race, the government had to scale down its development as a result of the weak economy. A number of treaties were used to regulate the arms race. One of them was the Anti-Ballistic Missile accord. Most of these agreements were signed during the Nixon’s administration.14
The USSR experienced economic stagnation in the mid 1970s. The government was forced to borrow from West Europe to finance its large military budget.15 The debt forced it to liquidate some of its gold reserves. In spite of the economic reforms put in place, the Union’s economy failed to pick up. It was characterized by corruption and backward technology. Ronald Reagan observed that the Soviets did not require a foreign enemy to be defeated. The Union was ‘rotting’ from within as a result of the weak economy.16
Interferences from the West
President Regan was opposed to the Soviet Union. He fueled fears in the world by using a confrontational tone during the Cuban missile crisis. The fears were escalated by his massive military spending. Reagan’s handlers advised him to enforce embargoes against the Soviet Union. However, the US continued to conduct trade with the USSR.17
Reagan’s interference with the Soviet affairs exposed the weaknesses of the Union. The negative image propagated by the US made the region look weak and unpopular.18 Military and economic reprisals against the Soviet Union did not have significant effects on the country. However, they accelerated the fall of the Union.
Gorbachev’s Reforms
The reforms were meant to counter the effects of the Brezhnezian era. As a result, the popularity of the leader in the region declined. The reforms faced opposition as people complained that they were too slow. By late 1980s, the leader had managed to implement most of his political policies.19 However, this led to the creation of political elites in the region.20
The Loss of Eastern Europe
In 1988, Gorbachev made a controversial stand against the Brezhnev doctrine. He claimed that he did not intend to use military force to grow the Communist regime there. In December of that year, the Soviet Union started to withdraw from Eastern Europe. The retreat showed the world that the USSR lacked the military capability to manage the region. People from Eastern Europe were opposed to the dictatorial structure.21 During the 1970s, Reagan argued that the Communist governments were bound to fail. The move led to increased rebellion amongst the republics, weakening the control of the USSR over the region.
The Fall of the Soviet Union
The ties between the US and the Union were not always strained. For example, President Reagan had established a working relationship with the Russian government in his early days in office. However, there were protests from some American quarters regarding the treatment of people in Karabakh. The Soviets were made to embark on decentralization.22 In the late 1980s, most regions in the Baltic belt were agitating for secession. The desire for decentralization arose in those republics. In 1990, a declaration of sovereignty increased the opposition against the Communist rule. It was felt that the minorities were being unfairly treated by the supermajorities. Members of the new political classes were the major beneficiaries. They amassed the wealth and influence of the USSR. The various republics were the losers in this game.23
The Aftermath of the Dissolution
The crumbling of the USSR weakened Russia’s geopolitical and economic power in the region. Its position in the world was also affected. The country controlled most of the assets held by the state. However, in spite of this, it experienced tough economic situations. It suffered from hyperinflation and a 50% loss of its GDP.24 The west emerged victorious as they branded themselves as the ones who had a solution to the economic challenges. The economic woes weakened the Union’s global status and political power. As a result, many countries abandoned the communist rule.25
Conclusion
The American response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union was regarded as a win. It portrayed the superiority of capitalism over socialism. The fall signified that socialism could not efficiently sustain a nation or a region. Even after the fall, the US continues to keep an eye on the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. The country fears that these weapons may be used for malicious actions, such as imposition of power to redeem the communist regime. It is evident that the fall of the Soviet Union was largely as a result of internal factors. However, external factors, such as the US’s intervention, fuelled the collapse. The fall of the USSR ensured that capitalism became an efficient mode of running a nation or a region. However, in spite of these external forces, the fall could have been avoided if there were no internal wrangles in the Union.
Bibliography
Harvey, Miles. The Fall of the Soviet Union. Chicago: Children’s Press, 1995.
Immell, Myra. The Dissolution of the Soviet Union. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010.
Matthews, John. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1999.
Nye, Joseph, and David Welch. Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History. 9th ed. Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2012.
Sakwa, Richard. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union: 1917-1991. London: Routledge, 1999.
Strong, John. The Soviet Union Under Brezhnev And Kosygin: The Transition Years, 1965-68. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1971.
Urban, George. End of Empire: The Demise of the Soviet Union. Washington, D.C.: University Publishing Association, 1992.
Footnotes
Miles Harvey, The Fall of the Soviet Union (Chicago: Children’s Press, 1995), 23.
George Urban, End of Empire: The Demise of the Soviet Union (Washington, D.C.: University Publishing Association, 1992), 212.
Ibid, 122.
John Matthews, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union (San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1999), 21.
Harvey, 34.
Matthews, 43.
Myra Immell, The Dissolution of the Soviet Union (Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010), 100.
Joseph Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History, 9th ed. (Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2012), 122.
Ibid, 56.
Richard Sakwa, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union: 1917-1991 (London: Routledge, 1999), 98.
Nye and Welch, 39.
Ibid.
Sakwa, 49.
Ibid.
Harvey, 51.
Sakwa, 99.
Nye and Welch, 100.
Sakwa, 55.
John Strong, The Soviet Union Under Brezhnev and Kosygin: The Transition Years, 1965-68 (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1971), 44.
Afghanistan is a landlocked country with large mountainous areas, which remain mainly arid throughout the year. Thus, there is often shortage of water, due to which the local population has to bear many inconveniences. Besides, the country is also prone to earthquakes, which leaves trail of destruction. Over its chequered history, Afghanistan has had both natural and man-made disasters to cause enormous havoc to this fertile country, because of which, it remains one of the poorest countries in the world today. The mountainous nature of this country has made it rather inaccessible for purpose of trade and commerce, and with very little vegetation possible due to aridity of land; people are forced to seek recourse to poppy cultivation for their daily sustenance.
There are a large number of diverse ethnic communities in this country and various dialects are spoken in different areas of the country. “There are also many other, smaller, ethnic groups including Turkmens, Baluchs, Aimaks and others.” (O’Toole).
The problem lies in the fact that the administrative machinery would have a tough time in “trying to unite a country driven by ethnic, religious and tribal rivalries.” (O’Toole). Add to this is the problems caused by the local Taliban forces which, although are out of power, are bent upon destabilizing the country by wrecking government’s attempt to enforce peace and harmonious democratic process in the country. The Taliban is aided with arms and ammunition from terrorists’ outfits in Pakistan, where, internal forces are siding with the Taliban and local drug Mafias to enforce their reign of terror and subjugation on this neighboring country.
The recent history of Afghanistan has been the ousting of the Taliban and the attempt at restoring the democratic process under the elected representation of Hamid Kanzai, the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. He has an enormous task in that he has to bring about acceptable reconciliation amongst the local warring factions, groups and clans within the country and persuade the remaining Taliban religious fundamentalists to lay down their arms and join in the Government’s efforts for nation-building. The very existence of the civil Government in Afghanistan is with the active assistance of the reigning National Alliance, needs the support of foreign powers and NATO allies to stay in power. Afghanistan’s peace efforts are ensured by US Special Forces, UNO peace-keeping forces and military personnel of countries interested in the ultimate peace and prosperity of this war-ravaged country.. How long this would last is a matter of conjecture, and it may also become necessary for peacekeeping armies to remain in Afghanistan for a long time to ensure permanent stability in the land.
Coming to the second part of the question, the history of Afghanistan has been one replete with bloodshed and violence since its rule under the Mughals. Then began the ten-year siege by the Soviet Union between 1979 – 1989, which destroyed the country’s economy and forced millions of Afghans to flee to neighboring countries. “More than 1 million Afghans died in the war and 5 million became refugees in neighboring countries.” (The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan).
After the Russians left in 1989, the country’s administration had to grapple with Civil war and the rise of the fundamentalists, the Taliban who violated fundamental human rights and forced the people into penury. The international community has pledged to do whatever they could to reconstruct the country pledging “over $24 billion at three donors’ conferences since 2002.” There is however, a number of serious issues that need to be addressed, primary among which is the illicit poppy, or drug trade, which figures as a $ 4 billion illegal industry. The other challenges could be in terms of creating jobs for youth, civil supplies, water and law and order conditions. (Afghanistan).
The Russian army on its retreat had planted nearly 5 million landmines in the country, and this is a major concern since it is still causing death and injuries to the locals, including women and children.
Conclusion: It is thus seen that Afghanistan’s future would rest on the prolonged stay of peacekeeping forces and also economic aid and food supply from international organizations. The democratic rebuilding could only be pursued as long as the US Special Forces and other armies who are maintaining peace in the country could be sustained and it is anybody’s guess to see how long this could continue, given the enormous costs needed to maintain forces in another country.
In the modern world, the term baby boomers usually refer to people who were born in the period between 1947 and 1964. In this paper, the issues surrounding the notion of Soviet baby boomers are examined; it will be shown what makes that generation differ from the others: how the events of that time affected or changed the lives of people who grew up at that period, the start of transformations in the Soviet Union, and the pace of these transformations. In this paper, various factors that led to forming an existing generation of people who enjoyed the best era in the evolution of the Soviet Union will be covered.
The term baby boomers in the Soviet Union is usually referred to as the”sputnik generation”. The reason lays in the fact that the whole generation had gone to the first-grade school in the same year that the Soviet Union launched the first satellite in the world which was called Sputnik at the time. An event not only nicknamed the whole generation that was born that year but also changed the ideology of the Soviet people.
To make this statement more accurate, a brief explanation of the events of that period will definitely help to understand what led to that forming the term “sputnik generation”.
After the Second World War, during the period of the Cold War, the competition between the Soviet Union and the west influenced almost every aspect of modern life. The launch of the first artificial satellite in the world gave the Soviet Union an enormous technological advantage at this time. This event started the era which lasted to the peak of Soviet socialism and transitioned from the era of Stalinism to the era of social and scientific transformations. An example of the effect of those transformations can be traced in interviews of eight Soviet graduates of class 1967 which were presented in the book “Russia’s Sputnik Generation” (Raleigh, 2006). These eight baby boomers attended school No 42 in Saratov, a provincial city isolated from the outside world until 1991. The information provided by the interviewees is exemplary since the chosen group can be identified as a professionally educated urban class and represent a microcosm of the Soviet Union in general and Saratov in particular in terms of class and ethnicity.
One of the many factors that shaped the personalities of that generation is the mobile style of life which was representative of the whole nation after World War II. The war scattered the parents in search of opportunities, and since both parents were working at the time, we can say that the early baby boom generation was raised by the grandparents.
That factor along with the people’s physical closeness resulting from house shortage shaped a close relationship between all family members and stimulated respect towards authority.
Another factor is the school and the system of education. The Soviet educational system along with providing clubs of interest to the students in many aspects such as sports, music, dance to fill the students’ time, also offered a way of entering the Soviet ideology through the educational process.
The process of organizing the students into groups in which a member of young octobrists – Soviet students between six and nine can become pioneers –a replacement for the scouts’ movement in the pre-revolutionary time until the Komsomol – a group for students from fourteen to twenty-eight years of age, which was a training ground for the young adults to become members of the communist party.
In spite of the widespread out of the communist ideology that put emphasis on the country and the party values, it can be obvious that the Soviet way of life started to become more focused on individuality as a cell of the community, in contrast with the Stalin’s times.
One of the major changes of that time, during the Kruschev years which coincided with the baby boomers reaching young adulthood, is the focus on improving the living standards of the Soviet people. It must be mentioned that until that time most of the Soviet families lived in so-called communal apartments, where one family took one room and the bathroom and the kitchen were shared among the other families.
One communal flat can accommodate up to three or four families. As a result of Kruschev’s directions on expanding housing a lot of families moved into their own apartments. That new direction in the Soviet ideology helped to raise the overall mood of Soviet people most of whom admitted in surveys that their life has improved.
In years of competition with Western ideologies, it can be noticed that the Soviet people started to feel pride and total satisfaction with their lives and their moral values.
Let us look more specifically at one of the interviewees the book mentions, to trace the way of life of Soviet baby boomers, e.g. Natalia Valentinovna Altukhova. It can be noticed that the great impact of scientific progress forced the parents to put emphasis on the education of their children.
The search for the best school, the tough entrance tests show us that the parents wanted their kids to have the best education and to be competitive. The advanced level of learning of the English language shows us that in spite of that provincial cities mostly being closed ones, they prepare specialists to be international. Though, as Natalia admits, she never had a real use for that at the time. The patriotism and the blind faith in the Soviet perfection and idealism can be noticed in her thoughts when she mentions “I believe that it was simply impossible to be better than the Soviet Union” (Raleigh, 2006,p.67)
That kind of self-pride was the result of raising the kids, teaching the students to be the best and for a country like the Soviet Union, there is no way but to be the best.
The period which started with the baby boomers going to the first class to school practically ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 with people of the sputnik generation being in their mid-thirties. The sudden transformation to commercial relations resulted in the change in the value system and ideology of people: those who once believed in the system were betrayed by it.
The transformational period took different times and gave different results for the various layers of society. With the system of education for the baby boomers being one of the strongest, many found out that immigration is the easiest way.
The once closed country opened up her gates, and many Western countries welcomed the Soviet minds with opened arms. Another part of the baby boomers had to cope with the demand of the newly born commercial country and started their own business. To tell the truth, the collapse of a country and the birth of a new one presents both opportunities and threats to those wishing to start their own business. As a result, many fortunes were built at that time. The rest of the baby boomers, who found no salvation in immigration and the business, had to accept the period of adaptation to the changes in the value system. That transition shows that even the closed policy of the Soviet Union was more convenient for Soviet people than the opened one during the period of total chaos. The people once confident in a fully predictable future lost their confidence in tomorrow, multiple cases of bankruptcy of the financial institutions completely made them lose their faith, but despite that never made them regret anything in life.
The factors that shaped the generation distinguished among others are multiple: among them is the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War. The scientific and technical competition for superiority could be added to the list of factors that helped to establish the ideology of that generation.
The changes in communist ideology and the moving away Stalin’s form of government started establishing the formula of the ideal world.
The hard switch from the Soviet Union communism to Russian capitalism, if showed anything was the ability to adapt to the new changing demands of the newly born country. It is clear that the main reason for the increasing birth rate is the result of the general stability in the country and the overall sense of optimism and satisfaction which led to confidence in the future for their selves and their families. It proved that a strong system of building a powerful education is the vital key in forming an intelligent society and this society was able to maintain productivity in different environments. Though the perestroika started the process of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people were grateful for the fact that it started the process of free information for all. The excessive use of communist ideology and politics in the everyday life did not affect the people the way it shapes their system of values, needs, and motivations now.
One thing can be said for sure about the so-called baby boomers – the sputnik generation – their era was the start of the Soviet Union’s progress in every aspect of life. Sadly, but it is true that their generation also witnessed the end of what was once known as the world power, a country that believed in the ideal world.
Works Cited
Raleigh Donald J. Russia’s Sputnik Generation: Soviet Baby Boomers Talk about Their Lives, Indiana University Press, 2006.
The Soviet surveillance system can be traced back to the Bolshevik revolution when leftist figures dethroned an interim democratic regime, replacing it with a new political culture – socialism – in a bid to mold a new society. Faced with increasing popular opposition, the revolutionaries led by Vladimir Lenin reorganized the intelligence system, bringing it under military control to deal with political enemies and dissidents. The consolidation reached new heights when the Communist Party was formed, and Stalin took power. A conspiratorial culture took root where the party elite implemented nonmarket economic reforms without involving the people. To achieve this goal, a vast intelligence-gathering system was necessary. This paper analyzes the Soviet domestic surveillance, including its operations, the initiatives launched, institutions involved, informant recruitment, and its successes.
Soviet Domestic Surveillance Operations
The formation of the Soviet intelligence apparatus was necessary following Russia’s annexation of new territories forming the Union. The goal was to gather information for the authoritarian regime about the local political-military situation in the annexed lands. In the 1939-1940 period, the Soviet’s premier intelligence agency, the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD), infiltrated the Ukrainian population with communist agents, as it lacked a surveillance network locally (Gaufman 77). In this regard, the NKVD was quite efficient in obtaining information that helped launch successful incursions on new territories.
In Poland, Ukraine, and Belorussia, the agency studied the political and social landscape and organized its personnel before military invasions. Special surveillance teams were established with the task of espionage on the political figures, creating administrative units in Red Army occupied zones and detention of counterrevolutionary activists (Lenihan 5). Thus, small operational groups comprising soldiers were formed to target individuals instead of communism for arrest and detention in Soviet prisons. In the Baltic territories, the surveillance lasted about nine months before they were annexed; the NKVD sent agents to Estonian and Latvian missions to gather information to facilitate occupation (Brechtken et al. 39). Data on the economic status, ethnic demographics, and military strength were gathered to inform the socialist strategy.
Surveillance in hostile environments was a difficult task for the Soviets. They employed different tactics to obtain information that exploited the socioeconomic and political divisions in the targeted states. Individuals aggrieved with the authorities or social classes were supported to retaliate against them, giving the Soviets a platform for their surveillance goals. For example, in Poland, farmers were incited to attack settlers, while in other states, pardoned communist prisoners vowed to support the socialist agenda (Lenihan 11). Thus, thousands of informants were drawn from people unhappy with the political or economic landscape in annexed territories.
Another surveillance tool was an interrogation of key figures and political enemies. The authoritarian regime used this strategy to turn individuals into a state of powerlessness to yield to Soviet authority (Gaufman 77). The interrogators used social isolation and torture to obtain information and confessions and then recruit them as informants that formed a part of the NKVD’s surveillance organs. The Soviets also monopolized the social and economic spheres of countries such as Ukraine and Belorussia. Adults were required to register for passports by providing information about birth, housing, and occupation as well as personal photos (Lenihan 11). The data was useful for surveillance purposes to repress the masses during the Soviet’s westward expansion.
Informant Recruitment
The surveillance system relied largely on blackmailed political figures as informants. Agents in newly acquired territories were also conscripted for various reasons. In Lithuania, ‘Bal chunas,’ a middle-aged peasant farmer and war veteran, was enlisted because his close contacts included officials in the American embassy. At the same time, ‘Algis’ was enrolled, given his military training in Germany, where he had fought against the Red Army (Brechtken et al. 68). Thus, any individual with useful links to foreign missions or familiarity with anti-Soviet intelligence agents was targeted for recruitment. In this respect, the Soviets fostered a truly socialist attribute: a person qualified as informants, irrespective of their political history, sex, or ethnic background.
The management of the surveillance organ involved a complex loop, where agents informed the Soviets about their targets and fellow collaborators. The MGB, the agency involved in domestic intelligence in the 1940s, enlisted Bentsion Aronas, a highly regarded Zionist individual who provided key leads that facilitated the capture of Lithuanian and Belorussian activists (Lenihan 7). This MGB agent recruited informants who were required to spy on him. Thus, the agency appeared like a network of compromised individuals informing the Soviets about each other. The surveillance system succeeded in creating suspicion and coercion across the ranks to support operations in new territories. Informants were trained on how to conduct themselves if they were captured and interrogated by Western intelligence agencies. Their primary role was to identify anti-Soviet activists in countries such as Lithuania for subsequent arrest and detention.
Achievements and Failures
The Soviet surveillance system has some successes and flaws in its information-gathering processes. The creation of many investigative commissions with an unprecedented number of informants was a major feat. One such task force formed in 1942 to investigate criminal acts committed by Nazi invaders engaged 32,000 agents who obtained information from 250,000 witnesses (Lenihan 15). The commissions were established through a decree for rural areas that the Soviets found challenging. Individual NKVD-KGB divisions formed local commissions in their regions of operation. Local party officials, Red Army agents, and informants from the media, healthcare, and the church were active in each annexed territory. A large number of local people involved ensured fast information gathering and response.
The Soviets acted on the intelligence gathered swiftly, conducting waves of arrests in occupied areas. Based on informant reports, thousands of individuals known to be collaborators of the Germans and nationalists were arrested in the 1940s. Mass deportations from occupied lands during this period indicate the efficacy of the Soviet surveillance organ. Indigenous people packed the NKVD informant pool, which was initially dominated by agents imported from Russia. Their knowledge largely informed the decision to increase the number of locals in the Soviet surveillance apparatus of the native dialects. The approach helped reverse trends where many targets could not be captured because of language barriers and leaked information.
Mass deportations were possible because the informants were largely locals. The natives of the Baltic lands comprised about 60% of the military involved in mass deportations from these territories in 1949 (Lenihan 12). Thus, the success of the Soviet surveillance organ can be attributed to a predominantly local informant pool. However, given the large number of people involved, leaks were unavoidable. Peasants in Latvia, Estonia, and Moldavia learned of their impending deportation early, allowing them to sell their land and leave the occupied lands (Gaufman 77). Some candidates for extradition were identified through inaccurate registers and tribunal records, raising the possibility that exempted individuals were arrested and repatriated.
Reliability of the Surveillance System
A key issue is the dependability of the Soviet information-gathering apparatus. Initially, the limited knowledge of the indigenous languages made it difficult to infiltrate populations in annexed lands. However, the involvement of local informants enhanced the reliability of the information gathered. Accurate processing of the intelligence became a limiting factor in the surveillance work. The reliability of processed data was a concern during Stalin’s rule, leading to calls to instill professional standards in the informant pool (Brechtken et al. 49). The MGB reduced the workforce at the branches and restructured the recruitment processes. The role of recruiting informants was moved from agents to the more experienced departmental leaders. The changes allowed a more accurate collection and processing of information.
Various flaws in the surveillance system that compromised the quality of information gathered informed the reorganization. The changes led to mass dismissals of agents accused of double-dealing and leaking secrets to enemy camps (Brechtken et al. 51). The reduced numbers allowed the Soviet surveillance agencies to control the system and informants on the ground. After Stalin’s death, surveillance shifted from targeting anti-Soviet activists to safeguarding the socialist economic system and single-party regime (Lenihan 9). In successive governments, espionage activities based on communication technology increased, targeting embittered political figures and activists.
Conclusion
The Soviet surveillance system was remarkable in infiltrating foreign populations in annexed lands, helping meet the revolutionary ambitions and protecting the socialist agenda. The agencies achieved political control using a large pool of local informants. Recruitment involved blackmail and capitalized on social and political divisions in the new territories. However, the language barrier, limited reliability of the information gathered, and leaks by double agents hampered the surveillance operations.
References
Brechtken, Magnus, et al. editors. Political and Transitional Justice in Germany, Poland and the Soviet Union from the 1930s to the 1950s. Wallstein Verlag, 2019.
Gaufman, Elizaveta. “Putin’s Pastorate: Post-structuralism in Post-Soviet Russia.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, vol. 42, no. 2, 2017, pp. 74-90.
Lenihan, Denis. “Different Tones of Voice: Versions of Paddy Costello.” Security and Surveillance History Series, vol. 1, 2020, 1-21.
The articles “Encounters with Permafrost” by Pey-Yi Chu (2018) and “Technology and the Conquest of the Soviet Arctic” by Paul Josephson (2011) both address the complex topic of Arctic exploration during the early decades of the Soviet Union. Driven by a combination of political ideology, scientific endeavor, and human capabilities of survival, the multifaceted decades-long efforts demonstrated both major successes and countless failures. Both authors describe the challenges and progress made in Arctic exploration and industrialization of the Arctic, but each with an individual approach: an environmental and anthropological-oriented perspective by Chu and a political, socio-economic-centered view by Josephson.
Themes and Question
Although the general theme tying together both articles is the Soviet exploration of the Arctic region, there are a number of subthemes that both authors explore. Chu (2018) focuses strongly on the environmental aspect of the exploration, with discussions targeting methods used and consequences for the region as well as the anthropological perspective of human migrations and adaptation to the Arctic as they sought to ‘conquer’ it through technology. There are also mentions of the political discourse in the Soviet attempts to expand in the region and how it was portrayed in public media in comparison to the realities of the situation (Chu 2018). Josephson (2011) touches on multiple political themes as well in the Soviet pursuit of settling the Arctic and making it a source of significant riches. The author also discusses social perceptions and realities as well as the socioeconomic costs of achieving the feat, through scientific and industrial exploration efforts, changes that had to be made to funding and organization of the Soviet mission, and potential long-term impacts.
The primary question that both authors pose, which likely unites all the themes and perspectives, is whether the aggressive exploration of the Arctic by the Soviets was worth the human, economic, and environmental consequences and costs accrued over decades? In the end, the result remained relatively similar of a harsh region which is sparsely populated, with arguably limited natural resource production, but with significant environmental scars due to the detrimental practices which have been adopted. While humans have adapted to survive in the Arctic circle and technology has made great leaps based on these explorations, the devastating impact of pursuing politically focused socioeconomic goals has shifted the status quo of both human and natural ecosystems in the region in a manner that will continue to have an impact in the 21st century.
Thesis
The thesis in Chu’s article suggests that in regard to Arctic exploration and industrialization there was a difference between the rhetoric of aggressive conquest propagated by the Soviet government for social purposes and the realities of practices used which were aimed at preserving the environment and adapting to it in the process of survival in the context of the region’s constraints. To support the thesis, the author sets up the context of the argument and then goes on to discuss specific elements with both logical and emotional appeal. He presents a broad anthropological view which combines perspectives and literature of the time to the modern understanding of what events unfolded which allows to juxtapose and see the bigger picture in the rhetoric and practices in the process of this ‘conquest’ of the Arctic (Chu 2018).
Meanwhile, Josephson (2011) argues that the Soviet exploration and attempts at industrialization of the Arctic ultimately resulted in significant breakthroughs on the science surrounding the Arctic ecosystems and technological progress that was necessary to survive and thrive in the harsh climate. The exploration inherently tested the limits of human technology, ingenuity, and capabilities of the Soviet state as significant efforts and resources were dedicated to this endeavor. However, there were numerous challenges encountered both predictable and unpredictable, with far-reaching consequences and a human toll due to erroneous judgment and political pursuits of the Soviets at the time. The thesis is argued by providing a narrative, with sections focusing on vital specific elements of the technological development in the context of the Arctic exploration, backed by key developments in Soviet history and policy (Josephson 2011).
Evidence
Chu (2018) uses a wide range of evidence ranging from systematic reviews, critical articles, case studies, and background information and expert opinions. He combines both primary and secondary research on the topic. The evidence of supporting the argument consists of using major literature of the time on the topic, and critically analyzing it. Chu employs everything to linguistic analysis to political discourse. He also creates a timeline of progression regarding adaptation in the Arctic, that is supported by documentary evidence. Finally, Chu presents a clear discussion on the topic encompassing all the evidence to drive the thesis and the general environmental impact. Overall, the author presents a convincing argument that is logical and concise for such a complex topic and approach. Claims are supported by evidence; the Chu makes solid comparisons and conclusions that are rational in the context of the argument and are extensively convincing. Chu takes on an anthropological technocratic approach to the topic, exploring vast associations between large influencing forces of environment, political ideology, scientific/technological endeavor, and sociology.
In the article, Josephson (2011) uses an evidence-based approach to building the argument. The evidence is presented categorically, with each type of technology explored distinctly. Each section follows a chronological narrative loosely, which allows seeing the progression of the technology and the political, scientific, and socioeconomic factors which have influenced it in the period of early Arctic exploration by the Soviets. Unlike Chu (2018), Josephson (2011) relies significantly more heavily on data, more likely due to the nature of the thesis, heavily utilizing the historic data alongside records and events to support his point. Overall, the evidence is convincing as well. The article reads similar to a history textbook, with everything outlined and appropriate historical evidence with data, years, and everything presented in the context of the narrative. There are very few points where the author makes his arguments or discourse, but rather relies on the evidence presented to support the main thesis. It is not persuasive per se, rather just effective in driving the argument.
Understanding and Interest of the Subject
Each article presented a unique perspective on the subject matter of historic Arctic exploration and industrialization by the Soviet state. Josephson (2011) provided an in-depth exploration of the technological and practical challenges in the context of the general political and socio-economic status quo and events at the time. There is a general narrative regarding how the Soviet government and bureaucracy shifted and morphed around the Arctic exploration, which led to significant progress but also extensive costs, many of which one would not typically consider. Meanwhile, Chu (2018) offers this philosophical anthropological perspective which contrasts but supplements the highly detailed and nuanced approach of Josephson. That is not to say that Chu is not detailed, as he is also very meticulous in the analysis, but the purpose of his article is to present this connection between the environment, technology, and human adaptability in the harsh climate of the Arctic, which underwent phases, which in turn can be compared to the technological descriptors presented by Josephson, and appropriate conclusions can be made on the general overarching topic and themes.
What was the most interesting about the articles is their attention to detail, particularly regarding the linguistics and culture of the Soviet people and state at the time. Both utilize and explain a multitude of Russian terms as they indeed serve an important role in understanding the pursuit that was ultimately undertaken by the Soviets and challenges they faced. In the context of politics and socioeconomics, understanding the underlying mindset and cultural ambitions to these inherently technical and scientific efforts is critical to grasping the decision-making that was undertaken by each stakeholder (government, public, scientific community, etc).
Conclusion: Further Research
Neither article directly nor extensively raises questions for further research. It becomes clear that in terms of historic events, information is abundant regarding the Soviet pursuit of the Arctic industrialization. Albeit Chu (2018) does bring up the discourse between propaganda and realities of the expeditions, also mentioned somewhat by Josephson (2011) in terms of political demands from those responsible for overseeing the project. However, the biggest context for further research that both parties mention is the environmental aspect in the context of modern science knows about global warming and critical nature of the Arctic permafrost. There are implications from both authors that the often irresponsible and aggressive attempts to industrialize the Arctic by the Soviets without much regard for the environment, ecology, or local ecosystems, with remnants of the fossil-fuel-based infrastructure operating to this day, maybe highly consequential for the future. Therefore, as an area of potential research it may be relevant to consider further inquiry regarding the environmental impacts of Soviet activities and its impact on the ecology of the region in the future.
References
Chu, Pey-Yi. 2018. “Encounters with Permafrost. The Rhetoric of Conquest and Processes of Adaptation in the Soviet Union,” In Eurasian Environments: Nature and Ecology in Imperial Russian and Soviet History, edited by Nicholas Breyfogle, (Series in Russian and East European studies), pp. 165-187. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Josephson, Paul. 2011. ” Technology and the Conquest of the Soviet Arctic,” The Russian Review, 70(3): 419-439.
The Soviet Union, commonly referred to as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – USSR, was in existence from the years 1922-1991. The Soviet Union emerged following the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Russian Civil war of 1918-1921. The last blow that marked the end of the Soviet Union and the beginning of self-governed nations was a result of a combination of a lot of factors. In a nutshell, these factors can be summarized into two major points. First, the decision to build up a strong military unit at the expense of domestic development, and secondly, limited or no economic growth in all the republics. Gorbachev’s program to revive the fallen economy and fix political and social problems hit a snag and threatened to destroy the Soviet Union completely. He could not just get a compromise among the numerous forces that faced his regime to aid him to save the Union from collapsing (Ronald Grigor Suny, 1993, 186-188).
This essay paper will look into the finer detail that the system of governance of the Soviet Union put in place, how the Soviet Union came to power, the perception of the people on it, its general impacts on the citizens, both politically and culturally and finally, how it came to collapse in 1985 with the onset of the New Russia.
The Soviet Union
During the period when the Soviet Union was operational, it, together with the United States, was the only world two superpowers dominating every sphere of life, be it sports (Olympics games and other World Championships), Economic Policies, Military operations, Scientific Advancements, Cultural Exchange and Foreign Affairs Issues. The Soviet was first established as a union of only four Socialist Republics, but after about 34 years in 1956, it constituted a total of 15 Republic Unions.
The post-revolution times led to very difficult times for the Russians as it led to a grave decay of the economy and morals, which later resulted in the ousting of the imperial government. Under the new regime, the working class, through their workers’ council, known as The Soviets, began pushing for their rights. The Soviet Union, under Stalin’s rule, based itself on a single party rule [the Communist Party] (Leonard 1955,1966). The communist system of governance saw the state taking in their possession all the business enterprises in the country and established a program of collective Agriculture and Industrialization. This idea did not go well with the “kulaks” and numerous prosperous peasant farmers; they opposed and resisted the Socialism style of governance. Such protests later culminated into a bitter struggle between the two groups and the government. The peasants decided to hoard their grains, and the famine stroke the state, causing millions of deaths.
The Soviet Union was involved in a lot of inversions and wars as well as diplomatic relations with other nations. Owing to the fact that they were stable economically, and their military strength was of no match to any state, they waged war with countries like Germany, Italy, Poland, and Finland before finally settling as the position of the world’s superpower. During those times, the US, UK, and the USSR were great allies. But this relationship did not last for long; in the emergence of the rising tension of the Cold War period, all their allies (The United States and The United Kingdom) turned foes (David, 415-417).
There were economic reforms proposed by Gorbachev in the mid-1960s geared to revive the declining economy that did very little to help. It only saw a slight economic growth which could not keep up with the increasing consumption, and the country resorted to the importation of foodstuff. Human welfare was at its lowest, with the Russian citizens becoming less and less healthy, leading to an eventual crude death rate of 10 from 7 people in every 1000 persons within sixteen years (1964-1980) (W. Tompson, 2003, Pg. 91)
The fall
The reforms that were brought by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 are what contributed to the downfall of the once prestigious Union of Soviets. Gorbachev had his tenure characterized by two serious developments dominants: The crumbling of the Economy of The Soviet Union and the change in the political structure of the Soviet Union. The Cold War aggravated the situation. Further, it set off at a time when the Soviet Union’s economy was in bad shape, and the satellite states were reverting from communism. Gorbachev decided to end the Cold War to salvage the situation and help it from worsening. In 1988 the USSR’s war with Afghanistan was stopped. The Soviet Union was dealt the last blow when the West and East Germany finally united upon tearing down the Berlin Wall. In reaction to the devastating state, the Republics of the Soviet Union decide to seek sovereignty (self-governance) over their borders (Brian Crozier, 1990. 213-234).
Gorbachev, who was believed to be a reform-minded technocrat, seemed to have ignored the impacts of promoting reforms. These same reforms that he fought hard to institute later acted against him to end his regime with the fall of the Soviet Union. His ascending to the higher office was described as the rise of a new generation of leadership. He introduced a system that led to the disbandment of the Soviet Administration Command Economy through his three program principles: “Glasnost” – Meaning political openness, “Perestroika” – Meaning economic restructuring, and “Uskoreniye” – Meaning Speedy economic development…The policies led to notable negative impacts, among which are: – Hidden economic inflation and the rise in the black market that undermined the official state economy. The overall effect of these two impacts literally blew the economy out of proportion (Hélène Carrère, 1992. Pg. 173-217).
Glasnost led to the freedom of speech, and controlling the press became hard. Gorbachev also released several political prisoners and dissidents. But the most vital step that made his people. The Russians give the government a questionable look was the opening of the state archives. The Social Statistics that had initially been kept secret from the public were now more accessible. Researchers and publishers wasted no time and went for those data on sensitive subjects like suicide, crime, infant mortality, and income disparity, among others.
A constitution that deprives CPSU of political power was established under the same leader, Gorbachev. The media brought into the spotlight the negative aspects of the Soviet Union [4], the result of this was disastrous, the public lost faith in the Soviet System, thus eroding the Social Power of the Communist Party…and the eventual exit of Gorbachev and final fall of the Soviet Union.
The idea by the Social Republics to resist central control and promote democratization resulted in a weak central government that could not resist much opposition. The governments’ trade gap began to empty the coffers union that eventually caused the bankruptcy progressively.
The KGB-The Committee of State Security and the Hard-line Communist Party members of the government organized a coup d’etat against Gorbachev and sort to reverse the proposed reforms and revive the central government control. The coup ended Gorbachev’s powers. This was followed by the Presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus signing “The Belavazha Accords” that declared the Soviet Union a null and dissolved state and instead established in its place the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (David Remnick, 1994, 370).
On December 25th, 1991 felt that he was left with no choice and yielded to pressure; he resigned as the president of the USSR and, in turn, declared his office [the office of the president] extinct. The Soviet Union accepted the inevitable and dissolved itself as a functioning state. All the powers to govern were therefore vested in the then president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin. The Soviet Army, as well as the Police, though remained, they are being faced out and some being absorbed by the independent state.
Culture of the Soviet Union before and after the fall
The change of government structure saw a lot of improvements in the peoples’ freedom. The decision by the political lawmakers on April 7th, 1990, which declared that a republic could secede upon a referendum, was a major leap forward. (Drozhin Honoured, 1994, 50). The people held their first-ever elections in the 1990s, and political leaders went further to establish a set of rules, “The War of Laws,” to guide the New Government.
Gorbachev organized a referendum that was meant to preserve the USSR on March 17th, 1991; the vote was in his favor, giving him a slight boost. In the summer of the same year, eight Republics agreed to sign a New Union Treaty that turned the Soviet Union into a looser federation, but this was disrupted by a coup.
Within the 70 year period that the USSR was in existence, the cultural practices of the people underwent several stages to what we now see in the modern culture. For eleven good years following the Revolution (1918-1929), the artists of those times enjoyed relative freedom and were at liberty to use different styles to define the distinctive Soviet art. The government, under the leadership of Lenin, made all efforts to make Russians accessible to any available styles of art and literature. Schools (both traditional and radically experimental) were established to help promote art. Communist writers like Maksim Gorky and Vladimir Mayakovsky were on a field day-enjoying all freedom of expression (Drozhin, 205).
With Stalin taking on the throne, the culture took a completely different turn. The new government was more dominative and strict on the free culture. Stalin repressed all the art styles and imposed Socialist Realism. Many of the Communist writers were dealt with severely (imprisoned and killed), and the Orthodox Religious leaders were persecuted by sending them to the Gulags or killing them in mass (Rayfield, 2004, p. 317-320). As if that was not enough, he ordered for the destruction of all symbols suspected to be of the Communist Ideology.
Towards the end of the 1950s and the early years in the 1960s, the culture reversed to its previous trend. The restrictions and censorships were dropped. With the permissibility of art forms once more, critics emerged, but this time around, they concerned themselves with proposals of how to solve daily life challenges rather than building socialism. Full liberation was realized during Gorbachev’s tenure. Gorbachev’s policies allowed full freedom of expression both in the media and press; it abolished all the bans on censorship and the most important, the total freedom to criticize the government (Gorbachev Mikhail, 2007). This trend has never stopped, even after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Enter the New Russia
Upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia was recognized internationally as the legal replacement of the Soviet State. Russia inherited the foreign debt as well as all the Soviets overseas’ wealth. The new government got down to business by first trying to avoid the occurrence of any disputes erupting on ownership of the Soviet properties. A “Zero Variant” agreement was therefore proposed to allow the newly established states to retain the status quo. The incoming government had a lot of other challenges to deal with…obstacles that were created by the fallen Soviet Union. There was massive ethnic tension in most if not all Republics, and just before their exit, the Soviet Union had completely lost con
There was a complete disaster in the production sector. In an attempt to restructure the administrative command and establish a market-based economy, Yeltsin quickly moved to abolish the price control system and cut subsidies to all money-losing firms. The Russian people had many expectations of their new government, for instance, the elimination of huge microeconomic and structural distortions through privatization and liberalization. The success of the government in the eyes of the citizens was therefore based on how well they had to tackle such related issues.
It has never been an easy ride for the Russian government plus her citizens, but great success has been realized all in all. Russia has experienced a forward leap…coming out of the situation of Reduced GDP (by half), low birthrate, and fallen life expectancy, among others negative reports.
Conclusion
From the facts highlighted in this paper, we can conclude that the fall of the Soviet Union was a result of the failed attempts of the reforms by Gorbachev to change peoples’ lives. He did not succeed in reviving the stagnant economy and offer his people political and social freedom as they wished. The fall also happened at a bad time when the war with Afghanistan had greatly hurt the economy, and coupled with the dramatic fall in oil (USSR’s major export) prices, the people generally lost confidence in the government and grew discontent (Gaidar, Yegor (2007, Pg 1-3).
The consequences of the “Glasnost” were not pleasing at all; it proved very hard to contain the rising upheaval cases within USSR with the increased freedom. Weak political repression made it practically impossible for the USSR’s central Moscow to impose any will on the constituent Republics, rendering it almost powerless. The peaceful protests (the Baltic Way and The Singing Revolution) showed it all…the people were no longer under censorship and, at the same time, not happy with the regime. But all said and done, the new government of New Russia has really done the citizens well in almost all spheres of life.
Works Cited
Brian Crozier “The red blues — Soviet politics”, National Review, 1990; 212-234.
David Remnick, “Lenin’s Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire”, Vintage Books, 1994. 365-431.
Drozhin Honoured, “Origins of Moral-Ethical Crisis and Ways to Overcome it”: 1994; 33-87.
Gaidar, Yegor (2007-04-19). “The Soviet Collapse: Grain and Oil”. On the Issues”: AEI online. American Enterprise Institute. Pg. 1-5
Hélène Carrère D’Encausse, “The End of the Soviet Empire: The Triumph of the Nations”, Basic Books, 1992Pgs. 173-217.
Leonard Schapiro, “The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Political Opposition in the Soviet State, First Phase 1917–1922”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955, 1966.
Rayfield “Percussions under Stalin” 2004, p. 317-320
Ronald Grigor Suny, “The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Stanford University Press, 1993. 186-214.
W. Tompson, “The Soviet Union under Brezhnev”, (Edinburgh, 2003), p. 91
The Stalinist regime of communist Russia was considered the country’s most defining moment. Russia turned into a strict country full of fear and full of failure. After the death of Lenin, Joseph Stalin did not waste anytime in basically turning the country upside down. With his reforms in agriculture by collectivized farming, the industry through the creation of more capital, and the party members through his purges, Stalin knew what he was doing and where he was taking the Soviet Union. However, through the failures of his ideas, and overall failure of Stalin himself, the Soviet Union was doomed to begin with. With the death of Stalin in 1953, the country turned upside down must be corrected or would end in peril. The Soviet Union immediately saw the beginning of anti-Stalin reform policies in order to revive the country (Pipes, 1995). The origin of the anti-Stalin ideas were initiated due to the repeated failures of Stalin programs. Collectivized farming was a disaster due to its inefficiency and of course to famine. The country of Russia was living in a state of fear, because if you are not with them, you were against them. The purges of Stalin did not hesitate to remove anyone who opposed his leadership and the communist party. Labor lamps were unsuccessful and were the cause of deaths of thousands of Russians across the country. With the way things were going in Russia, things needed to change. With the death of Stalin’s in 1953, the politburo chose a man by the name of Nikita Khrushchev as their party leader.
Nikita Khrushchev
Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was the leader of the Soviet Union after the death of Joseph Stalin. Khrushchev was the new person and a safe choice for the party. Being agriculturally inclined official, Krushchev immediately went to work and began his reform that would undo the work of Stalin. Through the origins of the ideas of Nikita Krushchev, Russia continued to undo the great misfortune and struggle that Stalin had imposed on the country.
Krushchev first took a plan of attack on agriculture. He sought to lower taxes and higher prices for peasants as well as use unused land like Virgin lands is in order to increase their produce. Although Khrushchev’s reforms affection only very small sector of the household plots, these changes produce rapid and dramatic economic result. With this farming changes laid down, the rest of the anti-Stalin reforms were on their way and would only be a matter of time until finally Russia will cease to be communist. Another important reform from the way things were dealt with housing. During Stalin’s reign, housing was a major crisis. In order to increase housing expansion, Krushchev ordered that new methods of prefabrication are used. Krushchev did not only help the housing conditions but as well as the road highways to raise the low standard of living. Khrushchev was always looking towards the west in order to help his country. With his increased admiration, Khrushchev improved relations with America and in time finally ended the cold war that Stalin had started.
However, along with the economy and the ordinary citizen, the biggest problem that Stalin created was during the great purges. Stalin indicated and murdered thousands of Russians that would dare to defy his power. Although Khrushchev understood the terror that Stalin had done, and wanted to explain what went wrong and in order to accomplish what he wanted to do, he made a Secret Speech that was very vague but did not get the job done. Now that the Stalin’s mistakes were out in the open, correcting them would only be a matter of time. Khrushchev failed his leadership that is why a coup went underway and removed him from his position. But still, his contributions to the anti-Stalin reformation serve as a cornerstone to a movement that would successfully change the Soviet Union.
Mikhail Gorbachev
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was the last leader of the Soviet Union. As the last communist leader, he was the key reformer to finally reconfiguring the country of Russia (Taubman, 2000). Gorbachev took great strides in reforming the once Stalinist Russia. Gorbachev set out to restructure Russian and also try and better its Socialistic problems. People were simply corrupt and bribed each other to get what they want. Instead of siding with the political party, people just wanted to sit and do nothing. They were apathetic and wanted nothing to do with the party. Gorbachev came to Russia during a prolonged state of idleness, and brought radical economic reforms with the Law on Cooperatives. This forms of new economic policy permitted private ownership of businesses in all sectors. Gorbachev is also reliant on giving the people of Russia more freedom in speech with glasnost and openness. With this greater freedom of speech, the press finally did not have a leash and political prisoners were freed. Slowly the nuts and bolts that held the ideals of a Stalin Soviet Union were falling apart. Gorbachev then set to out to introduce perestroika and restructuring to Russia. By allowing market regulators and breaking up central planning, this planning almost introduces a type of economy that is very similar to that of capitalistic society. People were encouraged to make better goods to sell. Gorbachev set out the goal of efficiency through competition. If people had to compete each other to survive, than the better and more efficient the products will be made. In foreign policy, Gorbachev like Khrushchev set also better relations with the west. Gorbachev officially ended the Cold war with the United States. He also improved foreign relations by demanding Eastern Europe to reform and stands on their own. Gorbachev also pulled out Afghanistan and reduced aid to Cuba in order to cut back on foreign commitments that were a waste of both time and money.
The Rise and fall of Soviet Union
The Russian state has been characterized by its strong heritage of powerful, autocratic leadership. This denomination by small ruling elite has been seen throughout Russia’s history and has transferred into its economic history. Russia has been a country marked by strong central state planning, a strict command economy and an overall weak market infrastructure To this day, Russia still struggles with creating a competitive and fair market. The Russian people’s unwavering belief in their rulers eventually evolved into a docile acquiescence. The Russian people were happy with their leaders as long as they could survive. Even if there was blatant corruption. The last few years of the legacy of communism and the Soviet Union were characterized by the widespread struggle for the sovereignty and autonomy among the nations under the Soviet Union, political tension and upheaval, and deep political battle for power between Gorbachev and Yeltsin (Remnick, 1994). Gorbachev wanted to improve the system he inherited while Yeltsin wanted to destroy that very system. The Russia which Yeltsin inherited had enormous deficit, an erratic currency, a sharp drop in foreign trade and many people dealing with the reality of starvation. Russia during this time period was messy and misguided. Privatization in Russia was inefficient, general little revenue and left those who needed the most help even further into poverty. To uproot the entrenched economic stagnation and depression in his county, Yeltsin consulted a liberal economic advisor, and that advisor was chosen by the name of Anatoly Chubias who become the First Deputy Prime Minister. Although Chubias had a strong belief in the market, his actual experience with the market and private ownership was extremely limited. Chubias was the most integral person in pushing the Russian privatization movement and constructing the semblance of a market which Russia soon had. Chubias did succeed in his most important goal, ensuring the Communist Party did not regain power in Russia. His political goal of ensuring that the Communist Party will not have a rebirth in Russia, thus a mixture of lackluster and hollow economic reform along with the reelection of Yeltsin paved the way for the emergence of the Russian oligarchs. Before oligarchs became prominent players in the society of Russia, polls showed that Yeltsin’s communist opponent Gennady Zyuganov was the popular favorite. The oligarchs acted more out of self-interest than actual adamant support for Yeltsin. The oligarchs supported Yeltsin because he was the candidate who would actually ensure that they received all of the enterprise and assets they had amassed.
Yeltsin believed greatly in the importance of loyalty and believed that the oligarchs showed great loyalty to him by helping him succeed in his re-election. The oligarchs also played a part many of the political shifts and changes within the Yeltsin regime. Yeltsin routinely made many efforts to appease and support those loyal oligarchs who had helped him earlier. With the help of the oligarchs, Yeltsin retained his position as a President of Russia. The intense affluence of the oligarchs only continued to burgeon under the final years of Yeltsin.
Throughout the history, especially during the seventy years of communism, the people of Russia believed in their strong leaders and did not question the motives or actions of these individuals (Solzhenitsyn, 1956). The priorities of the state were always greater than that of any individual. Those who did act against the state were considered anti-Russian and were dealt accordingly. Following the fall of Soviet Union, Russia jumpstarted it’s transition from communism and command way of life to a more and free market lifestyle. The idea of capitalist reforms had a polarizing affect on both the people and elite Russia. The Russia which Yeltsin inherited after the rule of Gorbachev had enormous deficit, an erratic currency, a sharp drop in foreign trade and many people dealing with the reality of starvation. Expectations for Yeltsin’s new Russia were high, and many Russians had hope in Yeltsin and his liberal economic plans.
The oligarchs came to be known as the concentrated centralized economic class of corrupt men who took advantage of Yeltsins privatization movement. These economic elite ascended to power during Yeltsin’s terms. The intense influence of oligarchs only continued to burgeon under the final years of Yeltsin’s term. The oligarchs did not only maintain dominance in their empires, they made sure that their competition was wiped out. The oligarchs worked along with the government to overpower and overtake many weak, small Russian businesses and turn them into integral portion of their empires. (Hoffman, 2002). Oligarchs have actually become symbols of success in the post communist Russia to many people, especially among young children (Pravda, 2004). Conclusively, the fate of both policies of Khrushchev and Gorbachev and the leaders that were in between them came out on top in reforming the policies of the Stalinist Russia. Although there were bumps on the road to reformation, the ideals that these two party commanders laid down, set the path for the way Russia is today. Russia still conflicted with corruption and economic problems would have still been undergone with terror if it weren’t for Khrushchev and Gorbachev.
Bibliography
Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York: United States by Vintage Books, 1995.
Taubman, William. Khrushchev: The Man in his Era. Yale University: Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication Data, 2000.
Remnick, David. Lenin’s Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire. New York: First Vintage Books Edition, 1994.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag Archipelago Volume One. New York: Harper & Row, 1956.
Hoffman, David. The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power of Russia. Travel with Longitude 1997. New York: 2004. Web.
Pravda. Oligarchs in Russia: Neither Love nor Hatred. 2004. News from Russia Pravda. Web.
“In December 1991, the Soviet Union fragmented into fifteen separate states, which led to its collapse” (The Cold War Museum, 2009, p. 1). The collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a regime characterized by freedom and democracy. A number of the Western states hailed the disintegration of the Soviet Union because it was an indication that capitalism was superior to communism (The Cold War Museum, 2009). The fall of the Soviet Union marked the end of the Cold War. Several theories have been advanced to explain the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some of the theories include imperial overstretch, defective system, and the bungled reform (Roskin & Berry, 2010).
The defective system theory is one of the major theories that have been used to explain the fall of the Soviet Union. The theory was derived from the state’s internal policy. It mainly emerged because of the state’s internal weaknesses. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was characterized by severe economic and political stagnation. It is economic planning largely failed to meet the needs of its citizens (Roskin & Berry, 2010).
The Soviet Union had majorly focused on financing its arms race agenda. Consequently, this negatively affected its development plan. Moreover, its central planning system inhibited the development of a vibrant, advanced, and complex economy, which would have propelled economic development (Roskin & Berry, 2010). Additionally, a number of its citizens were hesitant to work without incentives. On the other hand, the citizens of the Soviet Union lacked political freedom. This led to the growth of discontentment among the people. Thus, those who were opposed to the communist regime resorted to revolts against the government after the introduction of freedom of expression.
The three theories provide meaningful explanations about the collapse of the Soviet Union. For instance, they address both internal and external factors that contributed to its collapse. However, they are inadequate on their own. Thus, one has to use both theories to provide a comprehensive explanation of the collapse of the Soviet Union. For instance, the state’s defective system facilitated the formulation of various reforms, which were unsuccessful (Steele, 2011). Moreover, the Soviet Union had expanded enormously; hence, could not be administered easily. The vastness of the Soviet Union made it easier for the smaller states at its periphery to disintegrate into separate smaller states (The Cold War Museum, 2009).
According to the author of the post, the defective system theory mainly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. For instance, the author of the post has argued that communism had several internal weaknesses that led to its collapse. The author’s argument is correct because the Soviet Union witnessed rapid industrial growth at its inception (Roskin & Berry, 2010). However, the state was characterized by central planning, which inhibited the advancement of its industries.
Consequently, this led to economic stagnation, which facilitated its collapse. Additionally, the author of the post has attributed the defective system theory to the state’s internal policy. This argument is true because the state’s internal weaknesses mainly led to its fall. For instance, its economic and political policies did not adequately address the needs of the citizens. Therefore, attempts to reform the communist party and its ideals were unsuccessful (Steele, 2011).
Expansion about Maryland State
Several expansionist tendencies were majorly witnessed in the nineteenth century. During this period, most European countries were motivated to acquire new lands for varied reasons. The United States of America was one of the British colonies. However, after it declared independence, it gained the freedom to administer its affairs. Currently, the United States of America is administered through the federal government as well as states’ governments. Thus, the inefficiencies that characterized the administration of the Soviet Union because of massive expansion do not apply to the various states in America such as Maryland.
The Soviet Union majorly failed to administer its periphery states effectively because it relied on central planning and administration. Consequently, this provided a leeway for the periphery states to disintegrate from the central government. On the other hand, Maryland has its government, which administers it. For instance, it has a legislature and different departments that are responsible for the daily administration of the entire state.
This has ensured that citizens’ needs are realized; thus, limiting any form of disintegration from the federal government. However, Maryland’s population is racially diverse. Thus, equal representation of all races in government offices has not been fully realized. The Whites have continued to dominate most government offices. For instance, only a small proportion of other races such as Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are usually elected to the state government. Despite its diversity, the government of Maryland has been able to provide the necessary services to its residents. Furthermore, the state’s autonomy in its affairs has helped to promote effectiveness and efficiency compared to the Soviet Union.
References
Roskin, M. G., & Berry, N. O. (2010). IR: The New World of International Relations. Boston: Pearson Education.
Steele, J. (2011). Mikhail Gorbachev: I Should Have Abandoned the Communist Party Earlier. Web.
The Cold War Museum. (2009). Fall of the Soviet Union. Web.
The idea of public and hidden transcripts was proposed by James C. Scott who suggested that people are often engaged in passive resistance to a social situation. From this point, public transcripts are open interactions between authorities and their subordinates, and hidden transcripts are usually presented in the form of leaders’ or subordinates’ visions of these interactions, but are ideas that cannot be revealed openly because of their social provocativeness (Scott, 1990; Scott, 2009).
There are also situations when hidden transcripts become integrated into public transcripts, modifying them and changing the nature of interactions between two social groups. One such hidden transcript, which changed the public transcript when becoming a part of it, is shadow economic relationships and sellers’ commercial activities in the Soviet Union during the period of the 1970s-1980s.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the case study related to the shadow economy in the Soviet Union with reference to the fact that, in the 1970s, this was a hidden transcript that became integrated into the public transcript in the 1980s, leading to the development of the first signs of the market economy in the country.
Introducing the case
Differences between classes of dominant social groups and subordinates are typically accentuated in any society without dependence on a time period or a country. There are also many cases where subordinates are inclined to demonstrate their passive resistance to authorities in the form of specific hidden transcripts (Courpasson & Vallas, 2016). In the 1970s, middle-income citizens of the Soviet Union had limited access to different groups of goods that could be openly sold in shops.
This situation provoked the development of the phenomenon known as speculation in the context of a market. The official economy and market developed according to the plans set by the authorities, and goods for production and sale were determined according to the state plan. Shortages were observed in relation to all groups of goods, and the proposed supply could not cover the public’s demand (Bova, 2015). Constant shortages of goods led to the development of the shadow economy with its typical features, such as speculation (Joo, 2010). Thus, speculation was a commercial activity of some middle-income individuals, and it can be discussed as a hidden transcript.
Speculation as a hidden transcript
Those people who had access to popular or foreign goods in the Soviet Union began to organize illegal commercial activities or businesses for which purpose they illegally bought and sold different types of properties. As a hidden transcript, speculation can be defined as the purchase of goods for the purpose of reselling them to set higher prices and make a profit. Illegal sellers promoted alcohol, tobacco, food, home electronics, and clothes, as well as other items (Cracraft, 2014). For instance, “workers at meat stores brought out meat and other related products for illegal sale as well as their own consumption” (Joo, 2010, p. 291). These activities associated with the illegal promotion of certain goods were known in middle-class social groups, but they were not emphasized or openly discussed.
Commercial sellers
Commercial sellers could not open shops to enter the market officially, and all these activities were illegal and prohibited. It is important to note that, for the social group of Soviet people who had limited access to goods, speculation became “a necessary part of daily lives” (Joo, 2010, p. 290). The reason for this was that these people needed to overcome the shortage of goods, and they did not regard speculation and commercial activities of that type as unlawful.
Almost every adult in the country was interested in purchasing the resold goods that were not available in shops, and this procedure became a hidden transcript developed in society (Cracraft, 2014). Consequently, “there soon emerged a group of enterprising shadow operators who utilized the existing situation to their advantage with ingenious ideas to make profits” (Joo, 2010, p. 293). Thus, it is possible to note that a hidden social group of sellers or speculators actively developed.
Powerful and powerless persons
In spite of the fact that this shadow economy and the activities of illegal sellers belonged to a hidden transcript, middle and lower social classes were not the only ones involved in these activities. The representatives of the Soviet upper class interacted with speculators as well, and there were cases when these individuals also participated in commercial activities or performed as speculators on their own because they had access to goods that could be successfully sold in the Soviet Union (Bova, 2015; Cracraft, 2014; Joo, 2010).
As it is noted by Joo (2010), “the powerful did the same things as the powerless, only better” (p. 292). From this point, not only powerless persons were involved in the hidden transcript, but powerful persons also contributed to developing the shadow economy that made it possible to integrate the specific hidden transcript into the public one.
Integrating the hidden transcript into the public one
Speculation and illegal commercial activities as a hidden transcript became integrated into the public transcript in the 1980, when the focus on promoting commercial activities within the state’s legal market was declared by the Soviet authorities (Bova, 2015). According to Joo (2010), “the role of the shadow economy was so important that the Soviet regime eventually incorporated it into the official system by legalizing it” (p. 290).
As a result, a kind of private entrepreneurship became allowed, and the first cooperative shops appeared. In these shops, owners could set prices independently within certain limits, and this activity became the improved and legal version of speculation (Cracraft, 2014; Joo, 2010). Thus, the discussed hidden transcript was not only integrated into the public one, but the hidden transcript in the form of the commercial activities of sellers also modified the public transcript related to the Soviet official economy because commercial relationships organized according to the principles of the market economy were no longer prohibited.
Conclusion
The case of speculation in which primarily middle-class citizens of the Soviet Union were involved in the 1970s developed as a hidden transcript and became further discussed as a public transcript in the 1980s. Thus, the shadow economy based on the idea of shortages and speculation became transformed into the cooperative movement and establishment of many private and cooperative shops, which became a new phenomenon in the Soviet economy.
Consequently, after becoming a part of the public transcript, cooperative shops were associated with the market economy typical of the capitalist countries. It is important to pay attention to the fact that the principles of speculation were used in the development of new cooperative shops because those commercial sellers who were representatives of the country’s middle class and who were identified as speculators became co-owners of these cooperative shops.
References
Bova, R. (Ed.). (2015). Russia and western civilization: Cultural and historical encounters. New York, NY: Routledge.
Courpasson, D., & Vallas, S. (Eds.). (2016). The SAGE handbook of resistance. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cracraft, J. (Ed.). (2014). The Soviet Union today: An interpretive guide (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Joo, H. M. (2010). Hidden transcripts… shared?: Passive resistance in the Soviet case. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 8(2), 277-298.
Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.