recently read several biographies of Brezhnev, especially the “18 years of Brezhnev” written by Mr. Guo Chunsheng, and deeply felt that Brezhnev was the one who dug the tomb for the Soviet Union! He was the culprit in the demise of the Soviet Union.

Brezhnev came to power in 1964 and became the cover character of time magazine that year.

it has been 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are numerous books about the collapse of the Soviet Union, both written by the Soviets themselves and by Chinese and Westerners. There are so many books, and there are different opinions. The more consistent view is that the Soviet Union was not killed by the “peaceful evolution” of the west, but by its own internal reasons. But what was the culprit for the collapse of the Soviet Union? Different people have different opinions.

the first person in charge of the collapse of the Soviet Union, of course, should be the first. He distorted Marxism and established a Stalin model that was different from scientific socialism, which brought heavy disasters to the people of the Soviet Union. Marxist socialism is to make everyone live a happier life, but the Stalin model does not give the people bread or freedom. Socialism should be a higher stage of social development than capitalism, but the Stalin model does not live up to its name in many ways. In the history of mankind, no matter how many adverse currents there are, they will eventually return to the right path in the world, just as rivers and rivers, no matter how many turns and dangerous beaches, will eventually flow into the sea. Therefore, it was the founder of this development model that eventually led to the demise of the Soviet Union.

however, the mistakes of the Stalin model need not be corrected at the cost of the demise of the Soviet Union. If the successive successors after Stalin can embark on the road of reform and change the Stalin Model in a gradual way, the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet Union can still survive and live more energetic and better. The people don’t care who will lead and what their name is. They only care about whether their life is happy or not. If the water of “stealing spring” is sweet, why don’t people drink it? Therefore, the grave diggers of the Soviet Union have to look for successors after Stalin.

malinkov is a floating cloud, and Andropov and other sick men are also floating clouds. The post Stalin leaders who really played a role in the Soviet Union were Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Among these people, Khrushchev realized a little Stalin’s mistake. In any case, in the “secret report” of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he explained and criticized Stalin’s “personal superstition” and Holocaust. For the first time, he uncovered the cover of the surging undercurrent of the Soviet Union and opened the “thawing” of the Enlightenment Movement of reform. Although he attributed all this to Stalin’s “personal quality”, did not recognize the fundamental disadvantages of the Stalin model from the system, separated the “Stalin” from the “model”, only approved Stalin but not the model, and the goal of the reform was not clear and did not fundamentally deny the model, he tried to repair the model, and the method of reform was too arbitrary, There is no overall plan, but Khrushchev is still a figure with mixed merits and demerits, just as an artist made a half black and half white statue of him. After all, he has opened the door to reform, and this historical achievement cannot be erased.

now, people blame Gorbachev and Yeltsin more for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev’s public hatred for the Soviet Union is still buried in the hearts of many people. I thought Gorbachev was just the child who said the emperor was naked. The emperor was indeed naked. What the innocent child said was nothing more than a fact that people dare not say. What’s wrong with him? The sincerity of the child should be affirmed, as should Gorbachev. The problems existing in the Soviet Communist Party are absolutely true facts. How long can they be covered up without Gorbachev? In fact, Gorbachev’s original intention was to promote reform, but the Stalin model was so deep-rooted that he had no choice but to “spend it in vain”. He didn’t dig the tomb of the collapse of the Soviet Union. His openness only pushed the Soviet Union one step further towards the tomb, and pushed it to the edge of the tomb. At this time, no one could save the collapse of the Soviet Union. As for Yeltsin, he was only the one who pushed the Soviet Union into this tomb. At this time, the Soviet Union had entered the dying stage. The dying bell sounded again and again, and the Stalin model was pushed into the tomb. It was natural. Yeltsin was a mourner of the Soviet Union, not a grave digger. If no one had dug the tomb first, he would not be famous for burying Stalin.

who is the grave digger of the Soviet Union? Recently, I read several biographies of Brezhnev, especially the 18 years of Brezhnev written by Mr. Guo Chunsheng. I deeply feel that Brezhnev is the one who dug the tomb for the Soviet Union! He was the culprit in the demise of the Soviet Union. He seized Khrushchev’s power by means of court coup, but did not promote the reform to a new period, but tried to recreate Stalin’s model and reproduce Stalin’s personal centralization of power. This exacerbated the contradictions inherent in Soviet society. When the Soviet people could not bear this system, the tomb was dug. When to bury it was only a matter of time, and who would bury it was just a historical accident. All he did during his 18 years in power was to dig the tomb deep. When he died, after 18 years of unremitting efforts, the tomb had been dug. In the face of such a large tomb, no talented successor could save the fate of the demise of the Soviet Union and could no longer find a gradual way to save the Soviet Union. Gorbachev realized this. Yeltsin could only push the Soviet Union into Brezhnev’s dug tomb and open a new era in Russia.

one of the basic principles of Marxism is that the economic foundation determines the superstructure. The collapse of any system is rooted in its economic system and the economic situation determined by this system. A system or model, no matter how centralized politics, how regulated culture and how corrupt officials are, onlyIf the people are satisfied with their life, it can be maintained. Of course, this is just an unrealistic “assumption”. If political centralization, cultural regulation and official corruption, the people will not live a satisfactory life economically. Politics and economy are inseparable. Such a development model will not have a good market economic system or a good economic situation. Such a “hypothesis” is nothing more than to illustrate the importance of the economy.

,

,

,

the core of Stalin’s model is the planned economic system. Its political centralization, cultural control and official corruption are all based on this economic system. The infeasibility of planned economy has been deeply analyzed by many authoritative works, which need not be repeated here. Therefore, reform must not repair this economic system, but fundamentally deny this economic system, that is, from planned economy to market economy. On the basis of this fundamental change in the economic system, other institutional changes will be carried out. This reform can adopt a gradual approach, so as to avoid causing great social unrest and benefit the country and the people. However, reformers must understand that reform is to bury the planned economy and the corresponding superstructure. The problem to be considered is how to realize it step by step on the premise of basic social stability. Khrushchev’s failure was not due to his wrong reform methods, such as agriculture and industry. The key was that he did not realize the role and infeasibility of planned economy in Stalin’s model. He blamed everything on Stalin’s personality and did not realize that the key to Stalin’s mistakes lies in the institutional foundation. He did not want to change the system, let alone the planned economic system. What he has done, even if it is correct, is to modify and improve this system, which is to make up for the sky rather than change the sky. Heaven remains unchanged, so does Tao. Therefore, Stalin’s personal worship and other mistakes were made again, and he did not have Stalin’s authority. It was inevitable that he was finally ousted by Brezhnev’s court coup. Without Brezhnev, there would be other “husbands” or “skeys”.

it doesn’t matter how they gain power. In the feudal family inheritance or the Soviet style power transfer mode of the successor designated by the previous generation of leaders, the acquisition of power will not be aboveboard, but there will always be some conspiracy or compromise. But history is a hero based on success or failure. No matter how he obtains power, as long as he can promote the progress of history after taking power, future generations will not criticize him. Tang Zong and Song Zu were not aboveboard in gaining power, and even completed the power transfer in the fishy wind and blood rain, but now who doesn’t say that they are a generation of Ming monarchs? Who is still denying them the way they seize power? Brezhnev’s acquisition of power by means of court coup was originally a part of Stalin’s model. The key is what he did after he gained power. If Brezhnev continues Khrushchev’s reform and corrects the direction and method, he must be a hero today and can avoid the tragedy of the collapse of the Soviet Union overnight. Unfortunately, he is not such a person. Compared with Khrushchev, after he came to power, he turned completely, not forward, but backward, returning to the Stalin model. He became a new Stalin, and he was vigorously digging the grave that Stalin had begun to dig to make it deeper and bigger. Once the Soviet Union is buried, it will never emerge.

,

,

and

return to the Stalin model, which is bound to stop criticizing Stalin started by Khrushchev. Brezhnev and his powerful “dnepro Gang” even wanted to restore Stalin’s reputation and praise Stalin’s great achievements. In history, to overturn a case for someone and sacrifice the dead of history is not to have deep affection for this person, but to revive their thoughts and practices. Brezhnev did not dare to do so because of the resentment of the people against Stalin at that time, but their actions did reproduce Stalin’s style.

first of all, it is to return to the mode of planned economy and stop the “new economic system” reform started or being discussed by the Soviet Union in the Khrushchev era. At that time, the reforms with the color of market economy, such as taking profits as the center, expanding enterprise autonomy and material stimulation, which had been affirmed and adopted on an experimental basis, stopped, and the “market socialism” under discussion was also criticized. Corsican, the promoter of reform, was excluded, the way of administrative management of the economy was revitalized, and the power of the management department was expanded. In fact, kosikin was not a reformist in the market economy at that time. He just wanted to use economic means to repair the planned economy. Brezhnev even stopped this reform. Of course, there are attempts to seize power and turn the “troika” into one person dictatorship, but from the perspective of his economic policies of

,

,

and

, he is a firm believer in Stalin’s planned economy. We should know that Stalin’s key mistake lies not in the Great Purge in the 1930s, but in the planned economic system he established and the centralization politics on this basis. Brezhnev wanted to overturn Stalin’s case. He dared not deny the crime of great cleansing, but he still tried to recall the dead of Stalin’s model. After Brezhnev came to power, although he did not dare to publicly summon the soul of Stalin, he remained old to the Stalin model.

it should be said that under the planned economy, the state concentrated its efforts on major events, which played an important role in restoring and developing the Soviet economy in a certain period of time. In the more than 20 years after World War II, the Soviet Union maintained rapid growth. In the late 1960s and early 1970s when Brezhnev was in power, the economic situation of the Soviet Union was quite good. The Eighth Five Year Plan (1966-1970) was successfully completed, with a growth rate of 7.4%, Much higher than the growth rate of western countries in the same period (it should be pointed out that it is unscientific to compare the industrial and agricultural GDP of the Soviet Union with the GDP of the West. Because the contents and methods of the two statistical systems are very different. In short, GDP includes products and services, while the statistical system of the Soviet Union does not include services. GDP only calculates final products without double calculation, while the statistical system of the Soviet Union includes double calculation of intermediate products. Limited to Data can only be compared). By 1975, the total industrial output value of the Soviet Union had reached more than 80% of the total industrial output value of the United States, while the total agricultural output value had reached 85%.

however, this high growth under the planned economy of the Soviet Union was achieved by a large amount of input of resources, lack of technological innovation and productivity improvement, so it was not sustainable. By the late 1970s, the growth rate slowed down, which was “missed the new scientific and technological revolution” in Brezhnev’s 18 years. From the late 1960s to the late 1970s, the growth of total industrial output value decreased from 8.5% to 5.9%, the total agricultural output value decreased from 4.3% to 1.1%, and the annual growth of labor productivity decreased from 6.8% to 3.2%. Relying on increased investment to achieve growth has come to an end, and the lack of technological innovation, can the economy not stagnate?

the academic and political circles of the Soviet Union did not fail to recognize the importance of technological innovation and productivity improvement. As early as the early 1950s, the economic circles of the Soviet Union discussed the problems of “denotative growth” and “connotative growth”. Epitaxial growth is achieved by increasing investment, while connotative growth is achieved by technological progress and productivity improvement. Academic circles agree that the extension growth will encounter restrictions sooner or later. In order to achieve sustainable economic growth, we must change from extension growth to connotation growth. Successive leaders of the Soviet Union have not talked less about the importance of technological innovation, but why has the growth of the Soviet Union not changed from extension to connotation?

this is that the planned economic system hinders technological innovation. In the market economy, the driving force of technological innovation comes from the motivation of entrepreneurs to pursue profits. Mises of Austrian School believes that entrepreneurs’ profits come from the gap between product market price and cost. In order to pursue profits, entrepreneurs should realize it through technological innovation. The pursuit of profit is not only the internal driving force of entrepreneurs, but also the external pressure. Under the planned economy, entrepreneurs and enterprises have disappeared. Enterprises are directly controlled by the state and do not aim at profits. Profits can not bring benefits to themselves. Losses are also protected by the government’s “paternalism”. Moreover, the leaders of state-owned enterprises are administrative officials. Under this system, how can enterprises have the power of technological innovation? Moreover, the autocratic and autocratic political system inseparable from the plan suppressed the emergence of new ideas. Innovation will lead to death. Only by following the rules can we survive. This system inhibits new ideas and technological innovation. Therefore, although we recognize the importance of technological innovation, there is only superficial “knowledge” but no realistic “action”.

of course, it is not accurate to say that there is no technological innovation under the Stalin Model of the Soviet Union. After all, the Soviet Union is the first country in the world to successfully launch man-made satellites. Its military technology and space technology are on a par with the United States. Why is this technological innovation not reflected in the national economy? This is another problem of the planned economic system: the purpose of economic development is not to enrich the people, but to strengthen the country. The goal of the Soviet Union was to make itself sufficient to confront the United States in military and space technology, and did not hesitate to use the strength of the whole country to achieve this goal. Under the planned economy system, it is no problem to concentrate human and material resources to serve this goal. After all, the Soviet Union is rich in resources and outstanding people. However, in order to achieve this goal, other goals must be abandoned. Therefore, although the Soviet Union has made major breakthroughs in military and space technology, it has nothing to do with the whole national economy, and the corresponding technology has not been applied to the national economy. Moreover, the application of resources in this regard will inevitably reduce the resources used in other aspects. The Soviet Union’s economic stagnation, material shortage and low living standards are rooted in this. In a certain period of time, it is possible for the people to make a little sacrifice for a powerful country, but if it is to be so for a long time, it will inevitably lead to people’s dissatisfaction and social stability. The deep-seated root cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union lies in economic stagnation and the low living standards of the people. A strong country without enriching its people will not be truly strong in the end.

,

,

and

enrich the people for the purpose of strengthening the country. If everyone is poor and life is not easy, it will not cause much problems. However, the problem in the Soviet Union is that most people are poor, while a few privileged classes live a more corrupt life than the western bourgeoisie. This cannot but arouse the strong dissatisfaction of the people. Brezhnev is the founder and representative of this privileged class.

says that Brezhnev is the founder of the privileged class. This is the view of the author of Brezhnev’s 18 years, which I don’t fully agree with. I agree with de Geras in the new class that as long as it is a planned economy and dictatorship system, there must be a privileged class, that is, the new class de Geras said. Moreover, once this system is established, this privileged class will emerge. In the early stage after the success of the October Revolution, Lenin firmly opposed the thought of privilege. At that time, the revolutionaries’ idealism and difficult material conditions did not allow the emergence of the privileged class. However, after Stalin came to power, in order to maintain the autocratic system, he deliberately fostered a privileged class as the basis of his rule. Personal superstition is not only Stalin’s hobby, but also created by this privileged class to protect their vested interests. Stalin’s mistake lay not in his personality, but in this system and the privileged class it formed. Without this privileged class, Stalin could not get support. How can his personality be brought into full play? At any time, autocracy is not a person’s business, but supported by a vested interest group. Therefore, the cultivation of privileged class is the need to maintain this autocratic system.

planned economy also provides the possibility for the formation of this privileged class. The planned economy is based on public ownership. The public ownership of the Soviet Union is nominally owned by the whole people. In fact, the real owners, users and beneficiaries are the people in power, because ownership by the whole people is represented by the state. In the Soviet Union, such representatives were not restricted and supervised by the people. In this way, ownership by the whole people becomes ownership by the privileged class. In the “nine comments” criticizing the Soviet Union, China correctly proposed that the public ownership system became bureaucratic bourgeois ownership in the Brezhnev period. In fact, this is not only true in the Brezhnev period, but also inevitable once this system is established. The ruler has power first, and then becomes the real owner, and the privileged class comes into being. This is what Hayek said, “only with power can we have money”.

Brezhnev is not the founder of the privileged class, but only the expansion and strengthening of this class. He is not a real Marxist and does not understand or believe in Marxism. Despite the slogan of Marxism Leninism throughout his speech, he actually considers how to consolidate his own ruling position. He relied mainly on his former subordinates, the “dnepro group” in Brezhnev’s 18 years. They have long forgotten Marxism and are guided by the interests of small groups. Brezhnev tolerated people belonging to his own small group without principle and excluded people outside the group. Bodgorne and konekin were excluded from the leadership group by him. Seeking political status is still for economic interests. Brezhnev himself is keen on famous cars, villas and hunting to seek benefits for his children and relatives. His daughter and son-in-law are both “princelings” with a very bad reputation. With this kind of example, of course, the upper level will follow the lower level. Needless to say, people in this small group, even officials who have not entered this small group, should also abuse their power for personal gain. It is quite reasonable to call them the bureaucrat bourgeoisie in the “nine reviews”, and it seems not too much today. After the formation of such a privileged class as

,

,

and

, they form a sharp contrast with the poor life of the people, which is bound to cause the people’s resistance. In other words, the main social contradiction at that time was the contradiction between the privileged class and the broad masses of the people. Under the control of autocracy and public opinion, this discontent from the people forms dissidents. Dissidents are some intellectuals, but their emergence has social basis. If those in power can listen to them and make improvements, they will not become a climate. However, Brezhnev took tough measures, either put in prison, sent to reform through labor or mental hospital, or drove out of the country. However, in this way, the basis of dissent was not eliminated, but deepened, and finally became a force to overthrow the old Soviet system. Is there any difference between Marx’s “spekds” and “sphkds’s” political thinkers “and” sphkds “? But they did not become a climate. The authorities did not suppress and suppress them. Some of their views were absorbed into the policy and dissipated without suppression. The more you suppress dissidents, the stronger they will be. The more you want to put them out, the greater their momentum will be. Even some heretical ideas that have not attracted the attention of the people, the more they are suppressed, the more people will know and accept them. Brezhnev’s suppression of dissidents finally made them a powerful force to overthrow the Soviet Union in the future. Aren’t the dissidents digging their own graves? Brezhnev suppressed Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, but they won awards respectively. The crackdown has earned these people a world-class reputation. What benefits will it do to consolidate the socialist Soviet Union? He said, “everything that exists is reasonable”. The emergence of dissidents and the formation of a force must have its social roots. How can dissidents exist and develop by taking drastic measures to eliminate these root causes? To suppress is to add fuel to the fire of dissidents. It’s like deflating a ball instead of beating it. When you let go, it can’t move. The more you slap, the higher it jumps.

made Brezhnev dig more and more tombs for the Soviet Union, as well as his foreign policy. Sending troops to the Czech Republic and Afghanistan was the biggest mistake. Socialist countries should respect the sovereignty of other countries and love peace, but Brezhnev brutally sent troops to interfere in the internal affairs of the Czech Republic. This only delayed the reform of the Czech Republic, but it did not change the historical trend of the reform. This not only put the Soviet Union in an embarrassing position internationally, but also caused people’s dissatisfaction at home. Sending troops to Afghanistan for expansion plunged them into a quagmire. The loss of material and personnel, needless to say, the loss of reputation, gave the tottering Soviet Union a final blow. Foreign policy has become the last straw to overwhelm the camel.

Brezhnev’s internal and external failure in 18 years of operation was the basic reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. The tomb had been dug. Gorbachev had no power to return to heaven. Yeltsin gently pushed the Soviet Union into the tomb dug by Brezhnev. What is wrong with Gorbachev and Yeltsin?

,

,

and

have great differences on Brezhnev’s evaluation at home and abroad. Even today, many people in Russia sing praises for Brezhnev. The other book I read, biography of Brezhnev, was written by Russian scholar Sergei semanov and translated and published in China by Oriental publishing house. He wrote Brezhnev as a hero and didn’t even admit that his daughter, son-in-law and other relatives got rich and promoted. This kind of book is also a kind of view. But I think it is far from the minimum facts. It’s no surprise that the debate over Brezhnev’s evaluation will continue. Isn’t it still remembered in Germany?

of course, maybe the collapse of the Soviet Union is not a good thing. When the Stalin model was established, its fate of collapse was perhaps doomed. Without thorough reform, the Soviet Union had no way out. Only after Yeltsin ended the Stalin model did Russia and the former Soviet republics and Eastern European countries have hope. Of course, after the Stalin Model and the turbulence of transformation, these countries still have a long way to recover. However, Russia’s progress and development in recent years have attracted worldwide attention. Isn’t it clear that it can enter the ranks of the BRICs? ■

(“Oriental Morning Post”)