Soviet Union disintegrated, few Communists took to the streets to protest the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Because it protects the development and modernization of things at the expense of human freedom, rather than the modernization of human free development. It also lost people’s confidence and faith in the political power and power structure.
on December 18, 2011, tens of thousands of people in Russia demonstrated in Moscow to protest against the so-called election fraud and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, which is the largest and most influential anti-government movement since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. CFP provides
the 20th anniversary of the disintegration of the Soviet Union: the power structure of the integration of Parliament, administration and supervision led to the final collapse of the Soviet Union.
on December 25, 1991, the sickle hammer flag flying over the Kremlin in Moscow for 69 years slowly fell, and the former world superpower Soviet Union became a historical term. This regime, born in a time of crisis, was able to defeat the powerful axis alliance in World War II. It was the first to send mankind into space, but fell overnight. No one organized a demonstration against it, and the people quietly bid farewell to the regime. Why did the former superpower fall into such a situation? What are the details of this disintegration process that are particularly worthy of our reflection? This newspaper interviewed Professor Li Yongzhong, an expert on institutional anti-corruption. Li Yongzhong believes that the political power structure of the Soviet Union’s “integration of Parliament, administration and supervision” and the selection and employment system of hierarchical appointment system are the two fundamental reasons for this tragedy. The abnormal power structure of highly centralized power is the congenital deficiency of the Soviet Union: “replacing the universal suffrage system with hierarchical appointment” is the acquired disadvantage of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the power structure of “over concentration” makes it rigid but very fragile; The lack of power source of universal suffrage makes it convenient and obedient, but it is not legal. These two major drawbacks have not been solved through active and stable pilot political system reform. As a result, the Soviet Communist Party, which had been in power for 74 years, dissolved and the Soviet Union disintegrated.
the backward power structure is the root cause of disintegration.
Southern Metropolis Daily (hereinafter referred to as Nandu): do you think the political power structure of the Soviet Union is not what we often call “the integration of Parliament, administration and supervision”, but “the integration of Parliament, administration and supervision”, which is a unilateral power structure. So what are the characteristics of this power structure?
Li Yongzhong: the so-called integration of legislative, executive and supervisory powers in the Soviet political structure is the integration of legislative, administrative and supervisory powers. Although it originated from the power structure of “integration of Parliament and administration” in the 72 day wartime state of Paris Commune in 1871, it later insisted on putting the supervision power into the Central Committee to form the power structure of “integration of Parliament and administration”. There are several characteristics: first, the power is too centralized. It combines decision-making, implementation and supervision, which will inevitably lead to the concentration of power in one organ, the Party committee. There will be an acceleration in the process of power concentration. That is, the more to the later stage of governance, the more serious the degree of power concentration. The longer the supreme leader has been in power, the higher the degree of power concentration in his hands. In this way, the power will be completely concentrated on the individual, and finally become absolute power. Absolute power monopoly finally led to collapse. Even when Gorbachev engaged in political reform, he continued this path. He dissolved a large number of institutions and implemented the super presidential system. The president integrates the three powers of Parliament, administration and supervision, surpasses all institutions and becomes a super president. He wanted to reform by centralizing power, but he went the same way. Absolute power, absolutely inclined to corruption. The power structure of the integration of Parliament, bank and supervision led to the final collapse of the Soviet Union.
Nandu: Why did the Soviet Union maintain such a crude regime for nearly 70 years?
Li Yongzhong: the first is the objective need of the wartime state for the power structure. The wartime state of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the founding of the people’s Republic of China required a high concentration of power. This is an objective need. If you want to talk about democracy in a state of war, it is generally difficult to deal with forces that talk about centralization of power. The second point is the inevitable requirement of the late development catch-up strategy of the Soviet Union. The catch-up strategy formulated by the Soviet Union compares catching up with developed countries to military competition to a great extent, and requires centralization of power. Third, the subjective requirement of concentrating on major events. The centralized structure made the Soviet Union a brilliant economic success. Whether in science and technology or in heavy industry, it can be close to the United States and surpass the United States in some aspects. But at the same time, if we concentrate on doing great things, we will also do stupid things, do wrong things, or even do bad things. The elimination of counter revolutionaries and the Great Purge are typical examples. The dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet Union are the most conclusive proof. The last key reason is the personal needs of top leaders. If you master power, you will become addicted, just like drinking, smoking and taking drugs. If power is concentrated in one’s hands, there will be a lot of fun. Over time, you will become addicted and reluctant to change it. And I like the more centralized power, the better. Power itself has three natures in my opinion. The first is exclusivity; The second is expansibility; The third is exclusivity. Whoever holds power has three natures.
Nandu: can we say that this power structure is a modern model of blindly pursuing “things” at the expense of human freedom and development, and this model eventually fails to work.
Li Yongzhong: you can say so. The failure of the Soviet Union was neither the failure of the socialist system nor the failure of the communist ideal. But the failure of the extremely feudal and backward power structure adopted by the Soviet Union. This power structure can not adapt to the continuous development of productive forces, so it has become a serious shackle to the development of productive forces. At the same time, the seriousness of the polarization of this power also makes it a power structure that people are absolutely unwilling to endure. Therefore, its disintegration, its upheaval, the Communists did not regret it, and few Communists took to the streets to protest the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Because the operation cost of this backward feudal power structure is high, a large number of people’s freedom must be sacrificed. Over time, there is a lack of creativity, so it is difficult to develop the productivity to a certain extent. At the same time, in the process of development, it protects the development and modernization of things at the expense of human freedom, not human freedomThe modernization of development. It also lost people’s confidence and faith in the political power and power structure.
system defects make “new thinking” unable to return to the sky
Nandu: among the last leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev is the one with the most willingness to reform. But his reform failed in the end. What do you think is the most important reason for his failure?
Li Yongzhong: Gorbachev, in my opinion, is the best and most capable leader that can be elected after nearly 70 years of operation of the power structure of the Soviet Union’s parliament bank supervision and Hierarchical Authorization and appointment system, although his ability is far less than that of, Trotsky and Bukharin. However, the Soviet Union was too heavy to return, and the general situation was gone. He could not cope with it. First of all, the power structure of the integration of Parliament, bank and supervision is inherently deficient. The gene of the power structure under the wartime system is not good. This power structure is such a cycle. Second, the day after tomorrow. Marx had a famous saying that the hierarchical appointment system is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of the commune. However, the Soviet Union still adopted the hierarchical appointment system to replace universal suffrage for many years, so they fundamentally violated the commune spirit. The logic of this hierarchical appointment system is similar to that of Wu Dalang’s shop, which is appointed and dismissed at all levels and dwarfed at all levels. Brezhnev has maintained stability for 18 years and is hard to return. By the time Gorbachev arrived, he had no time and space to implement the reform and was unable to return to heaven. The third point is the lack of consensus on reform. After Gorbachev came to power, he felt that reform was necessary, but vested interest groups had been formed. No matter whether the Titanic sank or not, what would you change? The sinking of the ship is just bad luck for those who do not have life-saving tools. Those who have life-saving tools can still get rich and ensure that they will not be lower than their previous treatment. At that time, vested interest groups had formed such a consensus. Who would care about reform? Reform will also throw away the existing things. Reform will also put the sharing of stolen goods in danger. So no one agrees to change it. Under such circumstances, no consensus can be reached.
Nandu: during the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the Communist Party, which has been in power for decades, lost one after another in the election. A considerable number of scholars believe that the failure lies in the low electoral ability of the Communist party. What do you think if the Communist Party of the Soviet Union concentrated on the election at that time?
Li Yongzhong: there is also reflection within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on this issue. Zyuganov and rezhkov believe that Gorbachev’s election ruined the Soviet Union. In fact, they did not see the deep-seated problems. The power structure is broken. This power structure can not accommodate the rapid development of productive forces; Second, we can no longer accommodate more excellent talents to more important posts; Third, it has caused serious polarization and serious alienation between the party and the masses. At present, no authoritarian government can continue to govern at a relatively high level of productivity development for a long time. Experience tells us that this power structure can develop rapidly in a short time, but it can not be maintained for a long time. It’s over if you don’t choose, it’s over if you choose. It should also be pointed out that, first, even if the Communist Party of the Soviet Union concentrates its efforts on the election, it may not win the election. Second, even if the Soviet Communist Party won the election, it must change its power structure in order to be in power for a long time. This year marks 20 years since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Their current leaders are much younger than those in the past, but we can find that none of the old Communists can win the general election in all the Soviet republics. Even if you participate in the election, you should also state that you will never go back.
Nandu: these accidental events in Arabia this year led to the downfall of a series of regimes. It’s a bit like the upheaval in eastern Jiangsu 20 years ago. Is this highly centralized regime prone to the domino effect of regime change just because of an accident?
Li Yongzhong: there is a saying in China, “money gathers people and scattered people gather”. An old rich man, if he only holds the money in his own hands and he doesn’t give it to those who do paperwork, work and bookkeeping for him, I’m sorry, the money belongs to him and the people’s heart is scattered. When he scattered the money, people could gather. To put it another way, so is power. If power is not broken down and concentrated too much, people will disperse. If power is broken down, people will gather. Therefore, the decomposition of power is not only conducive to checks and balances, but also conducive to the development of democracy. Whether it is the Arab or the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it is a chain reaction caused by the accidental events of a centralized system at a certain point. It is not clear which chain is broken, but once it is broken, similar chains will be broken. It is accidental where and when it breaks, but as long as it breaks, the fallen domino is the last straw to overwhelm the camel. The camel was not crushed by this straw. Its power structure has long been overwhelmed. The reform failure of
lacking consensus has harmed the southern capital of
: there are many phenomena in the late Soviet Union that deserve reflection, such as Yeltsin’s sudden challenge to ask the CPC Central Committee for power status at the plenary session of the CPC Central Committee in 1987. After being rejected, Yeltsin was supported by the people, believing that he was persecuted and a hero. Why is this the case?
Li Yongzhong: in fact, Yeltsin is not a very good person. However, there are several noteworthy data. One is that before the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Academy of Social Sciences conducted a questionnaire survey. 85% believed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented bureaucrats and cadres, not workers and farmers. The second is that in order to strengthen the mainstream status and guiding role of the mainstream media, Pravda of the Soviet Union relied on public subscription and distribution of tens of millions, but no one knew what the news of Pravda was on that day. Third, before the disintegration of the Soviet Union, 4.2 million Party members withdrew from the party. I think with a figure like Yeltsin, he will understand that the general trend of the Soviet Communist Party is gone. So when he openly wanted power and status, he went to extremes and began to play a hero against the trend. The general trend of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is gone. We only need to go against the trend and win the support of the people. He became the first to expose the Soviet Union’s rootsAn old-fashioned anti trend hero. This is the so-called Tacitus trap. When a regime loses popular support and credibility, the policies formulated by the regime, whether good or bad, will offend people. No one believes the information published, whether it is true or false. Appointed cadres, whether honest or corrupt, will be scolded. Yeltsin had long seen that the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet government had entered the Tacitus trap. When the last straw was enough to crush or even kill the camel, he began to go against the trend. So it was called heroic behavior at that time.
Nandu: you mentioned quitting the party. There is another phenomenon. In the late Soviet Union, the proportion of workers, farmers and pensioners quitting the party was much higher than that of bureaucratic groups, while the ordinary people who disintegrated the Soviet Union lost the most and the bureaucratic class gained the most.
Li Yongzhong: this can be borrowed from a Yuanqu by Zhang yanghao of the Yuan Dynasty, “prosperity makes the people suffer; death makes the people suffer”. Such a power structure is an autocratic regime. No matter whether they rise or fall, the most bitter people are the people at the bottom of power. They can’t see the development trend in the future. They can only feel that they hate this regime and I hate this political party. An ordinary farm farmer wants to quit the party. He feels that the party has not brought me any benefits and will be scolded. Why should I bear this curse. So they quit the party. However, those who can benefit from this party will not leave easily as long as the party’s blood and flesh are not divided. Just like the vulture we often see in Africa, it will never leave until the meat on the body is eaten up. Finally, there is only a pile of white bones left. It will leave only when ants come to devour the bones. That’s why you will find that those who quit the party are those at the bottom of the power. They are really people at the middle and top of the power. They generally don’t quit the party. Of course, including some people with faith who are determined to live and die with the party, he will not quit the party. After long-term governance, fewer and fewer people have faith. Therefore, through the Soviet Union, those who quit the party can see very clearly that those who have interests will not quit the party, and those who have faith will not quit the party. Those who have no interests, are afraid of being scolded, or some feel dangerous will quit the party.
Nandu: it seems that there is a trend that reform has become separation, and separation has become sharing of stolen goods. Was it impossible for the Soviet Union to avoid this trend at that time?
Li Yongzhong: personally, I think the vested interests of the Soviet Union wanted drastic changes. Only by defeating the party and the country can they legalize their division of stolen goods and families, otherwise, these things cannot be legalized. After the collapse, the stolen goods distributed by the previous dynasty can not be liquidated with the laws of this dynasty and the existing Russian laws. The vulnerable groups thought that through this drastic change, they could improve and change their disadvantage, but unexpectedly, their ideas were taken advantage of. Gorbachev wanted to reform, but the general trend was gone and could not be reversed. He understood this later. When he announced his proposal to dissolve the Soviet Communist Party, no one protested, no one objected, and no one took to the streets. Therefore, he actually has more than 15 million Party members, which shows that the general trend is gone and irreversible.
Nandu: you mentioned that Gorbachev’s political reform not only did not change the political system of “the integration of Parliament, administration and supervision”, but transformed this system into a super presidential system. Later, Yeltsin and Putin inherited this system, and even the participating republics of the Soviet Union inherited this system, and the problems before the Soviet Union appeared to varying degrees, Is this a direct result of the failure of Gorbachev’s reform?
Li Yongzhong: when Gorbachev couldn’t find the driving force for reform, he thought of reforming the old system and power structure with openness, transparency and democracy, but he fell into the pattern of high centralization of power. Of course, this is also a rule. For an autocratic system, it is usually difficult to reform it with a democratic system. Usually he can only be destroyed by violent revolution. This kind of falling into the rut is not only the sorrow of the integration of three powers and the power structure, but also the use of the hierarchical appointment system