here refers to the following five transformations: (1) abolishing the directive economy; (2) From extreme totalitarian political system to political pluralism; (3) Ending the cold war; (4) Relinquishing the dominance of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe; (5) The disintegration of the Soviet Union.

perhaps historians will debate Gorbachev’s reform for hundreds of years. At present, the discussion of the seven years of changing the world has caused all kinds of misunderstandings and differences. In the consciousness of many Russians, the reform during Gorbachev’s period brought disappointment. This general disappointment was caused by the disadvantages of the system known as “democracy” in post Soviet Russia and the phenomenon of sudden wealth and extreme poverty in the early 1990s. However, those who initiated the reform no longer held state official positions in post Soviet Russia, so they should be evaluated according to what they did, not what their successors did.

it is necessary to find out how the reform began and what it became later. Gorbachev’s reform began as an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the Soviet system. Its advocates (first, the new general secretary Mikhail sergeyevich Gorbachev) were eager to improve the current Soviet political and economic system. The term “reform” came into being just after the reformers of the Czech Communist Party began political and economic reform and put forward diversified ideas in 1968. At that time, it was not allowed to think about the need for “improvement” of the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia’s theory and practice of political pluralism made Soviet leaders very afraid. They killed the “Prague Spring” with tanks. Later, during the Brezhnev period, those who wanted to make even minor changes to the Soviet system could only use euphemistic words such as “further improving” the Soviet political system or the national economic management system. The ideological meaning of the word

,

,

,

and “reform” is not as important as the word “improvement”. In the view of the Conservatives of the Soviet Union, the word “improvement” has the implicit meaning of reformism or revisionism, so all more radical improvements can be carried out under the “cover” of reform. At first, the uncertainty of this concept was politically suitable for those (first, the new general secretary) who really wanted to implement major improvements. At the beginning, everyone or almost everyone could support the reform, because everyone added their own meaning to the reform at that time.

,

,

and

became more and more radical with the content of the reform, especially when the Gorbachev system and its allies changed from “system improvement” to “system transformation” in the summer of 1988, the uncertainty of this term is obviously no longer an advantage, resulting in the problem of further changing the institutional structure. This change has taken place to a certain extent, because “openness” has become a real “freedom of speech” and has gradually evolved into freedom of the press, although the political debate in the awakened society is mainly a summary, rather than talking about the specific institutional structure transformation that should be implemented.

before discussing the five reforms implemented in the reform era, I want to distinguish between socialism and communism, not from the perspective of Marxism, but from the perspective of comparative political analysis. The five basic characteristics of the Communist system can be summarized as follows: (1) the monopoly power of the Communist Party; (2) Democratic centralism; (3) State ownership of means of production; (4) Publicly proclaim the goal of building a communist society (when the country will die) – this is the ultimate and legitimate goal; (5) The existence of the international communist movement and its sense of belonging. [2] In the unreformed Soviet Union and other communist countries, Communist leaders and thinkers call their system “socialist system”, but this fact may not be a reason to emulate them. Similarly, these Communist leaders and defenders of Communist thought once called their own system “democratic system”. In the Soviet Union before the reform, the terms “Soviet democracy” and “socialist democracy” were often used as concepts that could almost replace each other. Although it is not as obvious and absurd to call the Soviet system a socialist system as to call it a democratic system, the fact that Soviet leaders – from Lenin to Chernenko [3] – described the Soviet system as “socialist” does not provide sufficient reason to use this definition as a valid analytical term [4]. The adjective

“socialist” applies to a wide range of social movements, political parties and governments, not just those who claim to be loyal to Marxism Leninism [5]. This term is not as accurate as the term “communist” used in the Soviet Union and those countries regarded as the main core of the international communist movement. The “Utopian” role of the Communist Party is not distinguished from the “Utopian” role of the Communist Party, It is the Communist Party that can provide the necessary theoretical understanding and organizational basis for leading less conscious citizens to a harmonious classless society (I doubt whether anyone in Brezhnev’s Political Bureau in the 1970s really believed in this social myth of the future. However, I can’t deny the ideological role left by this idea. It remained until the late 1980s. In the wave of general abandonment of Marxism Leninism, this idea was even abandoned as a theoretical concept) [6], At the same time, there is no need to worry that communism in the period of “realistic socialism” (the term used by the Soviet Union in the Brezhnev period) will be confused with the fantasy of “complete communism”. If the same term “socialist”, for example, is used for the government of the Fifth Republic of France and the Soviet Union before the reform, it will be a more obvious conceptual farfetching and a more obvious cover up of the existing differences than the term “communist” is used for the latter.

in the era of reform, the Communist system of the Soviet Union no longer exists. The view that Russian Communism did not end until the establishment of Boris Yeltsin’s post Soviet regime is nonsense, the Soviet Union