The Dissolution of the Soviet Union

In late December 1991—some 74 years after the Bolsheviks had taken power in Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin—the Soviet Communist regime and the Soviet state itself ceased to exist. The demise of the Soviet Union occurred less than seven years after Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Communist Party. Soon after taking office in March 1985, Gorbachev had launched a series of drastic political and economic changes that he hoped would improve and strengthen the Communist system and bolster the country's superpower status. But in the end, far from strengthening Communism, Gorbachev's policies of perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (official openness) led inadvertently to the collapse of the Soviet regime and the unraveling of the Soviet state. This article analyzes the breakup of the Soviet Union, explaining why that outcome, which had seemed so unlikely at the outset, occurred in such a short period of time.

Self-Government in Late 1980s Czechoslovakia: The Slovak Philosopher Miroslav Kusý against the Communist Party1

Self-government is one of the most popular terms in left-wing political thought. In the second half of the twentieth century, it was used and discussed both in Western liberal democracies and in the communist bloc. The Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev used this notion from the mid-1980s onwards, forming part of his wider policy of perestroika. Although the Czechoslovak leaders were not interested in political reforms and were largely sceptical about economic changes, the Soviet example resonated with the public and impacted on official discussion in Czechoslovakia. In this context, the Czechoslovak parliament adopted the Act on State Enterprise in July 1988, which was preceded by the discussion of the Proposal on the Act on State Enterprise (1987). This article draws attention to Czechoslovak dissident milieus and the response to the parliament’s proposal. It focuses on the Slovak philosopher Miroslav Kusý (1931-2019), who articulated the most substantial critique of the official plans. While accepting the principle of self-government, he argued that the proposal was subject to fundamental misinterpretations. In assessing his arguments, the article traces a particular intervention within the wider debates on state socialism in the 1980s.

Soviet Politics and Journalism under Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Glasnost: Why Hopes Failed

The terms perestroika (literally, "transformation") and glasnost (literally, "transparency ") refer to the social change that took place in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. Then USSR leader, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Mikhail Gorbachev, introduced perestroika as a necessary action to improve the nation’s economy and its international relations. Glasnost was meant to promote effective discussions regarding the country’s existing problems and shortcomings. However, only a few years following their instatement, both processes did not improve the sociopolitical situation. On the contrary, they led to the country’s collapse. This article seeks to answer why gracious intentions, meant to actualize the hopes and dreams of the Soviet people, eventually resulted in tremendously difficult times. Special attention is paid to the role of the Soviet media, which became a catalyst for many social problems. The authors raise the issue of the media’s level of responsibility during this social transformation, which appeared to be one of the most crucial conditions for its successful implementation. Keywords: authoritarian culture, social transformation, civic society, perestroika, glasnost, Soviet media

O NOVO EQUILÍBRIO REAGAN-GORBACHEV

O texto analisa o encontro entre o presidente estadunidense Ronald Reagan e o primeiro-ministro soviético Mikhail Gorbachev, em Washington, em 08 de dezembro de 1987, para assinar um tratado de diminuição das armas nucleares, que fora firmado em Genebra, em 24 de novembro de 1987, o Tratado de Forças Nucleares de Alcance Intermediário, conhecido como Tratado INF (de Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces), promovendo uma distensão entre as duas grandes potências da Guerra Fria. Tal evento é analisado em comparação com os objetivos pacifistas da ONU e a política de equilíbrio de poder entre os Estados, a partir do que Norberto Bobbio questiona os rumos do sistema internacional no final dos anos 1980.

POLITICAL WILL AS A BASIS FOR THE FORMATION OF A LEGAL STATE DURING MIKHAIL GORBACHEV`s MANAGMENT PERIOD

The article deals with topical issues of the formation and formation of the rule of law in the USSR during the reign of Mikhail Gorbachev. The article considers the factors influencing the process of transformation of the political system of the socialist state within the framework of the establishment of the rule of law. Special attention is paid to such a factor as the political will of the country's leader.

Economics and politics of the great change: Mikhail Gorbachev versus Deng Xiaoping

In the history of mankind, there has never been a case where, in a brief episode of the life of one generation, mutual economic relations have changed on such a large scale for so many people as they did in China and Russia in 1989-2020. Both countries are undergoing profound structural and institutional changes, but while the former recorded impressive results in terms of developing and catching up with advanced economies, the latter’s achievements have been very modest. While China has multiplied production to become a world economic power, Russia's economy has grown modestly and plays a minor role in the globalization process. In just a few years, the level of production and the standard of living of the Chinese population will first equalize and then exceed the level achieved by Russia. This happened due to many factors – from the traditional cultural heritage to geopolitical conditions, from the legacy from the previous state socialism to different natural resources bases – however, the nature and duration of the political leadership of Deng Xiaoping in China and Mikhail Gorbachev in Russia were of fundamental importance. Without taking into account the influence of the thoughts and actions of these two statesmen, it is impossible to understand the essence of tectonic changes that have occurred in the world economy recently. While Deng Xiaoping prioritized pro-growth-oriented economic reforms, while doing little in the realm of political liberalization, Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to combine political and economic liberalization, but failed to do so. The effects of decisions made several decades ago are still felt today. Evidently, Deng Xiaoping's approach proved to be more effective than Gorbachev's reforms. In the latter case, they took Russia and other post-Soviet republics in a completely different direction than that assumed by their architect.

Economics and Politics of the Great Change: Mikhail Gorbachev versus Deng Xiaoping

In the history of mankind, there has never been a case where, in a brief episode of the life of one generation, mutual economic relations have changed on such a large scale for so many people as they did in China and Russia in 1989-2020. Both countries are undergoing profound structural and institutional changes, but while the former recorded impressive results in terms of developing and catching up with advanced economies, the latter’s achievements have been very modest. This happened due to many factors – from the traditional cultural heritage to geopolitical conditions, from the legacy from the previous state socialism to different natural resources bases – however, the nature and duration of the political leadership of Deng Xiaoping in China and Mikhail Gorbachev in Russia were of fundamental importance. Without taking into account the influence of the thoughts and actions of these two statesmen, it is impossible to understand the essence of tectonic changes that have occurred in the world economy recently.

Sad delusions: The decline and rise of Greater Europe

The end of the Cold War was accompanied by the idea that the fall of the Berlin Wall represented the beginning of the unification of Europe. Mikhail Gorbachev talked in terms of a “Common European Home,” an idea that continues in the guise of the project for a “Greater Europe.” However, right from the start, the transformative idea of Greater Europe was countered by the notion of “Europe whole and free,” whose fundamental dynamic was the enlargement of the existing West European order to encompass the rest of the continent. This was a program for the enlargement of the Atlantic system. After some prevarication, the enlargement agenda proved unacceptable to Moscow, and while it continues to argue in favor of transformation its main efforts are now devoted to creating some sort of “greater Eurasia.” There remains a fundamental tension between Atlanticist and pan-continental version of the post-–Cold War international order in the region. This tension gave rise to conflict and war: in 2008 (the Russo-Georgian War) and again from 2014 (Ukraine), and to what some call the Second Cold War. The continent is once again divided. However, pan-continentalism is far from dead, and although Greater Eurasian ideas have thrived, some sort of Greater European continentalism remains on the agenda. Is this, though, no more than a “sad delusion” or a genuine possibility?