Skip to content

Eight-Episode TV Documentary Series: Preparing For Danger In Times Of Safety, Episode Two

{Editor’s Note: In June 2006, Beijing released an eight-episode TV documentary series: Preparing For Danger In Times Of Safety – Historic Lessons Learned from the Demise of Soviet Communism. It was a research project conducted by the government think tank, the Chinese Academy of Social Science. Afterwards, the Chinese Communist Party instructed party members across the nation to watch the series and launch serious discussions. The script of the prelude of the documentary quotes Hu Jintao’s words, “There are multiple factors contributing to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a very important one being Khrushchev throwing away Stalin’s knife and Gorbachev’s open betrayal of Marxism-Leninism.” The full text of the narratives has been translated. What follows is the second episode.}


At the turn of the century, four news items from the homeland of capitalism shocked the world:

The first item came in 1999, when Karl Marx won a poll at Cambridge University in the UK as the millennium’s “Greatest Thinker,” followed by the great scientist Albert Einstein.

The second item followed immediately afterwards. The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) launched an open online poll with the same subject. Karl Marx topped the poll and again pushed Einstein to second place.

The third piece took place in 2002, when Reuters invited celebrities in politics, business, arts, and academia to vote for the “Millennium Figure.” Marx lost to Einstein by only one point.

The fourth item came on July 14, 2005, when the BBC Radio Channel 4 discussion program asked 30,000 listeners to vote for the greatest philosopher in history. At the end of the voting, Karl Marx, unmatched by famous thinkers such as Plato, Kant, Socrates, and Aristotle, topped the list by winning 27.93% of the vote, and David Hume, a Scottish philosopher came in second with 12.6%. Hegel didn’t even make it to the top 20.

This shows that in today’s world many people insist on believing that our age still needs Marx’s theory, in the same way that science needs Einstein’s theory.

Unprejudiced people will reach a conclusion: Marx is a great historic figure who has made everlasting contributions to human society and spiritual development.

Marxism-Leninism, named after Marx and Lenin, has always been the theoretical foundation for the guiding ideologies of the political parties of the working class.

In 1848, when communism was likened to a “specter” that haunts Europe, Marx and Engels drafted the Communist Manifesto for the Communist League, at that time a secret organization of German workers, and later a political party for international workers. The Communist Manifesto was the first guiding principle for Marxist theories and practices.

A basic idea runs through the Manifesto: in every epoch the means of production and exchange and the resulting social structure constitute the political, spiritual, and historic foundation of the time; therefore, the history of all hitherto existing society since Primitive Society is the history of class struggles, which have now reached the stage where the proletariat is oppressed and exploited. If they cannot forever rid the whole society of exploitation and oppression at the same time, they cannot liberate themselves from the control of the bourgeoisie.

The two great thinkers, Marx and Engels, for the first time, disclosed the true conditions for the working class and the entire human being to be liberated, and declared the following truth – the demise of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are inevitable.

Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, steadfastly followed the basic principles of Marx and Engels, and enormously enriched and developed Marxism by adapting it to the international and domestic situations of the time.

Lenin scientifically analyzed the economic foundation, deep conflicts, and crises of imperialism, revealed the law of imbalanced development of the economy and politics of imperialism, and proposed that the socialist revolution may first achieve success in one or a few countries. He also brilliantly expounded on the special roles of nations and colonies during the era of imperialism, and pointed out the direction for national liberation movements.

He timely summarized the lessons learned from class struggles during the October Revolution, and inherited, defended, and developed the Marxist theory of the Proletarian Dictatorship and the theory of the state. He profoundly expounded major issues such as the inevitability and form of Proletarian Dictatorship, the nature and tasks of the Proletarian Dictatorship, the leading forces of the proletariat, its foundation of worker-peasant alliance, the complete development of democracy, and the strengthening of the oversight by the people.

He made it clear that in order to carry out the Proletariat Revolution, and achieve and consolidate the Proletarian Dictatorship, the most important thing was for the proletarians to establish their own political party, which is the Communist Party. This party is a party grounded in Marxist theories.

He also pointed out that, due to the existence of other capitalist countries, the struggle between socialism and capitalism will be long lasting, and will span the whole human history. Socialist countries should constantly guard against the danger of imperialist invasion, and do their utmost to prevent this danger.

Under Lenin’s leadership, Russia’s working class and Bolsheviks, for the first time in human history, achieved the success of the Proletariat Revolution, established the first state power of the Proletarian Dictatorship, and, for the first time, made the theory of scientific socialism a reality through revolutionary practice.

Leninism believed that during the whole historic period of transitioning toward socialism, while insisting on the Proletarian Dictatorship, the proletariat political party should promptly adjust its own tasks and development strategy in light of the changes in practice and the situation.

Shortly after the success of the October Revolution, Lenin clearly saw that the central tasks of the Russian proletariat had changed from “winning Russia” to “managing Russia.” [1] The main mission of the Soviet regime was not to have the “Red Guards continue to attack capitalism,” and not to continue nationalization, but to use great effort to develop state capitalism. [2] At the same time, the regime needed to conduct accounting and supervision of production and distribution. This was the Bolsheviks’ preliminary exploration of the transition toward socialism based upon domestic situations not long after the October Revolution.

However, when the plan was about to be carried out, domestic and foreign hostile forces launched a Civil War.

During the war, food was in extremely short supply; the cities were suffering from grave famine. Dishonest merchants drove up food prices, making a fortune through speculation. They were seriously disturbing the market and threatening the newly born revolutionary regime.

Because of the scarcity of materials during the war, the Bolsheviks timely adopted what was later called the War Communism. It is a series of political and economic policies such as requisitioning peasants’ food, and even the necessities of life, so as to “supply the army and feed the workers,” enlarging the state ownership in cities, attempting to abolish currency, and implementing a physical distribution system.

The War Communism played a major role in smashing foreign armed interference and safeguarding the fruits of the October Revolution. Therefore Lenin called it “an accomplishment.” [3]

But, this policy also showed serious drawbacks: it triggered strong discontent among peasants and workers, and even inspired some troop rebellion.

The newly born Soviet regime was again facing a serious crisis.

In March 1921, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) timely held its 10th Congress. In his political report, Lenin summarized mistakes made and lessons learned when the party led the country in transitioning from war toward peaceful development. He candidly admitted that the realities showed that they were wrong. “We are now using the ‘New Economic Policy’ to correct many of our mistakes. We are learning how to further build a socialist mansion in an agricultural country without repeating these mistakes.” [4]

In 1921, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) started to implement the New Economic Policy including an in-kind tax, instead of requisitioning agricultural surpluses from the peasants, allowing for both private and public ownership, and put into practice a concession and leasing system. The economy soon exhibited a remarkable recovery and development. This was no doubt the Russian Communist Party’s (Bolshevik’s) realistic and successful exploration of developing socialism in Russia. This was also Lenin’s important contribution to Marxist theories.

The change from the War Communism to the New Economic Policy was not a policy change in a general sense, but a change in Lenin’s strategic thinking in exploring the socialist path. When carrying out the New Economic Policy, Lenin had already been searching for a path that combined developing socialism with adapting to the market.

After Lenin passed away, his successor Stalin became the leader of the party and the country. He creatively employed and ripened Marxism-Leninism.

When the New Economic Policy helped eliminate the damage caused by the Civil War, workers across the country felt satisfied. The New Economic Policy also greatly accelerated agricultural development, brought about the prosperity of commerce and the market, and improved the peasants’ livelihood. However, during the later period, someone stockpiled commodities and viciously raised the purchase price of grain. In early 1927, the national grain purchase volume was 428 million pood. (A Russian unit of weight equivalent to about 16.4 kilograms (36.1 pounds)) It plummeted to 300 million pood in 1928. Starting from 1927, many cities faced food shortages, urban residents often had no bread on the dining table; in 1928, in the cities, food supply had to be rationed by using “Book of Purchase.” This led to growing discontent among the working class and urban residents. The CPSU and the people started a new search. [5]

After the success of the Revolution and the Civil War, Trotsky believed that it was impossible to develop socialism in the “backward Russia,” and that only a Western revolution could rescue the Russian Revolution. Trotsky proposed to make every effort to promote and ignite a Western revolution.

Stalin thought that the true nature of this theory was to despise the Russian people, and that it “did not believe in the power and capacity of the Russian proletariat.” He said the Russian proletariat, who had won the victory, should not stay where they were, and should not wait with inaction for victory and help from the West. Stalin categorically said, “We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must reduce this distance in 10 years. Either we achieve this or others will defeat us.” [6] He added, “We are still the only country of the Proletarian Dictatorship surrounded by capitalist countries, many of whom are far ahead of us in technology and economics.” [7] “It is impossible to defend the independence of our country without establishing an adequate industrial base for national defense.”[8]

With regard to industrial development policy, Stalin said that the Soviet Union needs to change from a country importing machinery and equipment to a country manufacturing machinery and equipment. In order not to become a vassal of the capitalist world economy, the Soviet Union must implement socialist industrialization by insisting on the principle of preferential development of heavy industries.

With regard to the basic socialist economic system, Stalin put forward that the public ownership of the means of production, planned economy, agricultural cooperatives, etc. constituted the basis of the Soviet Union’s socialist national economy; that the basic economic law of socialism is “continuous growth and improvement of socialist production, based on a high degree of technology, to ensure the maximum satisfaction of society’s ever increasing material and cultural needs.” [9]

Because these theories and guidelines closely connected with the development and changes at home and abroad at the time, the CPSU and Stalin soon led the party and the people to the socialist industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. The basic system of socialism in the Soviet Union was established, laying a solid foundation for winning the anti-fascist war and achieving an economic take-off.

Though victories were won one by one, due to the limitations of the time and improper exaggeration of his personal role, Stalin’s way of thinking on certain issues deviated from dialectical materialism and fell into metaphysics and subjectivism. Sometimes, he divorced himself from the actual situation, from the people, and from some of the basic ideologies of Marxism-Leninism. For example, in the theory of socialist development in stages, he denied the existence of conflicts and class struggle in a socialist society, and prematurely declared that socialism “has achieved complete victory.” In the theory of commodity relations, on the one hand he, for the first time, admitted, “commodity production exists” in the socialist system, thus developing Marxism; on the other hand he proposed to “step-by-step narrow the scope of activities of commodity circulation and expand exchange activities.” Despite the reality of social productivity at the time, he implemented a single public ownership and a single means of distribution. He neglected the development of light industries, especially agriculture. At some times and on some issues, he also seriously confused the two different types of conflicts.

After the death of Stalin, Khrushchev completely negated Stalin, and thus negated Lenin. He gradually detached from, departed from, and ultimately betrayed a series of fundamental Marxist-Leninist theories.

In October 1961 at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, he proposed a set of so-called new theories that contravened Marxist-Leninist theories of the Proletariat Revolution, the Proletarian Dictatorship, and the proletariat political party. The advocacy of “State of the People” and “Party of the People” theory was embodied in the new platform passed by the Congress. [10]

This platform said, “The Proletarian Dictatorship is no longer necessary in the Soviet Union. At its new stage, or this stage, the country, born as a country of Proletarian Dictatorship, has become a State of the People.” [11]

The Marxist theory of the State is a very important component of the basic Marxist theory. Lenin pointed out that “the characteristic of the State is the existence of a special class with power concentrated in its own hands.” [12] In any country, as long as there exists class antagonism, or hostile forces and class struggle in a certain scope, the country cannot be a state of the people than transcends all class.

One of the negative consequences of Khrushchev’s “State of the People” and “Party of the People” theory was that it led the large population of party cadres and the people to the mistaken thoughts that anti-Communist forces, anti-socialist forces, or class struggles in Soviet Union no longer existed, leading to a loss of vigilance against the restoration of capitalism.

Although Khrushchev, in complete negation of Stalin in politics, once attempted economic policy adjustments conducive to the development of productivity, he completely copied from past approaches on specific practices, regardless of the objective laws of economic development. For example, despite the reality at the end of World War II, he still insisted on the priority of developing heavy industries, especially the military industry, at the expense of agriculture and light industries’ development. Instead of making timely and effective reforms of the highly centralized planned economic system, he further strengthened the already rigid structure, resulting in low productivity and alarming waste, seriously affecting people’s lives.

In 1961, Khrushchev announced at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU: the Soviet Union has entered “the period of building communism in full swing,” and plans to “basically complete building communism within 20 years.” Khrushchev’s version of “communism” was not a Marxist scientific idea, but a complete divorce from the situation at the time of the Soviet Union. Until Khrushchev stepped down, his so-called “communism” was still an elusive mirage.

When Brezhnev came to power, he patched up some of Khrushchev’s erroneous theories and practices.

In June 1967, the CPSU’s Central Committee passed “The Outline of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution,” which stressed that the “State of the People” still had a class character and would “continue the cause of the Proletarian Dictatorship.”

At the same time, Brezhnev also made a patch on the “Party of the People” theory.

In February 1976, Brezhnev stressed at the 25th Congress of the CPSU, “Under the conditions of developed socialism, when the Communist Party has become a Party of the People, it by no means loses its class character. By its very nature, the CPSU was and is a political party for the working class. “[13]

On issues of the basic theories of building socialism, Brezhnev adjusted Khrushchev’s “communism” to “Developed Socialism,” but he still clung tenaciously to the individual specific conclusions of Marxism-Leninism instead of approaching from reality. On major theories of socialist development in stages, and the socialist commodity economy, he was still sticking to a rigid ideology, and sticking to wartime’s highly centralized political and economic systems. In the Brezhnev period, the Soviet’s military power achieved equal status with the United States. Accordingly, Brezhnev proposed his foreign policy, the “Brezhnev Doctrine.” Although this doctrine has factors of resisting the U.S. domination over the world, more of it was to fight against the U.S. hegemony, implement great-nation chauvinism and a big party doctrine, and rudely interfere with other countries’ internal affairs with armed intervention. This was also contrary to and even betrayed the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism.

In the 1960s, the capitalist world’s electronic, information, biological, and other science and technologies had made great progress, but the Soviet Union was lacking timely knowledge of the world’s scientific and technological revolution. Without enough emphasis, the responses were weak. This is also a very important reason that caused the gradual stagnation of the Soviet economy.

As a result of the erroneous basic theories and guiding principles, the resulting negative phenomena in political and economic life grew. The Soviet Union’s National Income annual growth rate dropped from 5.8% for the 1971-1975 period to 1.6% in 1985. In order to better adapt to the emergence of the new international and domestic situation, it was imperative to carry out decisive reform of the highly centralized economic management system that had once played a very important role in Stalin’s era, although the incumbents, including Stalin’s successors, remained stuck to it. However, the goal of reform must be, under the premise of upholding the basic system of socialism, constantly improving and perfecting the social and political system, constantly improving the CPSU’s governance, and strengthening its ruling position, thereby constantly improving the socialist Soviet Union’s comprehensive national power, and the livelihood of the overwhelming majority of the people. If the ruling Communist Party could adhere to Marxist-Leninist theory and path, timely and correctly solve the accumulated problems and conflicts, and correct the mistakes with courage, it would have been possible to pull the Soviet Union and the Communist Party out of danger, and to continue to push the socialist cause forward.

In 1985 when Gorbachev became the General Secretary, he proposed tasks to expedite socio-economic development. Because of massive spending, including a large number of investments in the machinery manufacturing industry, the period of 1986-1988 saw modest economic growth. But in 1988, the agricultural sector began to slow down, followed by a decline in industrial production. In the face of difficulties and problems in the reform, Gorbachev did not look for reasons within his own policy failure to improve measures and deepen reform, but blamed the political system, pointing a finger at the guiding position of the Communist Party, Marxism and the socialist system. In 1988 the 19th Congress of the CPSU decided to start fundamental political system changes with reform of the CPSU as the core content. In reality it was a subversion of the Soviet Union’s socialist political system. Gorbachev’s departure from the basic theories of Marxism was even further away than Khrushchev’s.

In accordance with the views of historical materialism, we must not simply attribute Gorbachev’s behavior to individual sins. In a certain sense, this was a product of the time, a product of a specific class, or even a product of the will of a particular class. It was also a manifestation of Gorbachev’s theoretical knowledge and political belief.

During the evolution of his worldview, Gorbachev gradually came to accept a set of bourgeois ideas, which led him to the side of capitalism, the betrayal of Marxism, and the betrayal of socialism and communism.

Gorbachev, who once was able to quote Lenin’s work in paragraphs and was a so-called expert on Marxist-Leninist theory, made the following comments on Marxism after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the CPSU. He said, “Communism is a utopian social reform theory. In other words, it is a slogan almost impossible to realize.” He added, “In essence, not a single one of the specific economic conclusions with which Marx was to establish his mansion of ‘scientific socialist’ view of the world has proved to be true in practice.” [14]

In November 1987, Gorbachev officially published his new book, Reform and New Thinking. The book used “new ideas” such as “openness,” “democratization,” “diversification,” and “human values above all” to replace a series of basic principles of Marxism. In June 1988, at the 19th National Conference of the CPSU, he, for the first time, clearly stated that the goal of reform is to establish a “humane and democratic socialist” society, fundamentally different from the current socialism (which he called “authoritarian socialism”). This theory is the theoretical basis for “democratization,” “openness,” “diversification,” and “human values above all.” [15]

What exactly is his “humane, democratic socialist” theory?

To reform the party’s guiding ideology according to the “humane, democratic socialist” theory is to use the old theories of western social democratic parties to replace the party’s Marxist theoretical basis. In June 1988, at the 19th National Conference of the CPSU, Gorbachev fully endorsed Khrushchev’s “State of the People” theory. In February 1990, the CPSU’s Central Committee plenary session, in its “Draft Program of Action” presented to the 28th Congress of the CPSU, further emphasized, “The rule of law in a State of the People excludes the dictatorship of any class,” which essentially refers specifically to “excluding” the Proletarian Dictatorship.

On July 2, 1990, at the 28th Congress of the CPSU, Gorbachev said, in his political report, to consider “the limitations of all theories,” which essentially asked to consider the “limitations” of Marxism-Leninism. On July 25, 1991, Gorbachev stressed at the CPSU’s Central Committee plenary session, “In the past, the party recognized only Marxism-Leninism as a source of his inspiration.” “Now, we must let our thought milieu include the wealth of foreign socialist ideology and democratic ideas.” To put it bluntly, the essence of these statements is to use the ideas of western social democratic parties as the guiding ideology.

To reform the party with the “humane, democratic socialist” theory is to eventually abolish the party’s ruling position. This is just what Gorbachev said in his memoirs. The core of the reform can be summarized as “to transfer power from the monopoly of the Communist Party’s hands to the hands of the people who are entitled to enjoy it according to the Constitution.” [16] In essence, Gorbachev was following the western bourgeois models such as democracy, and the multiparty and parliamentary system of separation of powers to transform the socialist political system. It is to make the CPSU give up its ruling status and become a parliamentary party like the social democratic party with a bourgeois nature, and to make the party’s role limited to the organization of legislative and presidential elections. It essentially abandoned Marxism’s founding principles of political parties.

To reform the social system with “humane, democratic socialist” theory is to transform socialism into capitalism. Gorbachev repeatedly stressed that the socialist system is an authoritarian and arbitrary system. The goal of his reform was to eliminate the monopoly of power and overcome alienation. His specific means was to abolish the Communist Party’s leadership, establish a multi-party system, and, at the same time, implement privatization, and completely abandon the socialist system so as to achieve the purpose of full restoration of a capitalist political, economic and cultural system.

In the so-called process of reforming the Soviet Union, Gorbachev continuously enriched and improved the “humane, democratic socialist” theory.

In 1987, he proposed that the party should not “interfere with Soviet affairs.” Shortly thereafter, he openly abandoned the party’s leadership, and proposed the slogan of “returning power to the Soviets.”

Later, Gorbachev said in his memoir Life and Reform, “If you try to succinctly sum up the idea of political reform, then the thinking and implementation can be summarized as to transfer power from the monopoly of the Communist Party’s hands to the hands of the people who are entitled to enjoy it through the Constitution, or to the hands of Soviets comprised of freely elected representatives.”[17]

In 1917, between September and October, the Bolshevik party once put forward the slogan “All Power to the Soviets.” This is because, when the Soviets of two cities of Petrograd and Moscow had all been transferred to the hands of the Bolsheviks, the slogan was for the Bolshevik Party to seize and establish the national government belonging to the working class and the people. Even before that, when the Social Revolutionary Party and the Mensheviks controlled the Soviets, Lenin decided temporarily not to support the “All Power to the Soviets” slogan. So the key is who is leading the Soviets. Eighty years later, Gorbachev’s repeating this slogan is to completely copy the Western political system of capitalism, to introduce a multi-party system, and essentially to abolish the CPSU’s ruling position.

On May 25, 1989, the First Soviet People’s Congress convened. According to Gorbachev’s reform program, a large number of political opponents inside and outside the CPSU, represented by Yeltsin, were elected as representatives of the Soviet people. On June 9, 1989, dissident Sakharov proposed a motion for the abolition of article VI of Soviet Constitution regarding the protection of the provisions of the CPSU’s ruling status. At this meeting, the party’s agenda was modified, the party’s guiding principles were comprehensively attacked, the party’s central leaders were questioned and censured, and the Soviet Communist’s leading position was under public threat.

The socio-economic base determines the social superstructure. The superstructure of a certain society also affects the economic base and economic life. Gorbachev’s reform of the CPSU’s central agencies, under the “slogans” of “dividing the party and government functions,” “giving power back to the Soviets,” and “amending the Constitution,” gradually eroded and eliminated the CPSU’s leading position and role. Gorbachev’s democratization, openness, political pluralism, and multiparty system cultivated a strong anti-Communist and anti-socialist political opposition. Gorbachev’s so-called “nine-plus-one” agreement undermined the Constitution of the Soviet Union, and led to the passages and practices of the republics’ Declarations of Independence or Declarations of Sovereignty. They waged fierce sovereignty, legal, and economic wars with the center, causing outbreaks of ethnic conflicts. The rapid social upheaval brought about the first negative growth in 1990 in the Soviet Union’s post-war economy. The state’s fiscal situation deteriorated; internal and external debts and foreign trade deficits reached record levels; the imbalance of market supply and demand intensified; there were shortages of 1,150 out of more than 1,200 major consumer goods; and even bread, salt, and matches were out of stock. In 1991, the Soviet Union’s economy further deteriorated. During 1989-1991, the Soviet Union’s annual economic growth rate was 9.6% (western statistics showed 7.7%), which reached 13% in 1991. [18] The inflation rate was even in three digits. In 1985, when Gorbachev came to power, the external debt was 10.5 billion U.S. dollars, while in 1991, when he stepped down, the external debt was five times that amount, reaching more than 52 billion U.S. dollars. Soviet people’s living standards sharply deteriorated; comprehensive national power significantly weakened; and economic ties with other nations also lost their value. One can safely say that the late Gorbachev period is a period of the Soviet Union’s worst and most difficult economic recession. It is also a period when the party’s prestige almost fell to the freezing point. If the economic factor is the direct cause of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, then the theory and practice of Gorbachev’s reform has a fundamental and inescapable responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the Soviet Union’s economy.

On the one hand, Gorbachev denied the successful experiences of the Soviet Union’s decades of efforts to develop socialism; on the other hand, he took the Western economic theory as his so-called “Bible” of reform. Under a very serious situation, Gorbachev not only didn’t wake up; he decided to accelerate non-nationalization reform, or privatization reform, in accordance with the neo-liberal theory.

In April 1991, liberal economist Yavlinsky and professors at Harvard University developed the Soviet Union’s economic reform program, which was called the “Harvard Plan.” The basic idea was this: with the West’s assistance, to carry out radical economic reform, and to establish a market economy and a Western democratic political system based on private ownership.

In fact, this is a copy of the so-called “neo-liberalism” promoted starting in the 1980s. It emphasizes a completely free market mechanism, opposes state control, and advocates private ownership against public ownership. The “Harvard plan,” completely ignored the actual situation in the Soviet Union, attempted 500 days of “shock therapy,” and quickly turned the Soviet Union into a Western free-market economic system. The “Harvard Plan,” full of neo-liberalism color, was Gorbachev’s special favor. With Gorbachev’s promotion efforts, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union passed the Privatization Act in July 1991. In a letter Gorbachev wrote to the leaders of seven Western countries, he said that, in the first two years, the Soviet Union would sell 80% of the small and medium sized enterprises to private parties, and that in the second step, large-scale enterprises would be privately operated. The economic base determines the superstructure. With the rapid evolution in the ownership arena toward the direction of privatization, confusion in ideological and theoretical realms was further exacerbated.

In his mind, Lenin once laid out such a formula for socialism: the Soviet regime + Prussia’s railway management system + U.S. technology and trust organizations+ U. S. national education + and so forth = socialism. In this formula, the “Soviet regime” is the essential prerequisite and fundamental guarantee, which determines the state and society’s fundamental nature and direction of development. Several decades later, Gorbachev only chose the latter several options, while abandoning the first that determines the direction and the nature. The end result is that the Soviet Union’s socialism completely changed its nature.

In this way, individuals from Khrushchev to Gorbachev slowly distorted, castrated, falsified, and betrayed the correct theoretical foundation laid by Lenin for the CPSU.

It should be especially noted that Gorbachev’s fundamentally replacing Marxism-Leninism and socialism under the banner of “humane, democratic socialism” is more deceptive, and therefore more dangerous than Yeltsin’s undisguised advocacy of capitalism.

If the foundation is not strong, the earth moves and the mountain shakes. Having lost the theoretical basis of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union’s collapse was inevitable.

[1] The Complete Works of Lenin, Chinese version second edition, Volume 34, page 155.
[2] The Complete Works of Lenin, Chinese version second edition, Volume 34, page 281.
[3] The Complete Works of Lenin, Chinese version second edition, Volume 41, page 208.
[4] The Complete Works of Lenin, second edition, page 175.
[5] Refer to [Russian] IU. V Emelianov, The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life, Yilin Publishing House, 2006 edition, page 488-489, 534.
[6] Selected Works of Stalin, Volume 1, People’s Publishing House, 1979 edition, page 274.
[7] Selected Works of Stalin, Volume 1, People’s Publishing House, 1979 edition, page 274.
[8] Selected Works of Stalin, Volume 2, page 78.
[9] Selected Works of Stalin, Volume 2, page 598.
[10] Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, Summary Report of the CPSU Central Committee Presented to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, see Main Documents of 22nd Congress of the CPSU, People’s Publishing House, 1961 edition, page 30.
[11] Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, Summary Report of the CPSU Central Committee Presented to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, see Main Documents of 22nd Congress of the CPSU, People’s Publishing House, 1961 edition, page 33, 31.
[12] The Complete Works of Lenin, second edition, Volume 1, page 397.
[13] Brezhnev, Final Report of the CPSU Central Committee and the Party’s Current Domestic and Foreign Policies and Tasks, carried by Main Documents Compilation of 25th Congress of the CPSU, Joint Publishing, 1977 edition, page 86.
[14] [Russian] Gorbachev, [Japanese] Daisaku Ikeda, Moral Lesson of the Twentieth Century, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2005 edition, page 384.
[15] [Russian] Gorbachev, About Implementation of the Resolution of the 27th Congress of the CPSU and Tasks of Deepening the Reforms – Report at the 19th National Conference of the CPSU, Moscow, 1988 edition, page 115.
[16] Gorbachev’s Memoirs, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2003 edition, page 506.
[17] [Russian] Gorbachev, Gorbachev’s Memoirs, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2003 edition, page 506.
[18] [American] David Kotz, Fred Weir, Revolution from Above: The Demise of the Soviet System, China Remin University Press, 2002 edition, page 102, 118.