a negative influence on the moral-political condition of the Party, created a situation of uncertainty, contributed to the spreading of unhealthy suspicion, and sowed distrust
Nikita K. Boyd!
Dave Schuler:
February 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
I think it bears mentioning that real reform couldn’t take hold in the Soviet Union until the old Revolutionaries (of which Khrushchev was one) had completely lost influence and passed from the scene.
One may point to the failed Afghan campaign or a failed system or pressure from the successes of the U. S. economy (or even the Beatles as some have) but IMO the most significant factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union was generational change. It had to wait until the old Revolutionaries were replaced by bureaucrats who’d never had the old revolutionary vision.
This is similar to what’s been seen over the last 20 years in China and it has relevance to the situation in Iran as well. I don’t believe that we can expect a liberal democratic revolution in Iran while the revolutionaries of 1979 are still around.
That will be another 30 years at least and I’m afraid that’s time we don’t have.
mark:
February 28th, 2006 at 2:32 am
Yes, there is a Boydian lesson there Dan. Khrushchev was much abused in retrospect but his regime represented the apex of Soviet prestige, if not military power.
Hi Dave,
Generally, I agree with your sentiments here on the USSR and Iran analogy but I have to quibble about the generations per se.
Khrushchev ousted the Stalinist Old bolsheviks who qualified as ” revolutionaries” ( Molotov, Kaganovich, Beria, Bulganin, Malenkov). Brezhnev and Kosygin were even younger – the cadres brought up in a hurry to middle-management by Stalin to replace those he purged 1927 -1949. Sort of the they equivalent of the American 1950’s ” organization man”. They became Neo-stalinists in the 1980’s
The generation of Communists influenced by Khrushchev – Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Shatalin etc. launched the reforms.
Anonymous:
February 28th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
It’s great to be observing the fiftieth anniversary of the Khrushchev speech, but I think that the enthusiasm has exceeded the history.
Gorbachev’s actions, which may be seen in the same light as Khrushchev’s speech, took place over 30 years later. They were almost de novo. We’ll have to wait for Gorbachev’s complete memoirs to know to what degree he was inspired by Khrushchev.
This is something I’d like to know, along with a lot of other things about what Gorbachev was thinking as he took(and refused to take) various actions.
The two had many similarities as leaders: both were committed to improving Communism and were rejected by the hard-liners. They were willing to take risks for what they believed. Both produced results that were quite different from what they expected.
One of the big differences was the 30 years of no economic progress, and even backsliding between the two, along with the disillusionment of more and more citizens of the Soviet Union.
Dan tdaxp:
February 27th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
a negative influence on the moral-political condition of the Party, created a situation of uncertainty, contributed to the spreading of unhealthy suspicion, and sowed distrust
Nikita K. Boyd!
Dave Schuler:
February 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
I think it bears mentioning that real reform couldn’t take hold in the Soviet Union until the old Revolutionaries (of which Khrushchev was one) had completely lost influence and passed from the scene.
One may point to the failed Afghan campaign or a failed system or pressure from the successes of the U. S. economy (or even the Beatles as some have) but IMO the most significant factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union was generational change. It had to wait until the old Revolutionaries were replaced by bureaucrats who’d never had the old revolutionary vision.
This is similar to what’s been seen over the last 20 years in China and it has relevance to the situation in Iran as well. I don’t believe that we can expect a liberal democratic revolution in Iran while the revolutionaries of 1979 are still around.
That will be another 30 years at least and I’m afraid that’s time we don’t have.
mark:
February 28th, 2006 at 2:32 am
Yes, there is a Boydian lesson there Dan. Khrushchev was much abused in retrospect but his regime represented the apex of Soviet prestige, if not military power.
Hi Dave,
Generally, I agree with your sentiments here on the USSR and Iran analogy but I have to quibble about the generations per se.
Khrushchev ousted the Stalinist Old bolsheviks who qualified as ” revolutionaries” ( Molotov, Kaganovich, Beria, Bulganin, Malenkov). Brezhnev and Kosygin were even younger – the cadres brought up in a hurry to middle-management by Stalin to replace those he purged 1927 -1949. Sort of the they equivalent of the American 1950’s ” organization man”. They became Neo-stalinists in the 1980’s
The generation of Communists influenced by Khrushchev – Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Shatalin etc. launched the reforms.
Anonymous:
February 28th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
It’s great to be observing the fiftieth anniversary of the Khrushchev speech, but I think that the enthusiasm has exceeded the history.
Gorbachev’s actions, which may be seen in the same light as Khrushchev’s speech, took place over 30 years later. They were almost de novo. We’ll have to wait for Gorbachev’s complete memoirs to know to what degree he was inspired by Khrushchev.
This is something I’d like to know, along with a lot of other things about what Gorbachev was thinking as he took(and refused to take) various actions.
The two had many similarities as leaders: both were committed to improving Communism and were rejected by the hard-liners. They were willing to take risks for what they believed. Both produced results that were quite different from what they expected.
One of the big differences was the 30 years of no economic progress, and even backsliding between the two, along with the disillusionment of more and more citizens of the Soviet Union.
CKR