• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
15.02.2010

“SYSTEM” COLLAPSE: SOME CAUSES AND EFFECTS

   

Gagik Harutyunyan

More than 20 years have passed since the day (November 9, 1989) when the GDR patrols guarding the symbol of the Cold war – “Berlin Wall”, left their posts and Germany unified de-facto. The splinters of the collapsed “wall” turned into the hot selling souvenirs and thus they remained symbols but this time the symbols of the new age. Two years later the power which name was the USSR and “socialist bloc” stopped existing.

All that was qualified as the “end of the Cold War”, “victory of democracy” but such formulations as “geopolitical tragedy” or “civilizational collapse” can also be met. However, the Berlin Wall fall ushered in a new era, which essentially differs from the previous one and sometimes is called “post-modernity”. It is not a mere chance that the international community celebrated the 20th anniversary with a great pomp: official events were arranged and in mass media and political scientific circles wide discussions were held. Meanwhile in our information space there were not too many references to that issue.

Armenian realities. 20 years ago our “Berlin Wall” lay across Lachin and the uniting and relative restoration of the territorial integrity as a result of war took place only in 1994 when the armistice was concluded. In the Armenian society the ideas which had mainly national and historical roots dominated. This added a definite peculiarity to the ongoing social and political developments, which, nevertheless, conformed with the logic of the “socialist system” destruction and the creation of the new world order. Meanwhile, that and subsequent periods, despite separate attempts, have not been studied fully. Partially, it is a consequent of the fact that Armenia, transforming into the Third republic, drop out of the imperial civilizational and cultural space which had to bring to its inevitable isolation and marked narrowing of the horizons of the society in general. Consequently, today the phenomena out of our local conceptions are not always estimated adequately and sometimes they are not apprehended at all.

Particularly, the system changes of the 90s of the last century are a little naïvely qualified as the “winning of independence” and some researchers suppose that in the USSR Armenia was a colony. Such an approach is the legacy of the unpretentious Soviet social science concepts based on the methodology of the permanent criticism of the British colonialism (and later on the criticism of the so called neo-capitalism) by the Soviet propaganda.

The successor of the Russian Empire – the Soviet Union, together with all its advantages and disadvantages, was a unique phenomenon and in fact it was a big geo-ideological project. In the context of these realities the comparisons with other imperial constructions are not always suitable, and the point is not only the Eurasian – continental nature of the Soviet empire. The status, real rights and the duties of all the peoples of the USSR (including Russians) and their administrative formations practically did not differ from one another. The same can be said about the “socialist bloc” countries which were included in the parent state: in those so-called “vassal” countries as for the freedoms everything was going on much better. And some people (especially those in the Asian part of the USSR) due to such a system acquired writing language, literature and modern culture; the universities, branches of the Academy of Sciences, operas and philharmonic orchestras were established in the autonomous republics and districts and that played a key role in their development.

As for Armenia, it should be mentioned that despite serious trials which had fallen to its lot, as well as to the lots of other peoples of the USSR (repressions, ignoring and falsifying of the national and historical issues and etc), the Soviet years had also been an important phase for us from the point of view of scientific and technological and spiritual and cultural development.

The list of the false notions about the Soviet past can be continued, but let us mention that they are not always the legacy of the Soviet past, in the sphere of humanities of which the officious stereotypes prevailed: today the tendencies of manipulating of the national memory which indicate the usage of the contemporary technologies from the sphere of information – ontological wars and nation building – are distinctly noticeable.

As a result, you can meet in the mass media mainly “tragic” or “ironical” materials relating to the Soviet period, as well as the calls to pull out of the “jaws of past”. The form, spirit and “black-and-white” approaches which can be seen in those materials, interestingly resembles the criticized Bolshevik “agitprop”. Due to the politicized nature and personalization the movement of the “Perestroika” period, Armenian-Azerbaijani war and the current period of the development of the RA and NKR are not studied well enough either.

At the same time today the attempts are made to analyze our new history more complexly: the separate interesting memories and researches are published. But because of the small number of copies of such a literature and the absence of the appropriate PR (which is binding today) and the partial loss of the “books culture” and reading in general, those studies are faintly reflected on the information space and are not stamped on the consciousness of the society, particularly, youth.

The considerations brought do not imply the creation of “The Short Course of the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks” in the Stalin style, where the unambiguous appraisal to the recent past is given. The approaches can be different and even mutually exclusive, but realizing the continuity of your own history is one of the corner stones of the national and information security and national ideology. However, let us get back to the “Berlin Wall”.

Many versions of the “wall” fall can be met in the mass media and expert literature for the recent 20 years. Most of them are extremely interesting, but they only allow once more stating the fact that such a global phenomenon as the collapse of the “socialist bloc” could not happen only because of one or even several factors.

“External factor”. The main “external” cause for the “system” collapse was, of course, the coordinated and consistent military and political (the creation of the “black holes” consuming the resources of the Soviets in Latin America, Africa, Afghanistan and other “flashpoints”), economic (suffice to remember the exhausting “armament drive” and “star wars”, manipulations with the oil prices), information and psychological (particularly, in the form of radio broadcastings in which rather skillfully the irreproachable “image” of the West and the gloomy reality of the “socialist bloc” were created, through dissemination of “dissident” literature and etc.) struggle of the US and its allies in the Cold War against the USSR and “socialist bloc”, which was ended with the defeat of the latter. At the same time in some historiographical circles the collapse of the system is very often interpreted as the result of the activity of the western special services and political and economic “agents of influence” enlisted by them. Let us mention that many improper actions in post-Soviet period are also imputed to those “agents of influence”.

It follows from those often affirmed documented observations that the special services played a really important role in the “collapse”. There are evidences that not only simple citizens but also some representatives of the high-ranked Soviet leadership acted against the USSR and in the interests of the US. Particularly, the so-called “Golden donkey”1 technology, which implied bribing and the appropriate orientation of the political figures, was efficiently used. It can be supposed that the aforementioned methods of the external influence were, of course, on much smaller scale, used then in “Armenian developments”, and it is not excluded that such a method is used today too.

In the context of all the aforementioned, the public statements of the western figures that the processes of those years were “surprise” for them sound very unconvincing: at the meetings without the representatives of the mass media they express quite different ideas. For example, in 1995 the US president Bill Clinton at the closed conference of the chiefs of staff stated that the policy carried out for the recent decade in regard to the USSR had proved that the pursued course of destroying one of the strongest world powers was right … Taking advantage of the mistakes of the Soviet diplomacy, unwarranted self-confidence of Gorbachev and his surroundings, including those who had taken obviously pro-American stance they achieved what the US president Truman wanted to do by means of the atomic bomb [1].

At the same time it should be accepted that the US and its allies acted in their national interests and accusations against the West might be understood from the emotional point of view but they are not convincing at all: the “outlined enemy” acted in a spirit of the Cold War and used the methods accepted in that war. It is also very important that those actions resonated with the Soviet society. A part of the so-called “agents of influence” acted on the assumption of “ideological considerations” and sincerely believed that the existing system had to be changed by all means because it would do it good. But at the same time the ideas of “motherland” and “undesirable political system” were leveled as it had happened with the Russian social-democrats on the eve of the October revolution in 1917 with all the ensuing consequences. Thus there were also obvious “internal” preconditions for the system collapse.

“Internal factor”. The Soviet system was created as a result of the revolutionary violence and the “terror” against its own people on different motives or without any had lasted for about 36 years (1917-1953), till the death of Stalin. According to the data of the “Commission on rehabilitation of the victims of political repressions” under the president of the RF, the number of those victims was about 32 million people among which 13 million – the victims of the Civil war, and a part of a big number of the victims of the Great Patriotic War (30 million) can be explained by the “peculiarities” of the totalitarian regime2. Not only “human resource” or “human capital” became the victim of the terror; the huge strata of the spiritual and intellectual and cultural as well as material values created for centuries in the multi-national Russian Empire was destroyed.

It is known that in post-Stalin period the “system” just became softer and “national” and “human” factors still had not been of special value. The “perestroika” allowed the whole Soviet society as well as the population of the republics which had national problems to express the protest which had been accumulated for decades. The policy of “perestroika”, which was carried out by the high-ranking functionaries or at least by its part, had also been a kind of form of dissatisfaction with the system.

That very dissatisfaction and the formation of the critical mass of those who were protesting against the “system”, resonating with the “external” influence on the recipes of the Cold War, destroyed the “socialist bloc”. Let us also mention that the collapse took place when the information revolution began: under the new realities it was impossible to imagine the isolated systems, i.e. the USSR, which covered 1/6 of the planet. It should not also be excluded that had the “system” preserved till the Internet age, the scenario of the collapse would have passed in a softer mode, because the “protesting mass” would have not an abstract but more realistic ideas of the surrounding world.

Society out of the system. It is known that even in “not free” states the creative communities find the forms for self-expression. In our case this was contributed by the fact that the idea of creation of strong Soviet power and allotting importance to the ideological factor dictated to the communist leadership the creation of integral, developed and large-scale military-industrial, scientific-educational and cultural complexes. In consequence, the USSR (and later its allies too3) turned into a country with highly developed science, technologies and culture on the basis of which new, Soviet intelligentsia – the bearer of deep knowledge and spiritual values – had been formed. Taking advantage of Khrushchev’s “thaw” and partial reforms that creative elite seemed, at some extend, to take a role of spiritual leader of the Soviet people.

For the considerable part of the society the words of the authoritative scientists and writers, good books and films were much more important than the speeches of the party leaders or the theses of the congresses. A special value was acquired by “dissident”4 and national movements: many, despite the repressions, disseminated and read the so-called “samizdat” (self-published books) or “tamizdat” (foreign-published books). It is remarkable that the formerly damnable system of values and its bearer – the hero of many anecdotes Soviet human (homo soveticus), unlike today's homo economicus, has rather high rating. Particularly, both in Armenia and in Russia today some clergymen are assured that the citizens of the atheist USSR very often stand much closer to the true Christian values and ideas than those who live amid current “freedom of conscious and religion” and follow the religious rites. In this context one may say that following the “perestroika” slogan taken from A. Chekhov “to wring a slave from yourself”, the post-Soviet society “wringed from itself” some rather precious qualities too.

But at the same time the political perception of the “protesting” part of the Soviet society was more than naïve and the idealized “free world” imagined the only alternative to the communist regime and even the slightest distrust towards the “West” was interpreted as a manifestation of official propaganda or, at least, as a delusion. The understanding that the western model is also a kind of system and not less tough one came later. It is characteristic that openly it was accepted by only a small part of Soviet “dissidents”: most probably for many of them such an acceptance implied the revision and reconsideration of their own views which were not possible from psychological point of view5.

Effects and possible prospects. The collapse of the USSR and the “socialist bloc” took place in the form of classical revolution with all the ensuing negative consequences: ethnic conflicts, refugees and waifs, crime wave, the collapse of the management system, the slump of economy and scale of living (it is suffice to mention that even till now the GDP of not all the post-Soviet republics reached its Soviet period level), the destruction of scientific-industrial and cultural infrastructure (specifically in Armenia the sphere of science is financed 30 times less than it was 20 years ago), impoverishment and, which is most important, the demoralization of the society. As for the political aspect it turned out that the geopolitical confrontation was still going on and after the First Cold War very soon the Second Cold War has come, which is more sophisticated and dangerous in many aspects [2].

One can state that the “perestroika” which was arranged as a kind of Soviet spirit event was one of the gravest crimes committed by the communist high-ranking functionaries. Of course, the reforms could have been carried out more deliberately in order not to lose the “human capital”, huge spiritual, intellectual and material values and potential, which had been accumulated by the Soviet power for decades. It is known that Armenia did not avoid it either.

At the same time the fall of the “socialism” had its definite negative effect on the victorious “free world”. It would be difficult to quarrel with the statements of the Western researchers (including well-known Immanuel Wallerstein) according to which the absence of the competition of the systems in the post-Soviet realities in some sense demoralized the West and brought to the “post-modernist” permissiveness.

It is remarkable that in the modern almost global “democratic” but at the same time to so “free” world the new “dissident” movement is being formed. Very often the modern dissidents are the representatives of intelligentsia who take rather high position in the society (like A. Sakharov or Al. Zinovyev used to be) and even state or political figures. It is interesting that in the political and ideological planes, though in a new edition, socialist postulates has been activated again. These all can be called the convergence6 processes in “post-modern” style, when under the absence of the real “socialist system” the interaction goes on the ideological level. All these come to prove that the “system collapse” phenomena can repeat later and this time it will be on more global scale.

Literature:

  1. В.Л. Ченгаев, С.В.Баленко, Условия возникновения вооруженных конфликтов в 21-м веке на территории РФ и возможный их характер в период обострения военно-политической обстановки, «Военная мысль», #9, с. 2, 2009
  2. Г. Тер – Арутюнянц, Холодная война – 2, Голос Армении, 04.12.2003, Г. Тер – Арутюнянц, Многополярная и асимметричная Холодная война, Вестник Академии Военных наук, #4(21), с.23. 2007

1This expression is ascribed to Philip of Macedon who on one occasion said that to capture the city one should send not the soldiers but “donkeys loaded with gold”, in order to “buy” the enemy. Such a technology which is called in the expert and journalist circles “Golden donkey” and which exists during the whole history of humanity, today has “legitimized and essentially improved (particularly taking into consideration a great number of “grant” programmes ad possibilities of the modern banking system). It takes important and legitimated place not only in the concepts of the special services but also in military and political, diplomatic and information spheres of some powers.

2Look http://www.lenta.ru/russia/2001/10/29/yakovlev/. Let us mention that from the conclusions of the commission follows that he number of the victims is not full.

3The fact that some countries of the “socialist bloc” despite the economic lag excel their “developed capitalist” neighbours on their social and health and number of other criteria can be regarded as a reflection of those realities.

4It is remarkable that according to the versions of Russian political scientists Sergei Kurginyan and Alexander Dugin the “dissident” movement in the USSR was managed by the KGB, because the Committee was not satisfied by the “system” (Al. Dugin qualified KGB as an “Atlantic order” in the USSR). It is known that in the world practice the collaboration between special services and anti-state organizations is not an extraordinary phenomenon. Besides, the special services, as a rule, are much better aware of the situation in the country and from this point of view KGB should have forecast back in 70s that the “system” is regenerating and losing to the West. This, as well as a definite collaboration between the elite of the “dissident movement” and the higher echelons of KGB does not sound as something fantastic. But of course it is exaggeration to think that the dissident movement was managed by KGB and it was the main reason of the collapse of the USSR as S. Kurginyan and Al. Dugin believe.

5Among them special place takes Professor Alexander Zinovyev (1922-2006) who was expelled from the USSR for his “Yawning Heights” book in 1978. Returning to “new” Russia he publicly criticized the disadvantages of the “western system” and published fundamental scientific works devoted to that problem.

6According to the convergence theory which appeared in the 60s (John Galbraith, Pitirim Sorokin and others) a kind of conceptual convergence, counter motion between the socialist and liberal systems is taking place. As a result in the US the system of governmental planning developed and in the USSR – the approach of gaining profit from economic activity.


Return
Another materials of author