Soviet Union: The Collapse of the Soviet Union: Different Interpretations

Four Type of Conceptions: Objectivist, Subjectivist, Moralist and Historicist

May,2017

Author, Prof. Lu Kun (1972-), is a lecturer at the School of Philosophy and Social Development and the Center for Life Philosophy Research of Huaqiao University. He mainly engages in research on Marxist philosophy

      Summary

Since the 1990s, there have been a variety of theoretical interpretations of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, reflecting the various forces’ plots in the reconstruction of the global . According to epistemological logic, various cognitive concepts about “disintegration” can be classified into objectivism, subjectivism, moralism and historicism. From the perspective of ideology type, the interpretation of “disintegration” has become a purposeful expression of different ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism, Western Marxism, Western liberalism, the Russian Communist Party and among Gorbachev supporters in Russia. The Chinese interpretation of the disintegration of the Soviet Union expresses the strong desire of Chinese Marxists to revive the authority of mainstream Marxist theory and the belief in the legitimacy of ideology and strengthen the ruling power of Marxist ideology.

In the last decade of the 20th century, the Soviet socialist regime suddenly collapsed. Just like the October revolution and regime it launched at the beginning of the 20th century, it severely damaged and completely changed the previous political order and structure, political process and goals, political thinking and political spirit of the world. Although it has been nearly 25 years now, the actual consequences of the disintegration of the Soviet Union still strongly influence the current global political and social construction, and the theoretical struggle and reconstruction are still turbulent.

Part 1. Diversified Interpretations of “Disintegration”

Disputes and conflicts in the field of ideas stem from differences and drastic changes in real life. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has reconstructed the global political order and power , and the gradually established new political existence has stimulated contradictions and conflicts among multiple ideologies around the world. In the post-Soviet historical context, the theoretical interpretations of the disintegration of the Soviet Union are diverse, demonstrating the extraordinary power plotting and extension of the ideological politics of the global society.

1. The Objectivist Interpretation of the Soviet Union’s Disintegration

The objective interpretation route is based on the understanding of social situation and environment, social structure, development laws or trends, and constructs an explanatory model for the disintegration of the Soviet Union, confirming that “disintegration” is an objective result of social development. The subjective will or efforts of historical parties are subject to this objective process and are of no help in changing the overall logic of the evolution of events. It includes: economic failure theory, ethnic division theory, institutional model decline theory, international political crisis theory (peaceful evolution and hegemony theory), reform and national destruction theory, etc.

The theory of economic failure holds that the root cause of the disintegration of the Soviet Union lies in the failure or crisis of the Soviet Union’s economic infrastructure in the late period. The weak economic production system and sluggish economic indicators of the late Soviet society objectively support the view of the theory of economic failure. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, the main economic operating indicators of Soviet society were not the worst in history, and there is no conclusive evidence to show that the Soviet society had triggered a crisis of belief in the legitimacy of its own economic system at that time. In the view of C. Kara-Murza, “the backwardness of the Soviet economy and its exhaustion by the arms race are just ideological myths.”

The theory of empire and national separation argues that the actual inequality and oppression between nations have caused the long-term accumulation of national conflicts, and the sovereignty and autonomy of the republics were  difficult to implement. The union also had legal loopholes which led to disintegration. 

In the mid-to-late 1980s, with the evolution of the domestic political and social changes, the central authority declined, the nationalist separatist movement went from hidden to obvious, the national crisis broke out in full swing, and finally the union disintegrated. “There is no doubt that one of the most important reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union is the crisis in the relationship between the central government and the republics. It was caused by the long-term lack of federalism in the state structure.” The problem is that the national conflicts and central-local conflicts in the Soviet Union have long existed in a marginal and hidden way, and have never been highlighted as the main contradictions in the Soviet political society. The full outbreak of national crises and local separatist movements at the end of the reform period should be regarded as the manifestation and result of the impending disintegration of the Soviet Union, rather than the root cause.

The theory of the decline of the institutional model attributes the root cause of the “disintegration” to the decline of the Stalin model, rather than the subjective actions of individual elites.  

 Although the “Stalin model” still strongly dominated the development and construction of the Soviet economy and society. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet economy and social structure had shown new objective characteristics, but the Stalin model fell into trouble, with economic stagnation and political fatigue. However, Gorbachev’s reform rashly abandoned the Stalin model and led to total chaos and collapse. However, after Stalin, the Soviet Union had undergone many reforms, and the characteristics of internal and external political and economic development have long been different from those in the Stalin era. Were the various changes that occurred in the late Soviet Union years caused by the failure of the Stalin model or were they the result of being greatly revised and eliminated by later generations?

The peaceful evolution and hegemony theory interprets the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the logic of global political evolution and regards it as the outcome. 

 Western peaceful evolution undermined the spiritual foundation of the Soviet regime, the arms race destroyed the economic foundation of Soviet society, and the combination of internal and external forces eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The hegemony theory seeks to understand the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the system of global political contradictions, but skeptics are more willing to regard Western strategic oppression as a relatively minor external factor, emphasizing that the Soviet Union disintegrated on its own.

 The theory of the state’s demise due to reforms blames the collapse of the Soviet Union on Gorbachev’s reforms, and argues that Gorbachev’s reform line went astray and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Gorbachev’s failed reforms were the direct cause of the collapse of the USSR state, but the debate also arises from this: Was the reform bound to fail and lead to collapse? Was the reform bound to fail, but the collapse was accidental? Was the reform failure only accidental, but the collapse was inevitable? Was the reform failure only accidental, and the collapse was also accidental?

2. Subjectivist interpretation of the Soviet Union’s Collapse

The subjective line is based on the analysis of social spiritual culture and psychology, and explains the causes and significance of the collapse of the Soviet Union by appealing to the social subjective structural dimensions such as ideology, religious beliefs, national spirit, social and political psychology and personal psychological characteristics, including: theory of ideological failure, psychological theory (ambition theory, conspiracy theory, public opinion theory), civilization theory, etc.

The theory of ideological failure attributes the disintegration of the Soviet Union to the collapse of the Marxist guiding ideology of the Soviet Communist Party. 

The Soviet Communist Party’s ideology was rigid and conservative, unable to keep pace with the times, unable to deal with new problems and new contradictions, and even more unable to resist the invasion of Western ideology and values. The drastic changes in the Soviet Union were first of all a change of thought, which was the inevitable consequence of the dissolution of Marxism-Leninism.

It is puzzling that how could the liberal values ​​that were originally only marginal and believed in by a few heretics have moved rapidly to the center and became the mainstream ideology that dominates the social elite? Life determines consciousness. Perhaps, the Soviet rule in the middle and late periods originally had no ideology. “By the 1980s, ideology had no practical significance for most Soviet elites for a long time.”  Or perhaps, the foundation of Soviet social production and life at this time had already undergone a qualitative change and turned to the opposite.

The psychological theory focuses on political psychological analysis, attributing the collapse of the Soviet Union to the ambitions, conspiracies or character flaws of the Soviet political elites, or to the collective psychology of the Soviet masses. The conspiracy theory argues that former Soviet elites such as Gorbachev and Yeltsin deliberately manipulated the Soviet reform to go astray, gradually dissolving and depriving the Soviet leadership, and ultimately realizing the conspiracy to destroy the Soviet Union. The theory of public opinion argues that the Soviet people are dissatisfied with the privileges and corruption of the elite class, and the public’s political trust is generally low, and political beliefs are declining. The Gorbachev-style reforms have led the people’s years of resentment and political extremism to anti-Soviet and anti-socialist political values. The negative political collective consciousness is manipulated and used by radical democrats, and the Soviet Communist Party is deserted and collapsed.

The civilization theory appeals to the explanation of the Orthodox faith and the particularity of Russian national cultural consciousness, and argues that “the disintegration of the Soviet Union is the result of the crisis of civilization and world outlook.

“In the late 1950s, Russian traditional consciousness revived in social life. The traditional cultural spiritual and the gradually invading Western ideas were imprinted on the spiritual world of the “1960s generation”, stimulating the development of political heresy movements. 

The “Westernization” preference in the Russian national cultural character gained practical space in the late reform period, but the idealism of total Westernization and the practice of historical nihilism ultimately brought about the evil consequences of “disintegration.” The civilization theory is based on cultural and historical logic to explain “disintegration”, but the occurrence of culture itself needs to be explained in the objective structure of real life. Taking culture as the first cause of historical interpretation is always a confusing method.

3. The Moralist Interpretation of the Soviet Union’s Disintegration

The moralistic line appeals to moral ideology and political ethics analysis, attributing the root cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union to the betrayal of communism, the corruption and degeneration of the power-system, and other political and moral reasons, including: betrayal theory, alienation and degeneration theory, etc.

 The betrayal theory holds that the root cause of the disintegration of the Soviet Union lies in the betrayal of Marxism, communist beliefs and political paths.

 CPSU, the betrayal of the interests of the Soviet people, the echo of the Western strategy of peaceful evolution, and the ultimate burial of the CPSU and the Soviet regime. The betrayal theory places the historical responsibility for the “disintegration” on the political character of the ruling class. The question is, why would the masses willingly entrust the fate of themselves and their motherland to the betrayers? Stalin, Khrushchev and Gorbachev – who was the real traitor who destroyed the Soviet Union? Marxism should always be an ideological and political movement in the development of reality. After all, we still have to think about it in specific historical scenes: Why did those sworn CPSU elites not hesitate to become active gravediggers of socialism?

The alienation and degeneration theory focuses on the qualitative analysis of the alienation process between the Soviet socialist system and social life and argues that “the degeneration of the Communist Party was the fundamental reason for the disintegration “.

The Soviet regime has long been subject to the needs of personality cult and centralized politics, monopolization of power, interests and truth, ignoring democracy, freedom and legitimate interests of the masses. The system has been alienated and degenerated into a special interest tool of the bureaucratic privileged class, which has been spurned by the masses and led to the demise of the party and the country. Criticism of Soviet revisionism has a long history, but history is a movement of development. For more than 70 years, the Soviet regime has represented Marxism and socialist forces and has worked hard to create a new life form to fight against the ills of the Western capitalist system. For this living life creation, defects, problems and difficulties can both create the inevitability of its failure, but they might also be the internal carrier that promotes its success.

4. Historicist interpretation of the Soviet Union’s collapse

The historicist interpretation line constructs an interpretation including: historical nihilism, historical essentialism (original sin theory), historical universalism (end theory), historical phenomenology, etc.

The theory of historical nihilism attributes the disintegration of the Soviet Union to the long-term political manipulation of historical nihilism.

It argues that historical nihilism, not only at the social level, but also constantly infiltrating and intervening in the upper political power. By completely denying and vilifying the Soviet Union’ socialist history, it reversely reconstructed the historical memory and interpretation of society, and comprehensively eliminated or subverted the legitimacy of Soviet rule. When it intervened in political reform and rose to a form of state-level ruling consciousness, the self-destruction of the CPSU and the Soviet regime became a reality. Historical nihilism has indeed long disturbed the construction of Soviet political life, but why have everyone from Khrushchev to Gorbachev unscrupulously manipulated this ideological force to achieve their own power goals?

The original sin theory is based on the position of historical essentialism and argues that the disintegration of the Soviet Union originated from the “original sin” of the October Revolution. 

The original sin theory says that October revolution was the product of the Bolshevik political conspiracy and mass violence. As a consequence of the revolution, the Soviet political history was essentially a history of totalitarian rule with despotism, violence, persecution and deprivation. This kind of rule that goes against the progress of human civilization was bound to fail. The original sin theory denies the historical rationality and objective achievements of the October Revolution and socialist construction and characterizes the Soviet rule as totalitarianism with essentialist abstract cognition. The inevitability of the Soviet Union’s failure is derived from the original sin of the October revolution, and certain particularities in the Soviet political life are regarded as the essence. The objectivity of this cognitive logic is obvious.

Phenomenology theory argues that “disintegration” was an accidental phenomenon in the historical process, not an essential necessity. 

Soviet socialism was always very successful. The late Soviet Union was plagued by problems but did not collapse. Reform was necessary, but historical contingency has influenced the evolution of the historical situation. Some key mistakes in the reform were not resolved in a timely and effective manner, which eventually led to “disintegration”. Phenomenology emphasizes the role of personal factors of leaders such as Gorbachev and Yeltsin. However, people have a cognitive preference for the nature, inevitability and regularity of the historical process. Is it an oversimplification of the necessity and significance of historical interpretation to attribute the failure of reform and the disintegration of the Soviet Union to contingency? Marx once said, “If ‘contingency’ did not play any role, then world history would have a very mysterious nature.” 

However, if major historical processes and events are attributed to contingency, then history will have an unrecognizable mystery.

The end of history theory argues that the disintegration of the Soviet Union meant the end of history, and the universal history of freedom and democracy was proved. 

The “end of history theory” argues that “disintegration” is the final victory of mankind’s struggle for “recognition”. The failure of communism proves that only liberal democracy can universally and equally realize the universal demand of mankind for recognition. “At the end of history, liberal democracy no longer has a strong ideological enemy.” As a political declaration of the victors of the Cold War, the “end of history theory” has naturally been fiercely criticized. People have good reasons to reject this superficial argument. However, in the current global political scene, it is inevitable that some people will have doubts about the dim prospects of various alternative ideal political plans for mankind:

“The possibility of establishing a viable non-capitalist society has largely lost its credibility.”  

     Part 2. The Purpose of Different Ideologies in the Interpretation of “Disintegration”

The interpreters of the Soviet Union’s disintegration must not only reproduce the objective process and purpose of the end of Soviet history in language, but also construct their own ideology through interpretive behavior to clarify the correctness and purpose of the political history they pursue. Therefore, behind the struggle of interpreting the “disintegration”, various ideological purposes and forces emerge. In the continuous and complex struggle between them, the global social concept order finds a new balance.

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the socialist regime had been leading the global political movement with the noble political spirit of the highest justice, the most genuine freedom and democracy, and had established a strategic balance with the Western world with a high political attitude. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused serious conflicts and political and ideological consequences of abnormal evolution around the world. With the removal of the Cold War barriers, the global expansion of capitalism was rapidly promoted, and Western political values ​​such as freedom and democracy have been interpreted as “universal values” and created its global hegemony. The traditional political and ideological forces against capitalism have declined sharply, and communism has fallen into a deep crisis, “declining to the point where communism has disappeared as an important political force in the West.” The continued hegemony of Western politics and ideology has also caused profound political concerns for existing socialist countries. 

During the Cold War, the socialist forces led by the Soviet Union overshadowed various other anti-capitalist and Western anti-imperialist political forces, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the strong expansion of the US global hegemony, the global multi-faceted resistance forces were re-stimulated and organized, showing great vitality in various social resistance movements and world geopolitical struggles. 

The rise of religious extremism was precisely the evil consequence of the post-Cold War global geopolitical distortion, highlighting the extreme imbalance in the struggle between the international hegemony of globalized capitalism, geopolitical forces, and complex regional internal political forces.

Facts show that the collapse of the Soviet Union did not create a new political philosophy, let alone a new and truly influential political philosophy against the capitalist system. The overall rightward shift of global social and political values ​​since the post-Cold War era and the rise of religious fundamentalism, extremism and terrorist consciousness are precisely the ideological consequences of the “disintegration”.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the political discourse power of the global society was reorganized and redistributed. Reflected in the various interpretations of the “disintegration” became the urgent desire of different political philosophies and ideological discourses in the new power map to strive for a greater sense of “gain”.

1. The “disintegration” interpretation is a struggle to defend Marxist-Leninist thought and its political legitimacy. Marxists-Leninists have clarified the fundamental issues of what is correct Marxism and why Marxism remains the only correct guiding ideology in the future.

For the global Marxism and the left-wing line it leads, the urgent task in the post-Cold War era is to rebuild the legitimacy of Marxist thought and Marxist socialist political practice and heal the cruel damage caused by the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Correctly expressing the disintegration of the Soviet Union to the world and establishing its  own interpretation system are important ways to regain legitimacy of Marxism-Leninism.

Orthodox Marxists group (Marxist-Leninist line) insists on carrying out ideological struggles to interpret “disintegration” under the principles of dialectical and historical materialism, and they think their primary task is to properly reject to bear the political and ideological responsibility for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Their logic as a diagram can be described as follows:

Orthodox Marxists believe that the failure of the Soviet Union proved the truth of Marxism in general, and that dogmatic ideological lines can only lead to the failure in socialist practice. However, in the complex social movements of reality, truth is concretely displayed and plays a role, and whether this concrete thought is correct or alienated dogma has long been the core of the Marxist ideological struggle. Marxists use their “disintegration” explanation to fully show that it was not Marxism that caused the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but the voice of doubt is, “Why has this theory been so consistently misinterpreted and (or) betrayed?” This is indeed a puzzling question. Why did hundreds of millions of Soviet people willingly and consciously participated in the wrong or even reactionary political and ideological line movement? Marxists need to give a deeper theoretical reflection on this.

Perhaps, the overly urgent need to maintain legitimacy has greatly weakened the psychological basis and practical ability for theoretical innovation. Marxists have no time to promote the transformation and innovation of basic Marxist theory under the new historical opportunity. Generally speaking, they defend the legitimacy of the Marxist tradition by their unique “disintegration” interpretation, but the “interpretation” that cannot transcend their own discourse tradition cannot release enough ideological persuasiveness. 

As Rigby said , this “criticism-defense” thought model of traditional Marxism “can no longer provide us with new insights into the world.” Many traditional Marxists may therefore turn to other ideological lines to seek an expression plan that is more suitable for the current political and historical context.

2. The “disintegration” interpretation shows that the future of Western Marxist theory is uncertain and political tendencies are clearly divided

The criticism of Soviet Marxist-Leninist thought and its political line has been the ideological basis for “Western Marxism” to gain a foothold in the complex ideological environment of Western society and maintain a strong theoretical appeal. In a specific sense, the disintegration of the Soviet Union showed the correctness of the “criticism of the Soviet Union’s” theoretical line and strategy that “Western Marxism” had long made, but it also ended “Western Marxism’s” long history of “criticism of the Soviet Union”. With the object of criticism suddenly disappearing, what will be the theoretical mission of Western Marxism after the Cold War? In the interpretation of “disintegration”, Western Marxists expressed their realistic concerns about politics and theory, and their logical map is as follows:

In addition to confirming that the correctness of their critical line against the Soviet Union was finally confirmed, the main purpose of the “disintegration” interpretation of Western Marxists is to express their unwillingness to succumb to the current globalized capitalist culture and political hegemony. 

However, the disintegration of the Soviet Union has also dealt a heavy blow to Western Marxism. Western Marxism’s theoretical appeal and political influence have basically retreated to the academic political life circle and faded out of the public’s view. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, many Western Marxist scholars showed a very different political and theoretical attitude from the past. Some people began to rethink the realistic critical theory of historical materialism, focusing on the realistic criticism of globalized capitalism and new imperialism, but they seemed to be more inclined to work beyond the Marxist capitalist critical framework, and they are increasingly distrustful of proletarian politics. 

“Now, radical thinkers seem to be more interested in developing ‘something else’, but only pay courtesy to a great thinker who has stepped down from the altar.”

In the post-Cold War era, a group of scholars with affinity for Marxism were active in the Western left-wing academic and political movement, showing a phenomenon of reappearing Marxist fever. However, the lively academic gatherings and the various academic monographs cannot indicate the actual revival of Marxism. “At least so far, Marxism has no choice but to keep a low profile and think about the prerequisites for being accepted by history again.” Judging from the trend of the development of contemporary social and political thought, if it cannot provide a new and widely accepted diagnosis of the pathology of this era and a more effective treatment plan, the revival of Marxism will be nothing more than a kind ideological imagination of the left-wing camp.

3. The “disintegration” interpretation strengthened the hegemonic influence of Western neoliberal ideology

At least in form, the disintegration of the Soviet Union showed the victory of all critical or anti-Soviet socialist ideological lines, and liberalism was undoubtedly the biggest ideological winner. Liberalism follows its traditional logic to express its “disintegration” politics, and its interpretation is as follows:

Liberal ideology has always been touted as an enemy of Soviet totalitarianism, firmly controlling the mainstream discourse of Western society. Even the left-wing radical line cannot transcend the core values ​​of liberalism. With the self-disintegration of Soviet Marxist ideology, the global hegemony of liberal ideology was firmly established. 

Therefore, the “disintegration” interpretation of liberals is only to self-justify itself as the only legitimate and universal political value at present. But for opponents of liberalism, apart from expressing political anxiety, anger and dissatisfaction after the damage to liberal hegemony, there has not yet appeared in the current global political philosophy a new political discourse that is both widely influential and able to transcend the Western liberal value tradition.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the moral and political pressure from the socialist movement was greatly relieved, and the right-wing political conservative line was widely promoted , which stimulated the global capitalist politics to become more serious right-wing colours, the welfare state system declined, the new imperialist strategic expansion, and the steady strengthening of Western cultural, political and military hegemony. The strong political mobilization ability of Western conservative forces fully demonstrates that the global Marxism and left-wing political forces in the post-Cold War have greatly weakened, and it is difficult to cope with the challenges of the mainstream political discourse and political forces of the bourgeoisie.

4. The “disintegration” interpretation demonstrates the Communist Party of Russia’s unremitting will to defend the historical dignity of Marxism-Leninism and Soviet socialism, and CPRF tries to promote the return of all sectors of Russian society to a rational and fair Soviet memory.

The Communist Party of Russian Federation emphasizes the need to “tell people the truth – the party is not just an organization. It is first and foremost an ideology.”

The interpretation of the “disintegration” by the Communist Party of Russian Federation needs to deal with multiple political pressures and ideological challenges. The Communist Party of Russian Federation not only needs to fight back against the total denial of the Soviet era by the Russian right-wing reactionary camp, also needs to fight back and expose and criticize the deception and betrayal of the Gorbachev group, but CPRF also tries to bridge the political differences between different factions within the party. Its logical diagram is as follows:

The Communist Party of Russia expresses its inheritance of the Soviet socialist spiritual heritage and won the support of many middle-aged and elderly Russians and the grassroots people. However , the Communist Party of Russia’s “interpretation” focused on the historical defense position, but failed to add fresh ideological value to the Russian masses, and fails to convince Russian society from a theoretical depth to treat the political and historical values ​​of the former Soviet Union with a more objective and scientific attitude. The Communist Party of Russia also did not express a truly constructive new political concept and political line that could grasp the new historical situation and objective social and political needs. Therefore, the legitimacy of the people that the Communist Party of Russia could win fundamentally only exists in the social and political emotions and historical memory of Russia. With the completion of Russia’s political transformation, the current political system gradually stabilizes and matures, and the political influence of the Communist Party of Russia is bound to decline.

5. The “disintegration” interpretation became a political defense for those involved in the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Today Gorbachev type reformers try to “re-interpret” in order to whitewash their own past political betrayal. In their “disintegration” interpretation, these “reformers” try their best to show the world the legitimacy of their reform line and they try to show the accidental nature of the Soviet “disintegration”.

The alienation of the reform line directly led to the collapse of the Soviet regime and the disintegration of the USSR. This is a general consensus in Russian society. The political guilt of betrayal and selling out seems difficult to cover up.

However, Gorbachev and his reform supporters complained that the world ignored the historical value of their reform. “The true status of historical events only became apparent with the passage of time. Perhaps because of this, Gorbachev’s reforms have not yet received a prudent and objective evaluation without political bias.”

In the late Soviet Union, as the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union declined and was deprived, many elite party members took treacherous actions to disintegrate the party organization and attack the party’s political beliefs. These former believers of Marxism were far more enthusiastic about selling out the interests of the Soviet Union and selling Western liberal groceries than those Soviet political heretics in exile, and their bad political behavior is hard to forget. Gorbachev’s reformist interpretation of “disintegration” did not save more political reputation. In 1996, the Russian people once again expressed their incomprehension of Gorbachev’s political virtues in the form of extremely low votes.

Part 3. China’s route through the interpretation of “disintegration”: problems and demands

The Soviet Union entered a period of decline and disintegration when China’s reform and opening up was progressing smoothly. The social pluralistic interest pattern began to take shape, and the diversified life values ​​also significantly influenced the daily life of the Chinese people. Chinese society already had sufficient political sentiments and political experience to deal with the adverse effects of the failure of the international communist movement. “We have formed a kind of ability, the ability to take risks.” Therefore, although the theory of China’s collapse was rampant, the process of reform and opening up was not delayed. The reform of the socialist market economic system was carried out smoothly, and the social development transformation was promoted steadily. The facts of China’s development since the 1990s have proved that China has successfully resolved the huge strategic pressure caused by the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the sudden change of the international pattern.

However, the political and ideological pressure brought to China by the disintegration of the Soviet Union is still heavy. Its negative consequences are still prominent in the contradictions and struggles in the spiritual world of the Chinese people, and are increasingly interfering the development of the real economy and politics. It is undeniable that after the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the proposition of the crisis or death of Marxism has been a global topic. Although its hypocrisy has been protested and refuted by left-wing just people, it constituted a real global negative ideological effect. In the past 30 years, the actual influence and control of the mainstream ideology of Marxism in China have been continuously weakened, ideological beliefs have become indifferent, and the traditional socialist moral values ​​have declined. What has been growing is the increasingly hegemonic spread of Western capitalist “universal values”. The ideological security situation in Chinese society is becoming increasingly severe. The complexity and intensification of the struggle in the ideological field have caused great ideological anxiety among Chinese Marxists. “

In this context, it is extremely important to maintain a high degree of vigilance, safeguard our country’s ideological security, and continuously consolidate the socialist ideological position.” In reflecting on the political history of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Chinese interpreters have concentrated on releasing their deep concerns about the current Chinese construction of ideological politics.

3.1 The Chinese interpretation of “disintegration” reflects the desire of Chinese Marxists to reconstruct the authoritative recognition of Marxist theory.

The proposition of the death of Marxism is alarmist, but the huge mistakes in the Soviet political-historical practice and the disintegration of the Soviet Union at least symbolize that the authority and effectiveness of a certain failed interpretation form of Marxist theory no longer exist.

If left-wing Marxists are not reconciled to this, then where can they find a new interpretation form to seek to restore the authoritative recognition of Marxist theory?

Obviously, it has not appeared in the innovation system of world Marxism so far. Goran Sebern even argues that “without coercion, Marxism as a social science or history is unlikely to be attractive to a large number of staunch socialist scholars after the 1990s”. The fundamentalist ideological preference that claims to find the prediction of the global financial crisis in Capital, or the understanding of reading Marx’s thought as a kind of ghost study, only further confirms the shrinking of the authority of Marxist theory.

Therefore, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the ideological struggle in the post-Cold War era have greatly stimulated the theoretical self-esteem of Chinese Marxists. Under the strong will to defend the authority and legitimacy of the Marxist theoretical tradition inherited by themselves, they are eager for a new and effective theoretical form that can resist the invasion of the hegemonic discourse of Western neoliberalism. 

 This theoretical anxiety and desire of Chinese Marxists is presented in the interpretation of “disintegration”. On the one hand, in terms of methodological logic, they adhere to the traditional analytical framework of historical materialism, that is, based on the basic contradictory relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, focusing on the dialectical analysis of internal and external factors and the comprehensive conclusion of the theory of combined forces, and the “interpretation” keyword system composed of “economic backwardness”, “technological revolution”, “institutional reform”, “ideology”, “dogmatism”, “corruption”, “alienation between the party and the masses”, “arms race”, “peaceful evolution”, “ethnic contradictions”, etc., which encompasses the basic elements of materialist social analysis; on the other hand, in the principles and conclusions of the argument, they fully express their belief and maintenance in the correctness of Marxist theory. 

As mentioned above, the intention of “interpretation” is to draw a clear line between the Soviet Communist Party’s dogmatic erroneous line and the general truth of Marxism, and they aim to confirm that “disintegration” was the inevitable result of deviating from the correct line of Marxism. Confidence in future prospects comes from the persistent belief in the authority of Marxist truth. Therefore, in the logic of Chinese interpreters, the recognition of Marxism comes from her ability to provide a comprehensive and reasonable reason to explain the history of “disintegration”, and from her irreplaceable theoretical guidance in resisting Western cultural and political hegemony.

 3.2 The Chinese interpretation of “disintegration” shows the anxiety of Chinese Marxists about reviving the legitimacy of Marxist ideology. 

The rampant growth of bureaucracy Chinese Marxists cannot help but feel deeply alert and worried about this. “The disintegration of the Soviet Union provides us with a painful lesson that using ideology as a breakthrough ultimately leads to the demise of the party and the country.”  

However, the political trend towards a high degree of clarity and democracy is not a one-time achievement for Chinese society in a historical transition period, and reviving the legitimacy of Marxist ideology must also be a long-term and unremitting effort. However, the risk of the global ideological political structure after the disintegration of the Soviet Union is an urgent issue that cannot be avoided at present. In the interpretation of “disintegration”, Chinese Marxists warn the public to beware of the recurrence of Soviet-style tragedies that may be caused by the loss of Marxist ideology. 

However, what spiritual force have supported the reformist bureaucrats of the CPSU to abandon the Marxist ideological tradition without fear and without hindrance? Chinese interpreters believe that the long-term dogmatic and rigid understanding of Marxism has caused the CPSU ideology to lose its vitality and energy, they became unable to absorb the fresh content of the changing world of life, consequently they have lost a large amount of legitimacy resources. The peaceful evolution and ideological infiltration strategy implemented by for many years has disintegrated the communist belief system. Liberal political values ​​ultimately dominated the ideological beliefs of the reformist bureaucrats. This is the spiritual root of the CPSU’s reform turning to betrayal. 

Therefore, for China, the state must strengthen the indoctrination of Marxist ideology , strictly prevent Western peaceful evolution, and innovate the theoretical form of Marxism. This is the fundamental way to revive the people’s belief in the legitimacy of Marxist ideology and maintain the security of mainstream ideology.

 3.3 The interpretation of “disintegration” in China expresses the demand of Chinese Marxists for strengthening the leading power of Marxist ideology. 

Socialist countries have always had relatively strict control over social culture and ideology, but they were also criticized repeatedly. The strong control of Marxist ideology has always been labeled as “monopolizing the truth” and “suppressing freedom of thought” by the public opinion of the enemy. Gorbachev’s ideological reform line was aimed at weakening the state’s control over the ideological field and liberalizing social public opinion, until it eventually destroyed the authority and control of Marxist ideology and abolished the legal status of Marxism as a guiding ideology.

 With the destruction of the ruling power of Marxist ideology, the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet regime also went to ruin. The betrayal of Marxist ideology and political line by the Soviet Communist Party reformers was condemned by many left-wing forces around the world. Chinese Marxists are very vigilant while regretting it. Strong ideological rule is closely related to the unbreakable ruling foundation of the ruling party. In the complex historical context of deepening reform and opening up, the increasing penetration and control of the ideological field by hostile forces also increasingly threatens the spiritual foundation of the ruling party. 

 How to maintain the security of local social values ​​and national ideological rule in an open social environment is a theoretical problem that contemporary Chinese Marxists have to deeply and systematically plan. 

 The requirements and means of strengthening the control of Marxist ideology must obviously take into account the reasonable needs of the current Chinese public for a diverse and lively form of ideological life values. The experience and lessons of the former Soviet Union and our policy traditions have left many negative examples in this regard that cannot be ignored. Educational indoctrination and necessary administrative coercion are effective in preventing the unscrupulous invasion of hostile ideology into the public consciousness, but a perfect socialist rule of law and a sound institutional mechanism are the fundamental way to prevent a small number of elites within the party from betraying the people and the socialist cause.

The lesson of the self-destruction of the Soviet Communist Party’s ideological rule is like a thorn in the side. Strengthening the construction of local Marxist ideological rule is a long way to go, and striving to build a high-level theoretical and practical program that can systematically resist ideological security risks has also become an important task for Chinese think tanks.

Compared with Marxists in other countries and regions, Chinese Marxists have unique experience and have made great contributions to the innovation of Marxist theory. 

Facing the new life world in the 21st century, which has been reshaped by contemporary biological and information technology, new forms of modern financial economy and new global geopolitical situations, whether Chinese Marxists can achieve major theoretical innovations, give scientific interpretations to the new reality, and plan attractive paths for the future development of global and local societies is a key issue for contemporary Chinese Marxists to revive Marxism and the world socialist movement.