Gorbachev the traitor

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/gorbachev-the-traitor/432703.html



By Boris Kagarlitsky

The 80th birthday of former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev this month sparked a sudden but understandable surge of nostalgia for perestroika among the liberal intelligentsia. Their praises for the last Soviet president sounded more like a rationalization from people who share responsibility along with Gorbachev for the collapse of the country.

Speeches defending Gorbachev sound just as unconvincing as the criticism directed against him. Some blame him for the collapse of the Soviet Union, while others argue that it was unavoidable for objective reasons and that therefore no individual is to blame. If that were true, would it be fair to blame Stalin for the wholesale terror and murder committed by his regime, or to blame Leonid Brezhnev for the economic stagnation that prevailed while he was leader? Conversely, it would be incorrect to attribute Nikita Khrushchev for the thaw in U.S.-Soviet relations.

The Soviet Union did not disappear because of a great flood or a major earthquake. Somebody was at the helm making decisions and setting a political course. Politicians should be responsible for their actions. But do politicians alone bear responsibility?

In fact, Gorbachev’s problem is inseparably linked with the unstated problem of the low self-esteem and rationalization of the millions of people who lived through the drama of 1991. Some justify Gorbachev’s actions in an attempt to justify their own complicity in events. For the same reasons, others try to shift blame from themselves by holding Gorbachev solely responsible. “He ruined everything,” they say. “We are not to blame.”

Unfortunately, the Soviet people bear responsibility for what happened to their country. That does not lift responsibility from any one individual, even if that person was part of the leadership — those whom we naturally call on the carpet first for anything that happens. We the people are to blame for not mounting any resistance to that course of action, or at least for not fighting it hard enough.

In truth, the only people with the moral right to criticize Gorbachev today are the ones who had the courage in the 1980s and 1990s to point out how destructive his policies were, to go against the flow, and to condemn the path followed not only by Gorbachev, but also by his main political rival, former President Boris Yeltsin.

Gorbachev’s rule contrasts favorably with the leaders who came both before and after him, and he is not remembered for having committed any particularly egregious wrongdoings. According to that thinking, Gorbachev did not “destroy” the Soviet Union, he “only” betrayed the country he led.

Gorbachev took office with a pledge to serve and defend the state. He cannot be blamed for the fact that a catastrophe that had been brewing for two decades erupted during his reign. But as the captain, he was obligated to “go down with the ship” and share the same political fate as the country he governed. The problem is not that Gorbachev could have prevented the collapse and didn’t — he couldn’t have under any circumstances — but that when the troubles came, he snuck away from the battlefield and went home to have dinner.

The people might sometimes excuse or even justify the deeds of malefactors, but it never forgives a traitor.

[Jose Gracchus]

What a bunch of nauseating Soviet nostalgic bullshit. Oh woes his failed loyalty to the Soviet state? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Gorby only fulfilled contradictions which had been placed within the heart of the USSR and festered since it was founded. Whether or not he was a reformist Social Democrat, by the late 80s the USSR was in deep trouble anyways. This is the country that saw Chernobyl, the invasion of Afghanistan and a 15 year economic stagnation... thinks weren't looking too good.

[Ismail]

For people who don't know much about Gorbachev, the link in my signature should be a good start.

Also the CPSU program adopted at their last congress in 1990: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cpsu-programme-statement-t142763/index.html?t=142763

[The Vegan Marxist]

What a bunch of nauseating Soviet nostalgic bullshit. Oh woes his failed loyalty to the Soviet state? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

:confused:

So you believe the analysis laid forth is wrong?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What a bunch of nauseating Soviet nostalgic bullshit. Oh woes his failed loyalty to the Soviet state? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Boris Kagarlitsky isn't a Stalinist. He's written for the CPGB before, and has even appeared in their Communist University.

[Robespierre Richard]

I don't think there's anyone on this forum who doesn't think that Gorby is a turd...

And yeah Kagarlitsky is as left-communist as they get lol. He even has a think tank/NGO called Institute of Globalization and Social Movements (http://english.igso.ru/).

[Futility Personified]

The problem with blaming him for not "going down with the ship" as it were is that it still seems to target him as a person and not the other people within the USSR who could've lobbied, cajoled and make attempts to prevent it's downfall. I've read that most of the nonklamentura (sp?) had extremely cushty benefits to the breakup of the USSR, so to "go down with the ship" he would've been alone amongst those people. As an individual, I feel it'd be fairly harrowing to try and prevent people breaking off chunks for themselves, trying to stop the breakdown and corruption inside the organisation, when at the end of the day it is the very ground you stand on and if you stamp too hard, you'll fall right through the floor.

[Princess Luna]

I don't think there's anyone on this forum who doesn't think that Gorby is a turd...

And yeah Kagarlitsky is as left-communist as they get lol. He even has a think tank/NGO called Institute of Globalization and Social Movements (http://english.igso.ru/).
He may have been a turd but at least for what its worth he didn't stink as much as his predecessors, also i am glad the soviet union fell and they didn't end up with a mockery of Communism like China is.

[Fulanito de Tal]

What a bunch of nauseating Soviet nostalgic bullshit.

I think you should try ipecac while watching a Soviet Union history documentary.

[Omsk]

In a restaurant:

― Why are the meatballs cube-shaped?
― Perestroika! (restructuring)
― Why are they undercooked?
― Uskoreniye! (acceleration)
― Why are they bitten?
― Gospriyomka! (state approval)
― Why are you telling me all this so brazenly?
― Glasnost! (openness)

Just thought to share this 'joke' with you.

[Robespierre Richard]

Hey bros just wanted to remind y'all how awesome IMF loans and economic restructuring programs are. Don't mind me.

[Jose Gracchus]

:confused:

So you believe the analysis laid forth is wrong?

I'm saying this guy is a Russian nationalist who identifies Gorby with "treachery" because he cost them the glory and empire of the Russian state. I don't see what I should have in common with hypocritical bourgeois appeals to "loyalty" and "going down with the ship". All of that has to do fuck-all with working class materialist politics, regardless of what one thinks about the pre-Gorby USSR. This is just one of those Putinites who seeks to wrap Russian statism and authoritarianism today in the trapping and traditions of glorious Cold War superpower nostalgia.

EDIT: So the guy seems nominally to be a communist. Still doesn't excuse his making some lame-ass appeal to Russian statism as the basis of his argument about Gorby. Maybe that shit is what you have to bandy about in appeal to chauvinist sentiments in Russia today, but it certainly isn't principled.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I'm saying this guy is a Russian nationalist who identifies Gorby with "treachery" because he cost them the glory and empire of the Russian state. I don't see what I should have in common with hypocritical bourgeois appeals to "loyalty" and "going down with the ship". All of that has to do fuck-all with working class materialist politics, regardless of what one thinks about the pre-Gorby USSR. This is just one of those Putinites who seeks to wrap Russian statism and authoritarianism today in the trapping and traditions of glorious Cold War superpower nostalgia.

EDIT: So the guy seems nominally to be a communist. Still doesn't excuse his making some lame-ass appeal to Russian statism as the basis of his argument about Gorby. Maybe that shit is what you have to bandy about in appeal to chauvinist sentiments in Russia today, but it certainly isn't principled.

You probably may want to read properly and inform yourself before talking out of your ass.

Kagarlitsky is as far from Russian nationalism as you can get. He is about the only one among the Russian leftists who is not a mindless, knee-jerk nationalist. (Incidentally, he was expelled from his college studies in 1980 for criticizing the Soviet Union from a Marxist perspective...)

The only "lame-ass appeal to Russian statism" is pointing out that people of the former Soviet Union are more screwed now than they likely would have been had the Soviet Union and its ruling functionaries taken a different course.

You may want to re-read that article for your own benefit.

[Arlekino]

Well we live in this crap Perestroika and Glasonst, Shops empty sugar 1 kg per month, queues for the beer or vodka, black market busted what are perestroika done to us all. So I don't even consider to support Gorbochov. Factories started closing down only because of perestroika and free market. Right wingers started waving flags and of course fast rich mafia take over workers.

[Jose Gracchus]

You probably may want to read properly and inform yourself before talking out of your ass.

Kagarlitsky is as far from Russian nationalism as you can get. He is about the only one among the Russian leftists who is not a mindless, knee-jerk nationalist. (Incidentally, he was expelled from his college studies in 1980 for criticizing the Soviet Union from a Marxist perspective...)

The only "lame-ass appeal to Russian statism" is pointing out that people of the former Soviet Union are more screwed now than they likely would have been had the Soviet Union and its ruling functionaries taken a different course.

You may want to re-read that article for your own benefit.

Good for him, I think he is a man of principle. However, that article is still dumb. I'm judging this article by how he chooses to make and support his point here - and I find it absurd. Gorby's hypocrisy is going to the West after the USSR collapsed to get speaking fees and helping Coca-Cola, but to focus on his "treachery" and failure to "go down with the ship" is lame. Gorby was just a representative of wannabe-bourgeois moderate interests and managerial coordinators. Individuals do not make history. This article makes it sound like Gorby would not have been a "traitor" if he'd been in Moscow to the bitter end, during the August Coup, or fighting til the bitter end against the CIS Convention in Alma-Aty. What difference does all that make? Am I expected to believe Gorby's subjective personal choices in 1991 dramatically affected the likelihood of political victory by bourgeois liquidationist and extreme nationalist politics? I find that highly doubtful.

[RED DAVE]

The people might sometimes excuse or even justify the deeds of malefactors, but it never forgives a traitor.What I've always said about Kautsky.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

You probably may want to read properly and inform yourself before talking out of your ass.

Kagarlitsky is as far from Russian nationalism as you can get. He is about the only one among the Russian leftists who is not a mindless, knee-jerk nationalist. (Incidentally, he was expelled from his college studies in 1980 for criticizing the Soviet Union from a Marxist perspective...)

The only "lame-ass appeal to Russian statism" is pointing out that people of the former Soviet Union are more screwed now than they likely would have been had the Soviet Union and its ruling functionaries taken a different course.

You may want to re-read that article for your own benefit.

FYI, many of Kagarlitsky's articles are on Znet, which is not exactly a venue conducive towards supporting Russian nationalism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The USSR was salvageable, as a Socialist State, probably until around Brezhnev's death.

The idiotic appointments of Andropov and Chernenko, for me, marked a critical point in the political history of the USSR, and Gorbachev, as a Capitalist Social-Democrat, simply took the opportunity that any careerist Capitalist would do, to dismantle state control over the economy and political life and veer the USSR back to Capitalism.

For what it's worth, it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that even in the vastly degenerated USSR of the pre-Gorbachev 1970s and 1980s, life was far, far, less miserable for almost all Russians than it was after the return of Capitalism. To say otherwise, or to say that poverty, hunger, mass (real mass) unemployment were worth it to get to choose between Yeltsin and a couple of other muppets is disingenuous and somewhat nasty.

The USSR, for me, was doomed to end in some sort of failure from its very beginning, due to the dictatorial nature of its ideology. You cannot establish a one-party, one-ideology state and expect it to succeed in the long run. The murder/sidelining of anarchists, Trotskyists and Nikolai Bukharin and his followers was a massive, massive mistake in terms of democracy. From then on, despite the massive achievements in industry and urbanisation, the defeat of Fascism and the halt of the US colonial expansion, the USSR was doomed not to be a long term success.

[Jose Gracchus]

I agree entirely. Built into the concept of the Soviet-type state is an exclusion of authentic working-class independent political self-organization, which is itself the very sine qua non of socialism! I agree all the former Soviet-type states' workers are worse off now, but built into most whining about capitalist restoration is a kind of conceit that "oh, maybe intra-Central Committee palace intrigue could have produced some real socialists!" The best hope for revitalizing socialism in the Eastern Bloc would have been the outbreak of socialist revolution elsewhere, or within it. Something like an ideologically coherent drive involving something like the Hungarian workers' councils, or if something like May '68 in France had driven toward actual socialism, or if the Iranian Revolution had gone decisively socialist, would have provided something like the international working-class solidarity that would have been a prerequisite for breaking down the old police states in favor of socialism in the East. Absent international working-class politics, everything because a political project of the bourgeoisie or other alien classes. We can see this today in Libya and elsewhere.

[Psy]

Good for him, I think he is a man of principle. However, that article is still dumb. I'm judging this article by how he chooses to make and support his point here - and I find it absurd. Gorby's hypocrisy is going to the West after the USSR collapsed to get speaking fees and helping Coca-Cola, but to focus on his "treachery" and failure to "go down with the ship" is lame. Gorby was just a representative of wannabe-bourgeois moderate interests and managerial coordinators. Individuals do not make history. This article makes it sound like Gorby would not have been a "traitor" if he'd been in Moscow to the bitter end, during the August Coup, or fighting til the bitter end against the CIS Convention in Alma-Aty. What difference does all that make? Am I expected to believe Gorby's subjective personal choices in 1991 dramatically affected the likelihood of political victory by bourgeois liquidationist and extreme nationalist politics? I find that highly doubtful.
Yet originally the KGB wanted Gorby to declare a state of emergency so with the help of the military the KGB could "restore order".

The bureaucracy came to Gorby to stop making a bad situation worse by opening markets and only after he refused did the KGB plan on overthrowing Gorby.