Was the Soviet System Reformable - Essay Example

? Soviet Union Review Cohen raises multiple questions that come out of the historic moments of the Soviet Union considering the pro-democratic and pro-market changes that occurred under Mikhail Gorbachev leadership. Cohen seeks to analyze the alternative that might have certainly shape the nature of social, economic and political situation existing in Russia today of the events of 1985-1991. This paper hence gives an analysis of F. Cohen arising out of the Soviet Union era and how it has shaped economy, politics and the general society. This thus gives a better understanding of the major components of the Soviet Union systems the need to be examined for historical purposes. F. Cohen analyses the case of Soviet Union by looking at it from various angles. He also asks analytical questions as to why the Soviet Union perished and some of the contributing factors. He emphasizes that the prevailing view of changes that occurred under Mikhail Gorbachev’s six-year attempt to transform the Soviet Union along democratic and market lines to some extent proved that the system was unreformable. Cohen asserts that this is from his historical researches and perceptions regarding the non-reformability of the Soviet Union which according to him have been formulated and analyzed from time to time by other scholars too. According to him, the concepts driving the researches and the ideologies of the reformability of Soviet Union are based on the Communist party and its dictatorship, monopolistic state economy, and the slow responses of Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies. In his analysis, he emphasizes that it is important for scholars and historians understand that reform doesn’t just merely refers to change but changes that improve people’s way of lives by widening political and economic freedom. Additionally, reform doesn’t mean a revolution or complete transformation of an existing order, but rather a piecemeal and gradual amendment within a systems broad historical, institutional and cultural dimensions. In the case of Soviet System, “real reforms” at that time was based on rapid and complete revolutions that would deem it very difficult to make reforms in the Soviet system. Cohen also argues that many studies conducted during the Soviet era however indicate that if certain policies were implemented then systematic change would have been possible in the Soviet system which was all dependent on Mikhail Gorbachev leadership. According to Cohen, other scholars and historians support this position because they are of the opinion that the structural violence which was at the center of Soviet system restricted the capabilities of Mikhail Gorbachev’s political, social and economic policies from becoming effective. Asking the question as to whether the Soviet system was reformable thus means asking if all the basic components and policies could be reformed. In fact historians argues that it makes no sense making assumptions that if any components or policies were supplemented by new ones or eliminated, the results would no longer be of the Soviet system. Furthermore, the Soviets of 1917 were generally elected, only turning into something else later. At this time there was no monopolistic control of the economy until the 1930s, and when the Stalinist mass terror which had been fundamental feature for 25 years ended no own would questioned if the system is still soviets. From these proponents historians and scholars argue that the Soviet System was not reformable and thus was doomed to be inherent defects (Kuvaldin, 22). Cohen also attributes the Soviet Union to the five transformations of the communist system which was generally advancing towards an economic policy to be adopted in the Soviet Union intended to increase central planning and labor efficiency. It however eventually led to the end of central planning in the Russian economy. The transformations were heavily determined by the communist system which included the monopoly of power by the communist party, democratic centralism, state ownership of the means of production, declared aim of communism and the existence of an international communist movement. Cohen analyses these as the most important scenarios that shaped the Soviet Union system in the history of Russia. This can be from the fact that communism was particularly associated with the conception of new political thinking towards the end of the cold war. Communism is additionally associated with the unification of systems and leaderships that seemingly brought to an end the reckless wars and other conflicts or tensions; and changing the country’s development towards the track of modern democratic processes. Cohen attributes these to some of the contributions of communism that the entire global community and historians greatly appreciate and relate to the era of Soviet Union (Kuvaldin, 25). Contrary, according to Cohen, in Russia the notions and views connected to communism were determined under the influence of weighty economical and political crisis that followed in the 1990s. These are the perceptions that are linked to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, decline of the country’s position in the international arena that included political shocks in Russia; the two Chechen wars; the disastrous decline in the living standards of people; and the widespread crime and corruption. These therefore are the some of the factors that drives F. Cohen and historians to questions of the need of communism of Soviet era. In fact Cohen notes that towards the peaks of communism what ensued was the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev’s resignation and the shift to disastrous economic reforms. In summary, it means that communism as was indicated as a process of democratic reformation, it was not really needed because it proved that Soviet Society was unreformable (Kuvaldin, 31). Another issue that captives Cohen is the theme of the break-up of the Soviet Union is the drive to political, social and economic alternatives together with the authoritarian leadership at that particular time. F. Cohen insists that what pushed the break-up of Soviet Union was pressure on the union to embrace a substantial measure of democratization. The need for reforms therefore brought about contradictions, inefficiencies and injustices of the system which quickly lead to a point where leaders of reforms to make a decision whether to strengthen the well known norms of the old system or to follow the logic of pluralization of the system that had occurred under soviet union reforms systems and communism. This need made Gorbachev’s leadership to pursue a peaceful transition to a pluralistic political system that would reform the Soviet System from above. At some stage, however, as noted by Cohen, this was bound to move out of control of the top leadership if the reforms were essential enough to make open discussions of all possible options from an awakened community. This then made Gorbachev’s acknowledged aim of revolutionary change by new means more and more difficult to sustain and maintain. Cohen furthermore argues that reform of the Soviet command economy only brought out the limitations of Soviet reform system, hence directing the need of moving to an economic system operating on different principles. This prompted several reversals and changes that suggested and pressured for new leaders. Gorbachev was therefore faced by intense pressure coming from all directions, especially from conservative communists who were occupying various strong powerful positions such as the military and political positions. These reformist and conservative communist sorted to construct successful political, social and economic systems which eventually lead to the break-up of the Soviet Union (Kuvaldin, 37). Works Cited Hosking, Geoffrey A.. A history of the Soviet Union. London: Fontana Press :, 1985. Print. Kuvaldin, V. B.. Breakthrough to freedom: Perestroika : a critical analysis. Moscow: R. Valent, 2009. Print. Read More