An Elusive Consensus

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1353/kri.2023.a910984
Vladislav M. Zubok
{"title":"An Elusive Consensus","authors":"Vladislav M. Zubok","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.a910984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An Elusive Consensus Vladislav M. Zubok (bio) I am thankful to Mark Beissinger, Michael David-Fox, and Serhy Yekelchyk for adding their expert voices to the discussion of the Soviet collapse prompted by my book. In his thoughtful review David-Fox calls for a synthesis. It may be a type of wishful thinking, just like Gorbachevian consensus. The demise of a giant empire with such a tragic (and crime-ridden) history will remain a contested subject within the lifetime of our generation, and perhaps the next. Scholarship will remain fractious: some will be interested in socioeconomic, others in economic-political aspects of the story; the adepts of ab imperio ethno-cultural particularisms will never agree with the students of elite politics, and so on. Finally, as the Russian poet Fedor Tiutchev famously wrote, \"We cannot fathom all the echoes of our speech.\" The ongoing discussion on the topic may be the best to which we may aspire. I would like to respond to a few insights proposed by David-Fox. Indeed, what happened to the Soviet Union was not a revolution. At the same time, the spectacular failure of economic reforms, coupled with the progressive demoralization of the elite, created a unique situation that was revolutionary in many respects: ideational, social, economic, political, and in foreign affairs. Mikhail Gorbachev, inspired by his reading of Vladimir Lenin, convinced himself that the chaos he had unleashed would eventually lead to democratic socialism. Initially his vision found mass support in society, yet economic discontent soon rose like a flood. The Soviet leader and his entourage lost the initiative to rival actors who offered different solutions to the unfolding crisis: a national liberation struggle, a return to Europe, liberal democracy, and most fatally the rise of Russia. Those narratives, perhaps fortunately, lacked one component: a violent overthrow of the existing regime and its socioeconomic setup. David-Fox attributes the failure of perestroika to the \"blinkered inculcation\" (845) of Soviet ideas and belief, the intellectual and cultural [End Page 867] heritage that Gorbachev embodied and shared with millions of his fellow citizens. I would add some caveats. First, among party functionaries in the Russian provinces, Gorbachev seemed to be a rather unique person: a party intellectual stranded in the wrong kettle of fish. Provincial apparatchiks were far too cynical to suffer from blinkered inculcation, although they used the party discourse to promote their careers. The rare exceptions were mostly neo-Stalinists, militarists, and superpower adepts. Without Iurii Andropov, an outlier like Gorbachev would have never made it to the top. Second, the term \"inculcation\" diminishes the complexity of the origins of the \"new thinking,\" a vague set of principles that Gorbachev proclaimed and promoted. The Marxist-Leninist faith that Gorbachev and many Soviet intellectuals of the 1980s shared was just one iteration of the longer and broader phenomenon of social daydreaming that preceded and outlasted the communist period. Prominent players of the Soviet endgame, such as Boris Yeltsin and Gennadii Burbulis, demonstrated how a newer version of a socioeconomic utopia could displace the discredited one almost overnight. Both underwent a lightning conversion from the Leninist faith to the Western neoliberal faith, with huge consequences for Russian history. I am especially grateful to Mark Beissinger for writing a review: his study of the interaction of non-Russian nationalism during the Soviet collapse was a foundation for my work. His book provides a strong thesis that I grappled with and finally disagreed with. Now he pushes back. He rejects my emphasis on Gorbachev's agency, his mode of governance and feud with Yeltsin, as well as the contingency of the failed economic and financial reforms. He claims that the Kremlin leadership could do nothing after 1989 other than \"playing out the logic of the new structural situation\"—namely \"the disintegration of inner and outer empires\" (850). He takes me to task for failing to shift the book's center of gravity to earlier times when, in his view, irreversible structural transformations took place. As if this is not sufficient, he adds judgmental attacks: in his view, I insinuate, carp, and even feel sympathy for hardliners (849). Still, I am glad that Beissinger finds the disagreements between our...","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.a910984","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An Elusive Consensus Vladislav M. Zubok (bio) I am thankful to Mark Beissinger, Michael David-Fox, and Serhy Yekelchyk for adding their expert voices to the discussion of the Soviet collapse prompted by my book. In his thoughtful review David-Fox calls for a synthesis. It may be a type of wishful thinking, just like Gorbachevian consensus. The demise of a giant empire with such a tragic (and crime-ridden) history will remain a contested subject within the lifetime of our generation, and perhaps the next. Scholarship will remain fractious: some will be interested in socioeconomic, others in economic-political aspects of the story; the adepts of ab imperio ethno-cultural particularisms will never agree with the students of elite politics, and so on. Finally, as the Russian poet Fedor Tiutchev famously wrote, "We cannot fathom all the echoes of our speech." The ongoing discussion on the topic may be the best to which we may aspire. I would like to respond to a few insights proposed by David-Fox. Indeed, what happened to the Soviet Union was not a revolution. At the same time, the spectacular failure of economic reforms, coupled with the progressive demoralization of the elite, created a unique situation that was revolutionary in many respects: ideational, social, economic, political, and in foreign affairs. Mikhail Gorbachev, inspired by his reading of Vladimir Lenin, convinced himself that the chaos he had unleashed would eventually lead to democratic socialism. Initially his vision found mass support in society, yet economic discontent soon rose like a flood. The Soviet leader and his entourage lost the initiative to rival actors who offered different solutions to the unfolding crisis: a national liberation struggle, a return to Europe, liberal democracy, and most fatally the rise of Russia. Those narratives, perhaps fortunately, lacked one component: a violent overthrow of the existing regime and its socioeconomic setup. David-Fox attributes the failure of perestroika to the "blinkered inculcation" (845) of Soviet ideas and belief, the intellectual and cultural [End Page 867] heritage that Gorbachev embodied and shared with millions of his fellow citizens. I would add some caveats. First, among party functionaries in the Russian provinces, Gorbachev seemed to be a rather unique person: a party intellectual stranded in the wrong kettle of fish. Provincial apparatchiks were far too cynical to suffer from blinkered inculcation, although they used the party discourse to promote their careers. The rare exceptions were mostly neo-Stalinists, militarists, and superpower adepts. Without Iurii Andropov, an outlier like Gorbachev would have never made it to the top. Second, the term "inculcation" diminishes the complexity of the origins of the "new thinking," a vague set of principles that Gorbachev proclaimed and promoted. The Marxist-Leninist faith that Gorbachev and many Soviet intellectuals of the 1980s shared was just one iteration of the longer and broader phenomenon of social daydreaming that preceded and outlasted the communist period. Prominent players of the Soviet endgame, such as Boris Yeltsin and Gennadii Burbulis, demonstrated how a newer version of a socioeconomic utopia could displace the discredited one almost overnight. Both underwent a lightning conversion from the Leninist faith to the Western neoliberal faith, with huge consequences for Russian history. I am especially grateful to Mark Beissinger for writing a review: his study of the interaction of non-Russian nationalism during the Soviet collapse was a foundation for my work. His book provides a strong thesis that I grappled with and finally disagreed with. Now he pushes back. He rejects my emphasis on Gorbachev's agency, his mode of governance and feud with Yeltsin, as well as the contingency of the failed economic and financial reforms. He claims that the Kremlin leadership could do nothing after 1989 other than "playing out the logic of the new structural situation"—namely "the disintegration of inner and outer empires" (850). He takes me to task for failing to shift the book's center of gravity to earlier times when, in his view, irreversible structural transformations took place. As if this is not sufficient, he adds judgmental attacks: in his view, I insinuate, carp, and even feel sympathy for hardliners (849). Still, I am glad that Beissinger finds the disagreements between our...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
难以捉摸的共识
我要感谢Mark Beissinger、Michael David-Fox和Serhy Yekelchyk,感谢他们在我的书所引发的关于苏联解体的讨论中加入了专家的声音。在他深思熟虑的评论中,大卫-福克斯呼吁一种综合。这可能是一种一厢情愿的想法,就像戈尔巴乔夫的共识一样。一个有着如此悲剧性(和充满犯罪的)历史的庞大帝国的消亡,在我们这一代人的有生之年,也许在下一代人的有生之年,仍将是一个有争议的话题。学术研究仍将是难以驾驭的:一些人将对社会经济方面感兴趣,另一些人则对故事的经济政治方面感兴趣;帝国主义民族文化特殊主义的专家永远不会同意精英政治的学生,等等。最后,正如俄罗斯诗人费奥多尔·图切夫(Fedor Tiutchev)的名言:“我们无法理解自己讲话的所有回声。”正在进行的关于这一主题的讨论可能是我们所期望的最好的讨论。我想对David-Fox提出的一些见解做出回应。的确,发生在苏联身上的不是一场革命。与此同时,经济改革的惊人失败,加上精英阶层的逐步民主化,创造了一个在许多方面都具有革命性的独特局面:思想、社会、经济、政治和外交事务。米哈伊尔•戈尔巴乔夫(Mikhail Gorbachev)在阅读弗拉基米尔•列宁(Vladimir Lenin)著作的启发下,确信自己引发的混乱最终会导致民主社会主义。最初,他的愿景得到了社会的广泛支持,但对经济的不满很快就像洪水一样泛滥。这位苏联领导人和他的随从们失去了主动权,他们为这场正在展开的危机提供了不同的解决方案:民族解放斗争、回归欧洲、自由民主,以及最致命的俄罗斯的崛起。也许幸运的是,这些叙述缺少一个组成部分:暴力推翻现有政权及其社会经济结构。大卫-福克斯将改革的失败归因于苏联思想和信仰的“盲目灌输”(845),这是戈尔巴乔夫体现并与数百万同胞分享的知识和文化遗产。我想补充一些注意事项。首先,在俄罗斯各省的党内工作人员中,戈尔巴乔夫似乎是一个相当独特的人:一个陷入错误困境的党内知识分子。省级官员太过愤世嫉俗,不愿接受狭隘的教育,尽管他们利用党的话语来提升自己的职业生涯。极少数的例外是新斯大林主义者、军国主义者和超级大国的行家。如果没有尤里·安德罗波夫,像戈尔巴乔夫这样的异类永远不会登上顶峰。其次,“灌输”一词削弱了“新思想”起源的复杂性,“新思想”是戈尔巴乔夫宣布和推动的一套模糊的原则。戈尔巴乔夫和20世纪80年代的许多苏联知识分子所共有的马克思列宁主义信仰,只是共产主义时期之前和之后,社会白日梦现象更长、更广泛的一种重复。鲍里斯·叶利钦(Boris Yeltsin)和根纳迪·布尔布利斯(Gennadii Burbulis)等苏联末期的杰出人物,展示了一个新版本的社会经济乌托邦如何几乎在一夜之间取代那个声名狼藉的乌托邦。两人都经历了从列宁主义信仰到西方新自由主义信仰的闪电转变,对俄罗斯历史产生了巨大影响。我特别感谢马克·贝辛格(Mark Beissinger)写了一篇评论:他对苏联解体期间非俄罗斯民族主义相互作用的研究为我的工作奠定了基础。他的书提供了一个强有力的论点,我努力研究,最后不同意。现在他开始反击了。他拒绝我强调戈尔巴乔夫的权力,他的治理模式,与叶利钦的不和,以及失败的经济和金融改革的偶然性。他声称,在1989年之后,克里姆林宫领导人除了“上演新结构形势的逻辑”——即“内外帝国的解体”之外,什么也做不了。他指责我未能将本书的重心转移到更早的时代,在他看来,当时发生了不可逆转的结构变革。似乎这还不够,他又加上了评判性的攻击:在他看来,我影射、挑剔,甚至同情强硬派(849)。不过,我很高兴贝辛格发现我们之间的分歧……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: A leading journal of Russian and Eurasian history and culture, Kritika is dedicated to internationalizing the field and making it relevant to a broad interdisciplinary audience. The journal regularly publishes forums, discussions, and special issues; it regularly translates important works by Russian and European scholars into English; and it publishes in every issue in-depth, lengthy review articles, review essays, and reviews of Russian, Eurasian, and European works that are rarely, if ever, reviewed in North American Russian studies journals.
期刊最新文献
An Elusive Consensus "The Duty of Perfect Obedience": The Laws of Subjecthood in Tsarist Russia Reading Practices and the Uses of Print in Russian History Revolutionary Reform, Stillborn Revolution Russian History Pre-1600: A Turn to a Postcolonial Perspective?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1