eleven thirty am in moscow these are your r.t. headlines fever increases the country's prime minister backtracks on the plan for a bailout referendum that angered european leaders and he faces a crucial time for them to vote at home greek turmoil also dominating the g twenty summit in france where he heads hailed poppins re-used latest decision. back from was the longest simulation in space history coming to a close six volunteers about to return from their mock mission for the red planet and see daylight for the first time in more than five hundred days. and a british student could be handed over to the u.s.

for alleged copyright infringement committed on home soil despite the terminations of a criminal case in the u.k. the young man faces punishment in the u.s. thanks to a controversial extradition treaty between the two countries. those were our headlines of the hour up next peter lavelle and his gas discuss the end of the soviet communist party and how it triggered the collapse of the u.s.s.r. that's coming up next and cross-talk. will. review the latest in signs and signals from. the future.

hello and welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle the party is finally over at least it was twenty years ago the end of the communist party of the soviet union was the final step before the collapse of the us that's all right so what are the parties positive and negative legacies could have it reformed itself and change the course of history. crossed out the end of the communist party of the soviet union i'm joined by ronald suny in ann ann arbor he is a professor of social and political history at the university of michigan in princeton we have mark bystander he is professor of politics at princeton university hi gentlemen this is cross-eyed to me you can jump in anytime you want mark if i can go to you first in princeton the primary reason why i'm doing this not only is it a twentieth anniversary of the end of the communist party of the soviet union but to remind people of the events of nine hundred ninety one and how much it really changed the world and how we how the world is. moved on from one great current epic

conflict to maybe another epic conflict and we can throw in the economic crisis here what is the most important legacy of what happened twenty years ago in a country that i'm living in right now russia well i think for there isn't there's a global legacy obviously the end of the cold war the end of the division of the planet within russia russia had been ruled soviet union had been ruled by. a party state essentially and then a communist party ended in essence and as it unraveled and essence that control over the state unraveled and also its control over the public sphere also and so there was a whole rush of of movements and of tendencies that just took over the pup. it's clear that the you know couldn't make itself felt under the calm and under communist rule run on the thank you do you think it's underestimated the day when we think about the the all powerful communist party of the soviet union and it was

pointed out just a second ago it's global ramifications because it just wasn't the soviet union itself it was an entire what people would call an empire some people even called an evil empire this epic conflict between the west and the communist world came to an end when the communist party finally collapsed and peacefully at the. right maybe that's one of the legacies is that there wasn't a civil war there wasn't a great deal of bloodletting there were some ethnic conflicts in different places like when i go in the car barking george intelligent well it was a relatively smooth deflating of the system i would say that one of the legacies of the soviet party rule to. emphasize what mark just said is that the party was so much a monopoly of communication of political activity that there was no room for alternatives to appear so that when the party sort of disintegrated when gorbachev

loosened things out there was really nothing there to take its place and so the weak civil society allowed again for eventually the state to rebuild and to become more authoritarian marc when i studied under martin mallya and he used to always tell me that when totalitarian societies and states collapse they collapse totally do you agree with that statement because again we were all looking at the the how powerful the soviet union the communist party the soviet union was but once it collapsed everything else went with it i mean it was the coastal collapse. well you know actually the state didn't collapse in many ways the state actually fragmented so they're little pieces of the state and in fact in some places the you know members of the polity are actually still in power such as in kazakhstan so i think. you know exaggerated. plus you know i think they were all various ways in which the institutions that were there under communism played

a major role in the whole transition process that didn't totally disappear in fact ironically the communists were in the forefront of the movements that did the soviet union so if you look at the leadership of the a stony and popular front if you look at the at the leadership of the alternative movements communists actually were very prominently represented within them well it's interesting well if i know about you but you know if we look at the i've always limited to the communist party of russia the russian federation is that it never took the it failed to take the path of european socialism i mean they still talk about lenin here i talk about marx they'd be the stuff that you just the vast majority of the people in this country are not interested any more though i do point out that it does still do well in elections when we can talk about why that is but it's certainly not a huge amount of power and it will never be that again i mean it's interesting that is that we have earlier in the early eighty's and early and up to ninety ninety one

it was the communist party that unraveled itself but then once it's finally collapsed once it was banned it didn't want to really reform itself any further is and i got very rigid. it's not quite the same party that is part of that gorbachev rule over this great big soviet communist party was made up of all kinds of different factions there were conservatives hugo chavez types there were more reformers there are quite radicals. you know it's so there was sort of a sort of in the center he moved gradually rather steadily however towards social democracy and body august one thousand nine hundred ninety one you could say that he was like a european social democrat he then failed in the coup the coup which then led to yeltsin's rise and what was left of the communist party what became the new russian federation communist party was basically the right wing of the old party so they they are i'm some ways

a kind of semi fascist party they are very nationalistic they're very authoritarian and they don't have much in common with the kind of european social democracy or i would say with the regional rather democratic radically democratic aims of karl marx and mark do you think they'd. be provocative you did glasnost and perestroika destroy the communist party of the soviet union. i'd have to say of the two glasnost destroyed the communist party of the soviet union the communist party of the soviet union was built as an instrument basically to control the state and to control the public sphere and once you opened up the public sphere the communist party really couldn't control it that the the debates that tore the communist party apart were essentially over the impact of grossness now a lot of people talk about the economy and how the economy and economic competition destroyed the communist party there is some truth in that in that but i think that that really wasn't the central element of what happened in fact i think the so you

know it could have survived for a long time had no no pressing economic crisis what it had was a legitimacy crisis. and that's where. you know glasnost came in. you know when sure noble occurred for instance and it just highlighted the the gulf between the party and and the truth and so it was basically already you know six or seven months after glasnost started they were very difficult abates taking place within the politburo there were splits that already occurred and all of the subsequent debates kind of flowed out of what were the consequences of glasnost could it be controlled and so on and so the party died because it could make this transition from the from into a competitive. i would say a marketplace of ideas well it's going to back to you i mean let's look at the legitimacy issue because i think a lot of people agree with mark there what was the major for pointed legitimacy for

the party because it looks like it went from a communist ideals of lenin marx and engels and all that to you it legitimized its rule because it won the second world war but decades later you can still keep saying well it's because we won the war that's why we want to have exclusive power i mean at a certain point you just can't keep playing that card over and over again. right there it's true that even with the world of generation there was a kind of we go go ahead go ahead round go ahead there were there was there was a kind of we were in a way of the ideology there was a kind of disillusionment that sort of started a top among some party officials like group which often shevardnadze a lot and also among the intelligentsia more progressive or liberal intelligentsia within the party so that that actually happened but it's something that's important to remember the soviet system disintegrated or was was reformed radically by

gorbachev and successfully before the soviet union itself collapse in other words the system has to be separated from the state itself by one thousand nine hundred ninety already you have a multi-party system operating you have you do have a marketplace of ideas very wroth glasses allowing of course all kinds of opinions quite radical opinions to flourish you have the beginnings of a market economy you have the end of censorship you have the end of the monopoly of the communist party that then eventually and that that that could survive but is that would have been hard but of course the soviet union had suffered and survived other great disintegrating events like world war two this was not as radical and destructive a moment as that and then came this other moment that is the failure to achieve the union treaty in one thousand nine hundred one yeltsin's move after the coup and

then the ultimate conspiracy the kind of coup that yeltsin and others carried out to destroy the soviet union as a state mark what do you think about that i mean the the loss of legitimacy could go ahead. yeah i was going to say i don't agree with ron on that i think by by the time that nine hundred ninety i think events had already gained a momentum that they were pushing not only to the disintegration of the soviet union but also i think they were pushing towards the the breakup of the communist party so by nine hundred ninety it's true that the party had had legalized its had legalized opposition activity. of course it's still a centrally monopolized power in moscow although in various republics other movements had essentially or were about to come to power. but it in fact i think that at that point in time the party was right on the edge of splitting into into

pieces so there was this debate between the democratic platform which represented the reformist wing of the party and then there was the right wing of the party the conservatives and gorbachev was left having to make a choice between the two now he could have chosen a democratic platform but if he chose the democratic platform i think you would have found that the right wing would have brought broken off of the party. and in fact the russian communist party in the creation of the russian communist party as an entity was not necessarily favored by gorbachev but it was something that the political right really wanted to have happen so it was it was kind of a break off so i think the party was factionalized saying by nine hundred ninety gentlemen to jump in here we've got to was sure break here and after the break we'll continue our discussion on the dissolution of the soviet communist party state with our keep.

busy. on. a very warm welcome to you this is your news today protesters on the wall street center play at. least in chance a good chance to choose instead to get books on the status of the human experiments to. see if we pursue a business run here is what it knows the ability trying to make sense of global economy and it's all changed things as financial templates the release is planning to maintain a confidence in monty's and. wants to be seems way mullen says recession looks to be the nation's close to collapsing a subprime loan for close. to fail so we pull

a balance again feeling like things the us crash and imminent. killing team flames are close to the judges and the are for sale just programs increase the total economy. and the close up team has been to the bridge where technological breakthroughs save human lives. now hard she goes to the see. her unusual ways to check to make sure. we're farming pioneers place local cuisine to the highest pitch. and her future developments depend on the way. russia's black sea coast should close up on our city.

welcome back to cross talk i hear all about to mind you were talking about the end of the communist party of the soviet union. came. and now we're joined by donald jensen in washington he's a resident fellow at the center for transatlantic relations let's let's break it out a little bit here for a lot of people in this country in russia the russian federation is that the end of the soviet communist part of the soviet union and the soviet union itself all in very close proximity is really about personal ambition about being yeltsin and between got a child and it didn't matter not be provocative here it didn't matter the damage they both left behind it was a power grab and it was for prestige and and legacy essentially and they didn't

care if the promised party fell apart or the soviet union it's there it was their place in history and what how they would rule in the future obviously mr yeltsin won. yes very much i thought a couple points i agree peter that it was it was a power grab between those two leaders but i think it's more deep as well and two elements i don't think we may have touched upon sufficient perhaps one would be the role of nationalism not only russian nationalism which a lot of yeltsin managed to put himself and head of but also in the various ethnic republics i think it's no coincidence that the leaders of several central several central asian republics today were or have been former communist party bosses and i think the second point i would add would be the struggle over resources as a legitimacy i wrote in one of your guest mentioned the erosion which i had happened steadily yes but accelerated lou so what made it was i think even a lot of the elite lost lost confidence in the system and thus became

a scramble for resources and if you look at most of the early oligarchs and see some of those still around a lot of them got got their start in the komsomol and he was just a quite a corsican for example and i think that reflects the massive loss of faith in the system by even the elites it's interesting mark if i go back to you in princeton to me it was a system that lost belief in itself as i remember living in poland in the one nine hundred eighty s. and i could remember even commies people who were members officially members of the communist party used to joke with me and say there are more communists in berkeley than anywhere in poland i system that lost belief in its own ideology it was probably true to a vote for italy go ahead. and i think that's right. yeah there was a gradual erosion you know i think it's easy to dismiss communism now and say well no one believed by the time you know glasnost emerged or about the time that's developed for its demise but i think there were some people who did believe in it

and believe in the ideology of the state the ideology of the state as we were talking about before was not the ideology of work or revolution it was the id. ology of actually soviet nationalism in some ways. but i think that in the beginning in the in the late seventy's and early eighty's there was this decline in our or i should say stagnation in in living standards that occurred. and just a sense that society was not moving forward social problems were multiplying. and the system was not dealing with them that was the issue so the system was being ruled by people who were in their late seventy's and eighty's i think the minister the minister of the. minister the minister of. media machine building which i think rammed the. the atomic industry was something

like eighty six at one point in time which you know you can understand why chernobyl happened so so there was this huge gap this huge gap between they who was this old generation of people who didn't seem to care much for society and the rest of society us and. you know the us was imagined differently once wasin us emerged but. that gap was definitely real and really was i think the major reason why the merged ok ronald i mean i get i mean i could just rephrase what we just heard here the social contract that the communist party. claim to provide to society would. collapse because i mean you'll still see people in the they're not i would say they are mainstream here but big mistake should be responsible for certain things here and i've always found very interesting is that even the middle class of russia today they still like those free those free to use it the communist regime we give you like electricity water based in the west people pay enormous amounts of money for but that's another topic here but the social contract

collapsed. well there is probably more or less like ronald like what ronald ever had after after after gorbachev comes to power then then before the system was relatively stable and there's a very good book about how everything seemed to be permanent until after they change and then people read back that it had to happen you know in the west the major interpretation of the fall of the soviet union both the system and the state is there was inevitable it was in the genetic code of a revolution the system was failing there were serious problems there was no mass uprising there was no determined from the bottom demand for change until gorbachev actually started this whole thing so my own view is that it was certainly not inevitable that it was largely a contingent event that it was something that happened because the reform was very

radical was badly carried out and gorbachev ultimately was unwilling to use the power of the state including the army and the police to preserve a state i would put it this way gorbachev was no abraham lincoln leaving was ready to use power to save the united states when it divided gorbachev kept hesitating allowing something to go forward if you go back to the very beginning you know with these nationalist revolts you go back to the nagorno-karabakh in one nine hundred eighty eight he didn't use force and he was very hesitant about employing the power he had eventually as mark shows in his own book a cascade of ethnic mobilizations took place at a certain point then it was likely there's a so he would fall apart things had to be done early it couldn't be done later donald if i go back to you i think this point about inevitability because i plays into the cold war dynamic because again all of us from abroad our position this is to me is the logical it's unnatural it will ultimately collapse which is part of the the narrative of western democratic capitalism or whatever the term we want to

use today so that plays into that dynamic of what about the inevitability and earlier mark mentioned in the program which is a very provocative point a noncommunist soviet union could have that survived. minus the politics i think i missed the baltic republics i think that. i think that's very very possible i thought the problem however would be the center which there is it was eliminating factor and that allows the system to continue and i don't think there necessarily was and i think it's that absence that plays russian politics today so i you know i think it could have survived it probably could have survived for maybe a generation but i do think it would ultimately break up in one form or another i would take issue with two things are going to have a discussion however one is that i don't like to use and i will be provocative peter the term collapse of the soviet union because i think there are many continuity is far less very long for some can't many continuity and second i think we have to go back to that critical year of one nine hundred ninety one we're going

to chop off in fact was not circling around always in a democratic direction but in fact either allowed or could not start some of the forces of reaction from moving and i think what he lost was his his place in the middle of the political spectrum not that he became i think as one of your biggest kind of a radical social democrat i don't think he was he maybe now but i don't think it was that ok mark to hear it can we get down to personalities here and i brought up yeltsin and got a bunch of i mean how much is it you know i know i know the child is very popular still in the west but i mean here in russia he's blamed for the collapse of the soviet union i mean was it lack of political foresight. the lack of political will because again you could look at it in you could be ideological but i suppose it's a he really didn't know what he wanted to change and he didn't know how to do it and you know and that's what the result was because he really never really had a roadmap because everyone here on this program has agreed kind of vacillated back and forth and when she do that you know you will eventually run out of options you

know you look if you look at the public opinion polling from inside the soviet union you find that gorbachev actually was the most popular politician in the soviet union until about april or may one nine hundred ninety which is when his popularity switches and actually yeltsin becomes more popular in. and at least within russia. moscow if you take it or yeltsin becomes more popular than gorbachev so what was happening then at the time well events were spinning out of control at that time this was after the collapse of eastern europe of course this was when elections were beginning to happen in in the republics and non non communist movements were coming to power nationalist movements secession was on the agenda in multiple republics and violence had already occurred where so the problem that gorbachev you know faced and why he was kind of swept away was that he acted too late and he was always too late had he i think has run suggested earlier had he

acted earlier to sort of contain some of the excesses of of nationalists and to to put some limits on glasnost some how to to prevent. you know the ways in which things ultimately escape control then perhaps he might have been able to ride this thing but as it has it you know it it developed it ultimately just became a tsunami that he couldn't control what you think about that. i mean i am going to jump in go ahead yeah. yeah well you see i agree with mark early as we can find in retrospect even at the time dozens of causes why the system and why the soviet union state would collapse in other words this was all over determined we say in the literature but over determination is not pre-determination it was not inevitable if gorbachev had acted more consistently if he'd use the power he had if

he had maybe sequence the reforms not to five different revolutions at once and the cold war marketwise the economy democratic the democrats rise the state loosen up the federation all at once this was almost impossible for for a single state to survive in that way and gorbachev of course is an incredibly admirable figure i mean he probably introduced more freedom in the world than any figure certainly in the twentieth century he reversed many of the trends that lead toward more authoritarian states towards entry to the market democratic states towards imperialism he was an anti imperialist too particularly in eastern europe and yet ultimately he's a failure ultimately the one thing the state leader has to do is preserve his own state and this he failed to do amazing irony is history thank you very much and i move on out of time but he takes my guess again an arbor princeton and in washington thanks to our viewers for watching us here to see you next time and remember prostitutes. if.

you want to. i'm.

not.