q three. three brought us closer video for your media project free media gone to r t dot com. now it's seven thirty on a friday night here in the russian capital and you would artsy your headlines now but renewed rift at the heart of all of the greek government just staying replaces disbelief over the prime minister's bailout referendum reversal all knowledge just hours away until a final vote of confidence in parliament. the turmoil in greece and dominates of the g twenty summit which is just now wrapped up in the french resort city of can global leaders have agreed to boost the power of the international monetary fund as they try to stop that contagion from spreading further. the mocked up mission

touches down a simulated flight to mars is completed by a six man crew spending over five hundred days in isolation as part of an ambitious space experiment right here in moscow are. those were the headlines up for this friday night here on r.t. up next they were joined put a little in his guests as they discussed the end of the soviet communist party and how that triggered the collapse of the u.s.s.r. thank you for watching. world. view the latest in science and technology from around the world. we've got the future covered.

hello again welcoming crosstalk 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 u.s.s.r. itself what are the parties positive and negative legacies could have it reformed itself and changed the course of history. taken. across not the end of the communist party of the soviet union i'm joined by ronald suny in and arbor 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 all right gentlemen this is cross like i mean you can jump in anytime you want mark if i can go to you first and princeton for the primary reason why i'm doing this not only is it the 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 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 the country that i'm living in right now russia well i think for there's a there's a global legacy obviously the end of the cold war the end of the division of the planet within russia or russia have been ruled soviet union have been ruled by a party state essentially and the communist party ended in essence and as it unraveled and essence that control over the state unravelled 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. spirit you know couldn't make itself felt under the calm under communist rule ronald if i

go to 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 south it was an entire of 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 it. right maybe that's one of the latencies 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 a car barking georgian coach you can stand but it was a relatively smooth deflating of the system i would say that one of the legacies of the soviet party rule two to emphasize what mark just said is that the party was sold now it's 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 loosen things up there was really nothing there to take its place and so the wheat civil society allowed again for eventually the state to rebuild and to become more authoritarian mark 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 of 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 there are little pieces of the state and in fact and in some places the you know members of the politburo 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 that did the soviet union so if you look at the leadership of the estonian 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 one thing about cuba you know if we look at 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 we may still talk about lenin here you talk about marx they'd be the stuff that the vast majority of the people in this country are not interested anymore though i do point out that it does still do well in elections when we can talk about why daddy is but it's certainly not

a huge amount of power and it will never be that again i mean it's interesting that he said we have earlier in the in the early eighty's and early in up to ninety nine when it was the communist party that unraveled itself but then once it's finally collapsed which it was banned it didn't want to really reform itself any further is not actually got very rigid. it's not quite the same party that is the party that gorbachev ruled over this great big soviet communist party was made up of all kinds of different factions there were conservatives and you go trough types there were more reformers there are great radicals. you know it's so there was sort of in the center he moved gradually rather steadily however towards social democracy and by 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 in 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 kind of european social democracy or i would say with the original rather democratic radically democratic aims of karl marx mark if you think they've gone a bit 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 the soviet union the communist party 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 that the communist party really couldn't control it that the the debates that tore the communist party apart were essentially over the impact of colossal us 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 was the central element of what happened in fact i think the soviet union could have survived for a long time had no no pressing economic crisis but it had was a legitimate secrets. and that's where. you know glasnost came in. you know when chernobyl occurred for instance it just highlighted the the gulf between the party and and the truth and so. basically already you know six or seven months after the last night started there were very difficult debates 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 they couldn't make this transition from a into a competitive. i would say marketplace of ideas well it's actually i mean let's

look at the legitimacy issue because i think a lot of people agree with one of their what was the major from point of legitimacy for the party because it looks like it went from a communist ideals of lenin marx and engels and all that to legitimize 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 all the world which is our age there was a kind of we both had good round ahead there were it there was a there was a kind of withering away of the ideology there was a kind of disillusionment that sort of started at the top among some party officials like gorbachev and 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 always was reformed radically by going to charge 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 and is that would have been hard but of course the soviet union had suffered and survived all other great this integrating 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 of legitimacy because you had. yeah i was going to say i don't agree with ron on that i think by by the time that by 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 of the communist party so by nine hundred ninety it's true that the party had had legalized it's 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 the democratic platform but if he chose the democratic platform i think he 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 factional izing by nine hundred ninety right gentlemen to jump in here we're going to a short break here and after the break we'll continue our discussion on the dissolution of the soviet communist party state the dark.

on. a very warm welcome to you this is your news today protesters on wall street strange play a. chance to try to get the status of the human experiments good. business rap music awards it goes. global economy and it's all changelings us financial tips. to maintain our confidence in markets and. wants to be seen

trade imbalances recession looks the nation's close to collapsing a subprime loan close. to fail so we played the game feel like things us crashed. just like all the cars and the street behind me i'll just programs increase the total economy. wealthy british style. market. find out what's really happening to the global economy for a no holds barred look at the global financial headline is good news good cause a report card. the be kicking. the ball.

well home after cross talk i could live up to mind you were talking about the end of the communist party of the soviet union. the big. story. 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 you know between yeltsin and between got a bunch off 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 and its that it was their place in history and 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 to and i don't think we may have touched upon the succession of that one would be the role of nationalism not only russian nationalism which yeltsin managed to put himself in hello but also in the various ethnic republics i think it's no coincidence that the leaders of several central to 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 mentions the erosion which i had happened steadily yes but accelerated was so when the eighty's 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 their start in the komsomol in the eighty's mr quinn of course in 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 ok i system that i lost belief in its own ideology. it was probably true to a vote for italy go ahead. 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 that by the time you know glasnost emerged or by the time that it'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 i. ideology 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 take line in 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 did a ministry the minister of. the minister and the minister of. media machine building which i think ran 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 crossness emerged but. that gap was definitely real and really was i think the major reason why classes to merge ok ronald i mean i get maybe i could just rephrase what we just heard here the social contract that the soviet communist party. claim to provide to society was collapsed because i mean you'll still see people in there not i would say they were mainstream here but because states 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 to was free of those freebies that the communist regime would give you like electricity water things that in the west people pay enormous amounts of money for but that's another topic here but the social contract collapsed. well there's probably

more or less like ronald that come to ronald that are after after after gorbachev comes to power then then before this 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 with the system and the state is that it was inevitable it was in the code of the 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 leader was ready to use power to say the united states when the dividing 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 thousand 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 when former part things had to be done early it couldn't be done later donald if i go back to you and i to this point about the leave it inevitably because that plays into the cold war dynamic because again all of us were brought up is it this is to me is the logical it's unnatural it will ultimately collapse which is part of the narrative of western democratic capitalism or one of the term we want to use today so that plays into that dynamic here but what about the inevitability and

earlier mark mentioned in the program which is very provocative find a noncommunist soviet union could have not survived. minus of all to i think it is the baltic republics i think that i think that's very very possible but the problem however would be the extent to which there is a legitimate in factor american 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 and i would take issue with two things are going to get discussion however one is that i don't like to use and i will be provocative here the term collapse of the soviet union because i think there are many cotonou it is far less material and for some caught 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 talk in fact was not circling around always in a democratic direction but in fact neither allowed or could not stop 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 sad kind of a radical social democrat i don't think he was he maybe now but i don't think it was them ok mark you know can we get down to personalities here and i brought appealed to me and got a bit of i mean how much is it you know i know i know that i was very popular still in the west but i mean here in russia he is playing 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 and you could be ideological but i suppose is that he really didn't know what he wanted to change and you know how to do it and you know and that's what the result was because he really never really had a road map because everyone here on this program is that we kind of vacillated back and forth and once you do that you know you will eventually run out of options you know you look if you look at the public opinion polling at the time inside the soviet union you find that group which actually was the most popular politician in

the soviet union until about april or day one nine hundred ninety eight which is when he. his popularity switches and actually yeltsin becomes more popular then at least within russia. moscow in particular 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

to put some limits on glasnost somehow 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 been you know it it developed it ultimately just became a tsunami that he couldn't control what you think about that on ronald i mean you had to go ahead jeff. yeah well you see i agree with mark there is we can find in retrospect even at the time dozens of causes why the system in 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 had used 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 democrat ties 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 not 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 a state leader has to do is preserve his own state and this he failed to do amazing irony of history thank you very much and i'm about out of time many thanks my guess would be in our princeton and in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here to see you next time and remember prostitutes.