Communist Party of Australia


The Guardian

Current Issue

PDF Archive

Web Archive


Press Fund


About Us

Why you should ...

CPA introduction

CPA Policies

CPA statements

Contact Us

facebook, twitter

Major Issues





Climate Change



What's On








Journal of the Communist Party of Australia


Factors contributing to the failure of the socialist system in Europe

Professor Dr. Vassil Prodanov

The fall of the socialist system in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union has taken by surprise its supporters and enemies. No deep analyses and serious academic studies of the causes which brought about the collapse in these countries have been made up to the present moment. During the last five years in my country Bulgaria, the comprehension of the rapid changes was embarrassed because of the extremely strong political confrontation in the context of the so-called "velvet revolution".

Most of the evaluations of the system of "real socialism" have been quite superficial because they have been given in situations of severe political struggle within the ex-communist party and between this party and other political forces.

These evaluations have also been influenced by a phenomenon of a "psychological pendulum" that brought about the strong wave of anti-communism and right-wing sentiments in Eastern Europe between 1990 and 1992.

In principle the negative traits of the past in these evaluations were comprehended also as causes of the breakdown of "real socialism" or "communism". Ideological stigmatising replaced the objective causes.

The political visions varied between the right-wing statement that some criminal and abnormal regimes had disappeared and the opposite position that a counter-revolution had been carried out as a result of the subversive actions of the world imperialism.

In fact, attitudes towards 45 years of "socialist development" were not just central topic of ideological debate but also a centre of a political war to justify or deny the right of existence of the ex-communist party as a legitimate force.

The views of the party have also been changing in the course of the development of its ideology from Marxist-Leninist towards the positions of a modern left-wing social-democratic party.

Three different types of understanding of the causes of the fall of the old system dominated at different times:

1) 1989 and 1990. The major accusations are against "deformations" of socialism by the "authoritarian regime" of Todor Jivkov and its retreat from the teaching, traditions and ideals of socialism.

The beginning of all "deformations" in Bulgaria is seen in 1947 when, as a result of Stalin's intervention, the establishment of people's democratic model of development of the country was interrupted.

In the long run, these "deformations" brought about the crises of the system. The major cause of the troubles is the lack of democracy and the reason for this lack is first of all subjective – some people: Jivkov, Stalin, etc.

2) 1991 to 1993. At that time the communist party was renamed the Bulgarian Socialist Party and accepted leftist Western European social democratic ideology.

It is a time of strongest political confrontation, the climax of the anti-communist wave, demands for the party to be banned, enacting of "de-communisation laws" restricting the rights of some groups of citizens. There is more or less right-wing ideological hegemony in the media and vocabulary of the political forces.

At that time many socialist leaders accepted the language and images of description of the past from their adversaries and especially the formula that a "transition from totalitarianism to democracy" was taking place.

"Real socialism" is accepted as "totalitarianism" now and the shortcomings bringing about the collapse of the previous system are the major features of any totalitarian system.

The two main types of totalitarian systems are considered to be "fascism" and "communism". Adopting the way this notion is used in the rhetoric of the Reagan administration, "communism" is considered as the worst form.

"Totalitarianism", however, is not the best concept for understanding the real essence of the societies of "real socialism" and the causes of their collapse. It is rather an ideological conception with many contradicting meanings.

It is well known that it came under increasing conceptual criticism from the 1960s. The conclusions of this criticism are presented by B. Barber in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought (ed. D. Miller, Oxford/Cambridge, 1991).

There is a "tone from the outset for the ideological use of the idea of totalitarianism, which would become a significant weapon in the West's arsenal of political rhetoric.... The confusing history of the idea of totalitarianism would seem to suggest that it is not merely an essentially contested concept on the model of liberty or democracy, or a value-laden normative idea in the fashion of all significant political ideas, but a term the primary meanings and uses of which are exclusively ideological. Having been employed to describe regimes as diverse as those of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Plato's Republic, Ch'in Dynasty, fascist Italy, Sandinista Nicaragua, India during the Mauryu Dynasty, the Roman Empire under Diocletian, Geneva under Calvin, Japan under the Meiji, ancient Sparta, and the United States not only in the 196Os but also in the 1848s, the term would appear to lack any useful social scientific meaning. It remains, however, an invaluable clue to the character of cold war ideology and thus to the sociology of knowledge in the postwar era." (pp. 525-6)

It is this ideological notion that was most aggressive in the public space in 1991-1993. It was not a useful conceptual tool to analyse and understand the main features of the societies of "real socialism" and the reasons of their crises and death.

3) After 1994. This was a time of decreasing political confrontation, economic collapse, high unemployment, robbery of enormous wealth from the state created from the work of several generations of the Bulgarian people, and fast processes of social differentiation. About 90% of the people became two times poorer.

There was strong disappointment with the processes of transition to pluralist democracy and market economy. It brought about mass nostalgia for the security and way of life of "real socialism".

In a study of public opinion in October 1994, the respondents were asked to evaluate the 45 years of socialist development.

Eight (8) per cent of them replied that those had been "successful years"; 32 per cent said that "the achievements had been more than the failures"; 24 per cent replied that "there had been good and bad things"; 16 per cent said "the negative had been more than the positive"; and only 12 per cent replied that these had been only "lost years".

But that means that the use of the term "totalitarian" – suggesting only negative features of the past years – coincided with the attitudes of only 12 per cent of the population.

As a result, the model of "totalitarian socialism" (or "totalitarian communism") became inadequate in the mass consciousness and lost its force as a way of interpreting "real socialism" and the reasons of its failure.

In the new program of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), approved in 1994, the term "totalitarian" is missing. The party claims that it is against the deformations that have taken place and at the same times is against the depreciating and total defamation of the achievements.

Four main reasons for the collapse of "real socialism" are enumerated:

1)  The inefficient, bureaucratic, command-administrative economic system of totally centralised planning that liquidated the private property, market and competitive power of the economy.

2) The authoritarian political system that did not function democratically and suppressed some important rights and freedoms of the citizens.

3) The coalescence of the ruling communist parties with the state that brought about heavy deformations of the role and internal self-development of the parties as socio-political and parliamentary formations.

4) The crises of the political and governmental elites that put control of parties and the state in the hands of people with mediocre political, intellectual, professional and moral qualities.

At the same time, the program of the BSP points out that it is necessary to make a deeper analysis of the failure of Eastern European "real socialism" and that this is a difficult epistemological, social and political task that should be solved in the future.

Methodologically, the study of the causes of the fall of "real socialism" could be accomplished from the point of view of different approaches.

The most elementary approach is factorial analyses – an enumeration of the factors for the failure of "real socialism" as is done in the program of the BCS. The full list of factors which are used to interpret the failure in Bulgarian political life and theoretical literature is as follows:

1) Economic causes – bureaucratic and inefficient central planning and state property, lack of flexibility in the market.

2) "Exhausting" of the model of extensive economic development that was useful in the first stages of socialist development to carry out fast industrialisation but became inefficient later.

3) Political causes – the lack of democracy: "dictatorship of the proletariat", authoritarian or "totalitarian" rule.

4) The new technological revolution and inability of the societies of "real socialism" to adapt to the new realities. The "socialist systems" were a possible way of fast modernisation of backward societies but did not work in "post-industrial conditions".

5) The fusion of the communist party and the state.

6) Bad and mediocre people at the top of government or crises of political and governmental elites.

7) Development of a new ruling class – the "nomenklatura".

8) The under-development and backwardness of countries where Marxist teaching was applied.

9) The subversive actions of world imperialism, ideological diversions, the armaments race, etc.

10) The treason of Gorbachov or other people from the ruling top of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries.

11) The "conspiracy" of the "nomenklatura" to introduce capitalism in order to transform its political power into the power of private owners distributing between themselves the wealth created from several generations of their peoples.

12) The utopian character of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism giving birth to "abnormal societies" that were not viable.

13) The use of violence, of violent revolutions in order to create these societies.

14) The lack of strategy, conception, clear goals during "perestroika" when the Soviet ruling elite tried to adapt, to change "real socialism" according to the new realities.

These reforms came too late, they should have started in 1968 according to some criticisms. According to other critiques, these reforms had to begin, as in China, from the economic and not the political area.

Just because the first move was political democratisation without economic changes, the social system as a whole was destabilised and broke down.

15) The new "information revolution" and global media which made impossible the continued existence of "closed societies" and control of the ruling elite over the minds of their peoples.

16) The "long wave of Kondratiev" in the developed Western economies that could explain the debt crises of the ex-socialist countries in Europe and as a result the collapse of their economies and societies.

Each of these proposed factors as interpretations of the upsetting in the former socialist countries in Europe could be scrutinised and critically accepted or rejected.

But what is more important is that the factorial explanation is methodologically the lowest possible level of understanding of the reasons for the fate of the former socialist countries. It does not explain which of them is more important or which may be the basis for the others.

A higher possible level is the typological one. This involves distinguishing or combining different groups of factors because they are from the same area and are closely connected one with another:

1) Doctrinal – the utopian character of Marxism, socialism, communism; or distortion and misinterpretation of Marx's or Lenin's original teachings by their followers; or their views were valid for the 19th or the first half of the 20th Century, for developed or undeveloped countries, but then became obsolete and non-doctrinal – bad ways of applying a true teaching; objective economic and political reasons, etc.

2) Objective – the backwardness of the countries where socialist revolutions took place; exhausting of the economic model of extensive development; new technological revolution, etc and subjective – mediocrity, mistakes, low morality or criminal actions of the leaders or ruling elites, their lack of abilities and interests to see the necessity to improve "real socialism", to accommodate it to the new realities; their privileges, treason, desire to transform their political power into the power of private owners, etc.

3) External – world capitalism and its subversive activity, "cold war"; necessity of arms race, intelligence services, ideological war, global media, new technological revolution, etc and internal – economic, political, moral, etc.

4) Economic factors – the economic backwardness of the countries where revolutions took place; excessive centralisation, central planning, neglect of the market and private property; lack of economic incentives for higher productivity and technological innovations, etc political factors – "totalitarian" or authoritarian regimes, "dictatorship of the proletariat", fusion of party and state, "nomenklatura" as a specific estate or class with privileges and interests, etc ideological factors – ideological struggle and ideological diversion, psychological war, the cultural and "information imperialism" of the developed capitalist states, using the new information technologies, satellites, cable, computer and digital systems to de-legitimate ideologically the former socialist societies cultural factors – socialist revolutions took place in countries without the Western liberal democratic political culture where the Western models of pluralist parliamentary democracy are not applicable. Even now the application of such democracy in Russia is impossible and even harmful, according to some well-known Russian intellectuals and dissidents like A. Solyenitzin, A. Zinoviev and A. Michalcov-Konchalovski.

The separation of groups of factors, however, is also not enough for good comprehension of the reasons for the upsetting of the former socialist countries. A methodologically higher approach is the system approach.

This implies that some types of factors are taken as leading, integrating a system as a whole or being most important as the determining force for the others.

The system approach, however, depends on the general philosophical, ideological, value and political views of the people. That means that various kinds of systems of factors could be proposed.

In political life, the most important system views are those determined by general political and ideological views. Accordingly, in our political life right-wing and left-wing models of comprehension of the former socialist societies and the causes of their breaking down could be found.

Right-wing models. They in principle are inclined to emphasise the original utopian, non-democratic character, orientation to violence of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism or any socialist teaching at all. The result of this teaching is an "abnormal", "totalitarian", "authoritarian", economically inefficient system predestined to failure.

This means there were no positive features in the former socialist countries, or that these features were secondary and not so important.

Left-wing models. These take into consideration both positive and negative traits of the former socialist societies in various proportions. There are several types of left models:

a) Extreme-left: This emphasises the subjective reasons for the collapse of the system – the actions, interests, morality of the leaders and their treason, mediocrity, greed; or the actions of the foreign capitalist circles and states.

b) Traditional left: This emphasises first of all some objective economic reasons – shortcomings of the economic model or "exhausting" at some stage and the negative aspects of political life as a result of the peculiarity of the economic basis.

c) Modern left: This applies a concrete and historical approach taking into account these societies in their development and the historical explanation of the system of factors in them.

From this point of view, some actions and features are justified, necessary or not, positive or negative only in some concrete context.

The new technological revolution and economic changes on a world-wide scale from the 1960s made necessary further development and redefinition of the left doctrines and identity.

The leaderships of the former socialist countries have been behind this adaptation of their system to the new reality that brought about increasing negative processes in their economies and political life, crises in some countries and approaching crises in others.

When they decided to make reforms during the time of Gorbachov, they did it without any strategy and it caused deepening of the crises, destabilisation and the crash of their social system.

Our opinion is that the deep study of the destiny and causes of the upsetting of the former socialist countries in Europe lies ahead.

Back to index page

Go to What's On Go to Shop at CPA Go to Australian Marxist Review Go to Join the CPA Go to Subscribe to the Guardian Go to the CPA Maritime Branch website Go to the Resources section of our web site Go to the PDF of the Hot Earth booklet go to the World Federation of Trade Unions web site go to the Solidnet  web site Go to Find out more about the CPA