The Collapse of the Soviet Union Began with the Complete Slander of CPSU History by the CPSU Itself

How to correctly treat a party’s history, and how to fairly evaluate historical figures, especially the role and merits and faults of leaders, is an important indicator of whether a party is mature. To evaluate the merits and faults of leaders, it is even more necessary to integrate the specific historical environment and summarize the historical experiences and lessons therein. Reflecting on history must never be done on a whim, in a rush, or by emphasizing only the dark side without looking at problems comprehensively and historically, engaging in a wholesale negation of the past that actually only caters to current political needs. This is essentially repeating past mistakes; it is not only harmful but also shameful. However, in the late 1980s, the CPSU leaders headed by Gorbachev and Yakovlev precisely played the role of completely slandering the history of the CPSU.

如何正确对待党的历史，如何公正地评价历史人物，特别是领袖人物的作用和功过，是检验一个党是否成熟的重要标志。要评价领袖人物的功过是非，更需要结合具体的历史环境，总结其中的历史经验和教训。反思历史，绝不能心血来潮、一哄而起，或只强调阴暗一面，不去全面、历史地看问题，大搞全盘否定过去，实际只是为迎合当前的政治需要。这在本质上是重复了过去的错误，不仅是有害的，也是可耻的。然而，20世纪80年代后期以戈尔巴乔夫和雅科夫列夫为首的苏共领导人正是扮演了这样全面诋毁苏共历史的角色。

Soviet history, after the political criticism campaign in Soviet historiography in the early 1930s, and especially after the publication of the *History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course* in 1938, had already acquired a fixed interpretation. But Khrushchev’s criticism of Stalin’s personality cult at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 caused ideological confusion among the people. After Brezhnev came to power in the mid-1960s, he in turn criticized Khrushchev and his methods. During the Gorbachev period, some extremist forces in the Soviet ideological and cultural sphere once again stirred up a wave of “historical reflection,” directing the spearhead of public opinion directly at Stalin and the history of the CPSU. They endlessly harped on historical old scores, unscrupulously negated everything in the CPSU’s past, first negating and cursing Stalin, then negating Lenin, negating the October Revolution, negating the Soviet system, and negating Marxism-Leninism.

苏联的历史，自20世纪30年代初苏联史学界的政治批判运动以后，特别是1938年《联共(布)党史简明教程》出版以后，已经有了一个固定的解释。但1956年苏共二十大上赫鲁晓夫批判斯大林个人迷信，引起了人们思想上的混乱。60年代中期勃列日涅夫上台后又对赫鲁晓夫及其做法提出了批评。戈尔巴乔夫时期，苏联思想文化领域一些极端势力再次掀起了一股“历史反思热”，把舆论矛头直接指向斯大林和苏共历史。他们无休止地纠缠于历史旧账，肆无忌惮地否定苏共过去的一切，先是否定和诅咒斯大林，随后又否定列宁、否定十月革命、否定苏联体制、否定马克思列宁主义。

From the mid-1980s onward, the movement to negate history in the late period of CPSU rule exhibited the following characteristics in terms of content and form.

20世纪80年代中期以后，苏共执政后期的否定历史运动从内容和形式上看呈现如下几个特点。

(1) The historical reflection activities were personally organized and planned by the top leader of the CPSU.

(一)反思历史活动是由苏共最高领导人亲自组织计划进行的

Some contemporary historians, in evaluating the “historical reflection” movement stirred up during the Gorbachev period, write that in the early stages of “reform,” Gorbachev, Yakovlev, and others called for filling in “blank spots” and rewriting history, which had a strong political and ideological orientation. They were not interested in historical issues per se, but mainly aimed to create public opinion for promoting his “reform” and achieving his political goals.

当今一些历史学家在评价戈尔巴乔夫时期掀起的“反思历史”运动时写道，在“改革”初期，戈尔巴乔夫、雅科夫列夫等号召填补“空白点”、改写历史，具有很强的政治性和思想倾向性，并非对历史问题感兴趣，而主要是为推动他的“改革”制造舆论，实现其政治目的。

In November 1986, at an all-Union conference of social science department heads, Gorbachev criticized Soviet history textbooks for containing formulism, dogmatism, and formalism. He demanded that textbooks be rewritten. After the January 1987 Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, Gorbachev repeatedly issued orders to the press, emphasizing that “there should be no covering up on historical issues.” To ensure that press and public opinion thinking had the correct “propaganda line,” Gorbachev and Yakovlev frequently “synchronized watches” with press leaders. In July 1987, at a symposium with press and artistic creation leaders, Gorbachev stated that the events of 1937–1938 could not and should not be forgiven or pardoned.

1986年11月，在全苏社会科学教研室主任会议上，戈尔巴乔夫指责苏联历史教科书存在着公式主义、教条主义和形式主义。他要求重新编写教科书。1987年苏共中央一月全会之后，戈尔巴乔夫多次向新闻界下令，强调说“历史问题上不应遮遮掩掩”。为保证新闻舆论思维有正确的“宣传口径”，戈尔巴乔夫和雅科夫列夫经常和新闻界领导人“对表”。1987年7月，戈尔巴乔夫在和新闻界、艺术创作领导人座谈会上谈到，1937—1938年的事件不能也不应原谅和饶恕。

In 1987, the CPSU convened a meeting to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the October Revolution. Before the meeting, Yakovlev and others carefully planned and drafted Gorbachev’s report for the commemorative meeting. The report sharply criticized Stalinism. Gorbachev later proudly recalled that the innovation of this report was “shifting from exposing and criticizing Stalin to criticizing the Stalinist system.” Yakovlev confessed that his goal was to use the 70th anniversary meeting to push forward the “new thinking.” In this report, titled *The October Revolution and Reform: The Revolution Continues*, Gorbachev claimed to continue the unfinished work of the 1960s and restore historical justice. At a briefing for the commemorative meeting, Yakovlev told reporters that the analysis of history at this commemorative meeting should not be regarded as a final conclusion, and that some conclusions in the report should not be dogmatized or fixed. He continued to fan the flames, encouraging and emboldening the forces that completely negated history.

1987年，苏共召开纪念十月革命70周年大会。会前，雅科夫列夫等精心策划和起草了戈尔巴乔夫在纪念大会上的报告。报告对斯大林主义提出了尖锐的批评。戈尔巴乔夫后来得意地回忆，这个报告的创新之处就是“由揭批斯大林转到批判斯大林体制”。雅科夫列夫坦白，他的目的是借70周年大会将“新思想”推向前进。在这份名为《十月革命与改革：革命在继续》的报告中戈尔巴乔夫声称要继续60年代未完的事业，恢复历史公正。雅科夫列夫在纪念大会的吹风会上对记者讲，不应把此次纪念大会上对历史的分析视为最终的结论，不应将报告中的一些结论教条化、固定化。他继续煽风点火，为全面否定历史的势力加油、打气。

It should be pointed out that attitudes within the CPSU leadership towards this “historical fever” were not uniform. Politburo member Ligachev and Politburo member and KGB Chairman Chebrikov both opposed “ideological pluralism” and the one-sided vilification of Soviet history. Chebrikov warned that imperialist agents were sponsoring some writers to vilify Soviet history. Regarding “reflecting on history” and “raking up historical old scores,” the Soviet historical community expressed deep concern, and the voices of ordinary CPSU members and the masses opposing the vilification of history were also strong. On March 13, 1988, *Sovetskaya Rossiya* published a letter to the editor from Nina Andreeva, a female teacher at the Leningrad Technical Institute, titled “I Cannot Forsake My Principles,” which criticized the currents of “historical reflection” surging in society. The letter pointed out that the sensational articles in current newspapers could only lead people astray and were smearing socialist Soviet Union. The article raised many abnormal phenomena in the public opinion sphere: activities of informal organizations, advocacy for the adoption of a Western parliamentary separation of powers system, denial of the leading role of the Party and the working class, and vicious attacks on Soviet history. The article stated that “reform” had been going on for several years, but instead of seeing results, it had led to a decline in living standards. The reform lacked a clear program and goals, and concealed a tendency towards cosmopolitanism. After the letter was published, newspapers in some regions reprinted it, and some Party organizations began to discuss it.

应当指出，当时苏共党内领导层中间对待这场“历史热”的态度是不一致的。政治局委员利加乔夫和政治局委员、克格勃主席切布里科夫都反对“意识形态的多元化”和片面丑化苏联历史。切布里科夫警告说，帝国主义的密探正在赞助一些作家去丑化苏联的历史。对于“反思历史”“翻历史旧账”，苏联历史学界深表担忧，苏共普通党员和群众反对丑化历史的声音也很强烈。1988年3月13日，《苏维埃俄罗斯报》发表了列宁格勒技术学院女教师尼娜·安德烈耶娃的一封读者来信，题为《我不能放弃原则》，批评了社会中涌动的一股股“反思历史潮流”。来信指出，当前报刊上轰动一时的文章只能教人迷失方向，是给社会主义苏联抹黑。文章提出了当时舆论界许多不正常的现象：非正式组织活动，宣扬应该实行西方的议会分权制，否认党和工人阶级的领导地位，恶毒攻击苏联历史等。文章指出，“改革”进行几年了，非但未见成效，反而导致生活水平下降。改革缺乏明确的纲领和目标，隐藏着世界主义的倾向。文章发表后，一些州的报刊纷纷转载，一些党组织开始讨论。

Nina Andreeva’s letter caused an uproar. The “liberal reformers” regarded it as a counterattack and settling of scores by “conservative forces and the old forces of the CPSU.” The CPSU Central Committee Politburo held emergency meetings for two consecutive days to discuss countermeasures. Finally, under the direct instruction of Yakovlev, *Pravda*’s V. Afanasyev personally organized a counterattack article published on April 5, titled “The Principles of Reform: The Revolutionary Nature of Thinking and Action,” which comprehensively counterattacked and suppressed Andreeva. *Pravda* labeled Nina Andreeva’s letter a “manifesto of anti-reform elements,” and called Nina Andreeva “an enemy of reform, a Stalinist, a conservative, a bureaucratic apparatchik, a representative of the Party nomenklatura.” *Pravda* argued that Andreeva was defending Stalin, representing the voice of conservative forces in Soviet society, and attempting to hinder the reform process. After this debate, the CPSU leaders not only began to expose and criticize Stalin but also escalated further, criticizing Marxism-Leninism as utopian and dogmatic. From then on, with the direct participation of Gorbachev and Yakovlev, the CPSU went even further in negating Stalin and the historical path of the past.

尼娜·安德烈耶娃的信引发了轩然大波，“自由改革派”将其视为“保守势力和苏共旧势力”的反攻倒算。苏共中央政治局接连两天召开紧急会议讨论对策。最后，在雅科夫列夫直接授意下，《真理报》的维·阿法纳西耶夫亲自组织，4月5日发表了反击文章《改革的原则：思维和行动的革命性》，对安德烈耶娃给予全面反击和打压。《真理报》将尼娜·安德烈耶娃的信称为“反改革分子的宣言”，把尼娜·安德烈耶娃称为“改革的敌人、斯大林主义分子、保守派、机关官僚、党的权贵代表”。《真理报》认为，安德烈耶娃是在为斯大林辩护，是苏联社会的保守势力的声音，企图阻止改革的进程。此次争论后，苏共领导人不仅开始揭批斯大林，而且进一步升级，批判马列主义是空想和教条。从此以后，在戈尔巴乔夫和雅科夫列夫的直接参与下，苏共在否定斯大林、否定过去的历史道路方面走得更远。

(2) Taking advantage of the press’s “historical reflection,” they stirred up a movement to rehabilitate historical unjust cases, creating an atmosphere of public opinion condemning the CPSU.

(二)趁报刊“反思历史”之际，掀起平反历史错案运动，制造声讨苏共的舆论氛围

During Stalin’s tenure in power, due to the special historical conditions at the time and the error of expanding the scope of class struggle, some unjust, false, and wrong cases had emerged. It was not until the Khrushchev era that these cases began to be corrected one after another. Correcting unjust, false, and wrong cases was entirely necessary. The problem was that after Gorbachev advocated “democratization” and “glasnost,” articles describing the cases by those rehabilitated or their relatives appeared more and more frequently in newspapers and periodicals, forming a powerful impact of public opinion that severely shook the foundations and basis of the CPSU and the Soviet system.

斯大林当政时期，由于当时特殊的历史条件和阶级斗争扩大化的错误，曾出现过一些冤假错案，直至赫鲁晓夫时代起，这些冤假错案才陆续得到纠正。纠正冤假错案是完全应该的，问题在于，自戈尔巴乔夫提倡“民主化”“公开性”之后，恢复名誉者或其亲属描述案情的文章在报刊上越登越多，形成强大的舆论冲击力，严重动摇了苏共和苏联制度的根基和基础。

In early 1988, the Central Committee of the CPSU established a commission to rehabilitate victims of the 1930s “Great Purge,” later personally led by Politburo member and Central Committee Secretary Yakovlev, to re-examine certain historical events. Even more striking was that on July 4, 1988, following Gorbachev’s suggestion, the CPSU Central Committee Politburo decided to erect a monument in Moscow to the millions who perished under Stalin’s repression. At the same time, so-called “historical rehabilitation” activities among the public were carried out with the tacit approval of the top CPSU leadership. On November 26, 1988, the weekly *Ogonyok* held a large-scale mass “Conscience Week” event, solemnly commemorating the victims of the Stalin era. The Union of Architects, the Union of Filmmakers, *Ogonyok* magazine, and *Literaturnaya Gazeta* jointly organized a historical education association called “Pamyat” (Memory). The purpose of this association was to promote the rehabilitation of historical cases across the Soviet Union, restore historical truth, and erect monuments for victims of Soviet history. After 1988, some radical publications “reflecting on history,” such as *Ogonyok* and *Moscow News*, gradually revealed their true face: by negating the past, negating CPSU history, and negating socialism, they sought to change the direction of reform, steering it along the path they had designed.

1988年初，苏共中央成立了30年代“大清洗”受害者平反委员会，后由政治局委员、中央书记处书记雅科夫列夫亲自挂帅，对一些历史事件重新审查。更加引人注目的是，1988年7月4日，根据戈尔巴乔夫的建议，苏共中央政治局做出决定，在莫斯科为斯大林时期被迫害致死的数百万人建立纪念碑。与此同时，所谓民间的“历史平反”活动也在苏共最高领导人的默许下开展起来。1988年11月26日，《星火》周刊举办了大规模群众性“良心周”活动，隆重纪念斯大林时代的受害者。苏联建筑家联合会、电影家联合会、《星火》画报和《文学报》共同组织了名为“纪念”的历史教育协会。该协会的目的就是在全苏范围内促进平反历史案件，还原历史真相，为苏联历史受害者建立纪念碑。1988年以后，一些“反思历史”的激进报刊如《星火》画报和《莫斯科新闻》逐渐暴露其真面目：借否定过去，否定苏共历史，否定社会主义，进而改变改革的方向，使改革沿着他们设计的道路进行。

(3) In this “historical reflection fever,” non-professional historians such as journalists and writers acted as the “vanguard”

(三)在这场“历史反思热”中非历史专业的记者、作家等充当了“急先锋”

As Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences I. V. Vorobyov pointed out in early 1989: “What aroused people’s interest in history was not our professional historians, but publicists, writers, and economists. It was they who turned history into the social force it has now become. As for professional historians (who, as is well known, number in the thousands in our country), only a handful actively engaged in this work.”

正如苏联科学院通讯院士и.В.沃罗比耶夫在1989年初指出的：“唤起人们对历史的兴趣的，不是我们职业历史学家，而是政论家、作家、经济学家。正是他们把历史变成它现在成为的那种社会力量。至于职业历史学家(众所周知，他们在我国有成千上万)，积极卷入这项工作的，真是屈指可数。”

Nevertheless, a small number of radical historians did throw themselves into the movement to “rewrite history,” such as Yuri Afanasyev and D. Volkogonov. The former was once packaged as a “democratic fighter,” but after the mid-1990s he faded away; the latter, a general in the CPSU’s Main Political Directorate responsible for propaganda, became Yeltsin’s hired pen, fiercely attacking Lenin and Stalin, and is now deceased. This trend of reflecting on history led to the conclusion that the entire history of the Soviet Union needed rewriting. In June 1988, relevant Soviet authorities decided to cancel the history examination for that semester in primary and secondary schools, and future history textbooks for these schools would be rewritten. Encouraged by official Soviet support, the “history fever,” centered on exposing historical truths, swept through the entire society like a massive tornado, growing ever more intense.

不过，还是有少数激进的历史学家投入到“改写历史”的运动中，如尤里·阿法纳西耶夫和德·沃尔科戈诺夫。前者一度被包装成“民主斗士”，20世纪90年代中期以后则偃旗息鼓;后者则由苏军总政治部负责宣传工作的将军变成了叶利钦的御用文人，极力攻击列宁和斯大林，现已不在人世。这股反思历史的潮流造成整部苏联历史都需要改写。1988年6月，苏联有关部门做出决定，取消那一学期的中小学历史课考试，今后中小学历史教科书要重新编写。在苏联官方的鼓励下，以揭露历史真相为主要内容的“历史热”，像一股巨大的龙卷风席卷整个社会，而且越刮越猛。

Faced with the chaos in the historical field, on October 3, 1989, the CPSU Central Committee convened a symposium of historians, chaired by Central Committee Secretary V. Medvedev. In his opening remarks, he defended the situation: “The current sociopolitical atmosphere depends on views of history. We should not defend what deserves exposure. Conscience cannot be traded. The reckoning with past mistakes must be carried through to the end, without any restrictions!” Attending this meeting were authoritative figures in Soviet historical scholarship, including USSR Academy of Sciences Academicians G. Smirnov, Yu. Kukushkin, and D. Kovalchenko, who spoke out, expressing concern about the historical fever then prevailing in society. Academician G. Smirnov stated that he did not agree with blackening the entire history of the Soviet Union, including the Great Patriotic War and postwar reconstruction. Academician Yu. Kukushkin proposed that without respect for Marxism and without theoretical preparation, it was difficult to expect reform to achieve results; reform could not be carried out under the banners of historical nihilism and de-ideologization, and the mass media and some extremist forces could not force historical science to be de-ideologized. Academician Yu. Kukushkin and Academician D. Kovalchenko, academic secretary of the History Division of the USSR Academy of Sciences, demanded that the CPSU Central Committee should have its own principled stance. In response to the academicians’ questions, V. Medvedev, as a Central Committee secretary, brushed them off lightly with a single phrase: Lenin, the October Revolution, the socialist choice. This CPSU Central Committee symposium had no further follow-up.

面对历史领域的混乱状况，1989年10月3日，苏共中央召开了历史学家座谈会，会议由苏共中央书记处书记瓦·梅德韦杰夫主持。他在开场白中辩解：“当前的社会政治气氛取决于对历史的看法。不应维护那些应当受到揭露的东西。良心不能交易。对过去错误的清算必须进行到底，不能有任何的限制!”参加此次会议的苏联历史学界的权威、苏联科学院院士格·斯米尔诺夫、尤·库库什金、德·科瓦里钦科等纷纷发言，对当时社会的历史热潮表示忧虑。格·斯米尔诺夫院士提出，他不赞成对包括卫国战争、战后恢复在内的苏联历史一概抹黑。尤·库库什金院士提出，缺乏对马克思主义的尊重，缺乏理论准备，改革很难指望取得成效;改革不能打着历史虚无主义和非意识形态化的旗号，大众传媒和一些极端势力不能强迫历史科学非意识形态化。尤·库库什金院士和苏联科学院历史学部学术秘书德·科瓦里钦科院士要求苏共中央应该有自己的原则立场。面对院士们的发问，身为中央书记处书记的瓦·梅德韦杰夫轻描淡写、一语带过：列宁、十月革命、社会主义选择。此次苏共中央的座谈会便没有了下文。

(4) Reflecting on history led to the proliferation of historical nihilism, negating CPSU history and socialism

(四)反思历史导致历史虚无主义泛滥，否定苏共历史和社会主义

Since the 20th Congress of the CPSU, a current of thought completely negating Stalin had always lurked beneath the surface of Soviet society. Driven by Gorbachev’s “democratization” and “glasnost,” this current revived and quickly spread. Opposition forces selectively and purposefully disclosed historical documents and archives from the Stalin era, using so-called past historical injustices and miscarriages of justice to prepare for the complete negation of Stalin.

自苏共二十大之后，苏联社会始终潜伏着一股全盘否定斯大林的思潮。这股思潮在戈尔巴乔夫的“民主化”“公开性”推动下，死灰复燃，很快成为蔓延之势。反对势力有针对性和选择性地公开斯大林时期历史文献档案，借过去的一些所谓历史冤假错案为全盘否定斯大林做准备。

In June 1987, issue No. 26 of *Ogonyok*, controlled by CPSU dissidents, published an open letter from Lenin’s comrade Raskolnikov to Stalin dated August 17, 1939, in which the letter sternly condemned Stalin for arresting and killing innocent prominent figures in the military and cultural spheres. Shortly thereafter, *Moscow News* published a previously unpublished letter from Sholokhov in 1927 to old Party member Levitskaya, criticizing the excesses of agricultural collectivization, saying that “suppressing the kulaks has crushed the middle peasants too, and the poor peasants are starving,” causing “people to be furious, their mood extremely bad.” The journal *Science and Life* published writer Simonov’s “Historical Lessons and the Writer’s Duty,” written 20 years earlier, condemning Stalin for executing three batches of senior military cadres before and at the beginning of the war, causing incalculable losses to the army and severe harm to the country, and so on.

1987年6月，由苏共异己分子把持的《星火》画报第26期披露了列宁的战友拉斯科尔尼科夫1939年8月17日给斯大林的公开信，信中严厉谴责斯大林逮捕和杀害无辜的军界和文化界著名人士。不久，《莫斯科新闻》刊载了从未发表过的肖洛霍夫1927年写给老党员列维茨卡娅的一封信，批评农业集体化过火，“压制富农，可把中农也压扁了，贫农也在挨饿”，致使“人们狂怒，情绪极端恶劣”。《科学与生活》杂志则刊登了作家西蒙诺夫20年前写的《历史的教训与作家的职责》，谴责斯大林在战争开始前和战争初期处决三批高级军事干部，给军队带来无法估量的损失和对国家造成的严重危害，等等。

This wave of reckoning began in late 1987 and reached its climax in 1988. The target of criticism shifted from Stalinism to the social system of the 1920s–1950s, negating the Soviet system, arguing that the Soviet system represented by Stalin was a typical “administrative-command” system, a “totalitarianism,” the source of all evil. After 1989, materials exposing and criticizing Stalin began to decrease, and criticism of Stalinism gradually transformed into criticism of Bolshevism and the October Revolution. Some articles explicitly or implicitly suggested that the October Revolution and Bolshevism, Lenin and Stalin, were in fact directly linked. One of the most influential events in the Soviet ideological sphere in 1988–1989 was the publication of a long article by Doctor of Philosophy A. Tsipko in *Science and Life* titled “The Origins of Stalinism.” While ostensibly defending Marxism, the article in fact negated the October Revolution and the history of Soviet socialism. It argued that the Russian October Revolution was a product of radicalism, interrupting the normal course of Russian history. The article opposed “good” Lenin’s thought to Stalin’s “bad” socialism. The author proposed that from 1917 to 1988, the ideas and practices of Soviet radicalism were a major obstacle to contemporary society.

这股清算思潮自1987年底开始，到1988年达到高潮。批判的矛头已由斯大林主义指向20—50年代的社会制度，否定苏联体制，认为斯大林代表的苏联体制是典型的“行政命令”体制，是“极权主义”，是万恶之源。1989年以后，揭批斯大林的材料开始减少，对斯大林主义的批判逐渐转变为对布尔什维克主义、十月革命的批评。一些文章或明或暗地提出，十月革命与布尔什维克主义，列宁与斯大林实际上有着直接的联系。1988—1989年，苏联意识形态领域最有影响的事件之一就是，哲学博士亚·齐普科在《科学与生活》杂志上发表了长篇文章《斯大林主义的起源》。此文在表面上维护马克思主义，实则否定十月革命，否定苏联社会主义的历史。文章认为，俄国十月革命是激进主义的产物，它中断了俄国历史的正常进程。文章将“好”的列宁思想与斯大林“坏”的社会主义对立起来。作者提出，1917年到1988年，苏联激进主义的思想和实践是当今社会的重要障碍。

The “reflecting on history” movement began with exposing and criticizing Stalin, then negated the October Revolution, cast doubt on the system after the October Revolution, and finally led to the glorification of Tsarist Russian history and self-negation, along with a blind faith in the Western path. Vilifying CPSU history ultimately led to the Russian theoretical community wantonly “exposing Russia’s historical defects and slandering the state.” The historical nihilism that claimed Russian civilization had “historical defects” compared to Western civilization, along with the worship of the West, constituted the theoretical and historical-philosophical foundation of Russian neoliberalism after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the late 1980s, Soviet public opinion promoted the idea that reform meant “completely replacing Russia’s civilizational model and national sociocultural customs.” Opening a joke book published at the time, one could read: “An American car stops in Moscow. Lying in the mud under the car body are several Soviet people puncturing the tires. Passersby ask: What are you doing there? They reply: We want to breathe some free air from America.”

“反思历史”运动从揭批斯大林开始，进而否定十月革命，怀疑十月革命以后的制度，最后导致美化沙俄历史和否定自我，迷信西方道路。丑化苏共历史最终导致了俄罗斯理论界肆意“揭批俄罗斯的历史缺陷、诋毁国家”。有关俄罗斯文明较之西方文明存在着“历史性缺陷”的历史虚无主义和崇拜西方的做法，构成了苏联解体后俄罗斯新自由主义的理论基础和历史哲学基础。在80年代末期，苏联舆论界宣扬改革就是要“全面更换俄罗斯的文明模式和民族社会文化习俗”。打开一本当时出版的笑话集，可以读到这样的内容：“一辆美国汽车停在莫斯科，车身下的泥浆中躺着几位正在扎轮胎的苏联人。过往的人问：你们在那里干什么?他们回答：我们想吸一些来自美国的自由空气。”

In academic discussion meetings of that time, one could often hear statements such as: “What kind of economy can be discussed in the Soviet Union? Only a primitive cave-dweller economy.” Sometimes, one could even hear regretful sighs: “Alas! Why were we not occupied by the Germans?” During this period, the speeches of certain “reform” luminaries and “trendsetters” of liberal democratization mostly began with a fierce denunciation of the Soviet past and ended with praise for the West. “If people’s hopes are dashed, then for this unqualified and uncivilized nation, which bears the features of an innate totalitarianism dating back to Ivan the Terrible, there is a simple and natural way out — to lead the country comprehensively into a colonial state in all fields, including the economy, society, and ideology.” Some newspaper articles also argued that it was necessary to introduce United Nations arbitration, “peacekeeping forces,” “humanitarian aid,” and UN supervisors and observers on Soviet territory. A newspaper called *Zichimei* once published a sentence: “We sincerely await such an outcome, and what is so bad about a colonial state?” The article then went on to discuss how to become a colony and suggested seeking help from Western businessmen.

在当时学术界的一些讨论会中，经常能听到这样的话：“在苏联可以谈论何种经济?只能是原始穴居的野人经济。”有时，甚至可以听到遗憾的叹息：“唉!为什么我们没有被德国人占领?”在这一时期，一些“改革”的风云人物，自由民主化的“弄潮儿”的演讲多是从痛斥苏维埃的过去开始，以赞扬西方结束。“如果人们所想的希望落空了，那么对于这个带有一种始自伊凡雷帝的天生极权主义特征的、不合格和未开化的民族来说，有一条简单而自然的出路——在经济、社会和意识形态等各个领域将国家全面引向殖民地状态。”有的报刊文章还证明说，有必要在苏联领土上引入联合国仲裁、引入“维和部队”、实施“人道主义援助”，设立联合国监督员和观察员。有一家名为《自鸣钟》的报纸曾刊载了这样一句话：“我们真诚地期待这样的结局，而且，殖民地状态有什么不好?”于是，该文接下来就讨论怎样才能成为殖民地，并建议向西方商人求助。

It was precisely under the impetus of CPSU leaders Gorbachev and Yakovlev that, under the pretext of re-evaluating history, the CPSU was negated, the history of socialist revolution and construction was negated, and the Soviet socialist system was negated, leading to ideological chaos in society and opening the door to the ideological dissolution of the CPSU. In the late 1980s, certain books, articles, and statements on historical issues openly and completely negated Stalin, satirized and ridiculed Lenin, negated the October Revolution, negated Marxism, and characterized the CPSU as a “material carrier of the bureaucratic obstacle mechanism” and a “self-righteous organizational institution wallowing in lies and self-deception.” In this way, step by step, the CPSU was pushed onto the historical judgment seat.

正是在苏共领导人戈尔巴乔夫和雅科夫列夫的推动下，以重新评价历史为名，否定苏共，否定社会主义革命和建设的历史，否定苏联社会主义制度，导致社会思想混乱，为从思想上瓦解苏共打开了大门。20世纪80年代末期，某些涉及历史问题的书籍、文章和言论公开全盘否定斯大林，讽刺和挖苦列宁，否定十月革命，否定马克思主义，把苏共视为“官僚障碍机制的物质载体”和“沉湎于谎言和自我欺骗之中的故步自封的组织机构”，就这样一步步把苏共推上历史的审判台。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心