The Dual Logic of the October Revolution and the Collapse of the Soviet Union – Was the October Revolution a Revolution Made?
Editor's note: The occurrence of the October Revolution conforms not only to the theoretical logic of the revolution, to the inevitable result of the development of the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, but also to the practical logic of the Russian Revolution under special historical conditions of internal and external troubles. The October Revolution was the result of the combination of the objective regularity of historical development and the selectivity of subjects. The disintegration of the Soviet Union lies in the fact that Gorbachev's reform deviated from the logic of socialist construction, which further verified the correctness of the Cpc's road to building socialism from the opposite side and proved that Kautsky's "premature birth theory" was a fallacy.
The October Revolution opened a new page in history: the proletariat and the oppressed peoples of all countries of the world have since entered the stage of history, from which not only the backward countries and peoples have seen the dawn of the victory of the revolution, but at the same time dealt a fatal blow to those revisionists who are trying to preserve the capitalist system and believe that it is still indestructible — it crushed the last illusion of revisionism in the Second International with a destructive force. At the same time, however, there was also a fierce opposition, particularly famous in the "theory of premature birth" by Kautsky, a well-known theoretician of the Second International. Although this "premature birth theory" has been criticized, it has also been proved unscientific by both theory and practice. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave some people some excuses, some experts and scholars in the academic circles even doubted and criticized the "October Revolution," the "socialist theory of premature birth" re-emerged, and even Kautsky's "theory of premature birth" was enshrined as a classic, and non-Marxist theories such as "the theory of make-up lessons" and "the theory of capitalism insurmountable" were also released one after another, all of which plagued people's thoughts and words and deeds.
Therefore, it is very necessary to study the possibility and inevitability of the October Revolution, and to recognize the mistakes of Kautsky's "premature birth theory" and criticize them, so that we can get to the bottom of the source, consciously resist the influence of erroneous ideas, and enhance theoretical self-confidence, road self-confidence, institutional self-confidence and cultural self-confidence.
Kautsky: The October Revolution was a "premature baby"
In 1918, after the successful seizure of power in the October Revolution in Russia, Kautsky wrote "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat", in which he was not optimistic about the future development of Russia, and also put forward the famous "premature birth theory" view. At that time, shortly after the victory of the October Revolution, the socio-economic situation in Russia was so bad that Kautsky and Sohanov and others insisted that the level of productive forces in Russia was backward and that the level of productive forces in Russia was still a long way from the socialist revolution. He quotes Marx in the preface to the first edition of Capital: "Even if a society has explored the laws of its own movement ... it can neither skip nor abolish by decree the natural stage of development, but it can shorten and alleviate the pain of childbirth." [1] Kautsky argues that the Russian Bolsheviks forgot Marx's statement that the dictatorship of the proletariat established by the October Revolution in Russia was merely a large-scale experiment to abolish the "natural stage of development" of capitalism, which was based on the delusion of blind transcendence or enforcement by means of executive orders, and therefore he believed that the establishment of a socialist system in Russia would be contrary to the historical law of the development of human society, which would enable socialism to "shorten and alleviate the pain of childbirth" Kautsky also said that the occurrence of the October Revolution in Russia and the establishment of Soviet power violated Marx's theory of "two nevers"[2], and that the October Revolution was like "such a pregnant woman, who jumped madly, in order to shorten her unbearable pregnancy and cause premature birth, so that the child born in this way usually could not live".[3] Kautsky's view of the Russian October Revolution was that a part of the elite represented by Lenin overthrew the Russian bourgeoisie by speculative means through violent revolutionary means. Lenin was a revolutionary who, in spite of the constraints of reason and morality, relied only on the iron fist to win victory, and the October Revolution was an immature socialist revolution. Kautsky believes that the Bolsheviks' path to power by dividing the socialist parties in Russia is contrary to Marxism, dominates the minds of others, and is an authoritarian, dictatorial revolution that runs counter to the basic principles of Marxism. He insisted that the development of a country, the capitalization of a country, could not be separated from democracy, that is, the more democracy it was, the closer it became to socialism, and of course he did not indicate here which class of democracy it was, and therefore it was very confusing. Thus Kautsky considers that the path of socialism, which is gradually realized in Russia through violent revolution rather than through peaceful reformation, in the context of underdeveloped productive forces, dooms the socialist road not to last long. However, the facts did not turn out as Kautsky had hoped. Socialist construction in Russia was precisely under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, and its superiority was highlighted, the cause of socialism flourished under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, and Kautsky's "theory of preterm birth" gradually disappeared. However, it was not expected that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 seemed to have fulfilled Kautsky's "premature birth theory" to some extent, so the "premature birth theory" theory was revived. Under today's historical conditions, the social trend of thought is surging and the trend of historical nihilism is prevalent, and some people with ulterior motives often quote Kautsky's classic remarks on "premature birth" and even take it as the most reasonable quote, and a small number of people in the academic circles openly question the "appropriateness" of the October Revolution. Therefore, how exactly we view Kautsky's "premature birth theory" and analyze and evaluate it realistically is not only a theoretical issue that must be clarified, but also a major issue related to whether the "four self-confidences" can be truly established. From this point of view, the essence of how to view Kautsky's "premature birth theory" is how to look at the problem of the October Revolution, which reflects the attitude towards the October Revolution and the respect for this period of history.
Was the October Revolution really the result of the Bolsheviks' "mad leaps", dictatorships, and despotism in order to shorten the "gestation period" and not respect the laws of historical development? Is its occurrence an inevitable historical development or a deliberate accident? Is it really a "premature baby" who stays in an incubator and can't experience wind and rain? Did the collapse of the Soviet Union really fulfill Kautsky's "premature birth theory"? Of course not, we will analyze them one by one below.
The dual logic of the October Revolution
It has been nearly 100 years since the October Revolution, but the debate about whether it was premature and whether it conformed to historical inevitability not only did not stop, but became very popular because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, both as to whether it was ripe and appropriate to take place, and whether it was a bourgeois revolution or a socialist revolution. So what do you think about the October Revolution? Is this revolution an inevitable historical development? Or is it accidental?
Kautsky was so disgusted with lenin's October Revolution that he accused lenin of being reckless and obstinate, believing that the conditions for the October Revolution were not ripe, and pointed out: "What is now taking place in Russia is in fact the last bourgeois revolution, not the first socialist revolution. [4] In his view, Russia did not yet have the conditions for a socialist revolution, for he believed that Russia still lacked the necessary objective preconditions for a socialist revolution, the necessary material preparations, and that if the October Revolution was insisted to be a socialist revolution, then the revolution was a revolution created by the Bolsheviks. This is a large-scale experiment in which they cancel the stages of natural development by transcending or by decree. This was the result of the Bolsheviks' vain attempt to take shortcuts by reducing the suffering of the bourgeois revolution. This kind of "premature" baby who tries to alleviate the "labor pain" is doomed to "live for a long time". So, was the revolution at that time really what he said? This requires us to cut through the fog of history and, first of all, to analyze the historical background of the occurrence of the October Revolution in Russia, to analyze the reasons for its occurrence, and thus to prove the inevitability of the October Revolution in Russia.
Can countries with relatively backward economic and cultural development enter socialist society before developed capitalist countries and cross the "Kafdin Gorge" of capitalist development? In November 1877, Marx wrote a letter to the editor of the Chronicle of the Fatherland in which he criticized the error of mikhaynovsky, a representative of the Russian Narodniks, in which he criticized the historical philosophy of Capitalism in which the outline of the origins of capitalism in Western Europe was transformed into a general path of social development, criticized his distortion of the general laws of social development, and proposed the assertion that the russian rural communes could be crossed under certain conditions. In 1881, Marx carefully and deliberately wrote several replies to Chassoorić, answering questions about the development of the society in the East and giving a clear and affirmative answer to the fact that Russia could cross the capitalist "Kafding Gorge" under certain conditions. Marx pointed out: "Russia can apply all the positive results created by the capitalist system to the Commune without going through the Kafdin Gorge of the capitalist system." [5] Marx's ideas on the development of Russia fully reflect that historical development is constrained by objective regularity and subject selectivity. The occurrence of any revolution is subject to the constraints of the objective necessity of the productive forces and the relations of production, as well as by the objective situation and conditions of the revolution, and the Russian Revolution is no exception. This is mainly because the occurrence of the October Revolution in Russia conforms to both the theoretical logic of the revolution and the practical logic of the revolution.
(i) Theoretical logic: The October Revolution was conditioned by the objective necessity of the development of the productive forces and the relations of production in Russia, and was the inevitable result of the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production
The development of any society is bound to be constrained by the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production. If we compare Russia with Europe and america from the point of view of the full development of the productive forces and the relations of production, i.e., the capitalist mode of production, it is as if the October Revolution in Russia did not have sufficient conditions for a revolution in Europe and the United States. However, we should also see that although the material conditions of the revolution were sufficient in Europe and the United States at that time, the subjective conditions in China were not available. Because at that time, the European and American bourgeoisie adopted the method of co-opting the working class and cultivated a group of workers' aristocrats. Influenced by the erroneous trend of Bernsteinism, the workers lost their revolutionary enthusiasm and the workers' movement was suppressed.
Russia, on the other hand, is quite different, foremost the so-called "backwardness" of Russia is backwardness in relation to the developed imperialist countries, and is not backward in the whole world capitalist framework. "The socialist revolution must be premised on certain material conditions, and if socialism is not yet economically mature, no uprising can create socialism." [6] This means that if Russian capitalism does not develop to a certain extent, no one can produce a revolution, which is the necessary economic condition for the occurrence and development of revolution. Lenin criticized the Mensheviks and the Revisionists of the Second International in his later years in "On the Revolution in Our Country" and pointed out that Russia is a special country between the civilizations of the East and the West, influenced by the civilizations of the developed countries in the West and possessed the characteristics of the decay and backwardness of the countries of the East. Thus, the productive forces in Russia at that time were, before the October Revolution, that before the October Revolution Russian capitalism had developed to a certain extent, and although this development was not particularly adequate, this underdeveloped productive forces were constrained by the awkward relations of production in Russia and were struggling. As a result of feudal despotism, the relations of production in Russia have constrained the development of the productive forces of Russia like a pair of ill-fitting shoes, as evidenced by Lenin's critique of the populist "capitalist market deficiency" and the legitimate Marxist "market perfection" and other erroneous ideas about the development of early capitalism in Russia. Thus, as far as the suitability of the productive forces and the relations of production in Russia at that time is concerned, the occurrence of the revolution in Russia at that time was conditioned by the objective necessity of the development of the productive forces and relations of production in Russia, and was the inevitable result of the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production.
(ii) Practical Logic: The special historical conditions of internal and external troubles created the inevitability of the Russian Revolution
First of all, the occurrence of revolutions does not rely solely on economic development, on the process of natural economic evolution, but on the result of the combined action of a variety of complex social contradictions. At that time, Russia was in the context of a special internal and external war, and the First World War, which broke out in 1914, lasted for three years, which was a dog-bite-dog war between imperialist countries competing for colonies in order to maintain the balance of power. "The war has unusually accelerated the course of events and unbelievably deepened the crisis of capitalism." [7] War is like a potent that destroys the veil of warmth between capitalist countries and exposes all kinds of ugly features of capitalist countries to the world. Lenin pointed out after the outbreak of the war that "in all the advanced countries the war has put the slogan of socialist revolution on the agenda"[8], and that the three-year imperialist war not only weakened the power and domination of the Tsarist government in Russia, but also advanced the development of the situation in the Russian revolution by 30 years, but also weakened the power of monopoly capital in Russia at the international level. The fact that Russia, as the weakest link in the chain of imperialism and the intensification of various social contradictions, is the right time for the revolution to take place, which also shows that Russia has the conditions for revolution, and at the same time provides the possibility for the Russian proletariat, as an independent political force, to be able to enter the stage of history and win the victory of the socialist revolution. The Russian people at home, on the one hand, suffered from the dark rule of the Tsar and were anxious to change this situation. On the other hand, the Russian people, who have suffered greatly, are anxious for an early end to the war. But this was against the will of the Tsarist government, which was unwilling to end the war. The masses, workers and soldiers, dissatisfied with the war, the severe lack of food, and the tsarist autocracy, launched the February Revolution in February 1917, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, and the Tsarist government was overthrown. But the active revolutionary enthusiasm of the Russian people has made the reactionary forces in Russia uneasy. In September 1917, Kornilov launched a counter-revolutionary rebellion in an attempt to drag Russia back into the abyss of authoritarian rule. The Bolshevik Party insisted on believing in and relying on the masses, and they united the masses and soldiers to crush Kornilov's rebellion. Kornilov's rebellion tells the people with bitter lessons that the victorious fruits of the democratic revolution cannot be maintained and maintained by a bourgeois provisional government. Shouldn't we seize the very favorable revolutionary opportunity at that time and instead give in? After learning about Kornilov's rebellion and its consequences, should we still cling to the fact that the October Revolution was only the result of the Bolsheviks' "wild leap" to shorten the 'gestational period' of socialism, and not an inevitable choice for the development of history? The answer is clearly no. It follows that the October Revolution in Russia was by no means a revolution created, as some people with ulterior motives claimed, and that this is a grossly irresponsible claim. The October Revolution was the result of the active choice of the Russian people in an extremely unfavorable form, and was by no means a revolution created. Marx also clearly pointed out that advanced revolutionary consciousness and ideological concepts are the subjective factors of the outbreak of revolution. The replacement of social forms is the process of unifying the agency initiative and objective regularity. The so-called subjective initiative mainly refers to people's historical selectivity, and in the final analysis, it is the selectivity of the masses of the people. Thus, the October Revolution in Russia did not violate the law that the relations of production must be adapted to the conditions of the productive forces.
Second, everything must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Because of Russia's backwardness, the class conditions for the revolution in Russia were in place, and this provided a good class basis for the October Revolution. From the point of view of the Russian proletariat itself, although they are not numerous, because of their relatively concentrated distribution, strong revolutionary aspirations and special ties with the peasantry, the relationship between the proletariat and the peasantry is particularly close.
Thirdly, although the economic development of Russia is relatively backward and does not seem to conform to the logic of capital accumulation, it is highly consistent with the logic of the accumulation of poverty, which intensifies and inevitably leads to revolution, because this gives rise to the main conditions for the birth of socialism. This is precisely the "poverty accumulation" of the broad masses of workers, which Marx revealed, corresponding to the "capital accumulation" of the bourgeoisie.
Russia has extensive contacts with other capitalist countries, and it is inevitable that social contradictions similar to those of the economically developed countries will arise. Thus, in the case of internal and external constraints in Russia at that time, the relations of production, like women with small feet, could be described as struggling, and if the old relations of production, which constrained the development of the productive forces, were not changed, the social productive forces would be subject to restrictions everywhere, and under the special conditions that it was impossible to develop fully, the old relations of production must be changed.
In short, the occurrence of the October Revolution fully shows that the development of history is not only constrained by objective regularity and historical decisiveness, but also affected by the selectivity and conscious initiative of the masses of the people, and is the organic unity of the interaction between several factors. Of course, we cannot beat to death the "theory of preterm birth", which does have some truth in the sense of "capital accumulation". However, if we blindly and mechanically copy the original version of Marxism, blindly "only the top" and "only the book" and not "only the truth", and wait for the objective conditions to be fully ripe before mechanically carrying out the socialist revolution according to the original book of Marxism, we may miss the favorable opportunity of the revolution and lose the victorious achievements of the democratic revolution. And the October Revolution, like a timely rain that saved the crisis of the times, saved the Russian Revolution. Therefore, we cannot mechanically follow Marx and Engels' examination of the countries of Western Europe, but blindly wait for the arrival of the revolutionary opportunity under the condition that the time for revolution is ripe for internal and external troubles. The special circumstances of the world war necessitated Russia to take a different path of seizure of power than in the West, just as a pregnant woman who had not yet reached the stage of childbirth, due to special circumstances caused by the abnormality of the fetus, must now take immediate emergency measures. However, Kautsky demanded that we must act according to the laws of nature, otherwise it is "premature birth". Then the pregnant woman must wait until the expected date of delivery to give birth, which may endanger the life of the fetus and the mother, which is bound to make the mistake of carving a boat and asking for a sword.
But we should also realize that, had it not been for the special conditions of the Russian Revolution, the conditions of the Russian Revolution would not have been ripe, and therefore we must not have been able to raise the seedlings and artificially raise the level of development of Russian capitalism. This is the Bolshevik Party, in its subsequent development, fully aware of the gap between us and the socialism conceived by Man, which is the expression of Lenin's respect for the objective laws of historical development, and thus he stressed many times after the victory of the October Revolution the peculiarities of the occurrence of the October Revolution, pointing out: "The revolution that grew up in the struggle in the world ... is by no means due to any merit of the Russian proletariat, nor to the fact that it is superior to others, but on the contrary, to the particular weakness and backwardness of capitalism and the particularly difficult military strategic situation." [9] It can be said that the October Revolution of 1917 was by no means the product of the highly developed capitalism, but precisely the result of its backward military feudal imperialist conditions.
Although the capitalist development of Russia as a whole lags behind that of other capitalist countries, it has basically possessed the material conditions of the socialist revolution, and is by no means the product of the impulse of the people's minds, nor is it the product of the will of a few leaders. Lenin fully explained that after Russia has the material conditions for a socialist revolution, Russia still needs special moments and conditions for revolution, and the First World War objectively prompted the special timing and conditions for revolution in Russia to mature.
The disintegration and evolution of the Soviet Union was an inevitable consequence of deviating from the logic of socialist construction
Did the disintegration and evolution of the Soviet Union really negate the historical inevitability of the October Revolution, as some have clamored? The answer is clearly no. We can explain this from two aspects: the achievements made in the period of socialist construction in the Soviet Union and why the Soviet Union disintegrated.
(i) The achievements made in socialist construction in the USSR show that the October Revolution was the right choice
The historical significance of the October Revolution is unquestionable. However, we must also be soberly aware that the October Revolution was carried out in Russia after all under the condition of insufficient economic and cultural development, and that it has its own peculiarities. "It is easier for the Russians to begin a great proletarian revolution than in the advanced countries, but it is more difficult to continue it until the final victory, that is, the complete organization of socialist society." [10] Lenin had a sober understanding of this; he did not think that Russia had developed productive forces; he realized that in the first socialist country, the difficulties and twists and turns on the road of socialist construction were far greater than we imagined. However, as a great revolutionary, Lenin was not only pragmatic but also resolute and resolute in character, and the Bolshevik Party under his leadership was even more undaunted by difficulties and hardships; after the victory of the October Revolution, in order to restore the national economy and consolidate the newborn Soviet power, the Bolshevik Party led the Russian people in a tenacious struggle against enemies at home and abroad and all kinds of difficulties, and began the great practice of socialist construction. At first, Lenin implemented the policy of wartime communism in accordance with the needs of the development of the situation at that time, and planned a direct transition to socialism, but with the development of the situation, the wartime communist policy exposed various shortcomings, and the policy could not be carried out any longer. Lenin was fully aware of the innate inadequacies and difficulties of building socialism in Russia. He summed up lessons learned in a timely manner and frankly admitted that "real life shows that we are wrong". Through unremitting exploration, Lenin formulated and implemented the New Economic Policy in accordance with the national conditions of Russia, which is a feasible path for the transition from economically and culturally backward countries to socialism.
After Lenin's death, Stalin led the Soviet people, under the conditions of being devastated by German fascism and the fatal blows brought about by economic development; in the environment of the war, the people's livelihood and devastation; under the circumstances of the economic sanctions, political isolation and extreme difficulties imposed on the Soviet Union by Western capitalism, in order to uphold and consolidate the socialist victory achieved by the October Revolution, he led the Soviet people to carry out the arduous Patriotic War and won victory. Doesn't this show the strong vitality and incomparable superiority of the socialist system? Stalin's early highly centralized planning model was designed to meet the needs of the war and the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Although the Stalin model had many shortcomings, such as the emphasis on centralization, the relative lack of democracy and the rule of law, and the gradual spread of bureaucracy, there were serious problems, but great achievements were still made in socialist construction. This shows that the "premature birth theory" has no necessary relationship with the Stalin model.
As early as "On the Revolution in Our Country", Lenin refuted the classic argument of Kautsky and his ilk attacking the October Revolution that "the road of the October Revolution is not feasible and Soviet Russia cannot survive". Lenin unceremoniously pointed out the pedantic and conservative character of Kautsky, arguing that Kautsky's negation of the Russian Revolution on the pretext of Russia's lack of objective economic preconditions for the practice of socialism was in fact a revolutionary dialectic that did not understand Marxism. Russia's ability to seize the favorable revolutionary situation that has emerged, to grasp the principal contradictions in the light of the changes in the situation, to lose no time in seizing power is to be good at exploiting chance, to grasp the dialectic of chance and necessity, not to violate the law, and not to mechanically and passively wait for opportunities, thus missing opportunities. Then, some people will say that the Soviet Union has now disintegrated, and it has not been confirmed by the "premature birth theory"? What we need to figure out at the moment, then, is whether the collapse of the Soviet Union can be used to negate the historical inevitability of the October Revolution. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some people arrogantly displayed the banner of Kautsky's "premature birth theory", believing that the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe just proved that the road of the October Revolution was impassable, and history slapped the Face of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union with a resounding slap, and this in turn verified Kautsky's "genius prediction." So, is this really the case? What was the reason for the evolution of the Soviet Union?
(ii) The collapse of the Soviet Union was due to a departure from the logic of socialist construction in the course of socialist development
The evolution and eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union was the result of a combination of factors. However, an important reason among these intricate causes is that in the process of using proletarian state power to lead the development of the productive forces, "the relations of production must be adapted to the conditions of the productive forces", the law of socialist construction, and the logic of socialist construction, so the failure of Socialism in the Soviet Union is by no means the failure of socialism itself, but the failure of the bureaucratic socialist model, that is, the failure of the Stalin model.
The Stalin model was formed under the complex and severe international situation and the relatively backward economic and cultural conditions of Russia, and was a product of special historical conditions. In that particular period, Stalin had to be "highly concentrated" in order to mobilize all his forces to deal with the fascist war, and in the later stage, in order to concentrate his forces on construction, to concentrate his forces against the capitalist countries of the Western world, and to embody the superiority of the socialist system, he also had to be highly "concentrated". But with the continuous deepening of the practice of socialist construction in the Soviet Union, the world situation has also changed, and the shortcomings of this Stalinist model, which only talks about centralization and not democracy, have been exposed more and more, and what is more typical is the formation of a privileged stratum, these people are on high, they have forgotten the original intention of the revolution, they have forgotten the interests of the people, and they are oblivious to the privilege of having a transcendent privilege. The transitional nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat has normalized state power, they have abandoned class cooperation, lost the error-correcting mechanism of democracy and the rule of law, derived bureaucratic privileges and corruption, and led to the distortion and degeneration of socialism and the abandonment of the people. In the 1980s, these privileged leaders did not care about the interests of the masses of the people, but only the material benefits they enjoyed. Due to the highly centralized political system practiced in the Soviet Union for a long time, the system was rigid, the administrative apparatus was bloated, the work was inefficient, the lack of democracy, and the destruction of the legal system, which not only greatly damaged the reputation of socialism, but also due to the long-term lack of a strong and necessary supervision mechanism, it led to the arbitrary behavior of individuals or a small number of people and the continuous emergence of political ills. When Gorbachev was elected as the new general secretary of the Party Central Committee, he realized that reform was imperative, but the question was how to change it? The rigid system of the Soviet Union had been in trouble for a long time, the privileged classes of the Soviet Union were entangled in power, and by this time they had deviated from the people's orbit. They selfishly and greedily believe that if the reform is truly democratized, they will no longer be able to enjoy privileges, and the corresponding power will be reduced or limited; and the original socialist mechanism will limit the privileges, although they have enjoyed certain privileges and status, but they cannot accumulate wealth at will, and their children and grandchildren are even less likely to enjoy the privileges and wealth they bring; how can they obtain wealth and power and become the true masters of state-owned assets? This is the transition to capitalism. Under the existing socialist system of the USSR, they may obtain material benefits and become enjoyable groups, but they cannot become exploiting groups in the true sense. In 1988, the "reformists" represented by Gorbachev advocated the reform of the Nineteenth Congress of the CPSU and put forward the task of reforming the political system, which just responded to the demands of this privileged class and satisfied their dark psychology. It was Gorbachev who raised the slogan of "humane, democratic socialism" and adopted swift and courageous reforms that led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev's "humane and democratic socialism" seemed, on the surface, to be very suitable for the needs of the political situation at that time, but in fact, his democracy and humanity were classless, supra-class, and "democratic" and humane for the whole people, and he regarded socialism as a religious doctrine and principle that everyone could join, which was to turn the Communist Party into a party of the whole people, which not only fundamentally violated the Marxist materialist view of history, but also violated the basic principles of scientific socialism. Its essence was to confuse the difference between capitalism and socialism, to negate the class struggle on an international scale, to negate class differences, and to lead the Soviet Union to capitalism. The evil results of Gorbachev's political reforms have been frequently manifested in three main points: First, they have caused great confusion in people's thinking. The second is to cultivate a variety of opposition. The third is to catalyze national separatism. Freezing three feet is not a cold day, so there may be a question, why the masses are indifferent to the crisis, or why they do not stop the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mainly because the soviet people have long been in the rigid system of Stalin's bureaucratic autocracy and away from democratic politics, which has caused the people not only to be indifferent to the reforms, but also to have no experience, they cannot participate in political reforms, which can also answer why the Soviet Union fell apart overnight, and the process was so smooth.
It can be seen from this that although the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union are complex, they are not necessarily related to whether the time is ripe for the October Revolution to take place, but the most important reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union is that Gorbachev pursued the so-called "humane and democratic socialist" reform line in socialist construction, did not adhere to socialism, lost his belief in communism, deviated from the logic of socialist construction, and turned socialism into a tool for some people to pursue their selfish desires. Thus, the evolution of the Soviet Union and its eventual disintegration cannot be attributed to the failure of the road of the October Revolution, nor can it be taken for granted that it was a failure of the socialist road; on the contrary, it was a failure not to uphold the socialist road, not to strengthen the conviction in communism, and not to carry out the logic of socialist construction. In this way, Kautsky's prediction of "premature birth" is not only absurd, but also a bitter lesson from the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which in turn verifies the correctness of the path of the October Revolution. Therefore, the capitalist countries' vain attempt to adopt the method of "peaceful growth" to enter socialism can only be a delusion of a fool's dream. However, Kautsky's "theory of premature birth" is a sobering agent, and it also constantly reminds people that in building socialism in economically and culturally backward countries, we must realize that we have many innate deficiencies and must be aware of the regularity and gradualness of socialist development.
bibliography:
[1] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels (Vol. 2), Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 101.
[2] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels (Vol. 2), Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012 edition, p. 3.
[3] [de] Karl. Kautsky: Selected Writings of Kautsky, edited by Wang Xuedong, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2008, p. 376.
[4] [de] Karl. Kautsky: The Selected Writings of Kautsky, edited by Wang Xuedong, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2008 edition, p. 375[5] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels (2nd Edition) Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2001 edition, pp. 461-462.
[6] Selected Works of Lenin, vol. 3, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 266.
[7] Selected Works of Lenin, vol. 3, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 264.
[8] The Complete Works of Lenin, vol. 26, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1988 edition, p. 18.
[9] The Complete Works of Lenin, vol. 35, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1985 edition, p. 136.
[10] Selected Works of Lenin, vol. 3, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 793.
[11] Selected Works of Lenin, vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 570.
(Author: Jia Shupin, Professor, School of Marxism, Shanghai Normal University; Source: Frontier, No. 2, 2018)