Disintegration of the Eastern Group

The Soviet Union crisis happened against the background that the capitalist system in Central Europe and Central Europe were in crisis at the same time. In every country, there are many reasons for the crisis, and there are also special reasons. After Cadal's death, the Hungarian Production Party disintegrated. Ceausescu was shot in Romania without trial or investigation. Jaruzelski, who is 80 years old, still lives in his own home in Poland and is respected and cared for by most of his compatriots. Honecker should have spent several years in prison before he died. Zhivkov was arrested at home.

There is a view that the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Soviet Union are first linked with the disintegration of the Eastern Group. In this regard, the events in Poland and the GDR played a special role. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the capitalist system in Poland and GDR, the Warsaw Pact, CMEA and the Soviet Union ceased to exist. In this regard, the failure of capitalism in Eastern Europe is not only related to the pressure from the West, but also related to the Catholic Church. Pope Joao Pavel II, the leader of the Catholic Church, signed a secret agreement with Reagan to jointly fight against Soviet rule in eastern European countries. One of Reagan's advisers asserted that this was "one of the greatest secret alliances ever". These are all great exaggerations. There is no doubt that there are various contacts and agreements between the Vatican and the White House. Solidarity and Walesa gained political power in Poland, which caused many difficulties for the Soviet Union. However, there are many reverse causal relationships: the Soviet crisis developed and the pressure on eastern European countries decreased, so "moderate revolutions" occurred here one after another.

The "external empire" of the Soviet Union has done more harm than good to the external and internal stability of the Soviet Union in many aspects. In the early 1980s, Kissinger pointed this out when analyzing the future of the Soviet Union after Brezhnev's death. 1in the autumn of 982, he wrote: "On the one hand, the international policy of the Soviet Union did not achieve terrible success. It is said that, not just joking, the Soviet Union is the only country in the world surrounded by hostile capitalist countries. The factors provided by satellite orbit are not for the development of the Soviet Union, but for the decline of the Soviet economy. " (Newsweek 1982 No.48) Gorbachev tried to reduce the Soviet Union's obligations in the outside world-in Africa and Cuba, in the Middle East and Asia, in Eastern European countries and Afghanistan, in an attempt to enhance the Soviet Union's internal capabilities. However, the political and economic crisis in China is developing too fast, and the reason is rarely related to the status of Poland and GDR, and it is rarely related to Reagan and Pavel.

Gorbachev's role

The Soviet Union went bankrupt when Gorbachev was the captain of our big ship, and he led the ship on the course of "reform" and "new thinking". It is true that the sea was not calm at that time, and the danger sometimes came from the left, sometimes from the right, and sometimes went straight along the channel. There is no better way to command the big ship, and the captain himself is not very confident. At the same time, the big ship is too heavy and not so strong. No high speed, no load, no sharp turn. As a result, the captain couldn't sail, and our big ship hit the rocks. It lost its flag and was partially damaged. This is a rough and very concise picture of the events during 1985 ~ 199 1. However, many western observers have made a more concise evaluation. They believe that Gorbachev only used his own will to reverse the process of Sourville Empire in Eastern Europe, ended the Cold War, changed everything in his country and opened the way from totalitarianism to democracy. It was Gorbachev who abandoned Brezhnevism, withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan, abandoned Marxism-Leninism and class struggle, and put the value of all mankind first in foreign policy, rather than narrow national interests.

Among Gorbachev's staunch supporters, some Russian writers also wrote about his role in overthrowing totalitarianism, his great historical achievements, and even his ultimate failure after destroying the country and system he wanted to reform. In fact, he himself dismantled the totalitarian megalith of Soviet society. However, he did not control this huge rock. This huge stone with rivets fell down, smashed the seemingly indestructible foundation, scattered many people and institutions and pinned them down. Gorbachev's opponents usually blame Gorbachev for the Soviet Union and its disintegration. They made a sharper evaluation of him, but not about his "merit", but about his "crime" or "betrayal". "Can Gorbachev destroy the whole country by himself?" Former diplomat Small Iacov shouted to Gorbachev himself at a meeting of the Gorbachev Foundation: "Probably, if this person is the general secretary." Gorbachev was accused of being the chief culprit of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and even many people walked the whole road of "reform" with him.

Gorbachev himself never admitted that he tried to disintegrate the Soviet Union, nor did he admit that his actions objectively helped the tragedy. He usually blamed Yeltsin and the Democrats for the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Special Committee of the State, and even the government led by ryzhkov and later Pavlov. "I can't bear the responsibility of the disintegration of the Soviet Union." Gorbachev repeated this sentence many times on different occasions.

In my opinion, Gorbachev's behavior during his administration has gone through several stages in terms of motivation and effect. In this respect, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union has never been the obvious purpose of his works, nor is it the hidden purpose of his works. In the first stage, Gorbachev tried to ease the tension in the Cold War and accelerate the economic development of the Soviet Union. Later, he turned his focus to the democratic development of the country and the party and all the work contained in the concept of "humanized socialism". Gorbachev also promoted the development of openness and re-examined many dogmatic and hypocritical evaluations of Soviet history. But Gorbachev didn't do it carefully enough, and it was messy. He overestimated his own strength and possibility and underestimated the possible hostile behavior. He seldom thinks about ways to overcome difficulties. He didn't rely on the support of the people. He set about so many things at once, ignoring so many factors and situations. Tragedy is inevitable. In the last two years before the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev's main motivation was not reform, but personal power in the country and the Soviet Union. His main achievement during this period was his refusal to use force intensively. Generally speaking, Gorbachev made many mistakes. He played a great role in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but not as big as those who didn't like him claimed. Next, I try to list what I think is Gorbachev's most serious mistake.

Wrong priority work. As early as 1985 ~ 1986, Gorbachev improperly arranged his priority work. The main problem that workers, farmers and staff expect leaders to solve is the problem of low living standards. This is the basic link. If we grasp this link, we can lead to the whole chain of other problems. Only the policy of rapidly and obviously improving the living standard and quality, especially in local areas, can ensure the residents' firm support for the new leader and create a front for solving other problems. However, as we all know, Gorbachev put the task of accelerating the development of machine building industry at the top of his economic work. In domestic policies, the tasks of opposing alcoholism, striving for a "healthy lifestyle" and opposing "non-labor income" are given priority. However, since the early 1930s, machinery manufacturing has always been a priority industry. It is impossible to oppose alcoholism and "non-labor income" by rough administrative means without causing public dissatisfaction. In order to change the status quo, Gorbachev put the program of democratization, openness and political reform in the first place in 1987 ~ 1988. This is supported by most intellectuals, but not by ordinary citizens whose material situation continues to deteriorate. Under the condition of openness and democracy, the state power was lost due to the lack of thoughtful and hasty political reform, and the dissatisfaction of state residents became superficial, pointing directly at Gorbachev himself and Sue. Because of this, Gorbachev has become the main target of criticism from all sides since the end of 1989, not only conservatives but also Democrats. This is a great blow to him personally.

Under the following influence and pressure, Gorbachev began to change his economic policy. The campaign against "unearned income" and alcoholism stopped. A decision was adopted to expand individual labor behavior, cooperative behavior and private trade. The first batch of cooperative cafes, snack bars and restaurants appeared in this city. The suburbs of this city are allowed to buy and sell private houses freely. Started the privatization of urban housing. Increase villa construction. The restrictions on the use of horticultural economy and garden economy beside many houses have been cancelled. All these are steps in the right direction. However, at the same time, there are other destructive processes increasing in parallel, and the destructive process is greater than the constructive process. What we are talking about here is recklessly and rashly introducing market relations into the Soviet economy, breaking many political systems that were built on the prestige of the Soviet Union in the past. The slogan of strengthening Soviet power is combined with the requirement of weakening "the leadership and guiding role of the Soviet Union". "All regimes belong to the Soviet Union!" Sakharov stood at the gate of the First People's Congress of the Soviet Union with such a big slogan. The 1989 Soviet Union was not prepared to run the country, but was just set up to work as the party's "conveyor belt". The suggestion and attempt to make up for the weakening of Soviet power is to increase the personal power of "reform leaders" This proposal and attempt was based on the Soviet presidential system and was unsuccessful. It is impossible to establish a new power system stronger than the Political Bureau and the General Secretary without relying on the existing political party institutions in the country. Gorbachev, as the "leader of reform", can only guarantee the support of the whole people for his independence and rely on his political capital and prestige if he makes practical achievements in economy, improving people's living standards and all other activities of vital importance to the people. However, this kind of political capital disappeared from Gorbachev in 1989 to 1990. Therefore, the weakening of Soviet power and prestige is accompanied by the weakening of Gorbachev's power-whether he is the general secretary or the president of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was under increasing pressure from liberals and conservatives, and accepted the People's Committee in the general election. He fell into a political dead end and couldn't find a reasonable exit.

Too hasty democratic reform. Gorbachev was too hasty in democratization. Like Khrushchev, Gorbachev was extremely impatient and advocated improvisation. At the same time, the transition from authoritarianism to democracy and from extreme centralization to decentralized market economy is not only a large-scale realistic political task, but also a scientific theoretical problem. Democracy is a complex relational procedure and traditional system, which cannot be expressed in a country only according to the wishes of leaders. The power structure of democracy is much more complicated than authoritarianism, and it is much more difficult to be a democratic leader than a dictator or monarch. The establishment of democratic system in western countries has experienced 200 to 300 years of struggle and revolution, and it also needs the accumulation of experience and cultural development. Deng Xiaoping called on the people of China to build a modern society in their own country. He said it would take 65,438+000 years, which is a realistic attitude. In the Soviet Union, it may take less time, but it will take at least 25 to 30 years. Some opponents of Gorbachev accused him of carrying out a "counter-revolutionary coup" or establishing some kind of "super power". However, these accusations are wrong. Gorbachev's purpose is not clear to him. There is nothing but vague good wishes. None of Gorbachev's supporters and aides can clearly express these goals. It is true that Gorbachev weakened the party's machine. /kloc-in the summer of 0/990, I was elected as a member of the Soviet Central Committee and began to stay in the old square for a period of time. Party organs, whether central or local, have no actual power, just act according to habits and have no effect. Even the organ of the Soviet president had no power at that time, and it had not even been formed. The Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union also has no actual power. I was elected as the representative of the Supreme Soviet in 1989. The state has formulated a system without rights. In this case, some people and institutions that had no influence on the country as early as two or three years ago almost filled the power vacuum without hindrance. In any case, these are not Gorbachev's people. Gorbachev failed to reverse the process of disintegration of these countries.

Gorbachev's ideological weakness. Ideology is one of the main pillars of the Soviet state and society, so any major reform needs an ideological foundation. This is a difficult but not hopeless task for Soviet leaders. The universal principles of socialism can coexist with the requirements of a reasonable market economy and the new relationship with private ownership. But Gorbachev is not an ideological expert, and he doesn't understand the expression of any socialist theoretical problems. Gorbachev mastered the extremely simplified Marxist-Leninist dogma, but failed to promote this substitute of socialist ideology. Gorbachev is an extremely superficial person in dealing with economics, politics, sociology, social psychology, management and other issues. Indeed, Gorbachev put forward the slogan of "new thinking". However, he did not create any "new thinking". In the book Reform and New Thinking, Gorbachev did not put forward a new concept worthy of attention. Gorbachev declared that the development of the Soviet Union was divorced from "the basic direction of world civilization" before 1985, so the Soviet Union "isolated from the world" must be integrated into a new world. The author of this book appeals to Soviet citizens to live in accordance with the laws of the world and the laws of the civilized world in the future. However, all this is empty talk, often an absurd and abstract concept. These concepts are as wrong and dangerous as Soviet leaders trying to impose Soviet socialist laws and principles on the whole world. Gorbachev called on all countries in the world to establish their own relations on the basis of national principles, which is also a purely abstract concept. Western experts look for their incomprehensible "cunning" in these declarations, and then talk about Gorbachev's "inexperience" in surprise. But that's not a compliment. Of course, Gorbachev did add a new tone, gentleness and wisdom to international policy, and he also raised a series of new controversial topics. How will things develop? Pessimists assert that all this is a show, and "new thinking" is just a propaganda technique. However, the "moderate revolution" in Eastern Europe and the unification of Germany are no longer propaganda. The west welcomes these events with encouragement, but it is also confused. How to explain the unexpected concessions of the Soviet Union? What are the prospects? A Soviet scholar wrote: "The drama that Gorbachev started when he came to power was only the first act." The second act is the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.

Brezhnev was not a thinker either, but he had an ideological headquarters headed by suslov. However, Gorbachev did not have such a headquarters. Gachev, Yakovlev and Maidevijeff all did ideological work in the Politburo. They are completely different people and have their own ideas and opinions. If we believe the evidence provided by memoirs, Gorbachev's main ideological authority is his wife Raisa Maksimov. She once passed the defense of an associate doctoral thesis in applied sociology. Gorbachev's ideological helplessness has caused confusion and anxiety even among the most thoughtful observers in the West. Robert Hill wrote as early as 1 990: "Gorbachev's difficulty is that some questions have no answers." Sociologists have not put forward relevant suggestions. Socialist political economy is full of old ideas and can't keep up with the logic of life. How does the new Soviet guide replace the original incentive method with the new labor ethics? Openness may make writers feel as comfortable as drinking, but for ordinary people queuing to buy real wine, Gorbachev's prohibition may cause more anger than their sudden contact with Stalin. Gorbachev was not opposed by the KGB and the army, but because he left a social protest. Gorbachev himself admitted that he should control that almost impossible society. No one will doubt Gorbachev's honesty. However, the social atmosphere is getting more and more tense. Many people began to ask questions: "Have you ever thought about starting all this?" (American magazine 1990 10, p. 94)

We can see that Gorbachev has set out to solve these problems, but he can't do anything about it, or even solve some of them.

The weakness of Gorbachev's team. In the era of Soviet regime, our country trained strong leading cadres in the fields of science and technology, military affairs and some production departments, but failed to train strong leading cadres in the fields. As far as the quality of will and the level of intelligence are concerned, people around Stalin are weaker than those around Lenin. This degeneration continued until Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and it still happened in Gorbachev's time. During Gorbachev's time, there were no people like kosygin, gromyko, andropov and ustinov, who determined the level of political leadership in the 1970s. Gorbachev often changed senior leaders, but after kicking out less incompetent leaders, he replaced them with more incompetent but obedient people, although these people soon clashed with him. Gorbachev couldn't recognize anyone. To make matters worse, he also has a bad feature that political leaders don't allow: Gorbachev always speaks for himself most of the time when meeting people around him, cultural activists and people's representatives, without giving the interlocutor a chance to speak. Gorbachev sometimes invited people to consult him, but he would talk for an hour, two hours or even three hours, and then say goodbye. He doesn't like to listen to negative news, and even members of the Politburo have to report to the general secretary. Gorbachev's slow response to criticism was later pointed out by his most popular interlocutor in the field of cultural activities. Gorbachev is not an absolute monarch or dictator, but an approachable person. But he is not good at being a strong and democratic leader. He presided over most meetings arbitrarily; At the meeting, internal distrust and external trust were strangely combined. He always predicts, not does, and puts off many of the most important decisions. As a result, "going through the motions" is completely in another direction.

Time lapse and inaction. Gorbachev admitted in his memoirs that he lost the leadership in the first two years of reform. Now is the time to talk and think, not to reform. The vigorous reform began with 1987 ~ 1988, but it was carried out in a hurry and the direction was different, so it had little effect. Gorbachev's work has been extremely tense in recent years. He caught everything, but nothing was carried out to the end. 1989 in the second half of the year, Gorbachev's actions began to take a defensive nature. After half a year, active defense was replaced by concessions. Gorbachev succumbed to pressure from conservatives, radicals and the West. He allowed conservatives to establish their own Russian production party, and he allowed radicals to occupy a decisive position in the organs of power of the Russian Federation. To the west, he gave up the territory of the former Soviet Union in Germany and Eastern Europe without any compensation. An American politician later wrote, "He made one concession after another under our feet." Gorbachev occupied the position of president of the Soviet Union and did nothing for a long time. As a politician, his popularity among residents from all walks of life declined rapidly. Gorbachev fell into a vortex of his own making. The more difficult it is, the more Gorbachev's power becomes a form. The question is not whether Gorbachev will fail, but when and how it will happen. "Gorbachev's power is only in the political field, and there is no system in factories and farms." Gorbachev's presidency is a kingdom of mirrors. This is only a partial summary of western newspaper articles from June 65438 to June 0990. In the second half of 1990 and 199 1, Gorbachev's political concession continued and his bankruptcy was inevitable. However, due to the strength of state institutions, this bankruptcy means the bankruptcy of the system. Under the condition of 1990 ~ 199 1 year, for Gorbachev, action means the use of force. But he can't and won't do it. Later, Gorbachev said that his moral beliefs prohibited him from using force, even if it was to save the country at a critical moment. As a general principle, it is difficult to agree with such an argument. However, the use of force under the provisions of 199 1 may lead to worse results. Therefore, it is groundless to talk about the "Gorbachev factor" of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and criticize him too severely. However, as a reformer, he has no basis to praise him. The disease that Gorbachev set out to treat was too heavy and neglected. Treatment should have started as early as 1950s. However, Stalin's terror was so destructive that his arbitrariness left a political, moral and cadre vacuum behind him. After Stalin's death, the withdrawal of elite figures and the passive selection of cadres continued. What can Gorbachev do under such conditions?

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yeltsin

The struggle for power and influence between Gorbachev and Yeltsin almost became the main factor of the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the final stage of "reform", in which Yeltsin was on the positive side. Gorbachev is like a night watchman at this time. He can only shout, gently waving the weapon given to him, but he doesn't want to use it. The property entrusted to him is quite precious: power, party and country. But Gorbachev thinks that Yeltsin and the Democratic Party are not so dangerous opponents, so there is no need to shoot them. Although Yeltsin is attacking one side, he has no weapons at all. He is active as a politician, although he doesn't quite understand why he is fighting.

Yeltsin never thought he should be responsible for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. He has always claimed that199165438+the leaders gathered in the dear forest in February only confirmed the death of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin put the main responsibility for the disintegration of the Soviet Union on "Soviet conservatives" and Gorbachev. However, Yeltsin did not regret the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. For him, these political and ideological structures are not the values he should defend. What he wants to fight for is some irrational force.

Gorbachev personally brought Yeltsin into the power structure of Moscow. The contradiction between him and Yeltsin became acute as early as the autumn of 1989, but it was more manifested in the contradiction between Yeltsin and Lee Gachev. Gorbachev was also under the pressure of "conservatives", so he left the senior positions of the Soviet Central Committee and ministers to Yeltsin. But, he said, "I won't let you participate in politics more." However, Yeltsin returned to greater politics in the social emotional tide of 1989. The contradiction between him and Gorbachev intensified, but at that time he got rid of the Soviet Union and its internal structure. Yeltsin led the "Democrats" and tried his best to criticize Gorbachev with any inappropriate steps. But Gorbachev did not engage in any political struggle with Yeltsin's "party group", although he had many opportunities and reasons.

At the beginning of 1990, Gorbachev was an unreliable and incompetent leader not only among the people, but also among the activists of the party and the Soviet Union. He said a lot, but he didn't solve the problem. On the contrary, many people think that Yeltsin is a stronger and more attractive leader who can put the country on the right track and end poverty, crime, abuse of power and corruption. Western observers and Soviet scientists anxiously watched Yeltsin's prestige and political progress at that time. They think Yeltsin is an unpredictable and rude leader, a conceited populist party member, lacking a platform and useful ideas. A western analyst wrote: "The Soviet Union will one day fall into the hands of this cunning and vain man, who has a strong desire for power and flexibility to achieve his goal. But his experience can't make people believe that Russia will become better. " However, it was Yeltsin who met the psychological requirements of most people at that time for a strong leader.

The emergence of democrats is not so much a powerful political movement as an emotion and tendency produced by political openness. Without the leadership of a powerful and prestigious leader like Yeltsin, this faction could not compete with the Soviet Union, which has weakened and lost its prestige. Even if the "builders of reform" are put together, it is impossible to build a dynamic political party and regime system. 1990 elected representatives of the new people of the Russian Federation could not achieve this goal. However, it was this Democrat who destroyed the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union more based on radical sentiment than actual political power. The situation of the Soviet Union/KOOC-0/99/KOOC-0/reminds people of the situation of Russia/KOOC-0/9/KOOC-0/7. The bankruptcy of the monarchy brought several bourgeois democratic parties to power. Bolshevik influence is not great. Even in the summer of 19 17, the Bolshevik party was still an absolute minority in the capital and local areas. The Kornilov rebellion, like the emergency committee, accelerated the radicalization of the crowd. However, the decisive factor of the revolution was Lenin's powerful image, who led the Bolsheviks and convinced them that they could and must seize state power. Yeltsin played the role of Lenin in 199 1. As early as 1990, some of Gorbachev's assistants suggested that he personally lead the Democrats, that is, split the Soviet Union. But Gorbachev failed to take this step. He has neither the ability nor the temperament of a people's leader. Yeltsin successfully played this role in 199 1. However, like Walesa in Poland, he can't play other more complicated roles.

Instability of foundation and load-bearing structure in Soviet Union

When observing the 199 1 incident, what we see is that the apparent strength of the Soviet Union as a world power is inconsistent with the weakness of the forces and movements that destroyed this superpower. Among a series of other countries, the Soviet Union is an extraordinary country. This is a new country, a historical challenge, a new system of economic, political and ethnic relations, and a new social plan. Its appearance and development determined the face of the 20th century in many ways. It seems that only an extraordinary force of some world scale can cause serious losses to the Soviet Union.

Doubts about the strength and stability of the Soviet Union existed in the early days, but disappeared after World War II. Of course, the October Revolution was prepared. It was completed by a small party led by a radical Marxist-Leninist group in 19 17. Most observers believe that the Soviet government led by Lenin will soon collapse. But the Bolsheviks shocked the world. In Russia, a vast country, they successfully established the Soviet regime in almost all spaces, and then won in the harsh civil war. In the past 20 years, they have built a powerful country, a powerful centralized economy and well-equipped armed forces. Soviet countries can not only win the Great Patriotic War, but also quickly restore the economy destroyed by the war and establish a nuclear industry. Powerful military, political and economic groups have been established in Europe and Asia, and military bases have also been established in Africa and Latin America.

1990, the Soviet union has 20 million party member. It monopolizes information, publishes thousands of newspapers and magazines and has tens of thousands of propagandists and advocates. The party controls all radio and television channels in the country. The Soviet Union has huge financial and economic resources, leading the most powerful national security system and the most powerful army in the world. Such a country suddenly began to decline and collapse, as if because of a weak impact. The fate of a powerful country can only prove one thing-the foundation it relies on is not solid and stable enough, and its load-bearing structure is flawed. If the foundation can be washed away and weakened, if the load-bearing structure is corroded and damaged, then this may lead to the collapse of the building itself, no matter how magnificent and solid the building looks from the side.

The dictatorship of the Soviet Union was very strict and all-encompassing, but the country persisted from the beginning, not only in the great repression, but also in the pressure and temptation of ideological theory, and in the belief of the majority of the party and the broad masses of residents in this theory. * * * All the main principles of the theory of productism and the construction of the first socialist country in history are not only based on faith and trust, but also need to be proved. What we are talking about here is not the matter of the underworld, not eternal life in heaven, not God and immortal soul, but a new and more just life, happiness and well-being on this earth, the elimination of war and violence, freedom and happiness. On the one hand, it is an attractive ideological theory, on the other hand, it is the coercive force of the country-these are the two pillars of the Soviet Union, whose load-bearing structure is the Soviet Union, which dominates and defends the new ideological theory.

The main argument of this theory is clearly stated by its founders, Marx, Engels and Lenin-to achieve higher labor productivity and higher living standards of working people than capitalism. The more you expect from this theory, the more disappointed you will be.

The first crisis of the Soviet regime occurred in 192 1 year. If Lenin had not implemented the "new economic policy" and revised the theory itself, no dictatorship could have saved the Bolsheviks' failure at that time. The life of workers and peasants has improved, the prestige of the party has improved and the country has been consolidated.

The second crisis of the Soviet regime began at the end of 1928 and lasted for five years. This crisis has been overcome, but not through some new liberalization in economic and political life, but through large-scale terrorist acts. The rich peasants were hastily eliminated as "classes", and the remaining peasants were forced to unite into collective farms. This work began under the strict supervision of the party and the state. In collectivization, political motivation is the main, not economic motivation. Therefore, some poor farmers who oppose collectivization