A Mystery

I just happened upon a very interesting and fitting article, “The ‘Mystery’ of the Soviet Collapse”, written by Leon Aron in the "Journal of Democracy". He reminds us that we are approaching the fifteen anniversary of this extraordinary event. An article like this is grist for my Mill.

As you may know, my Mill is the study of liberal democracy's ascendancy and the collapse of communism. The name of this Mill is “The Triumph of Liberal Democracy”. However, to understand this triumph, this ascendancy, I've had to discover and understand why communism collapsed. China is one of the few countries that still clings to communism as a central governance but even there its influence is receding. Aron’s article is a nice welcomed opportunity for me to expound on the subject.

Aron’s article mentions the failure of many Sovietontogists to anticipate or explain the death of Soviet communism. They couldn’t understand that such a revolution had occurred without their prior knowledge. He mentioned a 1993 article in “The National Interest” (the magazine that also published Fukuyama's end of history thesis) entitled “The Strange Death of Soviet Communism”. I haven’t read the article but I understand it mentioned a major reason for its death as economic stagnation. However, Aron did not mention economics as a a major possible cause for the Soviet/communist collapse. In fact, he wrote that the economic condition there failed to account for it, even though it appeared to be the chief cause of it.

I concluded some time ago why communism collapsed. The cause is convoluted, but no mystery. Ultimately, it was the lack of economic renewal and reform that did communism in. The lack of political renewal/reform was also a key factor. Renewal of any kind was something the Soviet/communist state was inherently incapable of, chiefly because of its archaic and static ways in state control and central planning. It is for this reason that China, albeit slowly, also is beginning to shed its communist ways.

There are many factors why communism collapsed, but ultimately it was economic. Some have attributed Reagan’s U.S. military build up in the 80s as the chief cause for the Soviet/communism collapse. However, this also is an example of the economy's reach, because it shows that the Soviets did not have the economic resources to compete with America’s military buildup. They did not have the money to pay for new military equipment since they were virtually bankrupt. They also lacked the science and technology required to achieve military parity with the U.S. This lack also points to the ultimacy of economics because it is from good economic stewardship that the Soviets could have afforded the science and technology needed to keep up with the Americans. The type of economics produced under communism was so inferior to that produced under liberal democracy that it is no wonder their failure to muster the finances needed to keep up. Because of the nature of the Soviet/communist economics - the lack of competition and free markets, the Soviet Empire ultimately collapse because of its own economic ineptness, because it didn’t know or follow the economic imperatives of regeneration and renewal. So instead of being the chief reason for the collapse, the Reagan administration’s military buildup really was one final straw that broke the 'camels' back. Without that straw the Empire may have clung to power a little longer but inevitably it still would have collapsed of its own economic incompetence.

Some think Pope John Paul II was responsible for the Soviet/communism collapse. He was a Pope from a communist country, Poland. This was a kin to putting a fox in a chicken coop. This Pope was seen as a threat to communist world because of the Church’s ingrained anti-communism sentiment. This Pope embolden and gave strength to the Polish people to organize and challenge communism’s authority, a challenge that spread to other communist countries. In a sense The Church and the Pope were taking advantage of a growing discontent. The Pope’s threat to communism was taken so seriously that the Soviets tried to kill him. To my way of thinking this Pope’s tenure reflected and paralleled communism’s decline. In hindsight it appears that communism was on the wane when the Pope was elected in 1979. In sensing this decline perhaps The Church, with this Pope, saw the opportunity to once and for all seriously challenge this authority it always found threatening to its religion. However, I think the Pope, like Reagan, rather than being an instigator or a major cause of the Soviet/communism collapse, really was just another straw that broke the 'camels' back.

It is said that humans can’t live by economics alone. It also needs a spiritualism. The Pope didn’t represent or have an economic connection. Instead, he offered and represented a spiritual renewal. That is one reason for his influence in undermining the Soviet/communist regime, because he offered a spiritual renewal where none existed. This inability to spiritually renew made the Soviets and communism vulnerable to the Pope’s “legions”. However, in the final analysis there is a connection because economic renewal does rely on a kind of spiritual renewal. Perhaps that is where the real mystery lies, in understanding that connection.