Having visited Moscow (and Minsk) in 2007 I became intrigued by this country, its people its history, how else could it when you have stayed in the beautiful historic hotel Sovietsky? But understanding a lot of modern Russia? No. This biography may help those who like to know more. It is also inherently a view on change…
After a concise introduction the index and main structure of the book is sequentially formed. It starts with a logical question, where was he born?
1. Land and destiny.
The land in the title of this chapter is symbolic of the change in many ways as will become clear when reading the biography.
The biographer starts with some rhetoric questions: “why did destiny choose David of Stavropol to beat the Totalitarian Goliath? Why this man who fitted so well in the soviet system converted into the most dangerous internal enemy of the regime, more dangerous than all other external enemies And how was it that his intention to change and improve or even save ended in destroying it?
Those questions will not be answered in this first chapter. Some answers only appear in the epilogue at the end of the book.
In land and destiny we read about the humble background of Gorbachov and most of all about his (family) experience in the collective farming, the sovkhoz. Mikhail was perhaps the average, common man, hard worker, who knew the system as no one else.
He went to study law in the city of Moscow where he met his future wife, one of the most beautiful girls on the faculty.
Much because of her he develops a sense of the world outside the provincial world. And this dimension city versus land remains a motive to understand the biography.
It is during the time of Brezhnev (recently proceeding Khrushchev and before the rising star Andropov who was still chief of the KGB) and a man named Kulakov a young member of the Polit Buro responsible for Agriculture, who discovered Mikhail his “pupil”. The missing link to this is the importance of the Stavropol region that is favored by many. Much about his personality is not revealed at this stage other that many are impressed by Gorbachov’s sympathetic appearance.
2. The latest cartridge
“Patience and loyalty” is what Gorbachov learned from Andropov. They are other keys in understanding the biography and what happened to the Soviet Union. Patience in change. “Don’t advance the events, Mikhail,” is a paragraph in this chapter. It is just before Mikhail becomes General Secretary. After the death of Chernenko and after the previous and sudden death of Kulakov. Gorbachov was chosen by the politburo because of his expressed loyalty… and basically… because “there was no other candidate,” who had the approval of the people. (interesting that although a totalitarian state, such an approval was important). In his openings speech he centered on “dynamics”, he adhered to the exhibition rituals of that time but he added a call for change in words like acceleration of economic progress.
3. A simple welder?
“We want change.” But what and how? It was the time of Reagan who was seen as the great communicator, for which it became clear that he found a real competitor in Gorbachov in that area.
Gorbachov had raised some first expectations on change, but it became clear (both from the biography as in fact) that there was no real plan. Other than the so called “Plan of 500 days” showing that there must be done something, but the question was. What?
There is little focus on the economy in the biography, but the main problem was the inefficiency of agriculture and their main organization between kolkhoz and sovkhoz. “The energy and food provisioning was endangered.
It is also the time of the dry-law, one of the mistakes in priorities and management of Gorbachov.
In the meantime, Gorbachov is opening up his and the Russian image to the world outside.
4. Reconstruction … of what?
“We are in a hurry.” In the XXVII congress of the PCUS change was on the agenda and the word perestroika was born “looking for answer to improve within the frame of socialism, not without it.” The basic principle of perestroika was: more socialism, more democracy.
Andrei Grachov writes then that: “only with the right attention one could capture the first dissonancy ideology and of timid dissidence. The “Gensec” discounted socialism in the Soviet union from “developed” to “developing,” which made it possible to improve it and to make it more authentic (Even today A modern concept).
Lenin was Gorbachov’s hero and example for change. But the way how raised more and more question inside the politburo. What kind of socialism; plural socialism, Social state of law, market socialism, etc… For Gorbachov, power was a means, but he hadn’t figured out how to control it.
Reform or revolution? According to the wisdom of Solzhenitsyn, a reforms comes fm above and a revolution comes from “under.”
At that time Francois Mitterrand was impressed by the ideas but rhetorically wondered whether such a reform could practically be executed. But Gorbachov was supported by Lenin wisdom no to “fear chaos.” Gorbachov would design his own “October Revolution” changing the direction of his predecessors who concentrated on improving bolshevism. But he received more and more resistance from Yeltsin (who Gorbachov called a wet firecracker) and the likes who supported the more dogmatic ideology and who wanted to temporize any change.
© 2008 Hans Bool