Abstract
The fall of the Soviet Union is analysed in conceptual terms, drawing on Reinhart Koselleck’s Begriffsgeschichte. The author seeks to interpret the instrumental role of the concepts perestrojka, glasnost´, reform, revolution, socialist pluralism, and acceleration in the Soviet collapse. The semantics and pragmatics are related to a wider intellectual and political context, and the conceptual perspective is used to help explain the progress of events. The author argues that the common notion of the reform policy concepts as clichés is not valid.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There are earlier studies which approach the late Soviet political development from a conceptual point of view (Brown 1996, pp. 121–129; Kaganskaja 1988; Moskovich and Mossman 1991; Gross 1987; Goban-Klas 1989; Geller 1991, pp. 129–164). These attempts—several of which are only pilot studies—aim to map how the political key concepts were conditioned by a specific context and how they were able to unleash new possibilities (and limitations). My approach goes further. I want to highlight concepts which died, and their role in burying their own context.
It is sometimes not clear whether it is the users of the concepts or the concepts themselves that act. See e.g. how Koselleck (1979, pp. 339, 341) presents the concept ‘time’ and the coinage of ‘conservatism’.
I have studied the history of Gorbachev’s concepts more profoundly elsewhere, focusing on their origin and eventual exhaustion, but less respective of their effective role in the Soviet collapse. The scope there, however, includes the receptive aspect of conceptualization. I try to understand also how the basic reformist concepts of late Soviet modernity were received within what at the time was being referred to as Russian postmodernism (Petrov 2006).
For a quasi-biographical description of a ‘successful’ restructuring of a convicted camp prisoner, see Zoshchenko (1936 [1934]).
In a planned economy, the primary goal is to fulfil the plan (‘build up’), not to correct it (‘rebuild’), since the latter does not generate any scores in the table of productivity. For a descriptive analysis of the command economy’s one-sided focus on accumulation, quantity and growth—which institutionalises a deficit, a waste of resources and an inferior quality of goods, see Nove (1983), pp. 72ff, 106. As a General Secretary, Gorbachev (1987, pp. 14, 43) criticized the Soviet economy of unlimited expenses, gross focus, neglect of the consumer and embellished statistics relatively early.
In Marx’s (1991 [1867/1890], pp. 162, 454) concept of history as a class struggle, a process of rationalisation is implied, in which man develops his work towards a more consciously technological utilization. The remaining ‘irrational’ elements in the modern age, embodied by capitalism, could, according to Lenin (1962 [1917], p. 309), only be repealed by the new socialist economy, since the latter’s planned and uniform character would not allow anything to go to waste due to routine, chance, or divisive competition. In the media of the Gorbachev era it became evident, however, that one was no longer focusing on the socialist construction, but the inherent problems and defects which made it go down (Mcnair 1991, p. 64).
The receding frequency of the word “communism” is reflected in the index of Gorbachev (1987–1990).
In contrast with other faculties, the juridical had a relatively pluralistic curriculum. Besides the texts of Marx and Lenin and Stalinist textbooks, the books also contained excerpts from some of the great works of Western intellectual history, such as Locke’s treatises of government, Rousseau’s social contract, Roman law and the American constitution (Remnick 1993, p. 159).
Gorbachev’s (1995, p. 66; 2000, p. 32) memories of the outbreak of World War II, the death of Stalin, and the new social climate during Khrushchev, are essentially similar to those of many of the most characteristic representatives of the thaw generation, which indicates the impact of a collectively shared generational experience (Cf. Alexeyeva and Goldberg 1993 [1990], pp. 3f).
My existential and psychologizing interpretation of the biographical conditions of the thaw generation is inspired by Toews’ (1980, p. 111) study of the experiential world of early Hegelianism. He describes a feeling of historical discontinuity, conditioned by the French revolution. This openness, however, was constituted by the absolute break with the world of their fathers and by the new experiential horizon which was irreversibly launched by the revolution. When it comes to the generation of the thaw, I also perceive a discontinuity, which is, however, brought about by the invalidation and freezing of their most vital strivings and hopes.
Derrida does not deconstruct the text per se but its totalising claims of meaning. His aim is to reconstruct different possible meanings. In a corresponding way perestrojka is not about dismantling the system as such. By perestrojka Gorbachev seeks forms to articulate disagreements and use these as a resource in order to reform the premises of the system. But Derrida’s reluctance to see the concepts déconstruction and perestrojka as equivalents is nevertheless revealing. Gorbachev’s “negation of negation” points at a Hegelian ‘making’ and ‘overcoming’ which is alien to Derrida’s ideas about how we always remain within one and the same language.
While Epstein’s analysis perfectly reflects the contradictory nature of Gorbachev’s ideology of compromise, at the same time it tends to dissociate the ideology from its historical context. The command economy was from its conception modelled on the uniform mass production of the German capitalist World War I economy (Lenin 1962 [1917], p. 309). Indeed, Epstein’s remark unconsciously enrols itself in the Western Marxist debate on whether the Soviet Union represents a form of ‘state capitalism’. This contested concept has been applied to the Soviet economy on and off ever since the events of 1917. The proponents of this view have referred to the Soviet bureaucracy as a new powerful and privileged ruling class, through its preservation of wage labour, the accumulation of surplus value and the continuous exploitation and alienation of the working class, as well as its reconciliation with the international financial system in order to compete militarily with the outside world. However, many of the suggested attributes seem to be necessary conditions of capitalism rather than sufficient. In a critical research survey, Howard and King (2001, p. 123) conclude that the state capitalist hypothesis is analytically blunt since its theoretical applicability is subordinated to its pejorative role of condemnation, not to mention that it conceals the sui generis of the Soviet system.
As far as I can judge, Gorbachev uses the word “reform” about his own policy for the first time at the 27th Party Congress in late February and early March 1986. Hence he has avoided using it during his first complete year as General Secretary. When he launches the party’s economic policy under the name of “radical reform,” he refers to a passage in Lenin where the latter criticizes uninhibited revolutionism in a post-revolutionary society which is better suited for “radical reforms.” In that way Gorbachev’s introduction of the concept becomes less controversial (Gorbačev 1987 [1986a], pp. 212, 214).
The characteristic difference between social democracy and communism was crystallized at the beginning of the 20th century. The Bolsheviks, who in 1919 changed their name from “social democrats” to “communists,” took a hard-line attitude towards the bourgeois order. In their capacity of revolutionaries they distanced themselves from the reformist tendency, which first appeared in French, but perhaps most in German, and eventually also Russian social democracy. The origin of the disunity within the Second International was that the German social democrats began to tolerate the bourgeois order to a greater extent—this was accentuated when they voted for war credits for the present government in connection with the outbreak of World War I. During the Stalin era it was taught that it was the revolutionary and not the reformist who could attain political success. The new socialist society should be built by means of revolutionary transformations, which is not possible through the reformist’s way of gradual change (CK VKP(b) 1938, p. 105).
During the last year in office, Gorbachev was asked off the record by his long time but by then disillusioned supporter, Alexander Yakovlev, whether he could point out any example of authentic socialism in the material world. Gorbachev hesitated but produced an answer, “Sweden.” (Yakovlev 2003).
’Bonapartism’ refers to militarily associated counter-revolutionaries who seize power and by turns take populist and dictatorial measures with a view to neutralising class conflicts.
Gorbachev was for long assured that the party had a special mission as the leading force of society, but he emphasized early that the party had only ”introduced” perestrojka and ”proposed” political changes. According to him, all previous well-known revolutions from above suffer from a flaw, since they have not succeeded in transforming themselves into revolutions from “below.” But this is now what is going to happen since the masses “down there” will have “all their democratic rights and start exercising them in a customary, competent and responsible way.” (Gorbachev 1987, pp. 54, 56)
When Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1973 [1969], p. 2) responded to his exclusion from the Writers’ Union in the late 1960s, he did so in the name of glasnost´, speaking in terms of what is essentially human. In contrast to artificial political rights in the West, the Slavophile Konstantin Aksakov (1999 [1855], pp. 250f) a century earlier regarded glasnost´ as a human right, which supposedly had been exercised in the moral universe of pre-Petrine Russia, and thereby constituted a natural link between the governing and governed.
This is perfectly illustrated in the regime-critical poster art which alluded to different moments in the history of the country which had been earlier tabooed. Alexander Vaganov’s (1991 [1988], p. 2) symbolic representation of the effects of Stalinism, ‘Kollektivizacija 1929’, suggests an inescapable identity between Stalin and the Soviet project, the past and the present, which continuously narrows the road to the Soviet future.
Besides the link to Western Marxism, there is also an interesting parallel with Russian 19th century Slavophilism. Alexsei Khomyakov defined sobornost´ (congregationalism) in the village commune, presumably untouched by the individualism and rationalism of Peter the Great’s Europeanization, as “unity in multiplicity.” The individual finds his purpose in common reflection and in spiritual union with others (Hosking 2001, p. 275).
“Vanishing mediator” could be seen as a translation of Hegel’s term “aufgehoben” or “verschwinden Vermittler.” Žižek has borrowed the term from Fredric Jameson (1988 [1973]) who uses it as a theoretical tool in order to explain how Max Weber structures his historical and sociological thinking.
The term “socialist market,” which was eventually subjected to merciless criticism, was floated as early as in March 1986 in an article in Pravda, where it was used by the newly appointed chairman of the new super ministry for agriculture, industry and provisions, Gosagroprom, Vsevolod Murakhovsky, who was closely connected to Gorbachev (Åslund 1989, p. 29).
Gorbachev did not use the term “market socialism” himself, but preferred the less controversial “socialist market.” The former term was, however, current during the Gorbachev era, and there is hardly any doubt that ‘socialist market’ presupposes the former, which is more theoretically consistent. Precisely as in the case with ’planned economy’ (Planwirtschaft), ’market socialism’ (Marktsozialismus) also has a German or German-language origin (Nuti 1992, pp. 20f).
The 500 Days Programme became the liberal opposition’s alternative to what more and more had come to be designated by “market socialism.”
Here not only the purely semantic meaning of relative correction comes into play. Gorbachev (1987 [1986c], p. 37) had distinctly stipulated the scope of perestrojka: “[…] the answers to the questions, which life itself has put, we must seek inside the framework of our system and not beyond the limits of socialism […].”
Already, in a key speech in December 1984, Gorbachev (1987 [1984], pp. 77, 92, 95) had mentioned glasnost´, perestrojka, demokratizacija (democratisation) and uskorenie (acceleration) in the same context.
Even if the concept of acceleration was less frequently used at the time of this address, Gorbachev speaks in this context about economic reorientation as well as economic acceleration.
During the summer of 1988 the frequency of “uskorenie” decreased. The Soviet leadership became in all seriousness aware of the economic crisis in the summer of 1989. But already, during the autumn of 1988, the leadership admitted that the budget deficit had increased significantly between 1987 and 1988 (Åslund 1995, pp. 36, 47f). It is symptomatic that the first section of the CC’s journal Kommunist changed its name to “Perestrojka: theory and experience” during the summer of 1988. This indicated a break with the Party Congress resolution. It is noteworthy that perestrojka initially did not appear at all in the corresponding section between March 1986 and January 1987, when the main section was entitled “The Strategy of Acceleration: Theory and Practice.” In the spring of 1987 until the summer of 1988, this was changed to “Acceleration and Perestrojka: Theory and Practice.”
This re-definition is very much consistent with Gorbachev’s views after 1991 (Gorbačev-Fond 1995a, p. 16).
An opinion poll carried out by VCIOM in 1994 indicated that the Russian public was ready to evaluate Gorbachev’s historical contribution positively, while it took up a relatively unsympathetic attitude towards that which can be associated with the concept of perestrojka (Brown 1996, p. 344).
References
Aksakov, K. (1999 [1855]). On the internal state of Russia. In M. Raeff (Ed.), Russian intellectual history: An anthology (pp. 231–251). Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
Albamonte, E., & Romano, M. (2003). Trotsky and Gramsci: A posthumous dialogue. Estrategia Internacional, 19. Electronic edition: http://www.ft.org.ar/estrategia/ei19/ei19inglestrotskygramsci.htm.
Alexeyeva, L., & Goldberg, P. (1993 [1990]). The thaw generation: Coming of age in the post-Stalin era. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
AN RF: Institut lingvističeskikh issledovanij. (1998). Tolkovyj slovar´ russkogo jazyka konca XX v.: Jazykovye izmenenija. St. Petersburg: Filo-press.
AN SSSR: Institut russkogo jazyka. (1959). Slovar´ sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (Vol. 9). Moscow: Izd. AN.
Andreeva, N. (1988, March 13). Ne mogu postupit´sja principami. Sovetskaja Rossija, p. 3.
Åslund, A. (1989). Gorbachev’s struggle for economic reform: The Soviet reform process, 1985–88. London: Pinter Publishers in association with John Spiers.
Åslund, A. (1995). How Russia became a market economy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Baburin, V. (2002). Prava čeloveka, Radio svoboda: http://www.svoboda.org/programs/HR/2002/HR.040302.asp.
Belknap, R. L. (1997). Survey of Russian journals, 1840–80. In D. A. Martinsen (Ed.), Literary journals in imperial Russia (pp. 91–116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benn, D. W. (1992). From glasnost to freedom of speech. London: Pinter Publishers.
Bernstein, E. (1897–98). Der Kampf der Sozialdemokratie und die Revolution der Gesellschaft. Die Neue Zeit, 16, 548–557.
Brown, A. (1996). The Gorbachev factor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brylla, C. (2003). Die schwedische Rezeption zentraler Begriffe der deutschen Frühromantik: Schlüsselwortanalysen zu den Zeitschriften Athenäum und Phosphoros. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Bukharin, N. (1971 [1931]). Theory and practice from the standpoint of dialectical materialism. In N. Bukharin, et al. (Eds.), Science at the cross roads (pp. 9–33). London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.
Castells, M. (1998). The information age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. 3: End of millennium. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chernyshevsky, N. (1983 [1862]). Pis´ma bez adresa. Moscow: “Sovremennik.”.
Cipko, A. (1990). Choroši li naši principy. Novyj Mir, 4, 173–204.
CK KPSS (1986). Rezoljucija XXVII s´´ezda kommunističeskoj partii Sovetskogo sojuza po političeskomu dokladu central´ nogo komiteta KPSS. Kommunist, 4, 81–98.
CK KPSS (1993 [1991]). The last party program [excerpts of the draft to the last party program of the KPSS]. In R. V. Daniels (Ed.), A documentary history of communism in Russia: From Lenin to Gorbachev (pp. 379–383). Hanover: University Press of New England.
CK VKP(b) (1932, April 24). O perestrojke literaturno-khudožestvennykh organizacij: Postanovlenie CK VKP(b) ot 23 aprelja 1932 g. Pravda.
CK VKP(b) (1938). Istorija vsesojuznoj kommunističeskoj partii (bolševikov): Kratkij kurs. Moscow: Izd. CK VKP(b) “Pravda.”
Clark, K. (1993). Changing historical paradigms in Soviet culture. In T. Lahusen (Ed.), Late Soviet culture: From perestroika to novostroika (pp. 289–306). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Cohen, I. B. (1976). The eighteenth-century origins of the concept of scientific revolution. Journal of the History of Ideas, 2, 257–288.
Cooper, J. (1991). Construction … reconstruction … deconstruction. In C. Merridale & C. Ward (Eds.), Perestroika: The historical perspective (pp. 161–167). London: Edward Arnold.
Dal´, V. (1907 [1863–66]). Tolkovyj slovar´ živogo velikorusskago jazyka (Vol. 3). St. Petersburg: T-VA M. O. Vol´f.
Democratization: The Congress of People’s Deputies (1993 [1989]) [excerpts from the congress’ first session]. In R. V. Daniels (Ed.), A documentary history of communism in Russia: From Lenin to Gorbachev (pp. 356–361). Hanover: University Press of New England.
Derrida, J. (1993 [1990]). Back from Moscow, in the USSR. In M. Ryklin (Ed.), Žak Derrida v Moskve: Dekonstrukcija putešestvija (pp. 13–81). Moscow: RIK, “Kul´tura.”.
Derrida, J., et al. (1993 [1990]). Filosofija i literatura: Beseda s Žakom Derrida. In M. Ryklin (Ed.), Žak Derrida v Moskve: Dekonstrukcija putešestvija (pp. 151–186). Moscow: RIK “Kul´tura.”.
Epstein, M. (1991a). Posle buduščego: O novom soznanii v literature. Znamja, 1, 217–230.
Epstein, M. (1991b). Relativistic patterns in totalitarian thinking: An inquiry into the language of Soviet ideology. In P. McInerny (Ed.), Occasional Paper, 243. Washington, DC: The Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies: The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Epstein, M. (1999). K filosofii vozmožnogo: Vvedenie v postkritičeskuju ėpokhu. Voprosy filosofii, 6, 59–72.
Epstein, M. (2000 [1990]). Posle buduščego, ili stanovlenie ar´ergarda. In M. Epstein (Ed.), Postmodern v Rossii: Literatura i teorija (pp. 141–173). Moscow: R. Ėlinina.
Friedgut, T. (1990). Perestroika from below: The Soviet miners’ strike and its aftermath. New Left Review, 181, 5–32.
Galtung, J., & Vincent, R. C. (1992). Global glasnost: Toward a new world information and communication order? Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Geller, M. (1991). Sed´moj sekretar´: Blesk i niščeta Michaila Gorbačeva. London: Overseas Publications Interchange Ltd.
Gellner, E. (1991). Conclusions. In C. Merridable & C. Ward (Eds.), Perestroika: The historical perspective (pp. 231–237). London: Edward Arnold.
Gerner, K., & Hedlund, S. (1989). Ideology and rationality in the Soviet model: A legacy for Gorbachev. London: Routledge.
Glasnost´ sudoproizvodstva (1952). In B. Vvedenskij (Ed.), Bol´šaja sovetskaja ėnciklopedija (Vol. 11, p. 488). Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe naučnoe Izd. “Bolšaja sovetskaja ėnciklopedija.”.
Goban-Klas, T. (1989). Gorbachev’s glasnost: A concept in need of theory and research. European Journal of Communication, 3, 247–254.
Gorbačev-Fond (1995a). Perestrojka: desjat´ let spustja (aprel´ 1985–aprel´ 1995). Moscow: Aprel´-85.
Gorbačev-Fond (1995b). Sojuz možno bylo sokhranit´: Belaja kniga: Dokumenty i fakty o politike M. S. Gorbačeva po reformirovaniju i sochraneniju mnogonacional´nogo gosudarstva. Moscow: Aprel´ -85.
Gorbachev, M. (1987–1990). Izbrannye reči i stat´i (7 Vols.). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1987 [1978]). Novomu metodu – širokuju dorogu. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 1, pp. 154–159). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1987 [1984]). Živoe tvorčestvo naroda. In Izbr. reči i stati (Vol. 2, pp. 75–108). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1987 [1985]). O sozyve očerednogo XXVII s´´ezda KPSS i zadačakh, svjazannych s ego podgotovkoj i provedeniem. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 2, pp. 152–173). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1987 [1986a]). Politčeskij doklad central´nogo komiteta KPSS XXVII s’ezdu kommunističeskoj partii Sovetskogo Sojuza. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 3, pp. 180–280). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1987 [1986b]). Speech in Vladivostok. In Izbr. reči i stati (Vol. 4, pp. 9–34). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1987 [1986c]). Perestrojka neotložna, ona kasaetsja vsekh i vo vsem. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 4, pp. 35–52). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1987). Perestrojka i novoe myšlenye dlja našej strany i dlja vsego mira. Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1988 [1987a]). Praktičeskimi delami ugljubljat´ perestrojku. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 5, pp. 208–220). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1988 [1987b]). Oktjabr´ i perestrojka: Revoljucija prodolžaetsja. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 5, pp. 386–436). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1988 [1987c]). Speech during the 70th anniversary of the October Revolution. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 5, pp. 437–441). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1989 [1988]). Revoljucionnoj perestrojke—ideologiju obnovlenija. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 6, pp. 58–92). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1989). Socialističeskaja ideja i revoljucionnaja perestrojka. Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1989, July 19). Perestrojka raboty partii—važnejšaja ključevaja zadača dnja. Pravda, pp. 1–3.
Gorbachev, M. (1990 [1989a]). Naraščivat´ intellektual´nyj potencial perestrojki. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 7, pp. 227–254). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1990 [1989b]). Ob osnovnykh napravlenijakh vnutrennej i vnešnej politiki SSSR. In Izbr. reči i stat´i (Vol. 7, pp. 558–589). Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1990, February 6). O proekte platformy CK KPSS k XXVIII c´´ezdu partii. Pravda, pp. 1–2.
Gorbachev, M. (1990). Političeskij otčet Central´nogo Komiteta KPSS XXVIII s´´ezdu KPSS i zadači partii, 2 ijulja 1990 g. Moscow: Politizdat.
Gorbachev, M. (1995). Žizn´ i reformy (Vol. 1). Moscow: Novosti.
Gorbachev, M. (2000). On My Country and the World. New York: Colombia University Press.
Gračev, A. (2001). Gorbačev. Moscow: Vagrius. Electronic edition: http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/GORBACHEV/grachev.txt.
Graham, L. R. (1993). The ghost of the executed engineer: Technology and the fall of the soviet union. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Graham, L. R. (1998). What have we learned about science and technology from the Russian experience? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971 [1929–1933]). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London: Electric Book Co. 2001. Available at: http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/lib/gubselibrary/Top?id=10015105&layout=document.
Gross, N. (1987). Glasnost’: Roots and practice. Problems of Communism, 36(36), 69–80.
Haug, W. F. (1985). Pluraler Marxismus: Beiträge zur politisches Kultur (Vol. 1). Berlin: Argument.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1978 [1812–13]). Wissenschaft der Logik: Erster Band Die Objektive Logik. In F. Hogemann & W. Jaeshke (Eds.), Gesammelte Werke (Vol. 11). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Hosking, G. (1990). The awakening of the Soviet Union. London: Heinemann.
Hosking, G. (2001). Russia and the Russians: From earliest times to 2001. London: Penguin Books.
Howard, M. C., & King, J. E. (2001). “State capitalism” in the Soviet Union. History of Economics Review, 34, 110–126.
Jameson, F. (1988 [1973]). The vanishing mediator; or, Max Weber as storyteller. In F. Jameson (Ed.), The Ideologies of Theory: Essays 1971–1986 (Vol. 2, pp. 3–34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Jaroslavcev, J. (1989). Liberaly. Ogonek, 39, 16–18.
Kaganovich, L. (1935). O perestrojke massovoj raboty i partijnykh organizacij. In L. Kaganovich (Ed.), O perestrojke partijnoj raboty: sbornik (pp. 92–136). Kiev: Partizdat.
Kaganskaja, M. (1988). Marksizm i voprosy jazykoznanija. Dvadcat´ dva, 59(22), 117–155.
Kharkhordin, O. (1999). The collective and the individual in Russia: A study of practices. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Koselleck, R. (1972). Einleitung. In O. Brunner, W. Conze, & R. Koselleck (Eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (Vol. 1, pp. XIII–XXVII). Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.
Koselleck, R. (1979). Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Koselleck, R., et al. (1984). Revolution, rebellion, Aufruhr, Bürgerkrieg. In O. Brunner, W. Conze, & R. Koselleck (Eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (Vol. 5, pp. 653–788). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Kratkij političeskij slovar´ (1989). Moscow: Politizdat.
Kuraev, M. (1991). Perestroika: The restructuring of the past or the invention of the future? The South Atlantic Quarterly, 2(90), 227–236.
Lapidus, G. W, & Mel´vill´, A. (Eds.) (1990). The glasnost papers: Voices on reform from Moscow. Boulder: Westview Press.
Lenin, V. (1959 [1902]). Čto delat´? In V. Lenin (Ed.), Polnoe sobranie sočinenij (Vol. 6). Moscow: Politizdat.
Lenin, V. (1960 [1905]). Partijnaja organizacija i partijnaja literature. In Polnoe sobranie sočinenij (Vol. 12, pp. 99–105). Moscow: Politizdat.
Lenin, V. (1961 [1909]). Materializm i ėmpiriokriticizm: Kritičeskie zametki ob odnoj reakcionnoj filosofii. In Polnoe sobranie sočinenij (Vol. 18).
Lenin, V. (1962 [1917]. Uderžat li bolševiki gosudarstvennuju vlast´? In Polnoe sobranie sočinenie (Vol. 34, pp. 287–339). Moscow: Politizdat.
Lenin, V. (1962 [1918]). Očerednye zadači sovetskoj vlasti. In Polnoe sobranie sočinenie (Vol. 36, pp. 165–208). Moscow: Politizdat.
Lincoln, W. B. (1982). In the vanguard of reform: Russia’s enlightened bureaucrats 1825–1861. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.
Lincoln, W. B. (1990). The great reforms: Autocracy, bureaucracy, and the politics of change in imperial Russia. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.
Maksimov V. (Ed.) (1992). Slovar´ perestrojki. St. Petersburg: Zlatoust.
Malia, M. (1999). Russia under Western eyes: From the bronze horseman to the Lenin mausoleum. London: The Belknep Press of Harvard University Press.
Marcuse, H. (1958). Soviet Marxism: A critical analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Marx, K. (1991 [1867/1890]). Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie: Erstes Buch: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals. In Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA): Zweite Abteilung (Vol. 10). Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1963 [1851]). Engels an Marx (in London). In Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (Vol. 27, pp. 387–390). Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
Mcnair, B. (1991). Glasnost, perestroika and the Soviet media. New York: Routledge.
Moskovich, W., & Mossman, E. (1991). Changing patterns of Soviet political discourse: 1985 to the present. In K. Armes (Ed.), ISCIP Publication Series, 7. Boston, MA: Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology & Policy, Boston University.
Nove, A. (1983). The economics of feasible socialism. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Nuti, D. M. (1992). Market socialism: The model that might have been—but never was. In A. Åslund (Ed.), Market socialism or the restoration of capitalism? (pp. 17–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peregudov, S. (1996). Faktor Gorbačeva i “sistemnaja transformacija.”Polis, 6, 129–135.
Petrov, K. (2006). Tillbaka till framtiden: Modernitet, postmodernitet och generationsidentitet i Gorbačevs glasnost´ och perestrojka [Back to the future: Modernity, postmodernity and generational identity in Gorbachevs glasnost and perestroika]. Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations 11, Huddinge: Södertörn University College.
Polikarpov-Orlov, F. (1988 [1704]). Leksikon trejazyčnyj Dictionarium trilingue: Moskva 1704: Nachdruck und Einleitung von H. Keipert. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Principy perestrojki: Revoljucionnost´ myšlenija i dejstvij (1988, April 5). Pravda, p. 2.
Remnick, D. (1993). Lenin’s tomb: The last days of the Soviet empire. New York: Random House.
Rigby, T. H. (1990). The changing Soviet system: Mono-organisational socialism from its origins to Gorbachev’s restructuring. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Ryzhkov, N. (1992). Perestrojka: Istorija predatel´stv. Moscow: Novosti.
Sakharov, A., Turchin, V., & Medvedev R. (1973 [1970]). Pis´mo A. D. Sacharova, V. F. Turčina i R. A. Medvedeva rukovoditeljam partii i pravitel´stva. In R. Fedoseevaja, Sobranie dokumentov samizdata (Arkhiv Samizdata) (Vol. 5, p. AS 360). Munich: Research Department, Radio Liberty.
Sakwa, R. (1990). Gorbachev and his reforms: 1985–1990. New York: Philip Allan.
Sakwa, R. (1999). The rise and fall of the Soviet Union 1917–1991. London: Routledge.
Šljapentokh, V. (1987). Aleksandr II i Mikhail Gorbačev. Vremja i my, 97, 104–122.
Slučevskij, V. (1893). Glasnost´. In K. Arsen´ev (Ed.), Ėnciklopedičeskij slovar´ (Vol. 16, pp. 820–823). St. Petersburg: I. A. Efron, Pračešnyj pereulok, No. 6.
Solzhenitsyn, A. (1973 [1969]). Otkrytoe pis´mo Sekretariatu Sojuza Pisatelej RSFSR. In R. Fedoseevaja (Ed.), Sobranie dokumentov samizdata (Arkhiv Samizdata) (Vol. 4, pp. 271–72, 277). Munich: Research Department, Radio Liberty.
Solzhenitsyn, A. (1990). Kak nam obustroit´ Rossiju?: Posil´nye soobraženija. Paris: YMCA-PRESS.
Souvarine, B. (1973–74). Ideology of Soviet communism. In P. P. Wiener (Ed.), Dictionary of the history of ideas: Studies of selected pivotal ideas (Vol. II, pp. 560–564). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Suraska, W. (1999). Gorbachev as a postmodern hero. In B. Stråth & N. Witoszek (Eds.), The postmodern challenge: Perspectives east and west (pp. 243–261). Amsterdam: Radopi.
Toews, J. E. (1980). Hegelianism: The path toward dialectical humanism, 1805–1841. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vaganov, A. (1991 [1988]). Kollektivizacija 1929. In D. Volkogonov & M. Avvakumov (Eds.), Stalin s nami?/Is Stalin with us? (p. 2). Dnepropetrovsk: Panorama.
Yakovlev, A. (2003, March 18). Speech at the annual meeting of The Swedish Society for the Study of Russia, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Stockholm: The Swedish Institute of International Affairs.
Žižek, S. (1993). Tarrying with the negative: Kant, Hegel, and the critique of ideology. Durham: Duke University Press.
Zoshchenko, M. (1936 [1934]). Istorija odnoj žizni. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izd. “chudožestvennaja literatura.”.
Zyuganov, G., & Medish, V. (Eds.) (1997). My Russia: The political autobiography of Gennady Zyuganov. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank The Royal Society of Sciences and Arts in Göteborg for its support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Petrov, K. Construction, reconstruction, deconstruction: The fall of the Soviet Union from the point of view of conceptual history. Stud East Eur Thought 60, 179–205 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-008-9056-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-008-9056-9