The Making of Gorbachev’s Strategic Thought Part 2: The Economic State of the Soviet Union

Since the 1950s, the USSR economy had been in steady decline, due in part to the Brezhnev period and his replacements, Andropov and Chernenko, who both died in quick succession allowing little to be achieved during their time in office. Maintenance costs of the Soviet Union were huge and becoming a heavy burden that was not providing any growth in return. There was a low life expectancy, particularly among males, that had evolved from excessive alcohol consumption across the state.

The USSR had experienced positive changes over the 30 year period from the era of Stalin to the beginning of Gorbachev’s leadership. Millions more people were now highly educated and there was greater access to information, though control of this was still very much in the hands of government. The momentum was building up to embrace more open natured political strategies, which Gorbachev was offering.

A major area weakening the economic growth at this time was the technological gap that existed between the Soviet Union and the West and the US. Since the 1960s the progression of technology and information systems in the Soviet state was severely lagging behind others and by the mid 1980s the problem was significant. The gap was reflected by the diminishing level of productivity, which was found to be one third of the US productivity. This correlates with low efficiency across the state and a lack of innovation, and can be suggested to be the result of the Leninism ideology, which enabled an array of stubborn and non-progressive strategies from its leaders.

The USSR had an uncooperative means of developing new technologies. There existed no mechanisms for encouraging technological change. As a traditional communist society, all technologies were developed by government bodies from start to finish, meaning there was no allowance of any outside innovation. The exclusivity of this bureaucratic system acted as a major discouragement of innovative technologies that could be implemented had the soviet society been more inclusive and open.

Gorbachev’s Glasnost policy was brought in to address many of these issues. He followed on from Andropov’s initiation of reducing alcoholism and increased the prices, reduced the purchasing window and banned corporate alcohol consumption. It also sought to encourage the attraction of new employees into the science and technical sector by increasing wages by 50%. Consumer goods and services were increased incrementally and it was predicted by Gorbachev that this would double labour productivity within 15 years.

While the political origins of his strategies are clear to see and the plans to solve the existing issues appear to have looked sufficient and exciting, within 6 years the Soviet Union would seize to exist. An ambitious plan to reform the state resulted in increased government expenditure, reduced income from the alcohol sector and costly subsidies given to unprofitable farms across the state. The reform led to the loss of control over the people which eventually led to the collapse of the communist party.

Could the Soviet Union have survived?

Gorbachev is regarded in history as being the first leader who truly addressed the long-standing problems that existed in the USSR. The agenda of the party prior to him was outdated and a momentum of tension and frustration was building across the state for more modern progression. The communist party was not fit to achieve this in its current condition. The public was growing tiresome of the state’s force of control and separation of regions.

Enter Gorbachev and his progressive policies toward a united peaceful society that would still hold the original Communist ideology. Facing high expectations of reform from the public, Gorbachev now also faced the extent of problems that had been hidden for decades since the era of Lenin.

Of course, the problem of withholding information was not one to be fixed over night and while Glasnost was an extensive plan to tackle this, the extent of the problems drastically overpowered Gorbachev’s efforts when full details of the Chernobyl disaster were kept from the public by officials.

Perhaps a mix of unfortunate timing (one year into office) and the endured mistakes attributed to his predecessors contributed to the fall of the party. Chernobyl is thought to be the initiator in the collapse of the USSR, coupled with the unprecedented rioting and subsequent fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. The emergence of the level of secrecy and collapse of the wall was followed by the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

So is it possible that the SU could have avoided collapse? Prior to Gorbachev the state was in major decline in several ways and was in great need of reform. Gorbachev’s strategy of reform led to loss of control and this eventually led to its inevitable downfall. Since the state was in need of reform, it is difficult to envision a thriving and reformed economy, which could hold onto the control of its people, or the type of leader that would achieve this.

Therefore, I believe that the USSR was doomed to fail when Gorbachev took office. However, his contributions remain one of the most progressive of his time and his desire to seek a peaceful society was beyond the thinking of all of his predecessors. In the next blog, I will be examining the relevance of his strategic thinking in today’s world.