Popular Opinion Under Communist Regimes

Author(s):  
Sheila Fitzpatrick

The totalitarian nature of communist states is generally understood to exclude the existence of a public sphere sufficiently independent of the state to allow the expression of a range of opinions. However, popular opinion, if not a public sphere, did exist and it was monitored extensively by these states, since leaders needed to know about popular responses to their policies and campaigns. This essay explores the limits on the expression of popular opinion in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe, and the ways in which those limits shifted—and were challenged—over time. If it may be argued that the transformation of popular opinion into a ‘public sphere’ followed the collapse of communism in Poland, and possibly Hungary, ‘civil society’ was relatively insignificant in the collapse elsewhere (or indeed its persistence in the case of China).

Author(s):  
Kirk St. Amant

The fall of the Soviet Union created a series of new economic situations in Eastern Europe. Soviet-style Communism quickly gave way to a radical and unbridled form of capitalism that led many outsiders to refer to the region as the “wild East” (Pei, 1994; Brady, 1999; Miller, Grodeland, & Koshechkina, 2001). Over time, business practices began to settle as persons from the former Eastern Bloc focused on Western models of business and finance (Brady, 1999; Mikelonis, 2000; D’Anieri, Kravchuk, & Kuzio, 1999). Such a transition would not be easy, for 75 years of Communist rule left a limited framework upon which individuals could build capitalist-style industries.


2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 178-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Kramer

The largely peaceful collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 reflected the profound changes that Mikhail Gorbachev had carried out in Soviet foreign policy. Successful though the process was in Eastern Europe, it had destabilizing repercussions within the Soviet Union. The effects were both direct and indirect. The first part of this two-part article looks at Gorbachev's policy toward Eastern Europe, the collapse of Communism in the region, and the direct “spillover” from Eastern Europe into the Soviet Union. The second part of the article, to be published in the next issue of the journal, discusses the indirect spillover into the Soviet Union and the fierce debate that emerged within the Soviet political elite about the “loss” of the Eastern bloc—a debate that helped spur the leaders of the attempted hardline coup d'état in August 1991.


1990 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-6
Author(s):  
Alexander Motyl

When we met last year, the situation in the Soviet Union, although fluid, was still hopeful. One year later, things seem to have become immeasurably worse. Some will, perhaps, dispute this assessment and argue that the situation is even more hopeful than it was in the past. Such arguments remind me of socialists who think that now is the time to build socialism in Eastern Europe. Clearly, the situation in Armenia and Azerbaijan is out of control. I need not remind you of the Lithuanian “events,” to use that memorable Soviet term, the miners' strikes in mid-1989, and last, but not least, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, which is the decisive event of that year and, perhaps, of the second half of the twentieth century. Communism's demise obviously casts a totally different light on the nationality question in general and on the dynamics of the Soviet empire in particular.


Author(s):  
Olga Nicoara ◽  
Peter Boettke

Following the collapse of communism in central and eastern Europe (1989) and the Soviet Union (1991), the field of comparative political economy has undergone multiple stocktakings and revisions. In the former communist countries, Marxist economics was abandoned in favor of neoclassical economics, which dominated the profession in the West. But was neoclassical theory equipped to suggest adequate institutional arrangements in support of the transformations to capitalism in the former centrally planned economies of central and eastern Europe (C and EE) and the former Soviet Union (FSU)? What have economists working in the field of comparative political economy learned from the collapse of communism and the experience of transition so far? This chapter surveys the thoughts of leading transition scholars and assesses the new lessons learned in comparative transitional political economy.


1994 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 320
Author(s):  
David Ost ◽  
Zbigniew Rau

2004 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Kramer

This is the second part of a three-part article that looks at the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the repercussions of those events in the Soviet Union. The first part focused on the “direct” spillover from Eastern Europe into the Soviet Union, whereas this segment examines the “indirect” spillover, which took four forms:(1) the discrediting of Marxist-Leninist ideology, (2) the heightened sense of the Soviet regime's own vulnerability, (3) the diminished potential for the use of force in the USSR to curb internal unrest, and (4) the “demonstration effect” and “contagiousness” of regime change and democratization in Eastern Europe. These factors together made it considerably more difficult for Gorbachev to prevent the Soviet Union from unraveling. The final part of the article will be published in the next issue of the journal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document