Why Perestroika Cannot Succeed
By RICHARD HORNIK and Milovan Djilas
Q. Why did the Soviet bloc fall apart in 1989?
A. Communism is strong only until it tries to reform. Even so, it had no choice but to try reform because its internal crisis was so explosive. Communism cannot be changed. Communists may change, but not communism. Without a totalitarian ideology, this system cannot exist. It must have absolute "truths."
In countries where communism was introduced after a revolution, like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the process of change is slower because a relatively strong ruling class was formed from authentic national sources. The situation is quite the opposite in countries where communism was introduced after a Soviet invasion. Change is much faster and easier in those countries because the weakening of the system in the Soviet Union changed the international situation.
Q. What was Gorbachev's role in all this?
A. He started relatively well. Among Communists, he is the best man, but his weakness is that he still suffers under the illusion that he can improve the system without changing it. Now events are beyond his control. I don't believe he will change. So he will be attacked by conservative party bureaucrats on one side and by democratic elements and nationalistic movements on the other. I don't think he is in immediate danger, but if he continues his present policies, his position will become weaker and weaker. Perestroika in its present form cannot succeed.
Q. What do you think will be the outcome of such failure?
A. I don't believe the military as a whole would join with the conservatives who oppose Gorbachev. All changes that occur in the country occur in the army as well, though not as intensely. Even if conservative elements took over in the Soviet Union, it would not be for long and it would only provoke serious problems.
Q. But is the process of change in Eastern Europe irreversible? Could democratic movements in the rest of the bloc survive a conservative takeover in the Soviet Union?
A. I think the changes are irreversible everywhere, including the Soviet Union. They may stop for a period, and there could even be some reversals. This is, after all, a revolution. All social groups, including the ruling class, are discontented. Let me quote Lenin. He said that those on the top cannot rule with old methods and those at the bottom don't agree to be ruled with those old methods.
Q. So the revolution has come full circle?
A. Yes. It was inevitable.
Q. Is that inevitable even in China?
A. Someday the same thing will happen in China, but when and how I don't know. A system that is pressed to carry out such massacres must be really ill, in a deep crisis.
Q. The Leninist system was able to achieve forced industrialization. What prevents it from achieving a postindustrial state?
A. Modern industry needs more free men, more free initiative in every way. That also requires new forms of property. You cannot change the form of property without changing the form of power.
Q. Are you saying that economic reform is impossible without political reform?
A. The two are connected, but the essential reform is political because in Communist countries the economy, in the final analysis, is the means of politics. The economy is ruled and controlled by politics. You must change the political system first, because it is a tyrannical regime without respect for laws.
Q. What exactly has failed in the past 70 years -- Marxism, Leninism or Stalinism?
A. All of them, but differently. First Gorbachev really liquidated Stalinism. There may be some remnants for a while, but really it is finished. And with this revolution in Eastern Europe, Leninism is now finished too. Marx, like other important political philosophers -- Rousseau, Hobbes -- will find his place only in universities.
Q. Did Marxism do any good?
A. It probably played a part in decolonization. It had a serious role in fighting fascism. But in human society, it was completely negative.
Q. Some vestiges are sure to survive. Would that include the mentality of people who have been encouraged to believe initiative is bad and that no one should live better than anyone else?
A. That will pass very quickly.
Q. What is the fatal flaw of Marxism?
A. Marxism was originally strong and attractive. The method was scientific, and the vision was utopian. But Marxism in practice was different, and it was not verified by practice.
Q. Why were the East Germans so surprised at the level of corruption and personal aggrandizement of their Communist officials? Surely they knew that the leaders rode in Mercedes while the people drove Trabants.
A. The Communist system is corrupt. I am talking not only about the corruption of money. This is secondary. Power is corrupt. Every function depends on the Politburo. Therefore, it is enough in communism just to follow the line from the top and to be rewarded. If someone is intelligent and corrupt, he can easily climb to the top. This is characteristic of communism today. During the revolution, there were at least some people devoted to some aims, willing to suffer, willing to be killed. Now it is the opposite. The people at the top are stupid cowards. Primitive forms of corruption such as stealing money and sending currency abroad are not typical for Communists. For Communists, the typical corruption involves privileges like cars and apartments. What happened in East Germany is really astonishing. It was not so in Poland and Hungary.
Q. Would you compare this period with the late 19th century, when the great empires crumbled?
A. Yes, except this time the system is also changing. The best comparison for me is the middle of the 19th century.
Q. You mean 1848?
A. Exactly. But this time it is more important because the great powers have nuclear arsenals. In 1848 there were not many bloody revolutions in Europe, but Europe really started to change. Now the character of history is changing. The whole world will be influenced by what is happening in Eastern Europe. The West will not have to change its system, but it will have to adapt to these changes -- maybe one of the greatest events in modern history.