>>722413Why the Soviet System Was Vulnerable to Internal Decay
The USSR's power structure, had unique vulnerabilities that a bourgeois state does not.
The Fusion of Party and State: A Single Point of Failure.
In the USSR, all political, economic, and ideological power was concentrated in a single institution: the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). There were no independent power centers.
No Independent Capitalist Class: There was no separate bourgeoisie that owned the means of production and could act as a counterweight to the state. The nomenklatura (the party-state elite) was the ruling class, but its power was entirely dependent on its position within the party apparatus.
Consequence: If you could gain control of the top levers of the Party—as Gorbachev did as General Secretary—you had the formal authority to redirect the entire state machinery. There was no powerful capitalist class outside the state to stop you. Yakovlev and Gorbachev didn't have to defeat a rival class; they had to persuade, outmaneuver, or purge other factions within their own class.
The Crisis of Ideological Legitimacy.
By the 1980s, the ideological "glue" of the USSR—the belief in Marxism-Leninism and the inevitable triumph of communism—had largely dissolved among the elite and the populace. It had become a hollow ritual.
The system was justified by its results (economic growth, social mobility, victory in WWII), but when the economy stagnated, this justification vanished.
Consequence: When Gorbachev (Glasnost) allowed open criticism, the system had no ideological antibodies to fight the infection. There was no deeply held, popular belief in the system to defend it. The "reformers" were operating in an ideological vacuum they could fill with their own ideas.
The Ruling Class Chose to Liquidate Itself.
This is the core of the matter. The Soviet ruling class (nomenklatura) did not see a prosperous future for itself within the existing system. They realized they could exchange their political power for private property.
As we discussed earlier, this is the "Nomenklatura Privatization" thesis. A party boss controlling a steel plant could become the owner of that plant. A KGB general with connections could become a private security and energy oligarch.
Consequence: The dismantling of the USSR was not a defeat for its ruling class; it was a strategic conversion of their assets. They weren't overthrown; they cashed out. Yakovlev and Gorbachev were the intellectual and political facilitators of this great liquidation sale.
Why the Bourgeois System is So Resilient to Internal Change
The capitalist state is structured in the exact opposite way. Its power is diffuse, networked, and has multiple, redundant defense mechanisms.
A Multi-Sphere Ruling Class, Not a Monolithic Party.
Power in the bourgeois system is not concentrated in one institution. It is distributed across several interdependent but distinct spheres:
The Economic Sphere (The Bourgeoisie): The capitalist class that owns the corporations, banks, and media.
The Political Sphere (The State): The government, which is heavily influenced by but formally separate from the economic sphere.
The Ideological Sphere (Civil Society): Universities, think tanks, media outlets, and cultural institutions that produce and disseminate ideology.
Consequence: There is no "General Secretary" of capitalism to seize. A leftist can be elected president (like Lula in Brazil or, to a lesser degree, Syriza in Greece), but they immediately face a wall of resistance from the other spheres: capital flight, media hostility, judicial challenges, and bureaucratic sabotage from the permanent state. The system is designed to limit any single actor's power.
A Vigorous, Self-Preserving Ideological Apparatus.
Unlike the late Soviet Union, bourgeois ideology is not a hollow ritual; it is a dynamic, powerful, and constantly renewed force.
It operates through schools, news, entertainment, and advertising, promoting individualism, consumerism, and the "naturalness" of the market.
It actively co-opts and defangs dissent (as we discussed with "woke capitalism").
Consequence: It creates what Gramsci called Hegemony—the spontaneous consent of the governed, who accept the system's core logic as "common sense." This is far more powerful than Soviet-style coercion. It makes the population complicit in its own subordination.
The Bourgeoisie is a Class "For Itself."
The capitalist class is highly conscious of its shared interests and is organized to defend them. It has its own think tanks (Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute), its own political parties (which both serve its interests in different ways), and its own media empires.
They will never voluntarily liquidate their own system because their power and wealth are directly tied to its continuation.
Consequence: Unlike the Soviet nomenklatura, the bourgeoisie sees a revolutionary leftist movement as an existential threat to be crushed, not an opportunity for personal enrichment. They will use every tool—from propaganda to police violence—to defend their system.
Conclusion: The Asymmetry of Power
Dismantling the USSR was a project of the top of the ruling class (Gorbachev, Yakovlev) who faced a system with centralized power but ideological decay.
Dismantling Capitalism is a project of the bottom of the class structure (the working class and its allies) that must face a ruling class with decentralized power and vigorous ideological hegemony.
The Soviet system was like a mighty oak tree that looked strong but was rotten at the core; a few people with saws at the top could bring it down. The capitalist system is like a weed; you can cut the visible plant (elect a leftist government), but its roots are deep, widespread, and will quickly sprout again unless you systematically tear out the entire foundation. This is why the task for the left is not to find its own Gorbachev, but to build the collective power and class consciousness capable of that far more difficult task of uprooting.