How do two historiography trends differ on the interpretation of United Soviet

Socialist collapse?

Candidate Number: GTQ973

Total word count: 2197
Table of Contents Page

Section 1: Identification and evaluation of sources 3

Section 2: investigation 4
Section 3: Reflection 7
Bibliography: 8
Evaluation of Sources

This investigation will delve into the question: How do two historiography trends differ on
the interpretation of United Soviet Socialist collapse? It will explore and analyze the
perspectives of both historians in their books and how they differ from each other. The
sources guiding this investigation are of particular importance, due to the insight they
provide into the events that led Soviet disintegration through first-hand experience or
through academic background, aiding our understanding of the nature the USSR’s fall.

The first source that will go under evaluation will be Eric Hobsbawm's book “The Age of
Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century” published in 1994. It is plausible to say that the
origin of this source is valuable for this investigation because Hobsbawm was an
individual who first hand presenced the escalation and de-escalation of the cold war.
Also, his PhD in history from Cambridge University and his reputation for being one of
the most distinguished historians of all times boosts his reliability and credibility.
Additionally, the book was published in 1994, three years after the disintegration of the
Soviet Union, making the content more valuable do the variety of information which
could’ve been available at the time. Still, the source is limited by given the fact that
Hobsbawm is a Marxist historian who was born during international conflicts; these
events are part of his life biography. His totalizing perspective probably doesn’t give
details of internal conditions of micro-history that can permit other reasons on why the
Soviet Union collapsed. Given Hobsbawm’s totalizing perspective, it becomes difficult to
construct a historical event, which makes it necessary to examine other sources.

The second source that was analyzed throughout this investigation was Martin
McCauley’s The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union, published in 2008. At first instance,
this source can be limited for the reason that there is lack of complete information
regarding the author’s life. Also, the fact that he has a PhD in Surveying can be
considered as a limitation to his historical analytic skills up to one point in his life. On the
contrary, one of the main values of this source is that the author attended various
universities in Europe, as well as one in China and Russia, hence the fact that it can be
considered that he has a broad and extensive knowledge of the cold war through
different perspectives, leading to a more partial and “less ideologically-influenced view”
on the fall of the USSR. Also, the majority of his selected publications are focused on
Russia during the twentieth century, and, being a regular commentator in the media on
Russian affairs can be taken as a representation of profound knowledge of previous and
current Russian politics.
Investigation

Taking into account that this investigation will be focused on the perspective of two
historians, it is to acknowledge that there are also similarities between both
interpretations, and, as a matter of a partial conclusion, it is to recognize the necessity
of using both historians when revising an event given the fact that this provides a more
complete and broad coverage of the USSR’s fall.

During the Cold War, socialism was seen as the alternative to capitalism; an ongoing
battle to demonstrate superiority. Nevertheless, Hobsbawm, initially states that
socialism as a world alternative depended on its ability to compete with the world
capitalist economy, who was evidently superior. Accordingly, McCauley states that “the
demonstration effect of the west” (referring to Glasnost as a comparison to the capitalist
system represented by the United States) showed how backwards the soviet system
was.1

For Hobsbawm, “the end of the cold war and the end of the soviet system are two
phenomena historically separable but obviously connected”; given his perspective that
the cold war ended at the Washington summit of 1987, nevertheless, “Washington Cold
War Extremists (term by the author to refer to the USA) where not entirely wrong” when
affirming that “it could not be universally recognized as the end until the USSR had
ceased to be a power”2. On the other hand, McCauley repeatedly affirms that the end of
the Cold War was connected to the USSR’S disappearance, as seen in Chapter 16:
“Foreigners will be always be grateful to Gorbachev for ending the Cold War and
managing the demise of the Soviet Union without a civil war”3. Both perspectives may
differ with other historians who also evaluated this historical phenomenon as the fall of
the political doctrine of capitalism4; in his book, Immanuel Wallerstein stated that with
the end of USSR-communist state, the societies assisted to a world after liberalism in
which political systems and democracies no longer respond to the so-called “French
principles of equality” that were proclaimed since XVIII century as a “political strategy to
tame the dangerous class” that threatened accumulation of capital. It is noticeable what
Wallerstein says because it allows us to see aspects that I will not touch, but that it
would be punctual to take them into account for another occasion.

According to Hobsbawm, the arms race expenditure gradually exceeded both the
United States’ and USSR’S limits, distorting their economies: “Soviet expenditure
represented a higher proportion of Soviet production-perhaps a quarter- than the 7% of

1
MCCAULEY, Martin. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union. Chapter 22, Strengths and weaknesses of
the Soviet system, pg 449. Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group, New York
2
HOBSBAWM, Eric. Age of Extremes. The Short Twentieth Century. 1914-1991. Part Two: The Golden
Age. Chapter 16, The fall of socialism. Pg 249. ABACUS. Great Britain. 1995.
3
ibid., pg. 446
4
WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel. After Liberalism, 1995 New York: The New Press.
the titanic US GDP […] in the 1980’s”5, highlighting the magnitude of the expenditure,
cataloging the Soviet Union as a country who lacked proportional production and, the
United States as a sinking economy, probably due to the economic recession during
this decade6. On the contrary, McCauley would partially disagree with this statement;
“[…]defense expenditure under Gorbachev did not rise.”7 Moreover, McCauley’s
interpretation partially concords with Hobsbawm when stating that growth rates began
to slow in the late 1970s. Accordingly, he blames Gorbachev on the outcome of the
economy due to his lack of knowledge on how it worked.

Hobsbawm, continuing to highlight the economy’s influence on the collapse, also recurs
to point out the huge financial expense that the Soviets’ wasted on their allies,
categorizing them as a drain of “tens of billions of dollars”. Due to the Soviet Union’s title
as a world superpower, they had to subside other nations as a way to legitimize
power/authority in the international community. On the other hand, McCauley also
symbolizes the economic expenditure as an injury to the socialist system, affirming that
by 1991, every socialist country received soviet largesse 8, although clarifies that this
wasn’t what drove to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, McCauley points out that the soviet system never really worked 9,
comparing its disappearance with the one of a mirage. Hobsbawm, on the other hand,
states that it was not the “hostile confrontation with capitalism […] that undermined
socialism, but combination of increasingly evident and crippling economic defects and
the accelerating invasion of the soviet economy by the far more advanced capitalist
world economy.10”, blaming the capitalist system for perpetrating the soviet’s system
which ultimately led to its fall. Consequently, Hobsbawm highlights the necessity of the
command system to “make the soviet system work”. A state falls when it does not have
a well structured financial system; the Soviet Union did not control its financial system
as the USA, which had investments during the Cold War. On the contrary, USA’s
economy entered stagnation, and it can enter into stagnation, but that does not mean
that the state is going to fall; it falls when it no longer has control over its economical
apparatus, as it happened to the USSR. Indeed, the Soviet Union lost control of its
expenses nor did its economy produce enough to sustain not only itself but other
countries of eastern Europe.

Afterwards, McCauley points out the necessity of a cultural, moral and intellectual
structure for a country to stay afloat; categorizing the lack of these factors as the
hardest hit that promoted collapse. He goes on to argue that if the USSR had culturally
interacted with the world, it would have conferred greater legitimacy on the communist
system. However, Hobsbawm persuasively repeats the need for the preservation of the

5 ibid., pg. 250

6American History. The Economy in the 1980s and 1990s. American history. (online). Available at:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/economy-1991/a-historical-perspective-on-the-american-economy/the-
economy-in-the-1980s-and-1990s.php (03-11-18)
7 McCAULEY., op. Cit., Pg 443
8 McCAULEY., op. Cit., Pg 444
9 McCAULEY., op. Cit., Pg 448
10 HOBSBAWM., op. Cit., Pg 251
state to make the Socialist Soviet system work. Nevertheless, McCauley’s approach
can be considered erroneous because the idea of building socialism meant
conservation; the interaction with the outside world in a cultural level would’ve indirectly
been an impulse for the opening of the Soviets’ borders.

Likewise, both authors agree that reforms like glasnost and perestroika resulted in the
fall of the soviet regime. Hobsbawm, in the chapter of The End of Socialism,
aggressively affirms that the point of no return was when Gorbachev decided to install
Glasnost and Perestroika to the political apparatus. The act of glasnost and perestroika
represented the act of democratizing a military command system (which guaranteed
collapse, not reconstruction), the reintroduction of a democratic state based on the
enjoyment of civil liberties, which, according to Hobsbawm, shifted an effective
government from party to state. In conjunction, McCauley states that the collapse was
the result of policies which were intended to achieve “something else”. By contrast, he
continues to argue that a major weakness was the party-state system. The lack of
expertise of Gorbachev on handling the country led him to instill economic reforms
provoked a collapse. Likewise, McCauley paints Gorbachev as the guilty party of the
collapse by staying that his impatience led him to perform radical reforms to accelerate
growth, wrecking the system. Although, for McCauley, economic stagnation was key for
the Soviet Union’s fall, but it was not the main cause; the author exemplifies by affirming
that post-communist Russia in 1992 had worse economic problems.

Finally, both authors also agreed on blaming Gorbachev for being influenced by
external factors that drove him to make these type of reforms. McCauley in one point
continues to blame the last soviet president for having little knowledge in economics
and by trusting economists on what should be done to the economy. Hobsbawm
emphasizes on the fact that the economist reforms were from western countries (United
States and United Kingdom), pronouncing that they had little understanding of what
happened in the soviet economy, and just advised characteristics of the more advanced
capitalist system.
Reflection

The present research let me gain awareness of the methods used by historians, as well
as to the difficult task that historians experience when carrying out investigations. In this
process, I considered that assuming the role of a researcher helped me to develop a
wide comprehension of abilities (thinking, self-management and research abilities) that
the study of history requires when we face an investigation because as historians
always do it, we are dealing with different points of views to interpret the reality. The
process of source recollection and investigation allowed me to explore different views-
accounts when inquiring into a specific theme or subject, which, in consequence, led me
to carry out a correct analysis and narrative on the historical events that led to the
dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The amount of information regarding the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR
faced me to the challenges that historians can encounter regarding choosing relevant
information for the topic of study. Nevertheless, the amount of information also led to
me to establish a neutral perspective so I can analyze the information in an unbiased
way. This in fact helped me examine and choose relevant, reliable sources of
information that was valuably coherent to my investigation. Then, I carefully extracted
the information that was most centered in my topic of investigation to then synthesize it
in order to expose it in an organized and consistent way, as a historian would.
Accordingly, through the exploration of other sources, according to Enzo Travenzo,
Hobsbawm adopted a braudelian approach where events would be engulfed; “a point of
view specifically unsuitable for a 20th century full of sudden and unforeseen ruptures.”11
Because of this, it is delicate to see the Cold War through Hobsbawm. His structural
position does not allow him to see things beyond, inertial for the fall of the USSR

In order to correctly assess this investigation, I first focused on investigating the authors
life and context in which not only the author lived or lives, but also the context in which
the sources were written. Accordingly, through an extensive reading of both sources,
the recall of personal experiences helped me determine the nature and value of these,
as well as it made me understand the richness given the close interaction of the authors
with the time and place in which cold war events developed.

11ERICE, Francisco. Hobsbawm, testigo apasionado de la Era de los extremos. University of Oviedo,
Spain. Vol. 2, núm. 4, 2013
Bibliography

HOBSBAWM, Eric. Age of Extremes. The Short Twentieth Century. 1914-1991. Part
Two: The Golden Age. Chapter 16, The fall of socialism. ABACUS. Great Britain. 1995.

MCCAULEY, Martin. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union. Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group. Chapter 22, Strengths and weaknesses of the Soviet system.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. John Ernest Hobsbawm. Online.

https://global.britannica.com/biography/Eric-John-Ernest-Hobsbawm

ERICE, Francisco. Hobsbawm, testigo apasionado de la Era de los extremos.

University of Oviedo, Spain. Vol. 2, núm. 4, 2013

HORNSBY, Robert. Reviews Martin McCauley, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2007. University of Birmingham.

POWASKI, Ronald. The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991.
Traducción Castellana Jordi Beltrán Ferrer. Crítica. Barcelona. 2000.

WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel. After Liberalism, 1995 New York: The New Press.