A Study of the Soviet Union’s Historic Issues Since China’s Reform and Opening-Up

1 Deng Xiaoping’s Reforms Promoted Research on the Soviet Union

While planning China’s reform, Deng Xiaoping was thinking about how to break away from the Soviet model. After his return to the political stage, he set up a writing group on international issues. Based in Diaoyutai, with Hu Qiaomu and Huan Xiang in charge, the group included senior leaders and scholars such as Li Shenzhi, Tang Wenrui (then Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the People’s Daily), Li Huichuan, and He Fang. This group studied the Soviet Union issues and provided a basis for a scientific understanding of the USSR. On September 29, 1977, when meeting with the British writer Han Suyin, Deng Xiaoping said, “In the past, we have suffered losses in many respects in learning from the USSR” (Party Literature Research Office of the CCCPC, 2004, p. 210). On October 23, 1977, when meeting with a delegation from the Council on U.S.-China Relations, he said, “In the early days of the founding of the country, we accepted the experience of the USSR. However, there are positive experiences as well as negative ones, which deserve reflection” (Party Literature Research Office of the CCCPC, 2004, p. 228). On September 15, 1978, during a visit to the northeastern China, Deng Xiaoping said, “In terms of the general situation, the system of our country, including the institutional system, etc., basically came from the Soviet Union. Many of them are overlapping and overstaffed not to mention their bureaucracy. It was like this even before the Cultural Revolution. If you want to do something, you need to consult many people and the business goes round and round without a solution. There are so many institutional problems that need to be solved. In general, our system is not modern enough, and our superstructure cannot meet the new requirements” (Party Literature Research Office of the CCCPC, 2004, p. 376). “For many years, even before the Cultural Revolution, we didn’t use our brains, resulting in rigid thinking. Taking enterprise management as an example, it has always followed the USSR model and never jumped out of that trap” (Party Literature Research Office of the CCCPC, 2004, p. 378). After the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Party, China began the great process of reform and opening-up, and there was an urgent need to strengthen the study of the Soviet issues.

Against this background, Chinese research institutions and personnel on the Soviet issues were reinforced. After the founding of People’s Republic of China, there was no institution dedicated to the study of the Soviet issues until 1964. In that year, the Institute of Soviet Studies was established at Renmin University of China, and the Central Government approved the establishment of four institutes for the study of international issues in the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCCPC). Among them is the Institute of Soviet Studies, whose work was mainly to cooperate with the International Department of the CCCPC in conducting relevant research. In order to meet the need for research on the Soviet issues for the reform and opening-up, the Institute of Soviet Studies of the International Department of the CCCPC was transferred to Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) on 1 January 1981. Also, the Institute of Soviet and Eastern European Studies of CASS was set up, with Liu Keming as its Director. In 1979, the Institute of Soviet Studies was founded at Heilongjiang University. Some other institutions also set up institutes related to the study of the USSR, and launched relevant journals. These institutions include Peking University, Liaoning University, Harbin Institute of Technology, Jilin University, Northeast Normal University and Shanghai University of Foreign Studies. Among them there were also scientific institutions such as the Heilongjiang Academy of Social Sciences, Jilin Academy of Social Sciences and Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.^[1]

In 1986, Lin Li was transferred from the Institute of Philosophy of CASS to the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (Central Party School) to lead research on the Soviet issues. Lin Li, the daughter of Lin Boqu, went to the Soviet Union in 1938 and returned to China in 1947, and was thus a witness to the changes of Sino-Soviet relations. At the beginning of 1987, Lin Li got one of the very few the national key projects named “Research on Major Theoretical and Practical Issues of Contemporary International Communist Movement”. The project concentrated on Sino-Soviet relations, Sino-Soviet bipartisan relations and Sino-Soviet debate, Stalin issue, Soviet socialist theory and practice, as well as other important issues. Unfortunately, due to limitations of the conditions at that time, the results of the project were not officially published, but they laid the foundation for later Soviet studies. In 1988, Professor Jiang Changbin, Director of the Institute of Soviet Studies at Heilongjiang University, was transferred to the Institute of International Communist Studies at the Central Party School. In the same year, Lin Li and Jiang Changbin went to the Soviet Union for an academic study tour. At that time, during the Gorbachev’s perestroika, they brought back a lot of materials and translated them into a book entitled Stalin Reassessed in the Wave of Reform (Truth Seeking Press, 1989), which played a positive role in dispelling the superstitions about the Soviet model.

In May 1978, following the great discussion on the standards of truth, and inspired by “the principles of freeing minds and seeking truth from facts”, Chinese studies of Soviet history began to break through the shackles of History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course (the Short Course) and began to seek truth from facts. In the 1980s, when the Communist Party of the USSR had not announced rehabilitation of Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov among others, China published their work and began to study the Soviet system. Bukharin was an economist of the Lenin era and an ardent supporter of the New Economic Policy (NEP). He was ousted from politics in 1929 because of his opposition to Stalin’s abandonment of the NEP, and was executed in the 1930s, and he was not rehabilitated by the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the USSR. In 1981, China Oriental Publishing House published Selected Works of Bukharin in three volumes, in which articles on Bukharin’s arguments with Stalin and his defense of the NEP were included. This is of great significance for the Chinese people to scientifically look at the socialist construction of the Soviet Union, so that Chinese people can see that there is another way for socialist construction besides Stalin’s way. In 1986, the People’s Publishing House published Selected Writings of Rykov. Rykov succeeded Lenin as Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars after the latter’s death and was also a defender of the NEP. 1989 saw the publication of Grigory Zinoviev’s work Leninism: An Introduction to Leninist Studies by the Oriental Publishing House. Zinoviev made a different overview and summary of Lenin’s thought from that of Stalin, seeing the importance of peasants in Lenin’s theory. The publication of the works of these prominent Bolshevik contemporaries of Stalin promoted the study of Soviet issues in China, and helped to re-evaluate the Soviet system and identify its problems. At the same time, books on the problems of the Stalinist period were translated and published in China, such as Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism by Soviet historian Roy Medvedev (People’s Publishing House, 1981). This book provides an in-depth analysis of Stalin’s socialist construction measures and his purges, and analyzes the serious consequences of Stalin’s mistakes, which are conducive for the Chinese people to understand the Soviet model.

In 1986, China Social Sciences Press published Li Xianrong’s A Biography of Trotsky. In the preface to the book, Zhu Tingguang, Director of Institute of World History of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, says, “Correct evaluation of Trotsky will help us understand many major debates in the early USSR on how to build socialism, and will help us to gain a new and important breakthrough in the study of the history of the Soviet transition” (Li, 1986, p. 23). In November 1987, the Chinese Society for Soviet and East European History held a conference at East China Normal University on the Short Course. The scholars generally agreed that it was a product of Stalin’s personal cult and focused on intra-party struggles instead of the real history of the Soviet Communist Party.

In the 1980s, there was a boom in the study of Bukharin in the Chinese academic circle, with in-depth research on Bukharin’s theories of mitigating class struggle, calling for peaceful growth into socialism and building socialism by motivating the peasantry. 1988 saw the publication of A Biography of Bukharin by Wen Yi and Ye Shuzong (Jilin Education Publishing House, 1988), which provided a systematic account of Bukharin’s life and his ideas. These writings made the Chinese people no longer take a simplistic point of view about Soviet history and the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Chinese people no longer believed in Stalin’s charges against those Soviet leaders, and began to rethink their socialist ideas. On October 14, 1988, The People’s Daily published Zheng Yifan’s Bukharin Studies in China. Bukharin was an important figure in opposing Stalin’s theory of the sharpening of the class struggle, and the publication of an article on Bukharin’s ideas served to set things right and was of great significance to China’s reform and opening-up.

From the beginning, the study of the USSR in China coincided with the reform and opening-up, mutually reinforcing each other. In 1982, the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of China announced the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and on August 28, 1985, Deng Xiaoping stated clearly, “The Soviet Union has been working on what socialism is really like for many years, but it never completely figures it out. Perhaps Lenin had better ideas and came up with a new economic policy, but then the Soviet model ossified” (Party Literature Research Office of the CCCPC, 2004, p. 1070). Since then, Deng has repeatedly given a negative assessment of the Soviet model, “Frankly speaking, our past copying of the Soviet model of socialism has given rise to many problems, which we discovered long ago but did not solve. To solve these problems, we need to build socialism with Chinese characteristics” (Deng, 1993, p. 261).

Reform is closely related with system problems. Since China’s system mainly comes from the Soviet Union, the study of the problems existing in the Soviet system has naturally become the focus of the Chinese academic circle. In 1985, A Collection of Essays on the Modern History of the Soviet Union was edited and published by the World History Department of SDX Joint Publishing Company. These essays were written by scholars studying the USSR in universities and research institutions. Many of these articles touched on the Soviet system and offered a different perspective on major events in the political, economic, and diplomatic spheres of the USSR. In the same year, the Chinese Society for Soviet and East European History was founded, providing China’s Soviet history studies with a social organization for regular academic exchanges. In 1988, the Heilongjiang Education Press published Jiang Changbin’s The Formation of the Early Soviet System and The Transformation of the Soviet Socialist System. They provide a systematic study of how the Soviet political and economic systems were formed, how they changed and developed, and re-evaluate the theoretical and historical status of Stalin and Khrushchev. They became influential works in the academic circle at that time for the systematic study of Soviet issues. Shaanxi Normal University is an important front for the study of Soviet history. Under the leadership of Professor Yang Cuntang, the journal Soviet Historical Issues was founded. In 1989, Yang Cuntang’s book A Study of the Soviet Road to Socialism^[2] was published by Shaanxi Normal University Press. The book analyzes the reasons why history has chosen the October Revolution, the theory and practice of Stalin’s “socialism in one country”, the important impact of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Khrushchev’s agricultural reforms.

In 1990, the China Social Sciences Press published a book entitled Seventy Years of the Soviet Political and Economic System, edited by Liu Keming and Jin Hui. The book is a collective work and the final product of a key national social science research project. The writers include Jiang Changbin from the Central Party School, and Wang Zhengquan, Jin Quanyuan from Renmin University of China, besides another 12 researchers from the Institute of Soviet and East European History of CASS. The book divides the 70 years of socialism in the USSR into five phases, namely the creation of the Soviet political and economic system, the formation phase, the exploration and innovation phase, the reform and stagnant phase, and the phase of comprehensive reform. The work provides an insightful analysis of the shortcomings of the Soviet system, particularly the Stalinist political system, and reveals the excessive concentration of power in individuals in the Soviet Union. It is one of the most significant scholarly works on the Soviet Union published before its collapse and remains an important reference for understanding the Soviet system.

In February 1991, the People’s Publishing House published The Outline of Soviet History (1917–1937) (edited by Chen Zhihua, in two volumes). Ten scholars took part in the writing of the books. They are all experts in Soviet history in China. These books are also useful for understanding the formation of the Soviet system and its problems. These academic works deal with the problems of the Soviet system and analyze the shortcomings of the Soviet institutional model.

2 The Studies on the Soviet Union in China in the 1990s

Right after the collapse of the USSR, the studies of the causes and lessons of its sudden fall and the disintegration of the CPSU became the most topical and strategically important subjects in China. As the Chinese academics already had a relatively good foundation for research on the USSR, a number of works were soon published on the causes of its collapse. They include From Lenin to Gorbachev: The Evolution of Soviet Socialist Theory, edited by Liu Keming and Wu Renzhang (Oriental Publishing House, 1992), A History of the Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union by Zhou Shangwen, Ye Shuzong and Wang Side (Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1993), Historical Reflections on the Evolution of the Soviet Union, edited by Jiang Liu and Chen Zhihua (China Social Sciences Press, 1994), and Studies on the Soviet Union’s Drastic Changes, edited by Jiang Liu and Shan Tianlun (Social Science Literature Press, 1994). These works analyze the historical and practical reasons for the dramatic changes in the USSR at many levels of theory and practice. While exploring the failures of Gorbachev’s reform policies, they also analyze the implications of rigid theories and institutions concerning the USSR.

Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Deng Xiaoping made a visit to the south of China, saying, “If we do not adhere to socialism, reform and opening-up, develop our economy and improve people’s livelihood, we would only come to the end of a blind alley” (Deng, 1993, p. 370). “The scope of reform and opening-up should be bigger, and we must dare to experiment … if we are sure something is right, we must try it out boldly and make a breakthrough.” He stressed that, “Whether there should be more planning or more marketing would not make essential difference between socialism and capitalism” (Deng, 1993, p. 373). In 1994, the 14th Congress of the CPC formally proposed that the goal of China’s economic system reform was to establish a socialist market economy. It was the first attempt to combine socialism with a market economy. Learning lessons from the USSR’s dramatic change, China has persisted in reform and opening-up, and has achieved remarkable results in building a socialist market economy, with rapid improvements in national strength and people’s living standards. The success of Chinese socialism proved from another angle that there were serious problems with the Soviet model, broadened the horizons of researchers on the USSR issues, and promoted deeper research on Soviet history.

With the in-depth development of China’s reform after Deng Xiaoping’s talks in south China in 1992, the study of the Soviet Union issues entered a new stage, and many scholars published their important monographs. In 1994, the Central Party School Press published Jiang Changbin’s monograph, The Loneliness of History: A New Inquiry into Early Stalin (1879–1924). This is the first monograph on Stalin’s early activities published in China. It contains a huge amount of fresh information to study and analyzes some of the anomalies in Stalin’s early practical activities, revealing many errors in his early theoretical views. It thus clears up the inaccuracies glorifying Stalin in the Short Course and A Biographical Sketch of Stalin. The book Stalin’s Political Biography (1879–1953), edited by Jiang Changbin, was published in 1997. It examines Stalin’s political activities and the Soviet socialism he built, and reaches conclusions different from previous studies. “In history Stalin did not join the Russian Revolution as its leader, let alone as the founder of the Russian Communist Party” (Jiang, 1997, p. 328). Stalin differed in many ways from Lenin. These include his worldview, methodology, his approach to Marxist socialism and the Russian Revolution, political behavior and implementation of theoretical principles, as well as his understanding of the purpose of building socialism (Jiang, 1997). The book also analyzes the reasons for Stalin’s theoretical system and his theoretical characteristics. It discusses the industrialization of the Soviet Union, the collectivization of agriculture and the trials on Soviet politicians in the 1930s, and provides a fresh overview and evaluation of Stalin’s political activities and ideas.

Another study of the Stalinist problem is Studies on the Stalinist Model by Li Zongyu and others (Central Compilation & Translation Press, 1999). Its publication was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China and its writers include Zheng Yifan, Xu Tianxin, Zhao Changqing and Ma Longshan. It contains in-depth analyses of Stalin’s socialist theories, total collectivization, industrialization, ethnic issues, the cult of the individual, ideological struggles and relations with Eastern European countries. In 1996, Liaoning Education Publishing House published Zheng Yifan’s Swan Song: A Dialogue on Lenin’s Later Thought. In 1997, Zheng Yifan’s Bukharin’s Essays was published by the Central Compilation & Translation Press. These two books delve into Lenin’s late intellectual legacy of socialist construction and Bukharin’s defense of NEP, and they are also useful in understanding the formation of the Stalinist system. Ma Longshan’s monograph A History of the Soviet Cultural System (China Social Sciences Press, 1996) explores the formation of the Soviet cultural system and its negative effects. Zheng Yu’s monograph From Confrontation to Dialogue: Soviet-American Relations under Khrushchev (China Social Sciences Press, 1998) examines the improvement of Soviet-American relations under Khrushchev and its impact. In 1998, Xing Guangcheng’s series of monographs 70 Years of Soviet High-Level Decision-Making (in five volumes), published by the World Affairs Press, investigate the formulation process of major Soviet decisions. It can also be seen that there are problems in the USSR’s over-centralized political system, and mistakes are inevitable in the CPSU’s decision-making.

In 1996, President Jiang Zemin repeatedly called for a serious study of the deeper causes of the Soviet Union’s dramatic changes and the underlying reasons. In November 1997, East China Normal University in Shanghai held a seminar on the causes of the Soviet upheaval. The academic event was initiated by Mr. Wang Daohan, an advisor to the Shanghai government, and he and over 40 other scholars attended the seminar. Since then, symposiums on the USSR have been held for three consecutive years. The achievements of the conference are recorded in a book edited by Lu Nanquan and Jiang Changbin, A Study of the Deeper Causes of the Dramatic Changes of the Soviet Union. The book analyzes the historical factors and practical causes of the Soviet Union’s dramatic changes and proposes a guiding theory for the study of the Soviet Union’s dramatic changes from a methodological perspective. The book argues that the root causes of the Soviet dramatic changes should be looked for in the system, and not simply attributed to certain leading figures. “While discussing the most important practical factors of the Soviet drastic change such as Soviet economic development, ethnicity, the theoretical roots of the ‘left’ and the ideology of the CPSU, we must consider them in relation with historical factors” (Lu & Jiang, 1999, p. 2). It is stressed that while building socialism in underdeveloped countries, efforts should be concentrated on developing the productive forces, special attention should be paid to learning and borrowing from capitalism. Reform is the only way out for socialism. Socialism must be affluent and democratic, and the proletarian party should constantly strengthen itself and handle properly the relationship with intellectuals. Correct national theories and national policies should be formulated, and correct reform strategies and tactics should be chosen (Lu & Jiang, 1999).

Another influential work of this period is Famous Chinese Scholars: A New Inquiry into the Soviet Union’s Drastic Changes, edited by Gong Dafei. The authors of the book are all long-time experts in the Soviet Union issues, and they approach the problem from several aspects including politics, economics, diplomacy, ethnicity, leadership system and political style. In his preface, Gong Dafei says, “As Chinese Marxists, we should take a serious, unbiased look at such a major historical subject with which we are inextricably linked historically, ideologically, and even emotionally. We should not blindly dismiss anything or refrain from discussing it” (Gong, 1998, p. 6). According to Xu Kui, the Soviet Union’s dramatic changes were “the result of a combination of subjective and objective factors under the special conditions of the USSR at the end of the 20th century” (Gong, 1998, p. 44). According to Gao Fang, “It is not so much that Gorbachev killed the CPSU, but rather that the CPSU drank the poisonous wine of Stalin’s individual centralization system and bureaucratic privilege. Stalin’s dogmatic errors, especially the totalitarian system, left great problems that made it difficult for following generations to carry out fundamental reforms effectively” (Gong, 1998, p. 86). Zheng Yifan argues that the October Revolution, which occurred under exceptional conditions, left the Soviet Union congenitally deficient and it failed to mend it in time, bringing about many problems (Gong, 1998). Both books stress that the root causes of the Soviet Union’s dramatic changes were the Stalinist model of socialism and the institutions that embodied it, and that it was ultimately the long period of “leftism” that killed the Soviet socialism. The important lesson to be drawn from this is that socialism must be reformed for development, and the old ways of the Soviet model must be avoided.

3 The Studies on the Soviet Union in China in the New Century

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a large amount of archival materials were declassified, thus providing richer and more valuable information for the study of Soviet historic issues and promoting the in-depth study of the Soviet issues in China. 2002 saw the publication of Selected Historical Archives of the Soviet Union (34 volumes), edited by Shen Zhihua under the Social Science Academic Press. It provided archival materials that could be used as reference for the study of Soviet issues. Based on this, the three-volume The Rise and Collapse of a Great Power, edited by Shen Zhihua, was published by the Social Science Academic Press in 2009. The book is an empirical and thematic study of the 74-year history of the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. It covers various aspects such as politics, military, diplomacy, economy, culture, ethnicity and religion, with 28 topics and about 1.1 million words. It was written by 22 Chinese scholars. The book presents a comprehensive picture of the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and its problems. 2002 saw the publication of The History of the Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union by the People’s Publishing House, which was edited by Lu Nanquan, Jiang Changbin, Xu Kui and Li Jingjie. This is the result of a key project of the National Social Science Fund of China. It analyzes the successes and failures of the Soviet Union in a historical order and in a realistic manner, emphasizing the need to understand the deeper problems of the Soviet system.

Around the tenth anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Chinese academic circles published a series of academic monographs on Soviet internal affairs and diplomacy. The publications include the following: Zhang Shengfa’s Stalin and the Cold War (China Social Science Press, 2000), Zuo Fengrong’s Fatal Mistakes: The Evolution and Impact of Soviet Foreign Strategy (World Affairs Press, 2001), Fu Shuzheng and Lei Liping’s The Russian Orthodox Church and the State (1917–1945) (Social Science Academic Press, 2001), Zhang Jianhua’s A Historical Investigation of Soviet Ethnic Problems (Beijing Normal University Press, 2002), Wen Yi’s Looking Back at the Soviet Union (Shandong People’s Press, 2003), Ma Longshan’s A Cultural Perspective on the Drastic Changes of the Soviet Union (Social Science Academic Press, 2005), Huang Lifu’s A Study of Soviet Social Class and the Soviet Union’s Drastic Changes (Social Science Academic Press, 2006), Guo Chunsheng’s Socio-Political Class and the Soviet Revolution: A Study of Soviet Socio-Political Classes in the 1960s–1990s (Contemporary World Press, 2006), Shen Chongwu’s Modern Reflections on the Stalinist Model (Yunnan People’s Publishing House, 2004), etc.

In 2005, Anhui University Press published a series of monographs, including Xu Tianxin’s The Ideal of an Equal and Strong State and Soviet Practice, Yang Cuntang’s The Practice of Centuryhood, Zheng Yifan’s Exploring the Sea of History, and Ye Shuzong’s A Study of Russian Socialist Practice. In his preface, Zhu Tingguang notes, “It was the lessons of the Cultural Revolution that prompted our historians to seriously reflect on the shortcomings and problems of the Stalinist model. The mistakes were made by ourselves, but from the source they are inseparable from the Stalinist model” (Zheng, 2005, p. 1). In addition, there are also Huang Weiting’s Ten-Year After the Demise of the Soviet Communist Party (Jiangxi Universities and Colleges Press, 2004), Outline of the History of the Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union (China Social Science Press, 2004) edited by Chen Zhihua, Wu Enyuan and Ma Longshan, Guo Yongsheng’s The Study of Soviet Dissidents (Inner Mongolia People’s Press, 2005), Lu Nanquan’s Discussion on the History of Economic Reform: From Lenin to Putin (People’s Publishing House, 2007), and Wu Enyuan’s Discussion on the History of the Soviet Union (People’s Publishing House, 2007), among others.

From these findings, it is obvious that the Chinese academics have studied the Soviet economy, politics, society and foreign relations in depth, but the views of these findings differ, with the main differences focusing on how to view the Stalinist model. The Stalinist model was a highly centralized “a big leap backward” model of social development that rapidly advanced the modernization of backward countries. However, this development model focused on developing the country, and after a certain stage of development, the highly centralized planned economic system hindered sustainable economic and social development. It was therefore necessary to reform it completely, but the CPSU did not fulfil this historical mission.

The period around the 20th anniversary of the USSR’s fall witnessed the greatest number of academic research results on the USSR in China. In 2010, Xinhua Publishing House published a three-volume book, The Truth about the Soviet Union: Reflections on 101 Important Issues. It is edited by Lu Nanquan, Huang Zongliang, Zheng Yifan, Ma Longshan and Zuo Fengrong. This 1.5-million-word book contains essays by 35 scholars, examining important events, figures, theories and institutions of the USSR. It also analyzes various factors of the USSR’s fall. Two books on the CPSU were published during this period: Zhou Shangwen et al.’s A Study of the CPSU’s Mode of Governance and Li Yongzhong and Dong Ying’s The Mystery of the CPSU’s Demise: From the Wounds of the Power Structure to the Death of the Personnel System. The former analyzes the characteristics and governing philosophy of the CPSU, as well as its overall control over the country and society. It focuses on the USSR’s leadership of ideology, economic development and foreign policy, as well as its organizational structure and cadre system. It also deals with its intra-party struggles and corruption, arguing that “the CPSU, as the ‘load-bearing structure’ of the Soviet Union as a union state, has failed to change with the times. This has allowed various negative factors both inside and outside the system to grow and erode its sound parts. Thus, at a late stage, the load-bearing structure that supported the superpower had become quite fragile” (Zhou, 2010, p. 539). The latter takes a longitudinal look at the power structure of the CPSU and analyzes its negative effects, arguing that the “unity of parliament, executive and supervisory” power structure and the hierarchical appointment system should be abandoned. The leadership system and the organizational system, with this personnel system at their core, were the two core hallmarks of the Soviet model. “They were also the two fundamental, comprehensive and long-term causes of the ‘change of colour’ of the Soviet party and state” (Li & Dong, 2012, p. 3).

In 2011, Han Kedi’s monograph The United States and the Disintegration of the Soviet Union, published by the Economy & Management Publishing House, shows with detailed information that the US policy towards the Soviet Union was consistent and that the dramatic change in the Soviet Union cannot be described as mainly a peaceful evolution of the US. He concludes that “the internal causes remain the main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. The internal crisis within the Soviet Union gave the US an opportunity to take its advantage, and American intervention and interference essentially exploited the various crises and exacerbated the contradictions in the Soviet Union” (Han, 2011, p. 6). These studies are useful in understanding the deeper reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Li Shenming’s Thinking of Danger in Times of Peace – Reflections on Twenty Years of the Soviet Communist Party’s Demise (Social Science Academic Press, 2011) differs from the above-mentioned works. It argues that the root cause of the Soviet Union’s dramatic change did not lie in the “Stalinist model”, i.e. the Soviet socialist model, but in the fact that from the Khrushchev group to the Gorbachev group, they gradually deviated from and eventually betrayed Marxism and the fundamental interests of the people.

In 2013, the People’s Publishing House published five of the nine volumes of Soviet history edited by Zheng Yifan: The Russian Revolution, Russia in the NEP era, The Formation of the Stalinist Model, The Eighteen Years of Brezhnev, and The Perestroika Period. These are the results of a project set up by the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau in 1996, which lasted more than ten years and absorbed the wisdom from the authors’ long-term research on the Soviet Union. Yao Hai’s The Russian Revolution details the logic of the historical development from the February Revolution to the October Revolution. It provides a basis for understanding the particularities of the Russian Revolution and its impact on the subsequent development of the Soviet Union. Russia in the NEP era by Zheng Yifan examines the history of the Soviet Union in the 1920s, focusing on two major paradigm shifts: from the military communist model to the NEP model in the early 1920s, and from the NEP model to the Stalinist model in the late 1920s. The book details the political power struggles surrounding these two paradigm shifts and the establishment of the economic and cultural institutions of the CPSU, arguing that it was the increasing centralization and rigidity of the political system that ultimately caused the failure of the NEP. Xu Tianxin’s The Formation of the Stalinist Model recounts the process by which Stalin abandoned the NEP in 1929 and introduced the second paradigm shift in the Soviet Union, establishing the Stalinist model. The Eighteen Years of Brezhnev by Ye Shuzong considers the Brezhnev period as a relatively stable period in the history of the Soviet Union, and a crucial period in which the country went from strength to weakness. Zuo Fengrong’s The Perestroika Period analyzes the history of Gorbachev’s reforms, the process of their introduction, and the results of their implementation. It also answers the question of why and how the Soviet Union disintegrated. It is important to emphasize that this work on the history of the Soviet Union is based on newly declassified archival materials and fully draws on national and international research.

In 2015, the Social Science Academic Press published From the Soviet Union to Russia: A Study of the Issue of Regional Ethnic Autonomy, co-authored by Zuo Fengrong and Liu Xianzhong, which examines the disintegration of the Soviet Union from the ethnic perspective. In 2016, the Social Science Academic Press published Zhang Jianhua’s Mirror of Ideas: Intellectuals and the Political Changes of the Soviet Union. The book examines the fate of intellectuals in the historical process from 1936 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, helping us to understand the causes of the failure of Soviet socialism and the collapse of the Soviet Union from the perspective of intellectuals’ fate. 2017 marks the centenary of the October Revolution. Related monographs published in China include: Lu Nanquan’s A Study on the Transformation and Modernization of Russia (China Social Sciences Press), and its second edition, discussing its political and economic system, analyzes the modernization process of the Soviet Union and the reasons for its failure and the price paid for it; Li Yongquan’s A History of Political Parties in Russia: The Formation and Collapse of the Pyramid of Power (Social Science Academic Press) analyzes the process and causes of the Soviet Communist regime from its cradle to its grave.

In 2018, Shanghai People’s Publishing House published Zheng Yifan’s collection of essays, Spring and Autumn in the Soviet Union (three volumes), which covers the period from the founding of the Soviet Union to its dissolution. 2019 saw the publication of Cold War Apocalypse, edited by Shen Zhihua, which discusses the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union and the lessons learned. 2021 witnessed the publication of Song Yongcheng’s Studies of Soviet Jewry (1941–1953) by the Commercial Press. The book studies the contribution of Soviet Jews to the defeat of fascism from the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War in 1941 to the death of Stalin in 1953, as well as the anti-Semitic movement of the Soviet Union after the World War II and its influence. In 2022, the Social Science Academic Press published Xiao Yu and Jiang Yipeng’s From Honeymoon to Confrontation: A Study of Soviet-Israeli Relations in the Early Years of the Cold War (1948–1953). The book examines the history of the Soviet Union from its support for the establishment of Israel to the severance of diplomatic relations with Israel. Both books make use of archival documents declassified in recent years in Russia, Britain, the United States and Israel, making the research work solid and the conclusions convincing.

China used to imitate the Soviet model, and Chinese scholars have a unique perspective on Soviet issues that differs from that of scholars in other countries. The study of Soviet history by Chinese scholars shows a relatively comprehensive understanding of the Soviet issues. In analyzing the causes of the Soviet Union’s dramatic changes, they do not deny the achievements made during the Soviet period. In studying the Soviet Union’s upheavals, they have followed the scientific method of Marxism. They have viewed the figures and events in the Soviet Union in the historical context, and explored the causes of the upheavals in the context of the socio-economic and political systems. They assert that the Soviet Union’s world-shaking changes are not accidental. Instead, they are the results of history, reality, as well as domestic and international factors.