Some Concluding Observations
It was new ways of thinking about Russia’s and the world’s problems, and the paths to their resolution, that ushered in the bureaucratic dictatorship of the Soviet Communist Party, with all its fateful domestic and international consequences, and now it is new ways of thinking about these matters that is ushering it out. In both cases, moreover, the new ways of thinking were personified in a ‘transformational’ leadership,1 operating in a context of mounting socioeconomic and political crisis, and offering a path away from poverty, backwardness, tyranny, obscurantism and war.
KeywordsPeris Boris Stake Monopoly Hate
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.See Noel M. Tichy and Mary A. Devanna, The Transformational Leader (New York: Wiley, 1986).Google Scholar
- 2.See T. H. Rigby, The Changing Soviet System. Mono-organisational Socialism from its Origins to Gorbachev’s Perestroika (Aldershot: Elgar, 1990)Google Scholar
- 3.Further on the ‘counter-(or second) culture’ and its significance, see Geoffrey Hosking, The Awakening of the Soviet Union (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
- T. H. Rigby, ‘Mono-organisational Socialism and the Civil Society’, in David W. Lovell and Chandran Kukathas, The Transition from Socialism: State and Civil Society in Gorbachev’s USSR (London: Longman, 1991).Google Scholar
- 4.S. V. Kolesnikov et al., Knizhka partiynogo aktivista: 1990 (Moscow: Politizdat, 1990), pp. 201–12.Google Scholar
- 6.This point is emphasized from differing perspectives in Robert F. Miller, Soviet Foreign Policy Today (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1991)Google Scholar
- V. Kubalkova and A. A. Cruickshank, Thinking about Soviet New Thinking (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1989)Google Scholar
- Michael MccGwire, Perestroika and Soviet National Security (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1990).Google Scholar
- 7.For an excellent survey, see Tamara V. Samsonova, Perestrojka der Ethik und Ethik der Perestrojka (Cologne: Federal Institute of East-European and International Studies, Report no. 30, 1990).Google Scholar