The disintegration of the Soviet Union was not an inevitable event, but it was an inevitable event that the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. Like China, ancient Russia was a typical representative of the large population. The characteristic of this kind of country is its huge size. As long as it is united enough, it is almost impossible to lose in the overall war. This is a typical case whether it is the Soviet Union's hard resistance against the mustache or the Republic of China against Japan. Countries like China and Russia, as long as they are sufficiently united internally, it is impossible to defeat them by external forces. Even if it is as fragile as the Republic of China, it can survive the small Japan by relying on its size advantage.

However, the characteristic of this kind of country is that its total resources are extremely large, and its international status may be high. However, most of the time, its ordinary people are not doing well because the per capita resources are not large. The situation in Russia is more special. Its per capita resources are in absolute value. However, due to the difficulty of development and traffic conditions, it is difficult to ensure that everyone can enjoy these resources. (For a counter example, look at the United States, where there are many people in the same place, but the superior climate and transportation conditions make the economic foundations of the United States and Russia very different.) In the era when Tsarist Russia was called the European gendarmerie, Tsarist Russia was still engaged in serfdom. When the First World War broke out, European countries had already entered civilized societies. Tsarist Russian soldiers were also called "gray animals", and there were a large number of bandits and blood relatives in the territory of revenge. As a country, no monarch in Europe dared to despise Tsarist Russia, but as a common people, living in Russia is very different from living in Western Europe. In the latter part of World War II, the Soviet Union counterattacked into the German mainland. After visiting the German homes, Soviet soldiers were puzzled from the bottom of their hearts-they already lived so extravagantly, why did they come to invade us?

The same is true for the Qing Dynasty. As a representative of China's humiliating dynasty, the Qing Dynasty was full of military virtues for most of the time. There are few rivals in Asian countries, and the Nepalese National People's Congress, which the British can't beat, is able to handle it. With an agricultural country, it can put an established force on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and win the war. This reflects the overall war power of a big country like China. After the Opium War and Maguan, Xin Chou, after all, there was a problem within the Qing Dynasty. If the Qing Dynasty were a Han dynasty, what had not been seen in modern China would be like that. But the people of the Qing Dynasty lived like slaves. When Macartney visited China, he was surprised by such a powerful country in the Qing Dynasty. How did the people live like this? I'm grateful even for some leftovers. This is the embarrassment of countries like China and Russia. In terms of material production, both countries are undoubtedly extremely rich. However, the population has greatly flattened these resources, making it difficult for the people of the two countries to lead a richer life even in the heyday. It is normal for the country to be strong and the people to be weak. The situation of the Soviet Union is even more special. Although the population density of the Soviet Union is much lower than that of China, its climate and traffic conditions are also far worse than China, and the degree of development is far less than that of China. Although Russia's territory is large, it is difficult to call it superior in natural conditions (otherwise it will not be so large for him to monopolize). Slavs have always been regarded by Europeans as aliens, mainly because of the poor living conditions.

If you look at the Soviet Union as a nation-state, what he is good at is overall warfare, not a good life. The living standards of the Russians have never surpassed that of Western Europe, and the Soviet Union's performance is already at an extraordinary level. Therefore, what the Soviet Union can win is a hot war, not a cold war. Among all the methods of confrontation, the Soviet Union had to choose the worst path-the cold war. Not only must it engage in an arms race, it must be better than the standard of living. The biggest problem of the Soviet Union is that the adjustment is too high. The Soviet Union is a typical "savior" regime. It did not exist as a nation-state from the beginning. Trotsky’s soul has never left the Soviet Union. The Soviet official has always declared that he should be the arsenal of the world revolution, burning himself to save mankind. In the official declaration of the Soviet Union, the happiness of the Soviet people has never been the ultimate goal. Their ultimate goal is to sweep the world across the globe and realize the unity of mankind.

The slogan sounds passionate, but it costs money. Objectively speaking, based on the Soviet Union's technological and material levels, if they are properly deployed and only choose one of the arms race and the lives of the people to solve it, they can handle it. There is no problem. Let alone the ability of the arms race, everyone can see it. Under the Soviet Union’s military policy, the Warsaw Pact’s armament level has never been lowered by NATO. If the Soviet Union is willing to maintain such a posture, it can continue to forcefully engage in military confrontation with the United States, no problem. What if we don’t engage in military competitions and only engage in people’s lives? In fact, it is also possible, at least it will not be left too much by Europe and the United States. Cutting down more than half of the Soviet Union’s 5 million troops, cutting down 140,000 tanks and armored vehicles by two-thirds, withdrawing troops from all over the world, and stopping the amount of assistance provided to Asia, Africa and Latin America can save you. The resources are completely astronomical. According to Gorbachev's recollection, when he took over, the Soviet Union's military expenditures accounted for 40% of the finances and 20% of the total output value, which was even close to the level of a wartime country. One can imagine what a terrifying proportion. If it can be deployed reasonably, even if it is a planned economy, the living standards of the Soviet people can go up a lot. The Kosygin reforms and Andropov reforms proved that the planned economy of the Soviet Union has not reached the point of exhaustion, and the possibility of re-prosperity is very high with gradual reforms with reasonable measures. However, if you do both, you can't do it.

The Cold War is such a struggle-you can't relax in the military, you can't fall behind in technology, and your people's living standards can't be poor, otherwise your social system will be backward! Therefore, the Soviet people's sense of gap is very strong. On the one hand, I am the first world country, the big brother of the proletariat, and the core of the world. The country’s rockets went up to the sky and the aircraft carrier was launched into the sea. The aircraft carrier nuclear submarine was rampant across the ocean, 60,000 tanks crushed Western Europe, and tens of thousands of nuclear bombs were the ballast of the world’s proletariat. However, right now you are struggling to buy some good toilet paper. The color TV will explode when you use it. No one will repair your sewer pipes. Your family of five is crowded in an old building of 60 square meters, sharing the bathroom and kitchen with others. At this time you will definitely think-why is all this? If liberating mankind is to live like me, what is the point of liberating mankind? Whenever I see imported goods from Japan and Western Europe, I feel that they do not need our liberation.

In fact, every time I look back at the history of the Cold War, I feel impressed by the abundance of the Soviet Union's material resources. North Korea, Vietnam, Yemen, Angola and many other Asian, African and Latin American countries are all Soviet bloodletters, and Afghanistan is a super gold swallowing beast. However, under such circumstances, the Soviet Union can still maintain its armaments on the scale of terror, and under the conditions of such corruption of the Soviet Communist Party, the life of the common people is still passable, and I have to sigh that Big Brother has a solid foundation. The disintegration of the Soviet Union was a large-scale "Long Yingtai" carnival for the people of the Soviet Union. Although it was later proved that without the rise of a great power, the people of the Soviet Union did not gain the dignity of the petty people. But this was a hindsight. For the Soviets at the time, they definitely expected more changes than maintaining the status quo. Many people say that before the collapse of the Soviet Union, more than 70% of the Soviet people agreed to keep the Soviet Union. But what they didn't say was that the vast majority of them agreed to maintain a new Soviet Union, not a socialist Soviet Union. The Soviet Union regarded the Soviet people as the fuel of the world revolution.

The Cold War was a war of attrition. The Soviet Union used the power of a Soviet-Eastern bloc to fight consumption with the global market integrated with the three major industrial centers of the United States, Europe, and Japan. It was impossible for the Soviet Union to fight it. Not to mention the huge first-mover advantages and natural conditions of Europe and America, as well as the trauma of the Soviet Union's own war. The two sides are not on the same starting line. It is a miracle that they can last for 50 years. With the progress of globalization, in the early twentieth century, the kind of global labor and life-and-death class feelings became weaker and weaker. Soviet officials and people became less and less aware of why they were tightening this string. When the Soviet people saw the extravagant life in the United States, Europe and Japan, no one believed the Suslovs no matter how much they bothered to explain the superiority of socialism.

The savior regime cannot be deconstructed. No matter how high the tune of the Soviet Communist Party is, and no matter how loud the slogan is, a Soviet joke can bring him back to its original form. "We in the Soviet Union want to liberate mankind!"-"Your color TV explodes every day", "Soviet science and technology is No. 1 in the world!"-"Your car is not as powerful as a bicycle", "Soviet modernization is almost complete!"-"You Of the people can’t even eat fresh fruit.” The United States during the Cold War did not even need any excessive propaganda, as long as it showed its own way of life. Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Michael Jackson, Hilton Hotel, no matter how you call these things the sugar-coated cannonballs of capitalism, human nature just likes these things. When the people of the Sudong Group saw the scraps of American life, they would naturally ask: Why can't I have these?

This kind of contrast is fatal to the savior's regime. Just like a Sanhe God who comes to teach you to make a fortune, you will instinctively laugh at him-you live this way, who do you teach to make a fortune? Mind your own business. From the moment the Soviet Union began to participate in the Cold War, he had already lost. In contrast, Chernobyl, the bureaucracy of the CPSU, the war in Afghanistan, etc., are all just diseases of mange. Therefore, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we wisely engaged in the "Three Represents" and expressed our attitude-we will not accept the Soviet legal system. China is the China of the Chinese. The kind of things that let China be responsible for the Asian revolution. We will not do it. If you set the tuning gate to this, you can turn it anyway, because as a nation-state, there is no burden. Although the structure is far inferior to the Soviet Union, this was the only realistic choice for China, which was poor and weak at the time. If you didn't make up this determination at that time, you would lose everything if you were a little careless.

The negative representative is the United States. In 1991, the Soviet people killed the Soviet Union, but the death of the Soviet Union did not kill the United States. The United States failed to turn the corner after the Cold War-ideology was a dispensable thing for the old United States. Before the Cold War and even before the Second World War, the United States did not have a distinct ideological color and lived well. Ideology is the weapon that the United States used to resist the Soviet Union for the Cold War. It is a necessity of the Soviet Union, but not a necessity of the United States. As a result, the United States not only did not weaken its ideology after the Cold War, but further strengthened it as the foundation of the nation. Of course, this also has something to do with the rapid complication of American ethnicity after World War II. The United States really can't match the immigrants from so many countries for national identity, and can only use the ideological banner to make do with it. The ideology of the Soviet Union originated from Marx and Engels, and it was far stronger than the United States in terms of theoretical perfection and inheritance. The ideology of the United States is a mass of paste, and it comes from the French Rousseau Montesquieu group. But the United States is afraid to say that it has inherited the spirit of the Enlightenment. After more than a hundred years of animal slavery, how can it be said that all people are created equal? Who inherited your economic system? Adam Smith? After hundreds of years of evolution, the system and culture of the United States are innovative.

To put it simply, the United States is naturally far weaker in ideology than the Soviet Union. Others have the Internationale, the Communist Manifesto, the Paris Commune, and the Communist International. What do you have? Others have communist fighters who are willing to give their lives, what do you have? Wall Street stock trader? Who would you cite Marx? Give Adam Smith? People’s Communist International has comrades from dozens of countries to participate. What is your Communist International? WTO? After the end of the Cold War, the United States should no longer engage in ideology. A country with the separation of powers (the United States), several constitutional monarchies (UK and Japan), a semi-presidential country (French), several prime ministerial countries (Germany, Italy and Israel), and some federal presidency countries (Switzerland, etc.). The unity of Keynesianism and liberalism under the same banner makes itself a funny thing. The ideology of the United States has been a muddle from beginning to end. Its essence is a coalition of interests of a group of selfish social Darwinists, without even a supreme goal. The only slogan of the United States during the Cold War was to safeguard the free world and protect our way of life, one for the liberation of mankind, and the other for self-preservation. This situation is not a bit different from the Soviet Union.

The American ideology is based on the "anti-communist" issue. From beginning to end, he didn't explain what he wanted in the end. He only told you what he didn't want. OK, then the Soviet Union is disintegrated, and no one threatens your way of life. According to normal logic, the United States should discard this ideology. The results of it? During the Cold War, Americans chanted scriptures and thought that they had dragged the Soviet Union to death by chanting scriptures. After the end of the Cold War, the United States not only did not stop chanting, but became more and more confused. Not only did it seize its own "freedom", it also picked up the opposite "democracy". The good fellow Soviet Union fell, and he became the savior. NS! The establishment of the United States as a "beacon nation" has more negative effects than positive effects on the United States.

Countless immigrants from all over the world flock to the United States, but that is not because the United States is a beacon, but because of the average living standard of US$60,000. Although many of them said that it was because the United States is a lighthouse, then Liberia is the son of the United States, and its political system is exactly the same as the United States without any changes. Why haven't anyone gone to Liberia to look for a lighthouse? Whether the United States is a lighthouse or not, its appeal to immigrants will not change. If the United States is really poor any day, even if it is nuclear-powered searchlights, no one will take the initiative to go. However, the saviour that the United States has put on itself is the icing on the cake when the United States is strong. But when the United States showed a little fatigue, he was the first rock that the United States dropped after falling into a well. Why? Because the United States has always done imperialist things, but it has to build a savior's skin. The whole world laughed at Trump, but no one laughed at Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is no weaker than Trump, but few people pay attention to him. This is not only because the US has greater influence than Brazil, but because Brazil has never said that it is the ultimate answer to the world's political system. Below the "World's Best Political System" plaque, is a picture of Trump. How funny is this scene?

Like the Soviet Union, the savior regime cannot be deconstructed. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the U.S. military is only doing what it has been doing for hundreds of years, but it is because of the contrast of this layer that the U.S. behavior is so hypocritical and hateful. The rampant COVID-19 is the American version of the Soviet joke. All the methods used to mock the Soviet Union can now be applied to the United States: "Our system is the most perfect"-your new crown has infected 20 million people, "our system has the ability to correct itself"-"your new crown is dead It’s more than 300,000.", "Our creativity is the strongest!"-How about creating a new crematorium and burning the corpse first? The beacon of democracy, that's it?

Compared with the confrontation between the two great saviors of the United States and the Soviet Union in the 20th century, the new Cold War in the 21st century will be very dull, because it is a naked battle for interests. From the perspective of style, there is no higher style than the US-Soviet style. However, this is determined by changes in objective material conditions. In the 21st century, it is no longer meaningful to mention international class struggle and global unity and communism. After the Soviet video, there are always some young people who are excited to say-the future world must be the world of red flags, and Internaxonel must be realized and so on.

In fact, this statement is quite unconsidered. In the 21st century, international communist movement is already impossible. Upper decision decided by the economic background. In the 21st century, it is not Marx in itself to hold on to the 20th-century ideals. The most vigorous international communist movement in the 20th century was the beginning of the 20th century. Why was there a red tide around the world at that time? Because the servants who brought the British master's family did not dare to get married in order to serve the masters, the American factories closed down, and a large number of laid-off workers had no food and clothing. The plantation workers in Central America picked bananas like slaves every day. The Chinese farmers were in three mountains. People were lingering under the oppression. Everyone had different nationalities and different situations, but they were all the same poor people, all the same being exploited and bullied, so at that time they were able to sweep the world and create a new world together. However, what are the characteristics of the 21st century? It is the transfer of the main contradiction. Globalization has allowed industrial oppression to replace class oppression, and national contradiction has become the main class contradiction. Simply put, the main contradiction of the 21st century has changed from the previous bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat to the developed countries exploiting the developing countries. The essence is the same, but the form is quite different. A British driver may earn 500,000 yuan a year, and a Chinese driver may only earn 50,000 yuan a year. Is it because the former drives ten times better than the latter? No, it is because the former is in the upstream of the industrial chain in the UK, while the latter is in the lower reaches of the industrial chain in China. The capitalist who brought the British is not the enemy of the British driver, but his benefactor. Because British society did not exploit the surplus value of British drivers, but because capitalists exploited a large amount of wealth from developing countries, British drivers received far more money than they created value. If there are no legal restrictions, British capitalists can use one-fifth of the money to hire Chinese to replace British drivers. In this case, it is impossible for you to let British drivers have the same class feelings as Chinese drivers. The red necks of the United States, if they get the education level of the developing countries, they will never have the chance to open a pickup truck to eat steak in their entire life. But they were born in the United States and can enjoy the shadow of the exploiting class. For American capitalists, they are negative equity. American companies have long transferred their exploited positions abroad. This group of people has no value for being exploited. Their enemy is indeed not capitalists, but Chinese workers who charge lower prices than them. Similarly, taking the textile industry as an example, China’s textile workers are very hardworking, earning only a few thousand yuan a month. But the textile workers in Bangladesh and Vietnam worked harder, earning only a thousand yuan or even a few hundred yuan a month. Capital flowed from China to Bangladesh, Vietnam. The latter robbed the former of their jobs. The two groups really share feelings. NS? British bus drivers, American cattle red-necked, ordinary Chinese laborers, and Bangladeshi textile factory workers who work 18 hours a day. They are all proletariat, but do they have common class feelings?

The proletariat in the developing countries and the proletariat in the developed countries now have no class sentiments, which Lenin had anticipated long ago. Not to mention unity, even peaceful coexistence is difficult to achieve. The era of abandoning the national concept and the global proletarian unity is gone forever. The struggle between China and the United States today is still essentially a struggle between the exploited classes downstream of the industry and the exploiting classes upstream of the industry. The 21st century is a dull century. Without the grandeur of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, it seems to have become a national struggle. But in essence, it is still a struggle waged by the exploited for their right to development. From this point of view, although China has not inherited the Soviet legal system, it has inherited the Soviet spirit. It's not river water, it's the heroic blood that has been shed endlessly for two decades.