What if I told you Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn — Cold War poster boy of “anti-communism”—wrote a story in 1996 that mourned the USSR’s collapse, praised Stalin’s industrial legacy, and condemned post-Soviet capitalism?
It was never translated.
Too ideologically inconvenient.
🧵
Solzhenitsyn became a Cold War icon after writing The Gulag Archipelago — fictional “literary investigation” of the Soviet prison system.
The West treated it as hard fact. Marketed it as nonfiction. Taught it as gospel.
Weaponized it as regime-change literature.
But in 1996, he published a short story called На изломах — At the Breaking Point.
No translation. No republication. No Western attention.
Why?
Because this time, he wasn’t denouncing the Soviet system.
He was mourning its destruction — and exposing what replaced it.
1/
The story follows Dmitry Yemtsov — a Stalin-era factory director.
Not a dissident. Not a liberal. A builder. A believer.
He rises under centralized planning, serves the Party, manages defense production.
Years later, he looks back and realizes:
“From him [Stalin], the whole country received the Impulse into the Future.”
Solzhenitsyn doesn’t glorify Stalin. But he shows that the system, at least for a time, produced — it built.
And what replaced it? It destroyed.
2/
Yemtsov watches the “free market” reforms of the 1990s gut the country.
“Our electronics — finished. High technologies will perish irreversibly… The system will collapse entirely.”
And what replaces it?
“Any trade will do! Sell rakes, hats, rent out factory space to casinos, bars, even brothels.”
Post-Soviet Russia portrayed as a void dressed in slogans.
“Alyosha tried to latch on to one business, then another… and what a disgusting feeling of emptiness, of futility.”
Wide spread looting.
"The era of buy-and-sell had already begun — unheard-of “firms”! Firms! Figuring out how to profit off state property — still within the vague bounds of untested laws — and immediately strike it rich."
Yemtsov sees it. Solzhenitsyn saw it too.
3/
Yemtsov isn’t raging — he’s witnessing a civilization dismantle itself from the inside.
Not by revolution, but by drift. By forgetting.
“Did you elect builders? Directors? No! You ran to elect journalists, economists, ‘democrats.’ Now go to them for your wages.”
And then the cold recognition of civilizational liquidation:
“We were liquidated not just as an enterprise — but as a segment of history.”
"Even then — we didn’t yet know true sorrow. That came when they disbanded the Party. Yes! I was the first to dislike those heavy-browed ones at the very top... but the Party was our Lever. Our Support! And they kicked it out."
It’s testimony from inside the collapse.
4/
So why was The Gulag Archipelago canonized in the West — and At the Breaking Point buried?
The Gulag Archipelago was never history.
It was fiction, or as the author termed it "an experiment in literary investigation".
It offered no evidence, no verifiable sources — and claimed up to 60 million deaths.
But when Soviet archives opened in the 1990s, the numbers didn’t just drop — they demolished the myth:
⚪ ~2.7 million total in camps at peak
⚪ ~650,000 deaths across Stalin’s years (not millions per year)
⚪ Most convicted for theft or violent crime — not for speech or dissent
It wasn’t translated and boosted because it was true.
It was translated and boosted because it was useful.
Gulag Archipelago served U.S. empire.
It helped dismantle a sovereign alternative to Western capitalism.
At the Breaking Point showed what came after:
Parasitism. Looting. Cultural decay.
5/
Solzhenitsyn didn’t become a Stalinist.
But by 1996, he understood what had been lost: sovereignty, order, purpose.
And he said it — not in a speech, but through the eyes of a man watching his world turned to scrap.
At the Breaking Point broke with the ideological contract Solzhenitsyn had with the Western Cold War establishment:
It portrayed sympathy with Stalin-era industrialization — purposeful, heroic.
It condemned post-Soviet capitalism — vulgar, destructive, nihilistic.
It offered no usable anti-communist message — only loss, and a critique of “freedom.”
Weeks into his leadership, Xi Jinping made the Party watch this documentary:
Memorial of the Soviet Collapse 20 Years Later — Russians Speak
Ep. 1: “Political Reform” and the Multiparty System — how Gorbachev's “reforms” dismantled the USSR from within.
Now AI-subtitled. 🧵
Episode 2: "Economic Reform" and Privatization
Gorbachev’s reforms were not renewal—they were liquidation.
“Accelerated development” masked a transfer of state property to a new ruling class.
“They desperately wanted to turn that wealth into legal property under their own name.”
By 1988, privatization became doctrine.
“Take ownership… that originally belonged to the state and the people… and quantify it for a privileged few.”
The result:
– $1T in assets sold for $7.2B
– Inflation at 2,509%
– Prices up 65×
– Industry gutted, poverty exploded
“The fastest and craziest privatization in human history.”
It wasn’t reform. It was class war from above.
Episode 3: "Glasnost" and Ideological Sabotage
Gorbachev’s glasnost wasn’t reform—it was psychological warfare.
Under the guise of “transparency,” it dismantled the Party’s legitimacy, rewrote Soviet history, and paved the way for capitalist rule.
“Openness became a tool… distorting and falsifying history.”
Yakovlev seized the media, purged editors, and installed pro-Western voices.
By 1990, 98.5% of Soviet media was in liberal-capitalist hands.
“The essence of freedom of the press… was to promote the eternal rule of capitalism.”
Historical nihilism swept the country:
– Lenin smeared as a “German agent”
– October Revolution called “a devil’s song”
– Marxism erased from schools
– Veterans publicly humiliated
“Everything the Communist Party had done was forgotten.”
“Whoever smeared Stalin first was hailed a hero.”
“Veterans felt mocked… their fate was being ridiculed.”
Fabricated atrocities were broadcast to shock the population into compliance:
“From 780,000 repressed… ballooned to 10 or even 30 million.”
In 2010, a national televised debate asked:
– Did the Bolsheviks save or destroy Russia?
– Were Gorbachev’s reforms a disaster or a breakthrough?
Audience results:
– 88% said the Bolsheviks saved Russia
– 93% called Gorbachev’s reforms a disaster
“The debate was forcibly terminated mid-air.”
This wasn’t openness. It was ideological demolition.
For three decades, the CPC has dissected why the USSR collapsed—not because socialism failed, but because its guardians surrendered.
Here’s what China learned. 🧵
1 — Bread, Then Ballots: How Economic Mismanagement Triggered Collapse
China's first lesson: economic reform must consolidate socialism—not dismantle it.
Gorbachev reversed this logic, liberalizing politics before resolving stagnation.
“Gorbachev was pushing political reform ahead of economic reform; China under Deng was promoting economic reform ahead of political reform.” — Victor Gao
"The privatization reform led to a serious polarization of the distribution of wealth, a lack of socialist ideals and beliefs, an extremely chaotic sense of ethics and morality, and an all-round regression of the social spirit." — Li Shenming/Chen Zhihua
The acute failure wasn’t socialism itself, but reform without sequence, without control.
2 — Historical Nihilism: How the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Lost the Will to Rule
The CPC’s second lesson: revolutions die when they lose faith in themselves.
“There are multiple factors contributing to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a very important one being Khrushchev throwing away Stalin’s knife and Gorbachev’s open betrayal of Marxism-Leninism.” - CPC leader Hu Jintao
“Khrushchev’s denunciation ‘shook the foundations’ of Soviet authority.” — Hu Jintao
Gorbachev’s glasnost reforms—intended as renewal—accelerated ideological collapse.
"After the legalization of private newspapers and the privatization of state-run media, the main media in the Soviet Union were soon controlled by private capital and elite forces inside and outside the Soviet Union.
Capital at home and abroad tried its best to vilify and subvert the socialist system and preach the glorification of the eternal rule of capitalism...
With the implementation of the policy of "openness without restrictions," a vigorous trend of historical nihilism that negated the CPSU and the Soviet Union rapidly spread to the historiographical, theoretical, and ideological circles." — Li Shenming/Chen Zhihua
“An important reason [for the Soviet collapse] was that their ideals and convictions wavered.” — Xi Jinping
A party that discredits its own history cannot hold power.
In a conflict over trade, finance, and supply chains—Only one system can scale production, redirect flows, and absorb pain.
This isn’t a war China fears. It’s one it calculated. 🧵
The U.S. economy rests on financial rent and military coercion.
Its power depends on maintaining monopoly control over flows it no longer produces:
– Software it licenses
– Patents it enforces
– Currency it prints
The U.S. outsourced labor, privatized infrastructure, and handed capital the steering wheel.
China retained state control and made production the spine of its development strategy.
It now produces more manufactured goods than the U.S., Japan, and Germany combined—because it never surrendered the means to do so.
1/
The U.S. economy is dominated by the FIRE sector—Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate—which makes up over 20% of U.S. GDP (doubling the manufacturing share), yet produces no tangible goods.
Credit flows to speculation: asset inflation, buybacks, and debt servicing—not production.
The U.S. Federal Reserve defends asset prices, not industrial stability. China’s financial system is subordinated to national goals.
Over 70% of banking assets are state-controlled.
China’s “Big Four” banks are among the largest in the world—funding infrastructure, manufacturing, and tech development.
State-owned enterprises control over 40% of China’s industrial assets, directing capital into strategic sectors: energy, telecom, transport, and heavy industry.
One system is ruled by finance.
The other commands finance to serve production and sovereignty.
2/
You can’t rebuild an economy with tariffs when the factory’s gone, the workers are broke, and Wall Street owns the land.
China knows this. That’s why it’s winning.
Trump’s tariffs won’t rebuild the U.S.
It’s imperial decline wrapped in red, white, and blue.
🧵
1/6 Protectionism Without Production
Tariffs signal the end of a unipolar economic model that enriched a domestic rentier elite while hollowing out productive capacity.
After decades of outsourcing and gutting public infrastructure, the U.S. is now trying to patch up a decaying economy with trade barriers.
It’s not reindustrialization—it’s damage control.
You don’t regrow a burned down forest by fencing off the ashes.
Meanwhile, China played the long game: investing in productive forces, building industrial ecosystems, and shielding its economy from Western financial capture—ensuring that sovereignty over industry remains a matter of state strategy not market whim.
While America played empire, China played industry.
Now one prints sanctions, the other prints steel.
2/6 Preservation of Class Power, Not National Industry
These tariffs aren’t about rebuilding the economy. They’re about protecting the profit margins of bloated monopolies that hollowed it out in the first place.
The American elite seeks to contain economic fallout without altering the structures of class domination that caused it.
Tariffs that protect monopolies without discipline simply create new rentier fiefdoms.
By contrast, China disciplines capital.
Firms are expected to serve national development goals, not extract maximum short-term profit. Capital is subordinate to the strategic needs of the state, not the other way around.