Michael Gorbachev wrote his thesis on "the superiority of Socialism over Capitalism." Was this not a topic that had been done to death in the Soviet Union? What insight did he have to add?

There's often an idea that the Soviet Union was ideologically static. This is sort of true. It definitely was compared to the United States and its sphere of influence, where social democracies and right-wing dictatorships all existed in some degree of alliance with the United States. Where there were two parties and a diversity of opinions even within them. But, so long as you stayed within Marxist-Leninist principles, there was room for differences of opinion in the Soviet Union.

At the top, we can see the difference between Stalin and Brezhnev. But even at the bottom, even under Stalin, simply disagreeing with Stalin from a Communist point of view wasn't necessarily a death sentence. Criticizing other forms of socialism was very common. A great deal of ink was spilled over Soviet superiority to China or social democracies. It wasn't even out of bounds to praise capitalism, so long as it remained inferior to Soviet socialism. In fact, it could even be superior to non-Soviet socialism. The capitalist world could even be admitted to be superior to the Soviet Union, so long as it was not due to some inherent superiority of capitalism.

Marxist-Leninist theory could never be wrong. But, especially after Stalin, it was much more engaged with reality. The Soviet Union could make mistakes. Its systems could be inferior. The capitalist world might be richer. These were facts that needed to be grappled with. And these informed answers about why socialism was still superior regardless.

Everyone at Moscow State University would have publicly agreed socialism was superior to capitalism. But the why, the how, all that could differ. His wife, for example, wrote a thesis about how Collective Farming could be better improved to align with socialist principles while simultaneously improving yields (among other things). In it, she cites how the United States's system is more productive as a reason the Soviet Union had room for improvement. This was uncontroversial even when Gorbachev was rising and his enemies were looking for dirt on him.

So it wasn't an unusual topic. Not at all. Though Gorbachev's thesis is a little special because it was written by Gorbachev. So let's talk about him.

Gorbachev was born to a Russian-Ukrainian family living in Ukraine. His family was extremely lucky during the war. There were several near misses but most survived and their village was remarkably undamaged. His maternal family cooperated with authorities during Stalin's collectivization program and so gained some local authority as well as avoiding the worse of the resulting famine. His paternal family did have some deaths. While his grandparents were arrested and tortured during the Great Purge, both survived in basically good health. While some of his family were wounded in the Great War, they mostly survived.

Gorbachev went back to school in 1944, where he got good grades (despite hating school). He eventually wrote an essay thanking Stalin for his happy childhood. This was probably sincere: he had an exceedingly happy childhood compared to his contemporaries.

His parents also continued to be locally influential Communist from peasant backgrounds. And Gorbachev won awards, most notably the Red Labor Banner, for helping his family run the Collective Farm so efficiently and exceeding production goals. His parents and grandparents were known for their strictness and even brutality at times, so while he relates this as him personally working twenty hour days (and he might have), it was probably due to that as well.

Regardless, Gorbachev applied to join the Communist relatively young. His application was accepted without many of the formal tests and checks usually associated. Partly because his family was minorly politically influential, partly because he was a decorated youth from a peasant background (which got him extra consideration). He was something of a 'rising star'. It definitely wasn't certain he'd rise as far as he did, but it was likely he had a good career ahead of him even then. He likewise got into Moscow University, the best university in the country, without an exam. And he further had doors opened for him, and the way smoothed, throughout his years there. And even at his first job.

So here's the thing. Gorbachev's thesis wasn't just a thesis. It was a political statement of purpose. This is a phenomenon among the privileged up and comers in the political class. JFK and Obama both similarly had theses that were unusually political and tied directly into their political careers. So did Xi Jing Ping, for that matter. However, these are much less important in democracies, where elections convey power instead of a central committee. Of note, Obama rarely referenced his New Aristocracy theses while Xi Jing Ping has elaborated it into an official part of party doctrine. (And, of course, many less famous figures who never 'made it' did so too.)

What was in that thesis?

Well, first I'm going to tell a story.

Gorbachev and a friend went to see a movie with a friend in college. The movie was about the daily struggles of a farm collective. The interpersonal dramas and the need to meet their production targets. Ultimately everyone, the overseer, the workers, even the minorities pitch in and they exceed their targets. They are rewarded handsomely and there are lavish scenes of people (mostly young women) pouring into the shops to buy all sorts of consumer goods. They even put their money together and buy a piano for the farm.

Gorbachev whispered all the falsehoods to his friends. The farmers had to be brutalized into giving up their crops, else they would hide them from the overseer of the Collective Farm. The relationship was hostile, not friendly. They were rarely remunerated properly. And even if they got some money, the shops were empty. He called the film "pure propaganda".

Yet Gorbachev praised, and still praises, socialism. He did reform the Soviet Union but he supported it to the very end.

So what does a man like that think about socialism and capitalism?

Well, it wasn't about the superiority of socialism to capitalism in a theoretical sense. It was about the superiority of socialist democracy to bourgeois democracy. It's a long, complex work that's worth reading if you want a peak into Gorbachev's mind. But to summarize it very briefly. While both bourgeois democracy and capitalist democracy can have democratic forms and even genuine elections, only a socialist democracy can express the true will of the people because of the inherent inequality capitalists create in bourgeois society. In particular, he focused on how socialism encouraged genuine and wide participation.

However, while it is necessary for a true democracy to be socialist it is not sufficient for a state to be socialist and that will automatically cause true democracy. Instead, undemocratic features will continue to persist until they are wiped away by more socialism and democracy as necessary steps on the path to Communism.

This is not a particularly original take, though not plagiarized either. It fits fairly neatly in with reformist demands and successfully positioned him as a Reformer. Yet such sort of criticism was not ultimately dangerous, just as it would not be dangerous for a Democratic or Republican party member to critique the party for not being Democratic or Republican enough. And it fits his background: as someone who had seen the flaws of the Soviet system up close and yet been given so much by it.