Eagle, I don't want to form an alliance anymore.

500,000 rubles? In the Soviet Union in 1993, 500,000 rubles was a considerable sum—roughly equivalent to fifteen years' official salary for a senior official.

Romanov mentally calculated: How many people in the military-industrial complex have assets exceeding the 500,000 unexplained source threshold?

Not too many.

Corruption in the Soviet military-industrial complex differed from that in the civilian sector. People in the military-industrial complex were less greedy for money, and their salaries and benefits were inherently higher than those in the civilian sector. Furthermore, the secrecy surrounding the military-industrial complex made it very difficult to earn extra money on the side.

Corruption in the Soviet military industry manifested more in falsifying and exaggerating targets. While these were also violations, they did not necessarily involve assets exceeding 500,000.

The 500,000 line is actually a protective net for the military industry system, excluding most military industry cadres from the scope of "must be investigated".

"As for the relationship between the disciplinary committee and the military, the military's system is implemented by the military's internal disciplinary inspection and supervision system. The CPSU's disciplinary inspection committee is mainly responsible for investigating the party and government cadres and civilian officials."

The KGB has never had much executive power in the area of ​​anti-corruption. The KGB has supervisory power, but arrests are the responsibility of the procuratorate – this structure remains unchanged.

Strictly speaking, the discipline inspection system is a reform and upgrade of the domestic party and government supervision departments—from the original party affairs supervision committee to the discipline inspection commission, with greater power and stronger independence, but its main targets are civil servants, not military personnel.

The military's disciplinary inspection system was established by the military itself. The General Political Department established the Military Discipline Inspection Bureau, which was responsible to the General Political Department and reported to the CPSU Disciplinary Committee. The military investigated specific cases itself; the Disciplinary Committee could intervene in major systemic cases involving the entire Party. However, routine matters were handled by the military itself.

Ogarkov nodded after listening.

This was an arrangement he could accept; the military's discipline inspection was internal, not an outside agency interfering in the military. Dual leadership was a compromise—the discipline inspection commission had the right to know, but not the right to take direct action.

The military got the answer they wanted.

Sigrún has taught at the Iceland University of the Arts as a part-time lecturer since and was Dean of the Department of Fine Art from -. In – she held a research position at Reykjavík Art Museum focusing on the role of women in Icelandic art. She studied fine art at the Icelandic College of Arts and Crafts and at Pratt Institute, New York, and holds BA and MA degrees in art history and philosophy from the University of Iceland. Sigrún lives and works in Iceland.

After the three people left, Slava sat alone in his office.

He took out a piece of paper. The complete framework of the disciplinary committee system had been swirling in his mind for a long time, and now it was time to put it into law.

To whom exactly was the CPSU's Discipline Inspection Commission accountable?

The answer is that they are accountable to the Party Congress. They are not accountable to the General Secretary, nor are they accountable to the Politburo as before.

This is the core of Lenin's 1923 concept—the oversight body must be independent of the object of its oversight. If the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) is accountable to the General Secretary, then it dares not investigate the General Secretary's people. If the CCDI is accountable to the Politburo, then it dares not investigate the members of the Politburo.

Only the Discipline Inspection Commission, an institution responsible to the Party Congress (which is higher than the Politburo and composed of all Party delegates), has the theoretical power to supervise anyone!

The Party Congress is held every five years. Between two congresses, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection is responsible to the Central Committee, which is the standing body of the congress.

So what legal powers does it have?

Its investigative power allows it to launch investigations against party members at any level, including members of the Politburo, without requiring the General Secretary's approval.

Its power of investigation can require any Party organization or government agency to provide materials. If any organization refuses to provide materials, the Discipline Inspection Commission can report to the Central Committee and request enforcement.

It also has the power to recommend disciplinary actions. The Discipline Inspection Commission can submit disciplinary recommendations to the Party Congress (or the Central Committee). The final disciplinary decision is made by the Central Committee. The Discipline Inspection Commission does not directly implement disciplinary actions, but its recommendations have high authority.

So where do the leaders and lower-ranking officials of the Discipline Inspection Commission come from?

The leaders were elected by the Party Congress, and the lower ranks were recruited either from professionals in the procuratorate and court systems, from KGB investigators, or from a group of technical experts characteristic of the Soviet Union.

We can't let technocrats become a monolithic entity! Inspectors must be technically proficient!

On the one hand, in the future, the assets of these technocrats can be monitored through public oversight. After all, if these technocrats are embezzling and engaging in corruption, it has to come to fruition, right? They have to enjoy the consequences, right? They can't just embezzle billions and keep it all in an e-wallet as numbers, can they?

As long as these technical officials put the benefits they've gained through corruption into practice, the people will have the opportunity to catch them and bring them to court!

On the other hand, it's simpler and easier: make the inspectors technically proficient, since the former has a very strong deterrent effect on officials and cadres throughout the country.

A leader once wanted to do the same. He recognized that even in the socialist era, the party would still have a class character, and the struggle would continue. He worried that after his departure, the party would become a new class and a new oppressor. He refused to accept fate, so he launched what he wanted to do, but his attempt to defy destiny resulted in a crushing defeat.

One day, Slava will also face the same situation. Should he take a gamble like his predecessors and try to break the curse of the historical cycle even if he falls to the ground, or should he go with the flow and trust the wisdom of future generations?

That's the story that followed.

Sigrún has taught at the Iceland University of the Arts as a part-time lecturer since and was Dean of the Department of Fine Art from -. In – she held a research position at Reykjavík Art Museum focusing on the role of women in Icelandic art. She studied fine art at the Icelandic College of Arts and Crafts and at Pratt Institute, New York, and holds BA and MA degrees in art history and philosophy from the University of Iceland. Sigrún lives and works in Iceland.

By the end of November, the purge had finally subsided, and the Discipline Inspection Commission shifted its focus from arresting people to reforming the system.

Major ministries have begun implementing a new asset declaration system, requiring officials at the deputy division level and above to declare their personal and family assets annually, including real estate, bank deposits, securities (if any), vehicles, and high-value consumer goods. The declared information is verified by the disciplinary committee through methods including checking bank records, real estate registration data in the OGAS system, and tax records.

OGAS's algorithm auditing system was established, and the Discipline Inspection Commission's technical auditing team began the first round of reviews of algorithms in various regions. Simultaneously, the military began establishing its own discipline inspection and supervision system, with the General Political Department setting up the Military Discipline Inspection and Supervision Bureau.

The Soviet Union's reforms would not be limited to internal reforms. Slava knew that there were many other countries in Eastern Europe that were also engaged in information technology development. The problems that the Soviet Union, the big brother, faced, were certainly also faced by its smaller countries, and perhaps even more serious ones!

Big Brother's influence began to extend into Eastern Europe, and the flames of war finally spread from the Soviet Union to the Warsaw Pact.

When December 1993 arrived, a group of unexpected guests came: under Jiang Huaimin's instructions, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China sent a delegation of more than a dozen people, led by a deputy secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, to Moscow.

The purpose of the visit was to learn from the Soviet Union's anti-corruption experience.

China's anti-corruption campaign was still in its relatively early stages at this time. The CCP had its own Discipline Inspection Commission, but its power, independence, and technical capabilities were not on the same level as the newly established Discipline Inspection Commission of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Great Purge sent so many cadres to Siberia, yet surprisingly, it didn't cause major unrest among the general populace, and production order was maintained! This made Beijing realize that the Soviet workers' class consciousness and the state's anti-corruption efforts were stronger than those in China.

If China does not accelerate the development of its anti-corruption system, domestic corruption will become increasingly embarrassing for the CCP.

At this time, China had already begun a massive wave of layoffs. State-owned enterprise reforms led to the bankruptcy and dissolution of many companies, and a large amount of pensions and retirement benefits for laid-off workers needed to be distributed. In addition, the social security system needed to be improved—after all, there were no longer enough companies to provide social security for their employees.

Furthermore, the poor economic situation in China at the time made corruption more likely.

The delegation spent two weeks in Moscow, visiting the offices of the CPSU Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), listening to introductions of the CCDI's systems including asset declaration, algorithmic auditing, and technical auditing teams, and even making a special visit to the KGB's 16th Directorate's cybersecurity team. The Chinese CCDI officials were deeply impressed by the Soviet Union's ability to combat corruption using technological means. They also sat in on a CCDI case discussion meeting.

They learned that the Soviet Union had sent tens of thousands of people to labor camps, expelled tens of thousands from the party and imprisoned them, and many more cadres had been punished!

All of this happened in just three months. They couldn't imagine an anti-corruption campaign of this scale in China. They knew the Soviet Union could do this because the Soviet General Secretary had enough determination to do so.

After returning to Beijing, the delegation wrote an internal report entitled "Report on the Investigation of the Soviet Union's Anti-Corruption System Construction".

The last paragraph of the report reads as follows:

"...The Soviet experience shows that anti-corruption is a system. While campaign-style anti-corruption can certainly take down a group of corrupt officials in a short period of time, only a system can prevent the emergence of new corrupt officials. The Soviet Union was transitioning from campaign-style anti-corruption to systemic anti-corruption. This transition will inevitably involve bloodshed and growing pains, and may even come at a huge cost, but it is worthwhile."

We should consider: Does China also need such a transition?

Sigrún has taught at the Iceland University of the Arts as a part-time lecturer since and was Dean of the Department of Fine Art from -. In – she held a research position at Reykjavík Art Museum focusing on the role of women in Icelandic art. She studied fine art at the Icelandic College of Arts and Crafts and at Pratt Institute, New York, and holds BA and MA degrees in art history and philosophy from the University of Iceland. Sigrún lives and works in Iceland.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union's massive purges made headlines around the world in the past few months.

Western editors have found the narrative framework they are best at, one they have used repeatedly for decades and which will never fail: Stalin.

The Soviet Union was carrying out a great purge, with tens of thousands of people being sent to Siberia. High-ranking officials were dismissed, imprisoned, or sent to labor camps. A young general secretary used an iron fist to purge the opposition from the entire bureaucratic system!

This is a return to 1937!

Western narratives were thus successfully constructed.

The UK's Daily Telegraph launched the attack with its front-page editorial.

"In the corridors of the Kremlin, fear once again permeated the air. Velikoslav Ivanovich Ivanov, the youngest General Secretary of the Soviet Union, was carrying out a political purge reminiscent of the darkest years of the 1930s."

Tens of thousands of Soviet officials were arrested, interrogated, and sent to Siberian labor camps. Their charge was 'corruption,' but in the Soviet political lexicon, corruption was always a flexible concept. Today you might be considered 'corrupt' simply because you stood on the wrong side at the wrong time.

"Ivanov called it anti-corruption, while Stalin called it the purge in 1937. In essence, both were about using state violence to eliminate all dissenting voices!"

The New York Times editorial went even further: "The Ivanov regime is by no means communist, which at least in theory pursues equality."

It is a form of Asian authoritarianism, in which a strongman controls everything with an iron fist, tolerates no dissent, and exercises unchecked power in the name of "for the good of the people."

The Soviet Union was disintegrating from the civilized world—if it ever even belonged to it.

The term "Asian authoritarianism" makes many diplomats from Asian countries uncomfortable. However, in the American media, "Asian" plus "authoritarian" is a standard derogatory combination, implying backwardness, authoritarianism, and uncivilization.

Other European countries had somewhat polarized attitudes. France's long revolutionary tradition led some left-wing newspapers with official backing to speak favorably of the Soviet Union.

The West German government was unwilling to offend the Soviet Union, but the West German media, controlled by the United States, were not so polite. Der Spiegel magazine ran a cover story on this topic.

Ivanov's photograph was processed into a half-red, half-black tone and captioned "Der neue Zar," the new Tsar.

In contrast, East Germany... The official East German newspaper, the Neues Deutsche Zeitung, published an editorial entitled: "The Soviet Union's Self-Purification—The Self-Renewal Capacity of the Socialist System"

The editorial highly praised Ivanov's anti-corruption campaign, stating that it "...proves that the socialist system is capable of identifying and correcting its own problems. Corruption in capitalist countries, disguised as lobbying and political donations, can never be eradicated. Only socialism—only a system that puts the interests of the people first—has the courage to take action against itself."

American and British media also did something else—interview the families of those who were purged. Journalists tended to seek out Soviet collaborators within the Soviet Union to obtain "real information." Under the journalists' guidance, these collaborators from the past decade or so in the Soviet Union put their minds to work and used their imaginations to fabricate a pile of rubbish with a credibility comparable to the Old White Theatre.

The BBC did a special program that interviewed some of these people.

One of them was the wife of a dismissed deputy prime minister of a constituent republic. She and her son were in London. She cried in front of the camera and said, "My husband served the Soviet Union for twenty years! He was not a bad person. He had a heart of gold. He just had to do what everyone else was doing in that system. Now he is locked up in a cell somewhere I don't even know where he is!"

These interviews were all conducted with tearful expressions. However, the reaction from Western netizens on the internet was not as one-sided as that of their media.

Users on the Vicher forum who access the site via VPN from the West are defending Slava. They have lived in Western countries for many years and are deeply disgusted by the corruption of their country's politicians.

A user claiming to be French posted a thread on the Vicher forum:

“Hey comrades, I live in Paris. Our mayor was investigated for corruption last year—you know the result? Nothing. After a year of investigation, there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. He continues to be mayor, his villa is still there, and his Swiss bank account is still there.”

A user claiming to be British said: "The BBC is broadcasting reports on the Soviet Great Purge again today. I just want to ask one question: Have any of those who made a fortune during the privatization process ever been to prison? Not a single one! They legally stole billions of pounds!"

"The Soviet approach may have been too brutal. But at least someone was paying the price. In Britain, corrupt people never pay the price."

Of course, many Western netizens are also criticizing the Soviet Union, saying things like "Stalinism has been restored," "totalitarian terror," and "yet another human rights disaster"... These voices are equally loud.

The most surprising and subsequently most frequently cited of all the international reactions was China's response.

In mid-December 1993, at a meeting with foreign journalists in Beijing, a CNN reporter based in Beijing asked Jiang Huaimin a question:

"Mr. President, the Soviet Union is conducting a large-scale anti-corruption campaign, which Western media are comparing to the Great Purge of the 1930s. As an ally of the Soviet Union, what is your view on this practice by the Soviet Union?"

After listening to the translation, Jiang Huaimin did not answer immediately. He took off his glasses, wiped them, and then put them back on.

His Chinese was occasionally interspersed with a few words of English and Russian: "This reporter, you asked me what I think of the Soviet Union's anti-corruption efforts. Let me tell you a few words about that."

He gestured in the air with his finger.

"First of all, a country's internal affairs should be handled by the people and government of that country themselves. This has always been China's position, so we don't comment on others' internal affairs—you should understand this."

"But you Western journalists always like to use Stalin to scare people. They always say that the Soviet anti-corruption campaign is all about the Great Purge, Stalin, and the Gulag. Let me tell you, your understanding is... too simple!"

"Comrade Ivanov is now punishing the real corrupt elements, those who embezzle the people's property and deceive their superiors. What is your understanding if not naive?"

Jiang Huaimin didn't stop; he continued:

“When I was young, I studied in the Soviet Union—в Москве, на автомобильном заводе—and interned at a car factory in Moscow. I know what kind of country the Soviet Union was. The Soviet people were just like the Chinese people—what did they want? A good life! Fairness! And that those officials wouldn't steal their money!”

"Did Comrade Ivanov go too far in any way? Perhaps, but what reform doesn't come at a price? But the direction is right—it takes courage for a leader to dare to reform his own cadre! You Western leaders—"

He looked at the CNN reporter and laughed, "Which of you has the guts? Would your president dare send a Wall Street banker to a labor camp?"

Someone in the press section laughed.

Jiang Huaimin's tone softened considerably: "So—my view is that firstly, this is the Soviet Union's internal affair, and we in China respect it; secondly, the direction of anti-corruption is correct, and every country should do it; and thirdly, you Western media shouldn't always apply double standards. Your own corruption is a complete mess, so you have no right to criticize others."

He added, "There is an old Chinese saying, 'To forge iron, one must be strong oneself.' Comrade Ivanov is forging iron; history will tell whether he is strong or not."

But at least he's doing it, and our Chinese comrades should learn from the Soviet comrades' determination and will to fight corruption. We Chinese have some comrades who are just like that reporter—" He pointed to an Australian reporter leaning against the wall.

"Our standing posture may not be good, but our walking posture is fast and steady. We must adhere to the socialist path without wavering. As the Soviet disciplinary committee comrades said, we must never let our thinking slip, become detached from the masses, or lose our ideals and beliefs."

He picked up the teacup on the table and took a sip.

The interview has ended.

Chapter 148 Abolishes the Special Supply System of the CPSU

January 1994, Moscow Supreme Soviet of the USSR

A banner personally written by the leader, reading "Persist in advancing the anti-corruption struggle and persist in comprehensively and strictly governing the Party," hangs on the wall of the Kremlin Grand Hall, where hundreds of Supreme Soviet delegates sit in their seats.

At the 28th Congress of the CPSU, Slava clarified the role of head of state, which was no longer a rubber-stamp honorary position as before.

Slava promised the people to promote Soviet democracy and complete Lenin's unfinished work, so he had to take action.

Chairman Lukyanov has been having a tough time lately. Two months ago, he was removed from Gromyko's funeral committee by Slava. To show that he had learned his lesson, remained firmly aligned with General Secretary Ivanov, and adhered to the Soviet democratic line, he thoroughly investigated personnel issues in the Prosecutor's Office, replaced several prosecutors believed to be connected to the corruption chain, and subsequently accelerated the implementation of anti-corruption measures in the legislative work of the Supreme Soviet.

Lukyanov needed to prove his loyalty to Slava through his actions, so he meticulously revised any laws related to the anti-corruption system, repeatedly reviewed Slava's speeches since taking office, and tried to understand the Great Leader's direction and attitude towards anti-corruption. After completing the revisions, he also needed to "promote democratic centralism," first collecting opinions from his legal experts and the Soviets. Only after everyone felt there were no problems and the General Secretary would be satisfied did he send the new laws to the General Secretary's office.

Although the Politburo knew that Lukyanov was trying to curry favor with Slava and show that he would follow the Great Leader's line for ten thousand years without wavering, he was indeed doing a good job. Slava even praised Lukyanov many times at the Central Committee meetings, saying, "This good comrade is diligent and conscientious, and is a good cadre who serves the people."

Since Aliyev retired last year due to health reasons, his position has remained vacant. Unless an emergency requires a national party congress, members of the CPSU Supreme Politburo are only re-elected at the party congress held every five years.

Before Slava showed any favoritism toward any alternate member, anything was possible. The cadres of the Central Committee were trying to impress Slava, and few were willing to cast their precious dissenting votes when the General Secretary had already approved the new law and sent it to the Supreme Soviet for a vote.

Everyone wants to improve!

Thus, Lukyanov's new bill, "Decision on Regulating the System of Post Allowances for State Public Officials," smoothly entered the final voting stage.

The new bill was like a revolutionary change for the vast majority of Soviet cadres, because it was going to abolish envelope wages!

"Comrades, the bill we are going to discuss today involves a historic adjustment to our cadre salary system."

As everyone knows, although we rarely discuss it publicly, a system of 'informal subsidies' had long existed in the Soviet cadre salary system.

Lukyanov didn't mention the envelope's salary, but everyone present knew what he was talking about.

In addition to their official salary deposited into their bank accounts each month, cadres at a certain level would receive a large envelope containing cash; the amount depended on their rank and their relationship with their superiors.