Workers going on a mass strike across the Easter Block countries in the "Solidarity" movement in the late 80s is how its generally viewed as being the beginning of the end of the soviet system.

The communist governments were put in a position where there were going to have to massacre their own people openly revolting in massive strikes.

I don't think Chinese government would survive another Tiananmen square incident.

> is how its generally viewed

Yes and as many historical topics, it a romantic tail that people like to tell rather then a great analysis of the truth.

> The communist governments were put in a position where there were going to have to massacre their own people openly revolting in massive strikes.

That's what many governments in history did. And that's exactly the point, the reason a state fails is when the elites have not enough reason to defend the current system. When they do, then the army shows up. And in Hungary in 1956 they were willing for example.

I like Francis Spufford's comment: Stalin was a gangster who thought he was a social scientist. Krushchev was a gangster who hoped he was a social scientist. Brezhnev and those who came after him were gangsters who only pretended to be social scientists.

We can add to that, after the failed hardliner coup, the country was run by gangsters who didn't even care to pretend they were anything else.