Gorbachev is of the same age as I am. Several days ago I read a post (on a Russian forum) in which he was accused of being responsible for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In my opinion the country disintegrated spontaneously, after the truth about dark sides of Stalinism became known. Yes, Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Communist Party, did contribute to the fall, by promoting the policy of “glasnost,” that is by allowing truth to be known. But reforms introduced by the President of the Soviet Union, Yeltsyn, were equally important. The same can be said about Gorbachev’s predecessor Khrushchev, about Solzhenitsyn, Shalamow and Pasternak, whose books were allowed to be published, and about authors of many other documents.
Karl Marx would say that focusing on characters of exceptional individuals, such as Lenin, Stalin and Gorbachev, is not sufficient. He would most probably try to identify mistkes made by those who managed the country’s economy, focusing on nationalization of means of production, collectivisation of agriculture, and on dealing with some national aspirations.
P.S.
A Russian author wrote:
“Gorbachev must be put on trial! This diversionary enemy worked for western intelligence services.”
“Судить Горбачёва необходимо! Это враг, диверсант который работал на западную разведку!”
Obama, Bush, etc, etc, leaders/ heads of countries have the same issue.
When you lead and do well, you get all the accolades, when shit hits the fan, you get blamed.
Those faceless people that helped or hindered are forgotten. The leader takes it all in most or many cases. Gorbachev is no different. Russians are just being human on labeling.
According to Karl Marx the capitalism is a pre-condition to communism because he was a Hegelian, a Left Hegelian. There has to be the thesis capitalism (wealth) before the antithesis communism (egalitarianism) can take place and lead to the synthesis. So there has to be wealth before anything (namely: that wealth!) can be distributed. Therefore Karl Marx expected the „revolution“ to take place in Germany because Germany was the most advanced country. If Karl Marx had lived one century later than himself, he would have said that the „revolution“ in Russia was a farce. Why? What happened? In Germany where he had expected the „revolution“ did not occure, but instead of that the „revolution“ occured in Russia 1917 - with causes, reasons which were the reverse of that he had expected, and under pre-conditions he had never expected because Russia was a Third world country, no advanced country. And because Russia was not advanced enough Stalin forced the Russians / Soviet population for industrialisation, and because of this forced industrialisation 40 million or more people died (even by pogroms and propaganda trials). That was not what Karl Marx expected in the century before that farce and mass murder.
A country has to be rich or wealthy because without richness or wealth it is not possible to distribute it.
P.S. Your statement about working for the Western intelligence services can also be interpreted in the reverse way.