[Maxim Litvinov]

Where are you inventing this fantasy society from, KFlint?

[1] The Soviet Union had comparatively good heating, nutrition, health-care, longevity and literacy rates. Over the course of seventy years it indeed made great advances in these areas.
[2] Smaller parties did not 'spring up' and take power away from the Central government. I'm not sure if you're getting confused with some multi-party systems in the Eastern bloc, but it's obvious you're very confused.
[3] The USSR elite were quite willing to continue the arms race and this was more than possible. The USSR never went "bankrupt" and nor would bankruptcy make sense.

[Smilin' Dave]

The USSR built a mighty army, while ignoring their Countries infrastructure and their peoples needs.

...no. Soviet infrastructure continued to be expanded in the late Soviet era (not at the radical rate of the 1930s, but that would never be sustainable), and consumer demand took a larger and larger slice of the budget and political attention over time. Pretty much every economic package of the Brezhnev era emphasised just this. As it turned out consumer allocation couldn't keep up with growing consumer expectations (in part the result of the new Soviet middle class), but this does not mean the Soviet party-state ignored them.

Their economy was crap

It wasn't very good, but it wasn't 'crap'. A crap economy would suggest it didn't work at all and was in a perpetual state of crisis. This doesn't really seem to be true of the mature Soviet economy. The stagnated economy chugged along after a fashion, it just wasn't efficient.

Several smaller parties sprang up to support their local areas and that took away from the power of the central government, or what was left of it.

Which was only possible because the central government encouraged it, and they did this prior to the economic crisis coming to a head. Once again, political action rather than economic necessity. It is instructive to note that Yeltsin only got a shot at power because Gorbachev was sidelined by the coup, if Yeltsin had been locked up at the same time things could have turned out differently (and I'm assuming the coup would have been a failure anyway).

Between being cold, hungry

Hungry? The Soviet Union didn't have a famine post WWII, as you suggest it was precisely because they imported grain. Standing in queues sucks, but it is not the same as going hungry.

Then if that was not enough, the USSR decided to get into a pissing match with the USA. They matched us step for step, bomb for bomb, bullet for bullet and dime for dime, then the money was, well and truly, gone.

It seems odd that you miss that in terms of number of bombs and other criteria, the Soviet Union was already ahead of Ronald Reagan at the time he launched into the 'pissing contest'. The 'arms race leads to collapse' story also falters in the face of the mild policies pursued towards Gorbachev... which was precisely when things actually went wrong.

but the basis was economical.

It was, but not in the way you portray. Instead I think Gorbachev inherited what he rightfully called a pre-crisis situation (economics). He adopted a series of solutions which seem to have been selected for reasons other than praticality, from uskorenie to glasnost (politics). This lead to the party-state being in a real crisis (politics, though given the vital role they played in the economy I suppose its economic too) which triggers a spiral. The economy and party-state collapse in a heap at pretty well the same time.

[Maxim Litvinov]

The economy did collapse though. It just collapsed from 1991-2000. These years of capitalism in Russia saw increases in mortality, decreases in life expectancy, decreases in literacy, decreases in fertility, decreases in GDP, increases in inequality...

[U184]

Maxim Litvinov, I suppose you could be right and I could be wrong, except the overwhelming documentation on the USSR's economic woes, pre 1991...
Wiki
Republics of the Soviet Union/wiki
Stoner-Weiss
San José State University
Causes of the Soviet Collapse (1979-1991)
CIA's Analysis of the Soviet Union, 1947-1991
The Farewell Dossier
THE POLITICS OF RUSSIAN NATIONALISMS
The Deepening Crisis
THE REPUBLICS OF THE FORMER USSR/GOV

Smilin' Dave, it did have a lot to do with reform and it was seen in advance. The problem was the "fix" just hastened the collapse. Also, though they did dip into the reserve to import grain, there was still hard/lean times and to little to go around.

First there was a visible decline in the rate of growth, then its complete stagnation. There was a drawnout, deepening and almost insurmountable crisis in agriculture. It was a frightening and truly terrifying sign of crisis. It was these factors that were crucial in the transition to perestroika.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Maxim Litvinov, I suppose you could be right and I could be wrong, except the overwhelming documentation on the USSR's economic woes, pre 1991...

I'm not playing the shopping list game with you, KFlint. Either come up with arguments, or don't bother.

[U184]

I'm not playing the shopping list game with you, KFlint. Either come up with arguments, or don't bother.

The argument is, the USSR collapsed pre 1991, did so from civil unrest and economic decline, due to poor timing and poorer government choices, as I already posted.

You have shown no sources and apparently, are unwilling to look at sources provided, supporting my stance. Feel free to prove your point, show hard data and back up what you say. Otherwise you just have an unfounded opinion.

As a mod, I should not have to remind you, to show your sources.

Acknowledging Sources:Newbie Guide

Oftentime on a forum like this you will post information that is not going to be common knowledge, especially if it's something that you "just found on CNN, omg!!". If you are going to post something like this, make sure that you acknowledge it properly. Nobody is going to take you seriously unless you back your facts up with some proof (especially if your stuff is far-fetched). Acceptable proof includes a legitimate URL or a book title and (preferrably) author, and not "my friend told me!" or "I looked it up in an encyclopaedia!"

[Maxim Litvinov]

KFlint - you've just typed tosh so far. You don't get around that by linking to two Wikipedia articles and a few books. If you want to make a specific argument, then make it and back it up with a specific reference in fact.

So far, your arguments have been:

[1] Their economy was 'crap' - not supported and wrong.
[2] People went hungry and were cold - not supported and wrong.
[3] Russia didn't export - not supported and wrong.
[4] Smaller parties took what power that was left in the central government - not supported and wrong.
[5] Russians started importing more basic staples from overseas - not supported, potentially correct if unimportant.
[6] Russians didn't have money left - not supported and wrong.

I'm not going to read through 200 pages and then pronounce you wrong when I can do it already. If you want to actually *make* any of the arguments above, then I'll have something to argue against. Please state your argument and specific evidence as required in any proper debate - either a quote (preferably of facts, rather than opinions) or a specific page in a linked text.

[U184]

Wrong, because you say so? Nice way to turn the tables You do not need to read through it all, juts hit "CTRL F" type in "economic" and get the quick information. Besides the same can be said for you, your arguments are the opposite of my take on things, I see you as wrong. I however took the initiative to provide sources.

Since you seem to be lazy though: All that follows comes from previously listed sources. The information below does not follow a strict time-line, but covers the broad strokes in regards to my, tosh...I mean posts.

The result of the disastrous agriculture policy implemented between the late 1920s and the early 1950s was the sharpest fall of productivity experienced by a major country in the twentieth century.

Russia could not feed its people on their own thus they needed to export oil for grain. The USSR was feeling the hurt from as early as the 1950's, this was summed up by the Soviet premier, Aleksey Kosygin who ordered the oil refiners to produce more oil.

Please give three million tons above the planning level. The situation with the bread is awful

By 1975, the Soviet Union began having serious problems with the output of new oil wells: much higher investment was needed for the current operations to get the same output. Those wells were going dry and when the price of oil went higher so did the Soviet percentage points, however the oil was an unstable resource.

Oil, which accounted for 60% of export revenues, was becoming costlier to produce as Soviet engineers, operating on short-term Communist Party commands to increase immediate production, turned to recovery techniques that wasted oil and damaged pipelines. Disorder and mismanagement in the oil industry, as a result of Gorbachev's failed economic reforms, compounded the problem. Strikes and martial law in Azerbaijan, the main supplier of oil-producing equipment, left the Siberian oil fields short of spare parts and production came to a halt.

These reforms actually caused the Soviet economy to deteriorate, as unprofitable private enterprises were subsidized by the state, and the lack of state oversight of supply lines resulted in shortages of food and clothing, which were unknown even under Brezhnev. These crises seriously undermined the legitimacy of the government.

The real trouble started when Russia used its reserve oil to start the war in Afghanistan, the occupation drained economic resources and dragged on without achieving meaningful political results. Russia did this as a first step to gain control over the oil fields in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia saw this coming and in 1979 they lifted the embargo on the United States, in order to gain American protection. After Saudi Arabia stopped capping oil prices and took the lead in oil sales, Russia was losing over 20 billion a year and without that money, they were in trouble.

The Soviet leadership decided to adopt a policy of ignoring the problem in hopes that it would somehow wither away. From 1985 onwards, Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the policies of glasnost and perestroika in an attempt to modernize the country and make it more democratic.

First there was a visible decline in the rate of growth, then its complete stagnation. There was a drawnout, deepening and almost insurmountable crisis in agriculture. It was a frightening and truly terrifying sign of crisis. It was these factors that were crucial in the transition to perestroika.

However, this led to the rise of strong nationalist and separatist movements. Gorbachev's reforms enabled the creation of an entirely new political class in Russia and the other Soviet republics. This rising political class included the very men who were directly responsible for the dissolution of the union. Populists like Boris Yeltsin rose to prominence in this period, as did nationalists in other Soviet republics who sought greater independence from Russia.

Instead of implementing actual reforms, the Soviet Union started to borrow money from abroad, while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely.

The money was suddenly gone. The Soviet Union tried to create a consortium of 300 banks to provide a large loan for the Soviet Union in 1989, but was informed that only five of them would participate and, as a result, the loan would be twenty times smaller than needed.

We understand that the only source of hard currency is, of course, the source of oil. . . . If we do not make all the necessary decisions now, next year may turn out to be beyond our worst nightmares. . . . As for the socialist countries, they may all end up in a most critical situation. All this will lead us to a veritable collapse, and not only us, but our whole system

The Soviet Foreign Trade Bank guarantees are needed, but it cannot provide them. . . . If there is no oil, there will be no national economy.

In the meantime, the Soviet Union started to have severe food shortages, and grain deliveries were not being made to large cities.

If the grain cannot be obtained somewhere, famine may come by June. . . . Moscow has probably never seen anything like that throughout its history--even in its hungriest years.

Russia scrambled for loans, for food and coal was scarce due to having worker shortages and resources. Falling oil production not only hurt Soviet exports, but also created enormous pressure to increase coal production. But the coal industry, too, was plagued with strikes. Over the course of 1990, the Soviet system was starved of coal by major mine strikes that escalated into rampant unrest in the Donetsk and Western Siberian coal fields.

Still other problems conspired to make matters worse. The notoriously inadequate Soviet computers failed to keep track of rolling stock and warehouse inventories, with the result that thousands of freight cars filled with coal, fuel, food, and other commodities were stolen or more often lost and left to rot.

Russia only survived because De Beers Consolidated Mines provided a $1 billion loan using Soviet diamonds for collateral. In the end, however, international lending did not fix the existing fundamental problems and the loan did nothing but extend the life of the terminally sick Soviet system.

The USSR fell from 1985 to 1991, hard. Russia still has its problems, but is doing better.

[1] Their economy was 'crap' - supported and correct.
[2] People went hungry and were cold - supported and correct.
[3] Russia didn't export - supported and correct.
[4] Smaller parties took what power that was left in the central government - supported and correct.
[5] Russians started importing more basic staples from overseas - supported and correct & rather important as it contributed to money going out, when none was coming in.
[6] Russians didn't have money left - supported and correct.

Maxim Litvinov, Where are you inventing this fantasy society from?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Then if that was not enough, the USSR decided to get into a pissing match with the USA. They matched us step for step, bomb for bomb, bullet for bullet and dime for dime, then the money was, well and truly, gone.

Wait, what? You mean, the economic blockade that began in 1918, the constant threat of invasion, etc, was entirely the fault of the Soviets?

You're a swell guy KFlint, but you seem to have been fed the same bullshit that has been spooned into America's mouth for the last 100 years.

[U184]

I am not sure I follow you. You posted right after a large comprehensive post, and yet went with a previous smaller one. I did not attribute fault, only the outcome. I was concentrating on 1950 to 1991.

You're a swell guy KFlint, but you seem to have been fed the same bullshit that has been spooned into America's mouth for the last 100 years.

Possibly, anything is possible. I do try to keep an open mind and to use diverse data from international sources. When it comes to research, I try to read many articles, journals and books when able to do so. My personal belief is: only through a 3rd perspective, of historical fact, can any semblance of truth be found.

I normally check my data, before posting, to ensure accuracy. Sometimes the odd screw up slips through, alas, if I only had more time for such pursuits.

Where exactly, do you find fault?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Sorry, I found fault in an earlier comment of yours, and hadn't actually read your latest one. I'm not that great at paying attention.

Your language treats the USSR as the primary aggressor, when in fact its arms race was, as I think I said somewhere else, because they knew that if they did not militarise then they would get crushed by Western powers.

Also, I can't really put emphasise enough on the importance of understanding the material and social effects of the 1918 Civil War. The aggression by the Capitalist west struck incredibly deep into the entire future of the USSR in ways that only became clear after the cold war ended.

[U184]

Strange then, as in their last days the only way to survive, was to dial down militarization, to bee seen as less than a threat. The people on the other hand, had been too convinced of outside threats, to let go of old ways and so the reforms were to little to late.

You seem to allude, to the USSR reacting, to a threat posed by the USA. Do you have a particular instance in mind?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Was the Cold War not about the fact that the USA couldn't attack the USSR?

[U184]

I thought your statements regarded 1918. No I do not think the cold war was about " the fact that the USA couldn't attack the USSR" I was not aware that the USA had any desire to do so. It was a mutual distrust that led to a policy of mutual destruction, the key word there being mutual.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Hm, I don't know much at all about Cold War international relations. What little I do know is really just bits and bobs inside the USSR.

[U184]

As per your OP, I think socialism can work well, but only if the ideals are for the people and not backed by stringent Military control. Democratic socialism seems a good way to go. MB. would be a great asset to this thread, as this is his arena.

[Smilin' Dave]

The real trouble started when Russia used its reserve oil to start the war in Afghanistan, the occupation drained economic resources and dragged on without achieving meaningful political results. Russia did this as a first step to gain control over the oil fields in the Middle East.

Would you like to provide some proof the Soviets were planning to seize oil wells in the Middle East?

From 1985 onwards, Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the policies of glasnost and perestroika in an attempt to modernize the country and make it more democratic.

As noted though, Gorbachev's solutions were driven by politics rather than strictly economic decisions. As you note about Gorbachev era reforms:

These reforms actually caused the Soviet economy to deteriorate, as unprofitable private enterprises were subsidized by the state, and the lack of state oversight of supply lines resulted in shortages of food and clothing, which were unknown even under Brezhnev. These crises seriously undermined the legitimacy of the government.

Democratisation and free-market style reforms undermined the state's capacity to moderate/oversee the function of the economy, like distribution. Democratisation was not necessary for the success of economic reforms, as China was proving during the same period in time, instead democratic measures were adopted for strictly political reasons.

It should be noted state bailouts of flagging industries were hardly new to the Gorbachev era.

Why is it your proof of a Soviet state of crisis largely comes from after Gorbachev's reforms? The increasing cost of extracting oil, reduced returns in agriculture and the drain caused by Afghanistan are the only factors you've raised that pre-date Gorbachev... but at the same time, those same things didn't cause the crisis to come to a head earlier. Agricultural limitations and the increasing cost of extracting raw materials is a problem that faces many modern first world countries today, and I don't think you would describe their economies as crap or their being in a state of crisis. If Gorbachev isn't primarily to blame for the collapse, you're going to have to make a more compelling argument for factors that preceded his promotion to General Secretary. The crisis that broke out under his oversight can just as easily be attributed to the fails of his reforms, rather than failures of the system.

[Maxim Litvinov]

KFlint...

[1] You originally said that people went cold and hungry in the USSR. You now say that they had to import grain. This is a big difference. Many of the most affluent countries in the world do this. You are still yet to follow through with your erroneous 'cold and hungry argument'.
[2] You cite Gaidar, but don't really tell us about him and I suspect you don't know much about him. He was the principle architect of shock therapy - a policy that did indeed make millions of Russians cold and hungry by implementing market 'reforms' in the early 1990s. His time as architect was disastrous and Russians still remember it today - less than 1/5th of Russians think of his moves as positive.
[3] Your summary of glasnost' and perestroika is rather facile. The policies were introduced (with demokratisatiya and uskorenie) for economic reasons, with some degree of democracy being a side-effect.
[4] As the August 1991 putsch demonstrates, the Soviet leadership were by no means forced into these policies and there were quite a number of hardliners who would have been content to avoid them and continue along the same path. Russia wasn't "running out of money" because as a system it effectively couldn't - central planners decided which sectors of the economy were allocated what rather than tried to 'balance the books'.
[5] Leonov is a member of Rodina, by the way. In case you know what that means.
[6] There was no new "political class" really - the Russian Federation had some new politicians, but there is no new "class" and nationalist movements weren't particularly strong without Gorbachev letting them get strong. Gorbachev's reforms allowed for secessionist groups, but this was not a necessary policy any more than the retreat from Eastern Europe was necessary.
[7] Again, your ideas about grain and oil aren't supported by anything that actually happened. They seem to be pulled from Gaidar's self-justification of his reforms written in the late 1990s. You claimed that they went cold and hungry, but you don't demonstrate either - at best you claim that a partisan voice claims they "would have" gone hungry, but didn't.

Maybe you'd better try reading something other than just Gaidar - a partisan who can't even back up your points.

Why is it your proof of a Soviet state of crisis largely comes from after Gorbachev's reforms?

This is the significant question and SD poses it well. What your argument in fact suggests is that Russia was a bit economically rusty in the early 1980s (which provided cause to elect a young reformer like Gorbachev), but that the real problems were caused by his reforms.

[Kman]

The Soviet union collapsed because people were sick and tired of communism since it couldnt provide them with good services or plentiful goods.

Not so complicated, when people cant get toilet paper and other basic goods they will get pissed after a while.

[U184]

The crisis that broke out under his oversight can just as easily be attributed to the fails of his reforms, rather than failures of the system.

Could have been, but he just inherited the problems that were there to begin with and that came to a head while under his watch.
As for your other points...I will do a full response soon, I have other things to attend to at the moment, but I will post on your comments.

You originally said that people went cold and hungry in the USSR. You now say that they had to import grain. This is a big difference. Many of the most affluent countries in the world do this. You are still yet to follow through with your erroneous 'cold and hungry argument'.

I said they had to import grain and was coming up short on the follow through.

You cite Gaidar

In one instance...

Your summary of glasnost' and perestroika is rather facile.

Not my summary, so much as a summary, from varied sources of data.

As the August 1991 putsch demonstrates, the Soviet leadership were by no means forced into these policies and there were quite a number of hardliners who would have been content to avoid them and continue along the same path. Russia wasn't "running out of money" because as a system it effectively couldn't - central planners decided which sectors of the economy were allocated what rather than tried to 'balance the books'

They were forced, how can you balance a negative...

Leonov is a member of Rodina, by the way. In case you know what that means

Russian legislature, what about it?

Again, your ideas about grain and oil aren't supported by anything that actually happened. They seem to be pulled from Gaidar's self-justification of his reforms written in the late 1990s. You claimed that they went cold and hungry, but you don't demonstrate either - at best you claim that a partisan voice claims they "would have" gone hungry, but didn't.

They did, and I did cover it.

Russia scrambled for loans, for food and coal was scarce due to having worker shortages and resources. Falling oil production not only hurt Soviet exports, but also created enormous pressure to increase coal production. But the coal industry, too, was plagued with strikes. Over the course of 1990, the Soviet system was starved of coal by major mine strikes that escalated into rampant unrest in the Donetsk and Western Siberian coal fields.

As well as other instance in that post..did you read it?

Maybe you'd better try reading something other than just Gaidar - a partisan who can't even back up your points.

I used one quote. Had you looked at that shopping list, you would see I do not look at one point/source or person. So nice quip but fundamentally false.

The information from that post you just tore through, is in the links provided, mainstream data can be found on any of the above points. It is time you SHOW hard data as well. I will try to make the time, to do a full work up with direct links and easy to find portions, within larger documents.

Maxim Litvinov, it would be nice if you showed where you get said information, that backs up what you say as well, I asked you to before and you turned the tables and told me to do so, then told me to do so in a fashion more convenient for you... I have and will try to comply, however it seems a bit unfair to expect of me, something that you refuse to do.