Theories on the collapse of the USSR - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

'Cold war' communist versus capitalist ideological struggle (1946 - 1990) and everything else in the post World War II era (1946 onwards).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13658714
My point was that the UK is not becoming fascist, but I could point to many things that could suggest that it is, and as someone who has little experience with the UK you would have more trouble disagreeing. It is even harder for me to falsify your claims because Cuba is notoriously under-studied from outwith, and I don't speak Spanish.
By Social_Critic
#13658724
Yes, you are right. I have a tendency to pick my spots, and I do kick you when you are down. I always wondered, how come people pick subjects to debate when they are not sure about it? I'm not criticizing you, because you do sound like the sophisticated educated type. I mean people I run into who really don't know, and they don't know they don't know. You are smart enough to know you're a bit disadvantaged. Like I would be if I had to discuss the merits of privatizing the train service in the UK (I wasn't very impressed).

Returning to Cuba again, the amount of material written in spanish is enormous, but it's so biased. Either you got the Castro agents, or the Miami Cubans. And they are like Orcs flying at each other. Now with me, you got a different approach, because I dislike both sides equally.

But you know what really bother me? The little things. Like the time Castro read Atilio Boron's article about biofuels, and killed the Cuban biofuels industry - nobody got to say a peep, the old man spoke, and there we were, zero ethanol. Or the time they sent a close relative of mine to fight in Angola, when anybody with a lick of sense knew that was just two tribes fighting over diamonds, and neither side really gave a hoot about communism or any other ism, they just wanted their turn to eat.
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13658754
Aye, it's not that I don't believe that Cuban style socialism could collapse, but rather that I see no evidence that it is. It's a shame that all sides are as biased as they are since without such extreme bias it may be possible to analyse it in a way that exposes the real issues.

So long as we can speak straight, I ain't got a problem with you, you capitalist pig. ;)
By Social_Critic
#13658773
Raul Castro's speeches are a good indicator. Here's a quote from one:

Many of us Cubans confuse socialism with freebies and subsidies and equality with egalitarianism. Quite a few of us consider the ration card to be a social achievement that should never be gotten rid of. In this regard, I am convinced that several of the problems we are facing today have their origin in this distribution mechanism. While it is true that its implementation was inspired by the wholesome idea of ensuring people a stable supply of foodstuffs and other goods to counter the unscrupulous hoarding by some for profit, it is an evident expression of egalitarianism that equally benefits those who work and those who do not, or those who do not need it, thus generating bartering and resale in a submerged black market


But wait, there's more:

we have arrived at the conclusion that large numbers of self-employed persons are one more employment opportunity for working-age citizens with the aim of increasing the supply of goods and services to the population which could rid the state of those so that it could focus on what is truly decisive, what the Communist Party and the government should do is facilitate their work rather than generating stigmas and prejudices against them. Therefore it is fundamental that we modify the existing negative approach that quite a few of us have towards this form of private employment. When defining the features that ought to characterise the building of a new society, the classics of Marxist-Leninism stated, among other things, that the state, on behalf of all the people, should keep the ownership over all the basic production means. We turned this precept into an absolute principle and almost all the country’s economic activity started to be run by the state. The steps we have been taking and shall take in broadening and relaxing self-employment are the result of profound meditation and analysis and we can assure you this time there will be no going back.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article167846.html
User avatar
By Maxim Litvinov
#13658826
To summarise, we have two main models to explain the USSR's collapse in 1991...

[1] A series of reforms from the mid 1980s onwards get out of hand and problems escalate through increasing separatism, the loss of the eastern bloc and factionalism within the Party leading to declining production, political problems and an eventual putsch.
[2] Socialism is bad.
User avatar
By MB.
#13658888
A potential third model is the neoconservative Reagan model whereby the USA defeated the USSR in the Cold War causing the USSR to collapse for reasons of prestige, economy, and military power.

EDIT: Is there something about the Russo-Japanese war going on here in the background I should be aware of?
User avatar
By Maxim Litvinov
#13658890
Oh - I agree. I should have said "two main models so far this thread".

There is the model which says that the combination of arms reduction, a former movie star as president and the complete failure of SDI so befuddled the Soviet Union that it collapsed as well. It's a variant on your third model, but one couched in much more amusing terms.

EDIT: Yes, someone is trying to say that the ignominious defeat of the Russians in the war signalled just how good the tsarist regime was. I agree. [... very sneaky. No more off-topic in postscripts either. If it matters to people, start a new thread - SD]
By Smilin' Dave
#13658957
MB is correct, though the 'defeat' explanation isn't particularly convincing either. The thing that the neo-conservatives forget is that both sides were decidedly less militant by 1991. Reagan's Evil Empire rhetoric gave way to Thatcher-style "I like Mr. Gorbachev, we can do business together." Just as the Soviet Union had faced more serious economic, domestic and military challenges than in the 1980s in the past, they had faced pretty serious competitions in the past. Just substitute the SDI scare with the west having a big lead on the atomic bomb (and a better strategic position for its possible employment in the short term). Given SDI never left the drawing board, unlikely nuclear weaponry, that was a pretty serious challenge.
By Social_Critic
#13659011
I think it's possible to say everybody is right, because it's a little bit of this, and a little bit of that. The "socialism sucks" comment by Litvinov is spot on. [Off topic redacted - SD]

So what happened in the Soviet Union? The system was fundamentally flawed. Think of it as a tree with a weakened root system, sitting on a slope. It's trunk has been struck by lightning, it's bark has been stripped by borer beetles. And it lacks the energy to repair itself. Then a series of blows strike at it, it tries to react, and in doing so it makes matters worse. So eventually it falls over.

I discussed these events which struck the weakened tree, or that kept it down even as it somehow tried to grow back again. Litvinov criticized me when I conflated Yeltsin standing in front of the tank with a tank firing on the White House two years later, but I see it as a continuum in the slow death of soviet communism. And then there were the other blows which struck at this rotten tree. The defeat in the Afghan war, the loss of revenue as oil prices declined and the easy oil disappeared, Chernobyl, the rebellion of the Poles and the loss of East Germany, and the utter corruption of the nomenklatura, which by then was more worried about their dacha in Barvikha than the country's welfare (very nice place, I lived there and we had grat parties). Each of these, alone, would not have toppled the USSR. Together, given its feeble condition (because communism sucks) they did the job.
By Smilin' Dave
#13659487
Social_Critic wrote:It's trunk has been struck by lightning, it's bark has been stripped by borer beetles. And it lacks the energy to repair itself. Then a series of blows strike at it, it tries to react, and in doing so it makes matters worse. So eventually it falls over.

I've explained why this logic doesn't work already - the Soviets had faced more serious crises prior to the 1980s and not only survived them but grew stronger. Let me spell it out for you: the thing that changed between those earlier crises and the ones that occurred at the end of the Soviet Union was leadership. It wasn't strictly systemic.

To counter this you have... restated your point in the guise of folksy wisdom. So your logic is apparently insufficent and facts you presented (more on those in a moment) were wrong. Your whole argument is worthless.

Social_Critic wrote:utter corruption of the nomenklatura, which by then was more worried about their dacha in Barvikha than the country's welfare

Which sounds nothing like Mikhail Gorbachev. How do you explain that he was not only a supposed exception to this systemic corruption but that he was apparently also able to get the top job despite this?

Social_Critic wrote:I discussed these events which struck the weakened tree, or that kept it down even as it somehow tried to grow back again. Litvinov criticized me when I conflated Yeltsin standing in front of the tank with a tank firing on the White House two years later, but I see it as a continuum in the slow death of soviet communism.

Which makes no sense because the later event was years after the fall of the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin who did everything he could think of to sever ties with the Communist past. And you made no such distinction the first time you raised the event, because you genuinely couldn't tell the two apart. Only now that you've been caught out have you tried to recast it.

The only other points you've referred to in your posts (eg. oil prices) were actually provided by other posters prior to your entry into the debate. You only started referring to them when you were challenged.

Social_Critic wrote:(very nice place, I lived there and we had grat parties).

I was there so even though nothing I actually said is entirely accurate or sensible, I'm still credible (not like those 'commies'). That's why I have to keep reminding people that I was there, like an insufferable bore constantly dropping names. As I said to Volodya once "one of these days, pow! straight to the moon!" :lol:
User avatar
By Maxim Litvinov
#13659544
I don't think the pre-1917 stuff is off-topic as such: it is needed to plot some sort of "trajectory" for how things were in Russia.

Apart from posting his individual impressions of parties and personalities he allegedly came across under socialism, the only argument S_C essentially puts is that socialism is somehow incredibly flawed and tainted. He then tries to reference inefficiencies, stagnation and lack of growth as showing up.

Let's assume for a moment that we sat people down in a room and gave them the following stats though, denuded of any historical context:

[1] Production over time
[2] Access to healthcare and social services over time
[3] Literacy over time
[4] Women's participation in society over time
[5] Vacations spent over time

We draw up these graphs for 1717-1917, 1917-1991 and 1991-2011.

On all the above measures, the graph from 1917-1991 would look like the most convincingly successful society. We'd see literacy soar that had been stagnant for years and started to drop in the third graph. We'd see women's participation soar that had been stagnant for years. We'd see ordinary folk taking vacations and having access to doctors soar, only for it to drop in the third period. We'd see production soar from a tinpot country to a member of the G8.

This is why I talk about taking the whole period in context. If you then told your group to name which of the three periods were in crisis and unsustainable, they'd probably point to 1991-2011 first, then 1717-1917 and think you were weird if you tried it with 1917-1991.
User avatar
By Beren
#13659555
Maxim Litvinov wrote:To summarise, we have two main models to explain the USSR's collapse in 1991...

[1] A series of reforms from the mid 1980s onwards get out of hand and problems escalate through increasing separatism, the loss of the eastern bloc and factionalism within the Party leading to declining production, political problems and an eventual putsch.
[2] Socialism is bad.

Although the first option seems very intellectual and deep and the second one seems very reductionist and primitive, the latter one is actually closer to the truth. The USSR collapsed due to the failure of its socio-economic system basically. All the events and problems listed in the first option were the consequences of the malfunctions of state-socialism primarily and the Cold War secondly. Just like all the problems of the USA derive from the malfunctions of capitalism primarily and imperialism secondly.
User avatar
By Maxim Litvinov
#13659563
Although the first option seems very intellectual and deep and the second one seems very reductionist and primitive, the latter one is actually closer to the truth. The USSR collapsed due to the failure of its socio-economic system basically. All the events and problems listed in the first option were the consequences of the malfunctions of state-socialism at first and the Cold War at second. Just like all the problems of the USA derive from the malfunctions of capitalism at first and imperialism at second.

It seems very reductionist and primitive because it is.

Of course, there are systemic issues that cause problems for the US and caused problems for the USSR. If the US collapses in 2017 though, the chances of us being able to put it down to systemic issues are low and the key question we should be asking is "why 2017?". I'd imagine people would be looking at the policies from 2011-2017 particularly and with good reason: there are systemic problems, but these have been successfully dealt with in the past to avoid collapse. The USSR survived for over 70 years which is older than most modern states, so some sort of 'slow burn of fundamental flaw' thesis is not only intellectually uninspired, but needs considerable work. When you inject Gorbachev's reforms into the mix, it becomes uncompelling in the extreme.
User avatar
By Beren
#13659574
When you inject Gorbachev's reforms into the mix, it becomes uncompelling in the extreme.

Gorbachev was too late and he tried to save a socio-economic system and country unstoppably collapsing. Blaming Gorbachev is the most primitive and reductionist analysis possible.
User avatar
By Maxim Litvinov
#13659583
:lol:

It's not a matter of 'blaming Gorbachev', but recognising that *significant* changes occurred when he was General Secretary and President. If you think that the USSR changing its position on the eastern Bloc, changing its position on political parties, changing its position on liberal democracy, changing its position on economics and openness, changing its position on the RSFSR and changing its position on military matters didn't affect its stability in a significant way, then you are deluded.
User avatar
By Beren
#13659599
I don't think any of that, but Gorbachev could have become the leader of the USSR and he had to do what he did because the country and its socio-economic system were in crisis and collapsing due to inner failures and Cold War. The party thought that democratization, reforms and cutting military spending were needed. The party was right, but it was too late. Gorbachev was the conductor, but he didn't write the music, the collapse was inevitable.
User avatar
By Maxim Litvinov
#13659606
He didn't have to do what he did. Sure, he was well-intentioned, but that doesn't mean that such reforms were inevitable by any means nor that they had to be conducted in the way they were. Gorbachev was to a great extent the composer as well as the conductor as well. Notions of inevitability are inevitably ahistorical.
User avatar
By Beren
#13659612
Since Gorbachev was the leader of the USSR when it collapsed he's got responsibility, and I'm sure he could have done better, because it always can be done better. However, the music was the collapse of the USSR and it wasn't Gorbachev who wrote it, he just conducted it.
By Social_Critic
#13659616
Well guys, it does seem to me the system was rotten from the inside. As I said before, I was there. I saw the deluxe dashas they had, and I saw the way their servants had been trained to be that, just servants. It was almost medieval. I had the opportunity to ride the TU134s used by the high level nomenklatura out of V, and they were posh. And the stewardesses were cute and trained to be very nice to the passengers. So was it corrupt at the top? You bet.

Was Gorbachev as rotten as the rest of the nomenklatura? Good question. He did live at Gorky 10 and enjoyed a lot of perks - they used to clear the street when he was heading down to the Kremlin in the morning, so he wuold avoid the traffic, and of course his life was very comfortable.Maybe to you the logic doesn't work, but to me it does. They had a series of events pile on them. The oil price issue is something I've been aware of for many years (I was in the business before many of you were born). And this isn't really an oil price issue, it's also the depletion at Samotlor and the other "easy pickings" fields. They were being forced to move into more difficult areas. And then there was Chernobyl, and the huge costs involved.

The previous leadership style had failed, and this led to Gorbachev being put in power. And I suspect they didn't realize he was going to push for the opening. What did them in was the move to knock him off when he was off to the Crimea. Sometimes, if the tree ie rotten, and it was, the slightest miss can cause a catastrophe. Gorby wasn't to blame, because by the time he returned from the Crimea, the party was over, and Yeltsin had made his move. No USSR, no Gorby.

And if socialism in Cuba isn't terminal, then what is it? You say they are moving to a market system to kick start the economy. This is a confession on your part that socialism sucks, and it needs market mechanisms to work. Which is why the Cubans, the Chinese, and anybody with common sense abandons that system as soon as they can. I know, I have been there, and I have seen them all dying as time goes by.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

63 is beyond the military age in Israel. More non[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

That's the problem though. People in general don'[…]

@Scamp Bombing Mexico is the STUPIDIEST idea I[…]

No one is more manly than me. We know there is […]