late wrote:Economics had a lot to do with it. Western analysts did not predict the fall of the USSR. Because of that, they are still arguing why it fell.
And because of that, we've gone into great depth as to why it happened. I didn't find the article I was looking for. The one I did find is fine, but long. Just jump over the first part where they talk about getting it wrong.
The important bit is the economic analysis that shows how a gradual decline in a number of areas made the economy vulnerable to a shock. When oil prices collapsed, the economy started collapsing with it. America had had an economic collapse earlier; back in the Great Depression. It happens.
"The basic assumption here was that the absence of a market, or at least of market-like mechanisms, lay at the heart of the productivity problem; it followed that a solution would depend on economic decentralization. But would the Soviets be able make the transition?
The interesting thing here is that the Soviets analyzed the problem in much the same way U.S. economists did. The academician V.S. Nemchinov, most notably, had argued as early as 1964 that a far-reaching liberalization of the economy was needed if the productivity problem was to be solved — and indeed if the whole economic system was not to break down."
I guess I’m a westerner who in spite kf the long economic stagnation don’t see it leading to the collapse of the USSR and many economic difficulties haven’t in themselves lead to the dissolution of countries so why the USSR? Often get a vague state socialism was just so bad at that time. But not as if it hadn’t been chugging along for decades prior.
I’m of the view that a lot of the factors that made it possible to dissolve the USSR were largely precipitated by the actions (and lack of them) and policies of Gorbachev.
Glasnot put the issue of nationalism and secession in view, political liberalization made the rise of opposition to the communist party possible as dod his dismantling of the party and his own power. His economic reforms itself can be considered to destabilize an economic system by turning it into an economy in significant transition (which I’ll add didn’t stop the stagnation for years to come either despite points of needing to liberalize the economy). His reforms made it possible for the nomenklatura to even allow the USSR to be dissolve, and he pissed off the hardliners who didn’t support him and instead attempted a coup which failed because of Yeltsins supporters in Moscow and of course Gorbachevs reluctance to be as brutal in putting down or opposing resistance which was not shared by Yeltsin who was all too willing in his pursuit of person power and wealth and secured support from the nomenklatura in offering them private ownership of state assets as he secured himself as President.
No, the economic problem seems minor to a lot of other things that made it a perfect storm. Yeltsin took power in the USSR with the support of sections of the nomenklatura and at a time in which the hardliners/military generals were already put down after their coup attempt so no one was to stop him. In fact, even after a lot of the problems that arose by the end of 1991, the USSR still existed.
It ultimately was only after all this, which I largely claim is precipitated by Gorbachev, that it was possible for Yeltsin to dissolve the USSR.
Gorbachev was a percuilarity in being a communist party member who seemed much more like a western social democrat in the end and to the hardliners a traitor to socialism in his liberalization and all sorts of concessions to making markets at the expense of workers. He seems crudely idealistic if seen as a sincere believer in trying to create socialism with a human face.
I don't see the political actions as inevitable and even the examination of the economy can be speculative and dubious at times as to how important it was even when placing Gorbachevs reforms as a reaction to the economy.
So I have no point to argue about how bad the oil crisis and other economic policies were for the USSR other than I've not seen the necessity of the USSR dissolving from it except as an ideological cold ear point against centralized state socialism. Part of the winning of the Cold war shtick.
Even if I accept the criticism of the economy, I can still speculate the USSar might have survived if it was focused on exnomix reform alone and not along with political liberalization which allowed opportunists and opposition to get out of control. Seems the double whammy was to make things far more destabilizing they then perhaps might have been.
In fact, seems to be a wise point that such changes in the economy require a rule of law and a developing economy or nation have often succeeded off the back of dictators. See a few examples in the history of Asia even in cases with what are taken to be prime examples of capitalist economies today.
-For Ethical Politics