Amazing show of bipartisanship by 76 senators...

[lord of flies]

LoF, claiming that the breakup of the USSR was bad falls below that standard. How can you think that the fall of an oppressive totalitarian state, that regularly killed it citizens, was bad? Its just illogical.

Because the former constituent republics of the USSR aren't oppressive at all... wait...

 

If Gorbachev had his way, the USSR would have peacefully socially and politically liberalized, rather than fracturing into a large number of right-wing dictatorships. I don't see how you think the historical result was a "good thing." I can vaguely (very vaguely) see it as a "good thing" in comparison to the continued existence of the USSR (though someone as ignorant as you is probably conflating the USSR under Stalin and the USSR under Andropov). But it really ****ed over everybody living there, and Russia still has 15% unemployment and a dictatorial President Prime Minister.

 

Quality of life has gone downhill for pretty much everyone there.

[Oblarg]

LoF, I've come to expect a very low intellectual standard of you, but claiming that the breakup of the USSR was bad falls below that standard. How can you think that the fall of an oppressive totalitarian state, that regularly killed it citizens, was bad? Its just illogical.

Because the former constituent republics of the USSR aren't oppressive at all... wait...

 

If Gorbachev had his way, the USSR would have peacefully socially and politically liberalized, rather than fracturing into a large number of right-wing dictatorships. I don't see how you think the historical result was a "good thing." I can vaguely (very vaguely) see it as a "good thing" in comparison to the continued existence of the USSR (though someone as ignorant as you is probably conflating the USSR under Stalin and the USSR under Andropov). But it really ****ed over everybody living there, and Russia still has 15% unemployment and a dictatorial President Prime Minister.

 

Quality of life has gone downhill for pretty much everyone there.

 

The man speaks the truth, more or less.

[Humodour]

Mikhail Gorbachev

Regardless of the hopelessly romantic prism through which you are reviewing history, are you sure that using this guy as an example of what you are saying is a good idea?

 

The guy who peacefully dismantled the Soviet Union? Yes, that might be quite the good example.

Yeah, only that wasn't his intention by any stretch of the imagination -- American geopolitical and economic machinations were much more decisive in leading to the collapse of the USSR than he was. As a statesman, Gorbachev was pretty terrible, and he's actually a better example of what Hades said than of your own thesis.

 

Of course, we love him because he sucked at being a bloodthirsty, power-crazed communist dictator, but that's a different story...

 

Gorbachev wanted a much more free and open Soviet Union - that has never been in dispute. His original intention wasn't full democracy, although interestingly it is now.

[Humodour]

LoF, I've come to expect a very low intellectual standard of you, but claiming that the breakup of the USSR was bad falls below that standard. How can you think that the fall of an oppressive totalitarian state, that regularly killed it citizens, was bad? Its just illogical.

Because the former constituent republics of the USSR aren't oppressive at all... wait...

 

If Gorbachev had his way, the USSR would have peacefully socially and politically liberalized, rather than fracturing into a large number of right-wing dictatorships. I don't see how you think the historical result was a "good thing." I can vaguely (very vaguely) see it as a "good thing" in comparison to the continued existence of the USSR (though someone as ignorant as you is probably conflating the USSR under Stalin and the USSR under Andropov). But it really ****ed over everybody living there, and Russia still has 15% unemployment and a dictatorial President Prime Minister.

 

Quality of life has gone downhill for pretty much everyone there.

 

Agreed.

[213374U]

That's a fairly liberal use of the phrase "right-wing dictatorship", bud.

[lord of flies]

That's a fairly liberal use of the phrase "right-wing dictatorship", bud.

There's a reason why three constituent republics have had a nonviolent revolution against the reigning power structures and it wasn't because they were left-wing dictatorships.

[Tigranes]

Some good debate, I only have a history textbook level of knowledge so it's good to read.

 

American geopolitical and economic machinations were much more decisive in leading to the collapse of the USSR than he was.

 

Exactly what kind? Interested to know. I mean, anything more than obvious stuff with trade relations, and missile positioning?

[lord of flies]

Some good debate, I only have a history textbook level of knowledge so it's good to read.

 

American geopolitical and economic machinations were much more decisive in leading to the collapse of the USSR than he was.

 

Exactly what kind? Interested to know. I mean, anything more than obvious stuff with trade relations, and missile positioning?

This is Reaganite nonsense. The USSR collapsed because the institutions it was built on were allowed to become extremely corrupt, unaccountable and over the course of a generation or two develop into a neo-capitalist class. Khrushchev allowed the bureaucracy to develop into the "Nomenklatura" and thus become a new ruling class.

 

One need look no further than democratic votes of the public on the subject to see that the general public was not involved in the process whatsoever. The 1990 elections gave 86% of the vote to the Communist Party and the suppression of votes for the maintenance of a Union state by local elites cannot conceal the general public's feelings on the subject.

 

Reagan's posthumous cronies like to point out the economic troubles of the USSR as the reason for its collapse, completely ignoring that the USSR could easily survive a total cut-off from foreign investment (they had after the repudiated the Tsar's old debts, and that was back when it was a ****ty backwards agrarian country that just had the **** kicked out of them by the Germans). It had sufficient internal natural resources, and maintained a very small export-import sector (4% in 1985).

[Blarghagh]

This is really a god awful opinion, btw Killian. Read Hume's Law then stop thinking like this.

 

See, this is where all your predecessors went wrong and irreparably destroyed the reputation of real socialists.

What, praytell, do you mean by this?

 

Really?

 

Okay, how about I say this: Your opinion sucks. Change it.

 

Add a gun and you're the historical socialism-gone-wrong poster boy and do as much damage to real socialists and their ideals as anything and everything else possibly can.

 

In short, you're screwing socialism's chances. I suspect you are singlehandedly responsible for at least a thousand socialists turning away from it.

[lord of flies]

Really?

 

Okay, how about I say this: Your opinion sucks. Change it.

 

Add a gun and you're the historical socialism-gone-wrong poster boy and do as much damage to real socialists and their ideals as anything and everything else possibly can.

 

In short, you're screwing socialism's chances. I suspect you are singlehandedly responsible for at least a thousand socialists turning away from it.

I don't see what that has to do with Hume's Law.

 

I like how you make it clear that I'm hurting "real socialists," who I can only assume are weak-kneed bourgeois reformists?

[213374U]

Some good debate, I only have a history textbook level of knowledge so it's good to read.

 

American geopolitical and economic machinations were much more decisive in leading to the collapse of the USSR than he was.

 

Exactly what kind? Interested to know. I mean, anything more than obvious stuff with trade relations, and missile positioning?

It mostly had to do with the inability of Soviet economy to a) cope with the domestic increase in grain demand (production had remained almost constant from 1965), forcing the Soviet Union to be the first importer globally, b) sustain its superpower status, and c) use its huge industrial sector competitively to export anything but weapons (the market for those was down), restricting its exports to raw materials only.

 

The US took advantage of this by, among other things, pressuring Saudi Arabia to drive oil prices down, thus hitting hard the #1 source of hard currency for the Soviets, and instituting a grain embargo which, while ineffective at starving the Soviets into submission, did drive up the prices they paid for it. Measures were also adopted to prevent Soviet gas imports to Europe, further strangulating an already strained economy. And don't forget that mess called Afghanistan. The economic troubles and widespread disillusion were what prompted Gorbachev to try his hand at reform... and we all know how that turned out.

 

lof would have you believe that the Sowjetunion was close to functional autarky and that huge military operations cost no money as Soviet armies were conscripted. He'd also place the blame for the fall of his workers' utopia on rootless cosmopolitans and the corrupt neo-bourgeois Soviet elite (this rhetoric should ring familiar, no?). But as with most things he posts, the reality is simply other. I posted more or less the same on another thread already, btw.

 

If you are interested in the topic, try to find works that focus on the geopolitics of oil throughout the 20th century.

[lord of flies]

lof would have you believe that the Sowjetunion was close to functional autarky and that huge military operations cost no money as Soviet armies were conscripted. He'd also place the blame for the fall of his workers' utopia on rootless cosmopolitans and the corrupt neo-bourgeois Soviet elite (this rhetoric should ring familiar, no?). But as with most things he posts, the reality is simply other. I posted more or less the same on another thread already, btw.

 

If you are interested in the topic, try to find works that focus on the geopolitics of oil throughout the 20th century.

The problem with your points is that you basically list some problems the USSR was going through and then say "And that's why it fell." Lots of countries have problems and don't collapse, and the USSR had gone through some really tough times in the past (I mean, having genocide committed on it was probably much worse than getting involved in Afghanistan and trying to produce too much meat).

 

A lot of people claim that it fell because it "stopped suppressing the people," that is, that Gorbachev's reforms directly lead to its downfall by opening up and letting forth some sort of torrent of public dissent by the masses. The problem is that this also doesn't fit with the facts, since the people were never consulted on the matter, and where they were, tended to be in favor of the continuation of the Soviet Union. In the free and fair elections for the Legislature in 1990, the Communist Party picked up 86% of the votes.

Edited April 15, 2010 by lord of flies

[Volourn]

It failed, because it played a game of chicken and lost.

[Cycloneman]

It failed, because it played a game of chicken and lost.

No, it lost a game of Chutes and Ladders. Edited April 15, 2010 by Cycloneman

[213374U]

The problem with your points is that you basically list some problems the USSR was going through and then say "And that's why it fell."

You mean I have failed to establish a causal link in your eyes. Unfortunately, that's not a problem I can solve, as history is not a mathematical science. However, I could just as easily assert that the destruction of the Armada had absolutely no relevance in the decline of the Spanish Empire, and you couldn't really disprove that negative -- after all, the USN recovered from Pearl Harbor and went on to win the war in the Pacific.

 

I guess it just comes to choosing which explanation you think is more plausible; whether the fall of the USSR was the result of a massive conspiracy perpetrated by the corrupt revisionist counter-revolutionary elements in the higher echelons of the Party and their imperialist Jewish overlords, or simply the result of an economy that couldn't compete, coupled with an incompetent leadership, mismanagement and a critical lack of foresight and strategic planning that her enemies knew how to use.

 

 

The problem is that this also doesn't fit with the facts, since the people were never consulted on the matter, and where they were, tended to be in favor of the continuation of the Soviet Union. In the free and fair elections for the Legislature in 1990, the Communist Party picked up 86% of the votes.

So those were "free and fair", huh? How free and fair compared to the last Russian elections? I thought that was a "right-wing dictatorship". Which one is it?

[Rostere]

No, American geopolitical machinations were not more decisive in leading to the PEACEFUL DISMANTLEMENT of the USSR, or at least not if you aren't arguing they somehow led to the election of Gorbachev.

What, you mean that Gorbachev was an incompetent on purpose?

 

Interesting theory.

 

Incompetent? Look at the Soviet Union he started out with, and compare it to the one he left when he had lost influence over it. Which choices would anyone have made differently? He did what was in his power, and when he could he did the right things all the time.

 

Given: The United States of America is the source of all evil.

 

if one starts with the above proposition, then it becomes perfect reasonable to mention gorbachev in the same breath as MLK and Gandhi.

 

What? I really don't understand this absurd statement at all. Would you care to explain yourself?

 

ps anybody that cites wikipedia deserves to be kicked in the head with steel toe boots. try that crap on a university paper... we dare you.

 

Was this a comment to my recommendation to Oblarg to read up on Wikipedia? I feel it somehow is, but since none of your statements are directly aimed at anything I have written I don't really know how to respond.

 

Rostere, claiming that the break-up of the Soviet Union was good or masterminded by Gorbachev is a complete fiction, even from a bourgeois democratic perspective. The break-up of the Soviet Union was organized by anti-democratic bureaucrats and local elites, who purposefully ignored or suppressed polls regarding the political break-up of the Soviet Union's constituent republics (it wasn't exactly very popular outside the Baltic). It was mismanaged by these same anti-democratic bureaucrats so that every nation in the former Soviet Union went through economic troubles which were twice as bad as the Great Depression. Even functional liberal democracy evades many former Soviet constituent republics.

 

The dismantlement of the Soviet Union as an authoritarian, communist union of republics was indeed "masterminded" by Gorbachev, until it was hijacked by more radical elements (Boris Jeltsin, radical nationalists in outlying Soviet Republics, et.c.) and Gorbachev lost power. I think that what you call the "break-up" of the Soviet Union is what I consider happened "after" Gorbachev.

[Gromnir]

I don't really know how to respond.

 

 

am gonna agree on this one point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[lord of flies]

I guess it just comes to choosing which explanation you think is more plausible; whether the fall of the USSR was the result of a massive conspiracy perpetrated by the corrupt revisionist counter-revolutionary elements in the higher echelons of the Party and their imperialist Jewish overlords, or simply the result of an economy that couldn't compete, coupled with an incompetent leadership, mismanagement and a critical lack of foresight and strategic planning that her enemies knew how to use.

Ugh. Look, take a look at this and tell me that the local elites had nothing to do with the collapse of the Union. You say "the Union was going through troubles," and I agree. But was the USA saying "you must balkanize in order to pay your debts"? Were the mujahideen in Afghanistan saying "ha ha ha, now that we have defeated your invasion, sign this peace treaty that agrees to balkanize the country"? No. These troubles merely produced a situation where the nationalist elements (a ****load of them) were given the opportunity to **** everything all to hell and ignore what the people wanted.

 

And please don't insinuate anti-semitism on my part. Not cool.

So those were "free and fair", huh? How free and fair compared to the last Russian elections? I thought that was a "right-wing dictatorship". Which one is it?

Uh... I'm not sure how difficult this is. The late Soviet Union had a radical left-wing government which was elected in fairly "normal" (bourgeois democratic) parliamentary processes. The modern Russian Federation relies heavily on the more-or-less open suppression of voters and demonstrators, and has throughout its history. There's a reason they aren't letting the OSCE monitor their elections.

[213374U]

@Rostere: Gorbachev made the "right" decisions, with which objectives in mind? Dissolution of the Soviet Union? Avoiding the use of force to keep the people of the Republics in line? Preserving the Soviet state at any cost? Those are mutually incompatible -- the dissolution was most certainly NOT his intention, and the others were his duties as HOS. He may have been morally in the right, but he failed as a (Soviet) manager.

 

 

Ugh. Look, take a look at this and tell me that the local elites had nothing to do with the collapse of the Union. You say "the Union was going through troubles," and I agree. But was the USA saying "you must balkanize in order to pay your debts"? Were the mujahideen in Afghanistan saying "ha ha ha, now that we have defeated your invasion, sign this peace treaty that agrees to balkanize the country"? No. These troubles merely produced a situation where the nationalist elements (a ****load of them) were given the opportunity to **** everything all to hell and ignore what the people wanted.

So because it was the local elites that finally initiated the disintegration of the USSR, they were a necessary and sufficient element? Are you familiar with the concept of catalysis?

 

Also, the referendum called for a new reformed federal Soviet Union, but it didn't clearly ask whether the Union should be dissolved altogether or kept as it was, if choosing "no"; the wording was confusing and open to interpretation. Doesn't matter, anyway. If "the People" really liked the Soviet system better, they would have switched back one way or another. But the only place where this has even remotely happened is Belarus.

 

 

And please don't insinuate anti-semitism on my part. Not cool.

That should have read "Zionist", my bad. I'm not too good at this whole Marxist-Leninist inflammatory rhetoric thing.

 

 

Uh... I'm not sure how difficult this is. The late Soviet Union had a radical left-wing government which was elected in fairly "normal" (bourgeois democratic) parliamentary processes. The modern Russian Federation relies heavily on the more-or-less open suppression of voters and demonstrators, and has throughout its history. There's a reason they aren't letting the OSCE monitor their elections.

Precisely. Now compare it with the 1990 Russian election where political parties other than the CPSU were banned, a portion of the seats were reserved for party candidates, and in spite of Glasnost, the media was still a state apparatus. I wonder what the OSCE ratings for that one would have been, heh. Edited April 16, 2010 by 213374U

[obyknven]

We hate Gorbachev

All that we have now - was built in the Soviet Union. He ruined it. This was not the peace process, in many places there were bloodshed and war broke out.

 

Now Russia is similar to Germany 1928. The most interesting is yet to come.>:3 Now we just use the remnants of its former power to sustain our lives. But Russia will soon be reborn, full of revanchism, hatred and nationalism. And the blame for this man who received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Edited April 16, 2010 by obyknven

[lord of flies]

So because it was the local elites that finally initiated the disintegration of the USSR, they were a necessary and sufficient element? Are you familiar with the concept of catalysis?

History is a long series of events that lead up to other events. The fall of the USSR was no more caused by economic troubles or the war in Afghanistan than it was by the administration's desire to increase its citizens calorie intake, or by the mass slaughter of Russian livestock in the early USSR, or by the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Doesn't matter, anyway. If "the People" really liked the Soviet system better, they would have switched back one way or another. But the only place where this has even remotely happened is Belarus.

Nonsense. This is an utterly and totally nonsensical, indefensible notion. It requires one to firstly believe that the former constituent republics were functionally democratic, that maintenance is viewed in the same way as recreation, and that the people in a bourgeois democratic country are truly and consistently able to have their desires committed to by the government. None of these things are true.

Precisely. Now compare it with the 1990 Russian election where political parties other than the CPSU were banned, a portion of the seats were reserved for party candidates, and in spite of Glasnost, the media was still a state apparatus. I wonder what the OSCE ratings for that one would have been, heh.

Putting down political parties on the ballot box is dumb bull**** (there were opposition political parties active but they couldn't put "Liberal Democratic Party" or w/e on the ballot). 86% of the people who voted voted for Communists no matter how weirdly the seats were set up, and an absolute majority of eligible voters voted for the Communists (about 66%). There is nothing wrong with state media.

 

Before you try some nonsense about why the Communist party gets preferential treatment, it is because non-Communist parties represent bourgeois democratic interests and Communist parties represent proletarian democratic interests. This means mentioning affiliation with the CPSU allows the voters to understand whose class interests the parties represent (or whether or not someone is anti-communist, if you don't believe in a distinction between proletarian and bourgeois democracy). If people in the USSR hated communism so much, they could have voted for literally anyone else.

[213374U]

Can you stop sounding like a broken record? "the bourgeoisie this, the bourgeoisie that". Seriously, it's not only tedious as **** to read, it's also completely vacuous. Do you have a bot to write your posts for you?

 

 

There is nothing wrong with state media.

Not at all... unless you are part of the bourgeoisie, of course.

[Walsingham]

If people in the USSR hated communism so much, they could have voted for literally anyone else.

 

The term 'LOL' is unfortunately overused, so it fails to adequately convey my hilarity.

[Pidesco]

There's always ROFLCOPTER.

[Meshugger]

We hate Gorbachev

All that we have now - was built in the Soviet Union. He ruined it. This was not the peace process, in many places there were bloodshed and war broke out.

 

Now Russia is similar to Germany 1928. The most interesting is yet to come.>:3 Now we just use the remnants of its former power to sustain our lives. But Russia will soon be reborn, full of revanchism, hatred and nationalism. And the blame for this man who received the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Stay clear of Finland the next time, will you?

 

 

//EDIT: Add the Baltic states to that as well.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Meshugger