TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What caused Soviet Union's collapse?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 My history textbooks, professors, and countless documentaries say otherwise so I'd be happy to have your thoughts on how communism never existed in the Soviet Union.

Further to George Smiley's post... communism can only exist in anarchy, I recommend you read Kapital by Marx and Engal for a full understanding of what communism is. This is why I stated earlier that communism and totalitarianism are mutually exclusive. What existed in the USSR was Sovietism, which while inspired by Marx's communism never was communism. To put it as simply as possible... a communist revolution requires an adjustment period of authoritative government in which a command economy is established and all personal property and means of production are tranfered from private ownership to state ownership and ultimately to communal ownership. The Soviet Union only made it as far as the authoritative transition period... once they reached that those in power decided that they would prefer to hold on to it rather then progress to the communism and the anarchy that goes along with it.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I suppose the greatest effort to reach actual communism was undertaken by China in the cultural revolution and we all know how well that went (yes I know the ultimate goal was for Mao to consolidate power, but the policies adopted to acheive that goal included elements to eliminate all bourgeoise or percieved bourgoise traits from society).

I would argue that the closest thing to communism that ever existed was Robert Owen's New Harmony colony in Indiana, which was approx 100 years prior to Marx and Engal's work (and was clearly part of Marx's inspiration).

On second thought, I blame cheap vodka.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well true communism in its end state, as envisioned by Marx, has never really existed.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard

That's like saying we were never truly at war with Vietnam. I mean we used weapons and other artillery just like other wars have, but since we never officially declared war on Vietnam our loss to them doesn't count.

Using that loosely based analogy in this context I come to the conclusion that even though true communism was not ultimately achieved, it did exist to a certain degree so I wasn't too far off. Thanks you two.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I recommend you read Kapital by Marx and Engal for a full understanding of what communism is.

Noted.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka On second thought, I blame cheap vodka.

haha!

I read an article on New Scientist that said that 40% of male russian deaths between the ages of 25 and 40 were caused by drinking alcohols contained in products such as listerine, perfume, and rubbing alcohol.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Now hang on--I capitalized Communism in my original response. We seem to have a misunderstanding going on here.

Pah! It was the first word in the sentence so obviously would be capitalised! Anyway, I was replying to stevieboy who didn't capitalise!

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 That's like saying we were never truly at war with Vietnam. I mean we used weapons and other artillery just like other wars have, but since we never officially declared war on Vietnam our loss to them doesn't count. Using that loosely based analogy in this context I come to the conclusion that even though true communism was not ultimately achieved, it did exist to a certain degree so I wasn't too far off. Thanks you two.

Your analogy is incorrect. You are describing something that existed but was not officially named... this is the exact opposite... the Soviets took the name communism but never actually practiced communism. Do you see the difference? A better analogy would be a preacher who professes chastity then walks away from the pulpet and bangs a hooker.

Communism cannot exist to a degree... it either does or does not exist.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 That's like saying we were never truly at war with Vietnam. I mean we used weapons and other artillery just like other wars have, but since we never officially declared war on Vietnam our loss to them doesn't count. Using that loosely based analogy in this context I come to the conclusion that even though true communism was not ultimately achieved, it did exist to a certain degree so I wasn't too far off. Thanks you two.

Erm no, the Vietnam War had all the characteristics of a war, Communism (certainly under Stalin and beyond) had very few, if none at all, characteristics of communism...

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard International trade. The citizens of the Eastern Block countries desired and demanded goods that could not be produced within the Warsaw pact countries, moreover, industry required equipment and machinery that could not be produced internally. These goods/equipment had to be purchased from non-Soviet states as the Soviets did not have the ability to supply them. Now, the governents could have simply denied the consumer demands but the industrial equipment was necessary to keep the manufacturing sectors alive. In order to obtain the required goods and equipment the Soviet states needed currency for the states supplying the goods. Ususally foriegn currency can be obtained largely through trade, however, no one in the west wanted anything produced in the east (other then oil which was simply insufficient to generate the monies needed), subsequently, there was a massive trade deficit for the Soviets. With no foriegn currency coming in through trade the only means of obtaining the money needed to purchase the required equipment was to liquidate the gold and precious metals reserves. This is exactly what the Soviet Union did. As the gold reserves started to dwindle it became clear to the USSR polit bureau that they could no longer continue to support their vassel states. Eventually, the Soviets decided to cut off the vassels and instructed them to fend for themselves.... they failed, which created a cascade effect of counter-revolutions that could not be stopped. China has managed to stave off a similar fate by providing goods to the west and re-investing this in their manufacturing infrastructure... had the soviets done this they may well have survived.

Well, you cant really compare China to Russia, because Chinese didnt have the massive exports of natural resources which were paying for the regime. There was no way Soviets were going to copy the Chinese capitalist scheme because Soviets were the primary enemy of USA, NATO and the West, and in case you didnt notice how USA, UK, NATO, etc. do business with their enemies, i.e. Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc - and Soviets were in the same line. Soviets were never going to allow western corporations inside with such massive numbers because those same companies could've been Western agents to undermine the country from inside. Thats why they called it the Cold War. China was on the sidelines, and they decided to play their own game, and they were continuously being swayed by both sides.

And also China was approached and liked by the West (starting with USA), swayed over by Nixon to win over those Chinese communists because the actual war was against Soviet Union, weaking Soviet's sphere. Chinese then decided to embrace some capitalist ways (most likely with Western lobbying) to open up factories to use cheap Chinese labour that was easy to gather and control under a Chinese dictatorship regime and with communist party getting the dividents, and the rest is history ... all started with Cultural Revolution, which got the Chinese economy going since.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I'm going to say Perestroika. When they cracked opened the window of freedom to a people stifled by their government, they (the government) could not shut it again.

Yes, true. It became obvious that Soviet Union was struggling economically, and changes had to be done. The industry was failing under the state mismanagement - in fact, the industry was usually run by communist party members who had little or absolutely no experience in that field, but were chosen for loyalty and communist party membership.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers probably all of the above.

True, there were many factors that when combined, brought mighty Soviet Union down like a house of cards. But the question was, what was the primary cause for its collapse ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I am not all that familiar with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I do believe it was a combination of mismanagement and foreign intervention. The amount of interference the US and other 'western' countries exerted over affair related to the Soviet Union was in my opinion great and negative. If there had been less animosity from the international community I think the fate of the Soviet Union would have been different.

For a long time, especially in the beginning, I have stipulated that Soviet Union was brought down primarily with foreign intervention, as many Russian nationalists would think. With more research, I've realized that this was not very apparent, the timeline and key events leading up to the collapse indicated otherwise - that western intervention was minimal in bringing down the empire, but could have played a role behind the curtains. It was possible that Gorbachev or Yeltsin or some other high ranking official was a western mole or agent and played a sabotage game, but its not proven. Communist party was at war within itself - hardliners vs. reformers, ever since the early 1980s.

The problems began in early 1980s with falling energy prices on the world markets. The Party realized that it could no longer put hardliners as the leaders, facing a possible economic crisis and was pressured to start Perestroika and consequently Glastnost' in hopes to fix weakening economy and faltering industry which were plagued by the expensive war in Afghanistan both in support, morale, cost, and human lives when Gorbachev came to power.

The Afghanistan war cost Soviets a lot of money every year (billions of $$$), and lowering energy prices have doomed the war. Gorbachev came to power and immediately planned out pull-out of Afghanistan. However, Soviet leadership considered that a slow pull-out would be more appropriate to help strengthen their allies and the support against non-communist forces. This way the Soviet withdrawal will be viewed as positive by communist sympathizers in Afghanistan who were against Soviet occupation. In most ways, these and other Soviet strategies failed, and the occupation dragged on for another 4 years costing much more money and resources. In the end they had to abruptly pull out anyways. The delay really hurt Soviet Union.

In late 1980s, energy prices hit rock bottom. The leadership refused to back down from the massive military spending, and the cuts were then forced on the population - cuts in health care, housing accomodations, luxuries, even basic supplies and food - resulting in huge waiting lines everywhere. There was not enough money for all of it. While the military spending was only lowered slightly. Soviet Union pulled out of most of Eastern Europe to cut costs and win Western support.

With more liberties and rising business, political aspirations, and weakening Soviet central control due to lack of funds, many ties were loosened. Some regions decided to settle decades-old conflicts that have been suppressed by Soviet leadership but now rebrewn due to growing nationalist fervour (Nagorno Karabach, South Ossetia, Transdnistria, Chechnya, etc) given this opportunity.

The people have woken up. But many still supported living in Soviet Union. Baltic states were gone, independent and not coming back. Ukraine was contemplating on leaving. Georgia declared independence.

Even with this much unrest going on, much of the country still remained intact. Gorbachev and his gang were working on a new Soviet Union deal, giving more autonomy to the republics but with one country, leader, military, and currency. It was to be signed at the end of August of 1991. Everything looked good. But the hard-liners have decided that Gorbachev has gone too far, and needed to bring 'older' Soviet Union back, before it all collapsed.

Having a lot of power and influence, and with some of them having direct KGB control, they put the plan into action. Once Gorbachev left for his dacha, they cut him off from the rest of the world, placing under house arrest and cutting all communications. Then (I was watching it live), it was announced to the public on state TV that Gorbachev is ill and needs some time off, and the leadership is assumed by the Party. Hardliners attempted to convince Gorbachev to hand over power to preserve the state and let them preserve the state, but Gorbachev refused outright. Panicked, the group decided to seize the White House in Moscow. They sent in troops to take it, but the gathering protesters and contemplating generals have changed plans, and the coup failed. Gorbachev then flew to Moscow, arrested the hardliners, but the damage was already done.

The attempted coup really shook Soviet Union. Gorbachev resigned as a protest to the Party's interference in his reforms. Other republics could no longer trust the main state because they perceived the coup attempt as a roll back to their autonomy and a threat to their elite and power. Additionally, the failure of the coup showed the weakness of the state as the military didnt even attack the demonstrators or the White House, and was not in control. It showed that Gorbachev not only was a weak leader, but he was not in control. It also became obvious to the other republics that the state did not want to offer them the treaty negotiated earlier to give more autonomy and power to them in exchange for remaining within the Union. There was nothing to hold them anymore, and Yeltsin was eager to kill the Soviet Union. And so in suburb of Minsk, at the end of 1991, the agreement was signed that terminated the empire ...

So therefore, I concluded that the coup attempt was the reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would've lasted if the agreement that was planned to be signed at the end of August of 1991 materialized before the hardliners attempted to seize power.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Your analogy is incorrect. You are describing something that existed but was not officially named... this is the exact opposite... the Soviets took the name communism but never actually practiced communism. Do you see the difference? A better analogy would be a preacher who professes chastity then walks away from the pulpet and bangs a hooker. Communism cannot exist to a degree... it either does or does not exist.

Sort of how we claim to be capitalists.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well true communism in its end state, as envisioned by Marx, has never really existed. Marx predicted several stages of communism to get to the end state. The first stage was called the dictatorship of the proletariat which is a temporary point between capitalistic society and classeless/stateless communist society, the main objective being that the proletariat replace the bourgeoise as the ruling class and strip private ownership of productive property. Then somehow, with a magic wave of the wand, the dictatorship of the proletariat would guide society to a point where production is guided by need and thus the state can be abolished. The Soviet Union never got to that point. It ended up being a state capitalist country that espoused socialism but ran the economy according to capitalistic accounting such as profitability and markets.

god its good to see an american that can appreciate the subtleties here!!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not well versed in this either, but i was under the impression that the soviets just couldn't afford to maintain the arms race they had with the US and the economic conditions precipitated the collapse?

I was under the impression that the US was only a couple of years behind possible failure too. The early '90s weren't so good for the economy.

But then that's what happens when money is invested in non-productive assests like weapons. Imagine a corporation were involved in stock pilling arms with returns on investments of zero.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium The Afghanistan war cost Soviets a lot of money every year (billions of $$$), and lowering energy prices have doomed the war. Gorbachev came to power and immediately planned out pull-out of Afghanistan. However, Soviet leadership considered that a slow pull-out would be more appropriate to help strengthen their allies and the support against non-communist forces. This way the Soviet withdrawal will be viewed as positive by communist sympathizers in Afghanistan who were against Soviet occupation. In most ways, these and other Soviet strategies failed, and the occupation dragged on for another 4 years costing much more money and resources. In the end they had to abruptly pull out anyways. The delay really hurt Soviet Union. In late 1980s, energy prices hit rock bottom. The leadership refused to back down from the massive military spending, and the cuts were then forced on the population - cuts in health care, housing accomodations, luxuries, even basic supplies and food - resulting in huge waiting lines everywhere. There was not enough money for all of it. While the military spending was only lowered slightly. Soviet Union pulled out of most of Eastern Europe to cut costs and win Western support.

Why does "Bush Administration" jump to mind?

How was foreign intervention responsible for the USSR collapse? Are the 5 voters saying that if it wasn't for a supposed foreign intervention, there would be a USSR today? Doesn't make sense with what was reality.

before i say anything.. i haven't voted, cause i don't know, nor can i reasonably speculate as to THE cause of the collapse.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How was foreign intervention responsible for the USSR collapse? Are the 5 voters saying that if it wasn't for a supposed foreign intervention, there would be a USSR today? Doesn't make sense with what was reality.

foreign intervention definitely played it's role.

the space race/ weapons stockpile aspects of the cold war were quite a distraction for both the people and leadership of the USSR. had that not existed, who's to say that the mental energies of the upper leadership wouldn't have come to some of the same conclusions that china has reached. that there has to be some allowance for enterprise to rise from motivated members of the population to meet the basic demand for goods and to spark some form of economic stimulus.

unfortunately, they became victimized by their own anti-capitalist doctrine (which, may not have been so severe had there not been a capitalist enemy).

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How was foreign intervention responsible for the USSR collapse? Are the 5 voters saying that if it wasn't for a supposed foreign intervention, there would be a USSR today? Doesn't make sense with what was reality.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag before i say anything.. i haven't voted, cause i don't know, nor can i reasonably speculate as to THE cause of the collapse. foreign intervention definitely played it's role. the space race/ weapons stockpile aspects of the cold war were quite a distraction for both the people and leadership of the USSR. had that not existed, who's to say that the mental energies of the upper leadership wouldn't have come to some of the same conclusions that china has reached. that there has to be some allowance for enterprise to rise from motivated members of the population to meet the basic demand for goods and to spark some form of economic stimulus. unfortunately, they became victimized by their own anti-capitalist doctrine (which, may not have been so severe had there not been a capitalist enemy).

Its true that the rhetoric that Soviet Union collapsed due to foreign intervention is weak in evidence and common sense. Mainly its because Soviet leadership was making the decisions, not the moles in its government - of course the West was giving it support in pro-Western changes and lying to it that it will help the new leadership, but I wouldn't consider that foreign intervention. Communist Party approved the changes, they wanted them in some ways. There was a continuing rift within the Party, but its hardly from intervention. I spent years searching and I couldn't find the evidence or even common sense thinking of the foreign intervention moves, thats usually just an excuse to blame their own problems on the West. There was no Western "terrorism" or subversive activities going on within Soviet Union at the time, nothing to suggest the intervention. People themselves got sick of the old regime and were liking the changes. There was no turning back but the hardliners couldn't care less. Thats why everything collapsed like a house of cards. Soviet regime have oppressed the country so much, though everyone "supported" the regime, once the time came around for people to support the hardliners, pretty much noone came.

I seriously believe that Yeltsin could've been a Western agent for his achievements that he orchestrated resulting the collapse and continuing degredation and decline of Soviet Union and Russian sphere in general. Many of Yeltsin's "mistakes", such as give-aways of natural resources to Western companies and Russian mafia, criminal syndicates for fire-sale prices, ignoring and embracing the corruption by dealing with shady Russian business and mafia people, not tackling the obvious instances of breaking the law and Constitution by everyone from business to military to government officials, ignoring the independent and autohritarian stances of some of the Russian republics and not properly reaching compromise, massive failure in first Chechen War against underarmed and much smaller resistance, bad economic practises that led to the 1998 default, ignoring the status and living of veterans, pensioners, farmers, students, small business, etc. while his OWN family was being educated in the West, he was being accused of having substantial personal/family bank accounts in Switzerland, and also accused of letting his subordinates (especially his daughter) run the country and MAKE DECISIONS. Apart from that, he was a really bad alcoholic, and we have seen him really drunk on several occassions on TV.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.