Do you support the Gang of Eight?

Do you support the objective/goals of the Gang of Eight? Discuss.

I support the goals of the Gang of Eight but I certainly don't support how they tried to achieve it. The failed coup precipitated the end of the USSR and gave some sort of impetus to the anti-socialist forces.

JAM wrote:

I support the goals of the Gang of Eight but I certainly don't support how they tried to achieve it.

Likewise, but as far as their "objective/goals" I'd say I supported them.

The practical consequences of their 'plot" was a complete disaster, but we only know that with hindsight.

For their time and given the circumstances they faced, I support them 100%. It's a shame they didn't try something earlier (they had been plotting on and off as early as summer 1990).

Quote:

It's a shame they didn't try something earlier (they had been plotting on and off as early as summer 1990).

That was their downfall, acted too late.

No, communists aren't puchists.
They should have armed the masses instead of using a few unrealiable divisions to somehow try to preserve "Soviet power".

There was no other way, in my opinion, at that moment. The only criticism I can give them is that they were way too late with their attempt to save the USSR. It was necessary however, to at least try something, considering the way Gorbachev was destroying Socialism in such a fast way. So yes, I absolutely support them.

Loz wrote:

No, communists aren't puchists.
They should have armed the masses instead of using a few unrealiable divisions to somehow try to preserve "Soviet power".

Well, that was Shenin's idea. He proposed for the Congress to meet the second day after the emergency situation was called into effect to explain the situation both to them and to the masses, but the others wanted to wait a period of time (I think it was one or two weeks). Shenin also proposed that the emergency committee call a press conference only when they were more prepared. Again, other committee members refused, and that's why their press conference looked so meek and disorganized. Shenin even proposed sending special forces to arrest or kill Yeltsin, who had barricaded himself in the White House. One of Yeltsin's former bodyguards and friends later noted that in the event of serious action against them either at Yeltsin's home outside Moscow or in the White House would be over within a couple minutes, given that his defense was just a few guys with machineguns. You have to remember that most of the putchists were Gorbachev's appointees, and as such were mostly weak and incompetent. By 1991 all of the serious and competent political players from prior to the reforms were either dead, forcibly retired, or up on corruption charges.

Loz wrote:

No, communists aren't puchists.
They should have armed the masses instead of using a few unrealiable divisions to somehow try to preserve "Soviet power".

THIS IS THE MOST AWESOME THING YOUVE SAID IN MONTHS. <3 I agree completely. But since that seems to have been their plan, I vote "other".

Quote:

They should have armed the masses instead of using a few unrealiable divisions to somehow try to preserve "Soviet power".

You're right, that would have been the best way. This putsch attempts does demonstrate how bureaucratized and disconnected to the people the leadership became. However, I still support their goals in trying to save the USSR so I voted yes.

Anything is better than capitalism, regardless of the problems the USSR was undergoing at the time. And we all know how it became much worse, and still is today under capitalism. (In Russia and Eastern Europe.)