Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Group of Russia's officials demand to try Gorbachev

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 417
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2012, 01:18
Komsomol
Post 11 Apr 2014, 15:45
Abstract justice and abstract symbols will only reinfoce various ideological mythologies instead of making any kind of progress anywhere. 99% of the people who even care about this look at it from the right, i.e. loss of empire, not from the left, i.e. loss of proletarian dictatorship (whether you buy that story or not). What is more, I seriously don't understand the people making a link between Gorby and the disbading of the Union, because Gorby was in the conservative pro-union camp until the end.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Apr 2014, 15:46
soviet78 wrote:
Kirov mentioned the key word 'symbol' several times; this is exactly what a trial of Gorbachev would be, and it would have great political and historical significance. Even if Gorbachev were to be imprisoned one day and died the next, the fact that he was publicly tried, the wave of public approval for justice being served, the historical record in the biography of Gorbachev, all of this would all be of great importance symbolically. Writing it off because he's old and his political capital is long-spent isn't relevant here. A sense of justice finally being served, at least in some part, is.

As a side note, perhaps it will serve as the impetus for a reevaluation of the man from the general public in the West, and they'll stop asking whether and how much I appreciate what Gorbachev did for my freedoms and well-being.


Thank You Soviet78.


This. Exactly this.

Half Concious when I posted last night but my meaning was pretty much this.
"A shiny bauble from Capitalism is worthless when the cost is Children & the Elderly going hungry, The Infirm & Sick dying because of Greed & Education reduced to a token few to placate the masses with Illusions of freedom."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Apr 2014, 15:53
sans-culotte wrote:
Abstract justice and abstract symbols will only reinfoce various ideological mythologies instead of making any kind of progress anywhere. 99% of the people who even care about this look at it from the right, i.e. loss of empire, not from the left, i.e. loss of proletarian dictatorship (whether you buy that story or not). What is more, I seriously don't understand the people making a link between Gorby and the disbading of the Union, because Gorby was in the conservative pro-union camp until the end.


Gorbachev was instrumental in pulling everything down.

Perestroika which in actuality was Sabotage of the Economy.

Glasnost which Reorientated the Media and Propoganda apparatus to become Hostile, Slanderous and oppressive of Socialist critique against the damaging changes.

The Whole Sovereign crap new Union Treaty which screws Unity and cohesive production and distribution among member states.

Removal of checks and balances. (Yes I know they were minimal but even so there were some.)
"A shiny bauble from Capitalism is worthless when the cost is Children & the Elderly going hungry, The Infirm & Sick dying because of Greed & Education reduced to a token few to placate the masses with Illusions of freedom."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 417
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2012, 01:18
Komsomol
Post 11 Apr 2014, 16:04
Perestroika was an attempt to preserve to old system, which pretty much sabotaged itself by then. Just as the new union treaty was supposed to preserve the union, but wasn't even signed before the union was dissolved. Gorby was the conservative trying to tame forces that were driving the union apart, not the guy who wanted to dissolve it
Unless you are a conspiracy theorist of course.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Apr 2014, 16:15
There is no Conspiracy.

just facts.

The Economic Plans in place before Gorbys "Reforms" were intended to adress problems in the economy and improve existing groundwork laid.

Gorby scrapped the whole thing.

Give me a few minutes and I'll hunt down a link.
"A shiny bauble from Capitalism is worthless when the cost is Children & the Elderly going hungry, The Infirm & Sick dying because of Greed & Education reduced to a token few to placate the masses with Illusions of freedom."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Apr 2014, 16:16
"A shiny bauble from Capitalism is worthless when the cost is Children & the Elderly going hungry, The Infirm & Sick dying because of Greed & Education reduced to a token few to placate the masses with Illusions of freedom."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9398
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 12 Apr 2014, 08:06
sans-culotte wrote:
Abstract justice and abstract symbols will only reinfoce various ideological mythologies instead of making any kind of progress anywhere. 99% of the people who even care about this look at it from the right, i.e. loss of empire, not from the left, i.e. loss of proletarian dictatorship (whether you buy that story or not). What is more, I seriously don't understand the people making a link between Gorby and the disbading of the Union, because Gorby was in the conservative pro-union camp until the end.


The proletarian dictatorship officially ended from the perspective of the CPSU after the XXII congress in which Khrushchev proposed the idea of changing the USSR's function as a "state of all people," and this was enshrined on the state level in the 1977 constitution. Because of this, it's impossible to take the perspective "from the left" as it doesn't exist even on the theoretical level. So yes, it was in many ways a loss of an empire, which is being discussed in the Hoxha thread right now.

However, that by itself does not make "mourning" the USSR bad, as even though much of the nomenklatura either betrayed the party's goals or changed them to fit their own goals, it still played a role in the global political and economic system as an alternative to western capitalism and imperialism. As much as some contemporary leftists, primarily in the west, say that the collapse of the USSR was in a way good because it has allowed a true revolution to take place, that has failed to materialize, and more than that, led to a collapse of the leftist political movement overall in the early 1990s. So there is nothing wrong with mourning the USSR for its glorious history or its global influence which did have many positive impacts on the world even in the late 1980s. Although I have a feeling that another reason why it is done is because people miss things like economic equality, social benefits and stable employment.

Putting Gorby on trial for the dissolution of the USSR makes sense in this context because his stupid policies not only led to the USSR's political (and a significant part of economic) collapse, and they can't try Yakovlev, Perestroika's "architect among ruins," because he's dead, so finding specific and provable actions Gorby took that led to the disintegration of the USSR, even if it was just the Baltics, makes sense as a ritual of ending the mourning period and nostalgia over it, as the primary symbol of it has been officially condemned, and making people think of what they can do now besides blame others (among actors in the collapse of the USSR) for the situation they are in.

(Apologies for the long sentences, I'm typing on a phone so a "stream of consciousness" that is almost impossible to proofread is inevitable.)
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 13 Apr 2014, 05:06
String 'im up, I say.

Who cares about the reasons? Sometimes a bit of light retribution is nice, just to show this sort of thing can't be tolerated.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 15 Apr 2014, 02:45
I can sympathize with Gulper here. While I'd definitely love a public reevaluation of history, and Gorbachev's trial would bring that in Russia, it's least necessary there where the older generation rightly lump him in with Yeltsin already. It would also make him a martyr and give him a renewed heroic stature in the West, making his death an even bigger lovefest than we'll already get. Plus, it'd be used to further ramp up the "Putin = Stalin + Hitler" campaign Western leaders are on right now; and Putin probably knows that, which is why it won't get very far anyway.

That there are calls for it alone is fuel for discussion, and I don't really see anything to gain from going further than that.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3871
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Apr 2014, 03:22
Putin stopped caring about his image in the west long, long time ago.

All trials to traitors like Gorby are good. Of course, Yeltsin's role would come up in the in. stigation. But I don't see why Putin would even care to avoid that.

The main base of the Argentinian policy on human rights and historic revisionism was established by the mothers and grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo. It consists of 3 words: Memory, Truth and Justice.
Sitting Gorby on the bench before he dies, brings us closer to those words


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 15 Apr 2014, 03:49
Che Burashka wrote:
Putin stopped caring about his image in the west long, long time ago.

That's a very, very dangerous attitude for any leader, be it Jong Un or Putin, to have. Certainly no Soviet leader possessed such an attitude.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Apr 2014, 07:57
It's not like they're actually going to do anything to him, but it seems like a good way to start a discussion.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 17 Apr 2014, 12:05
Gorbachev was not a conspirator, and he did not try to dissolve the Soviet Union or communism (in fact, he still calls himself a communist)... However, he believed the only way to rejuvenate the USSR was through fixing the moral problem; that is, a system in which oppresses freedom of speech, freedom of initiative, a system in which 80 year old don't award each other the highest awards when they don't deserve it (Brezhnev awarding himself the highest military decorations in the Soviet Union, but never played a noticeable role in the war at all)... Did Gorbachev fail? Yes! But to accuse him of being a conspirator, traitor, is stupid, and only shows that you have not read the right books. Interestingly, the CP of China, has the best critique of Gorbachev's reform efforts (and the failure of the USSR in general) i've ever read, its a must look... At last, failure is not the same as traitor - if it is, Stalin has to be described as a traitor, Khrushchev as a a traitor, Brezhnev as a traitor, Andropov as a traitor and Chernenko as a traitor...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4501
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 17 Apr 2014, 17:49
I have to disagree, leftguy. In my view, Gorbachev is a conspirator, since he is a social democrat, and tried openly to move the country in the direction of social democracy since 1990. What makes it a conspiracy is that he didn't make these views and plans clear for the majority of his tenure, and moreover used political and ideological diversionary tactics of 'returning to Leninism' and 'a renewal of socialism' to push through factually 'counterrevolutionary' political, economic, and ideological reforms, i.e. reforms that would destroy the tenets of Leninism, like privatizing the people's property, the giving of a big political voice to counterrevolutionaries, etc.

There is no question that the Soviet Union had problems with freedom of speech, although as radical Leftists we should have the analytical capacity to recognize that it a) wasn't as severe as certain groups make it out to be, b) that it manifested itself differently to how problems of freedom of speech in liberal bourgeois democracies manifest themselves, but for similar reasons (i.e. the desire to maintain control, in the bourgeois democracy by the bourgeoisie, in the Soviet case ostensibly by the vanguard of the proletariat). The solution to this, if we are realists and cynics, would not necessarily be as system-shattering as some critics of Soviet power might contend. The ideological and agitprop departments of the Soviet system could have just created a 'socialist' copy of the Western media system -i.e. formal freedom of speech, informal ideological and informational control via a vast array of tools.

On freedom of initiative, I'm genuinely not sure that a common Soviet man had less of this freedom than a common American; it's all a question of 'initiative to do what', and here it's true that if it's a desire to get rich quick and get one over on your fellow man, it'd be better to be in America, whereas if its a desire to help your fellow man, I'd say there were probably more systemic outlets for that in the Soviet system.

About Brezhnev, I think it was Alexander Kolpakidi, chief editor of publishing house "Algorithm", when asked about Brezhnev's lavish collection of medals, said something to the effect that considering what the man did just for the building of energy mega projects, which Russia continues to live on to this day, the man can be allowed a little personal vanity.

A traitor to socialism, to me, is someone who consciously and deliberately betrays the interests and ideals of socialism out of a desire to reform it into something else. Gorbachev was without question a class traitor, and his weak defense and ridiculous conceptions about the USR project in the early 1990s is what also makes him a national traitor in the eyes of many in the FSU. It's true, he wasn't a traitor out of financial reasons, nor did he consciously seek to dismantle the country itself, but his class betrayal, weakness and foolishness brought that about as well, which is why he is almost universally despised in his own country, not just by the Left. All of this sets him apart from every other Soviet leader.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 17 Apr 2014, 21:15
"Conspirator" is always a bit of a moral judgement. I think it's more interesting to look at it in terms of political responsibility. It would be wrong to say that everything was going fine and dandy until evil Gorbachev wormed his way into power with a master plan to destroy socialism aaaaand it's gone. The question is, what historical tendency did he represent, to what extent did he shape and promote this tendency, and what kind of responsibility does he bear for what happened in the end?

I doubt that these questions can be satisfactorily answered by the courts of the bourgeois state, never mind that they could ever draw the right political consequences from this. But this case could open a necessary, long overdue public discussion on this period. If that could lead to the opening of more archives and further analysis on what happened, then why not? I don't think that this will necessarily be the result or even the aim of such a court case, but who knows?

The discussion on the victory of counter-revolution in the USSR is important for all communist parties. Hence studies like The Velvet Counter-Revolution by Ludo Martens in Belgium, Theses on Socialism by the KKE, etc. I wonder, to what extent do communist parties in Russia and other former USSR countries undertake this effort? Do they make similar studies, or do they simply argue that "traitors" like Gorbachev destroyed the USSR?
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2014, 16:38
Quote:
I have to disagree, leftguy. In my view, Gorbachev is a conspirator, since he is a social democrat, and tried openly to move the country in the direction of social democracy since 1990. What makes it a conspiracy is that he didn't make these views and plans clear for the majority of his tenure, and moreover used political and ideological diversionary tactics of 'returning to Leninism' and 'a renewal of socialism' to push through factually 'counterrevolutionary' political, economic, and ideological reforms, i.e. reforms that would destroy the tenets of Leninism, like privatizing the people's property, the giving of a big political voice to counterrevolutionaries, etc.


I have to agree with soviet78 here. You are completely right. From his quotes and what he claimed it sounded like he was a true Communist that wanted to restore the Soviet Union and Marxism-Leninism. But his actions clearly demonstrate he was nothing more than a social democrat trying to destroy the institutions of the USSR. His creation of the office of President of the Soviet Union was a way of circumventing the Party while still keeping his power (this actually allowed the CPSU to be dissolved on August 29th 1991 with him remaining in power untill December 25th 1991). He allowed capitalism to ovetake all the Socialist nations on the planet (except for maybe Cuba). He allowed counter-revolutionary parties into the newly established "Congress of People's Deputies" destroying the Supreme Soviet in the process. He was even planning on officially dissolving the Soviet Union himself on August 19th 1991 and repalcing it with the "Union of Soverign States". He privatized much of the economy in the mean time. He let the overtly neo-liberal Boris Yeltson to become President of the RFSR. You can't expect me to believe that he was trying to revitalize the Soviet Union and socialism. He wanted to destroy it plain and simple. Nobody who actually wanted to protect Socialism and the USSR could be so stupid to do all the above. Ligachev saw this. He wasn't perfect, but he was 100 times better than Gorbachev ever could have been.

Quote:
A traitor to socialism, to me, is someone who consciously and deliberately betrays the interests and ideals of socialism out of a desire to reform it into something else. Gorbachev was without question a class traitor, and his weak defense and ridiculous conceptions about the USR project in the early 1990s is what also makes him a national traitor in the eyes of many in the FSU. It's true, he wasn't a traitor out of financial reasons, nor did he consciously seek to dismantle the country itself, but his class betrayal, weakness and foolishness brought that about as well, which is why he is almost universally despised in his own country, not just by the Left. All of this sets him apart from every other Soviet leader.

I'd go farther. He consciously did seek to dismantle the country itself and replace it with the "Union of Soveriegn States", the August 1991 coup prevented that but Yeltson (who he had given power to) but they still managed to retake power and dismantle the CPSU in August 1991 and the Soviet Union in December 1991. These people had no respect atall for Marxism-Leninism, Socialism or the Soviet Union that Lenin and the people of Russia had built in 1917. The growth of the economy of the USSR was slowing down but it wasn't in crisis (I would hardly call 1.5-2.5% gdp growth rate a sufficient reason to dismantle your country and betray it's principals).
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 21 May 2014, 16:04
I totally agree with Loz, you can’t pin the collapse of the USSR on him, he tried his best to keep it going but no one could have saved it. It was kaput, finished, it had run out of steam and he did what was necessary.
Gorbachev sold the USSR out?
Next they’ll be saying that Germany never lost WWI and were simply stabbed in the back by the government that took over at the end of the war! Oh...they did say that...oh.
But after nearly 20 years they just don't get it. It's gone! It will not be coming back unless the majority want it back and they don't. Get over it. Don't be yesterdays men.
Ligachev was 100 times better? Why stop there, why not 1000 or 1 million times, if you only criteria is that he would not have dissolved the USSR then yes, he would have been better. But there is no guarantee anyone could have saved it. Remember what Marx said, have you read the dialectic? The society we live in gives us our ideas and not the other way round! Gorbachev did not have any other choice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... %80%931991)#Changing_of_the_guard

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/soci ... o-peaceful
Soviet cogitations: 987
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2007, 18:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 21 May 2014, 17:36
Yami wrote:
have you read the dialectic?

Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 22 May 2014, 03:56
Quote:
I totally agree with Loz, you can’t pin the collapse of the USSR on him, he tried his best to keep it going but no one could have saved it.

Oh really?
The New Union treaty would have litterally dissolved and destroyed the Soviet Union and replaced it with a loose alliance between Russia and the other Republics called the "Union of Soveriegn States". It was Gorbachev's idea and he was the one pushing for it. People realized he was essentially trying to destroy the USSR and the August 1991 coup occured as a way of trying to save the Soviet Union and what few Socialist countries that had not been destroyed yet. Yeltson and his supporters managed defeat the coup (which was atleast successful in preventing the New Union treaty from being signed hence saving the country for a short time) and along with Gorbachev dissolved the Communist Party on August 29th 1991. After that it was only a matter of time before Yeltson and his puppets in the other Governments of the Republics dissolved the USSR in December 1991.

So Yes, Gorbachev and Yeltson were litterally trying to dissolve the Soviet Union. Gorbachev lied about being a Communist when he was infact a Social Democrat, he outright violated the consitution and the founding principals of Socialism and Marxist-Leninism by banning the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he allowed counter-revolutionary, neo-liberal and capitalist candidates and parties into the Government, he manipulated the government by creating the office of President of the Soviet Union to divorce his power from the Communist Party so he could destroy it. He allowed Imperialists and Counter-revoltutionary neo-liberals to take over in every single Socialist country including his own. He was a conspiritor and should be found guilty of the crimes he commited against the Soviet People and for setting back the working class movement by a century.

Quote:
It was kaput, finished, it had run out of steam and he did what was necessary


Between 1951 and 1960 the Annual Soviet GNP growth was 5.9%
Between 1961 and 1970 the Annual Soviet GNP growth was 5.1%
Between 1971 and 1980 the Annual Soviet GNP growth was 2.7%
Between 1981 and 1991 the Annual Soviet GNP growth was 0.4%
[1]

Notice that in the 1950s and 1960s the Soviet Economy was growing at a strong rate much faster than that of the United States. But begining in 1965 the annual economic growth begins to slow down. It's still catching up to the living standards of the United States and the other western powers it's just not catching up as fast as it was before. That's hardly what I would call a reccession or a "era of stagnation". But we do need to ask why it slowed down by almost half. The reason is because in 1965 Alexei Kosygin began Market-Capitalist reforms within the Soviet Union and Brezhnev spent excessive amounts ont the military. This significantly slowed down the progress they had previously been having under the Socialist Planned Economy. Despite these attempts to make the USSR capitalist the Soviet Economy remained Socialist for the most part and retained moderate economic growth.

The 1980s picture also must be broken down into the period before Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the period after he did. Before Gorbachev rose to power and up untill 1986 the Growth rate was much higher than you would expect (mostly because Kosygin had retired and died in 1980). Indeed the Soviet Economy was recovering to towards the the annual growth rates it had in the 1960s and 50s.

In 1986
The Soviet GNP growth rate was at a solid 4.1%
The Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was 20%
The Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was 2.4%

In 1987 (when the Market Reforms began to kick in)
The Sovet GDP growth rate was a pathetic 1.3%
The Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was 22%
The Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was an incredible 6.2%

In 1988
The Soviet GNP growth rate was a slightly better 2.3%
The Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was a staggering 36%
The Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was a 8.8%

In 1989
The Soviet GNP growth rate was a reduced 1.5%
The Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP was now 43%
The Budget Deficit as a percentage of GDP was now 11%

In 1990
The Soviet GNP growth rate was in a crisis situation of -11% (that's right negative eleven percent)
The Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP was now 55%
The Budget Deficit as a percentafe of GDP was now 14%

In 1991
The Soviet GNP growth rate was a disaster situation of -13% (that's right, negative thirteen percent)
The Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP isn't availible from the statics
The Budget Deficit as a percentage of GDP was at 20% (that was the entire internal debt in just 5 years earlier)

[1]https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/watching-the-bear-essays-on-cias-analysis-of-the-soviet-union/article02.html
[2]Oliver, Michael J.; Aldcroft, Derek Howard (2007). Economic Disasters of the Twentieth Century. Page 294.

My area of expertise is not in WW1 so I don't know what you're talking about. I never claimed anything about WW1.
Quote:
But after nearly 20 years they just don't get it. It's gone! It will not be coming back unless the majority want it back and they don't. Get over it. Don't be yesterdays men


The People of the Soviet Union and of Eastern Europe do want Socialism back. But I agree that in the current circumstances it's unlikely we can truly have Socialism in European countries for the next few decades. But that doesn't mean that Marxism-Leninism is an invalid ideology. It just means that revisionism social democrats and neo-liberals have through their lies and treason set the Working Class movement back. I'm quite young, I am confident I will live to see the rise of Socialism again in my lifetime. The truth cannot be suppressed forever. Instead of thinking there's no use and give up I advocate and spread the work to acheive Socialism. Socialism wasn't the USSR, Socialism is a political ideology based on the working class, the vast majority
Quote:
Ligachev was 100 times better? Why stop there, why not 1000 or 1 million times, if you only criteria is that he would not have dissolved the USSR then yes, he would have been better. But there is no guarantee anyone could have saved it

What?

I never claimed I could measure how much better Ligachev would have been compared to Gorbachev/Yeltson. It's called a figure of speech. When somebody says X person is 100 times better as a political leader than X person it means the they would have been very significantly better. Atleast Ligachev could see what Gorbachev and Yeltson were doing Socialism even if he saw it too late to do anything about it. He wasn't perfect but atleast he was a true Communist not just by being a member of the CPSU but from his actions and his ideology he has publically declared and never contradicted by his actions.

Socialism was not in crisis untill Gorbachev arrived on the scene. The Soviet Union was not in a crisis to be saved from untill Gorbachev put it in a crisis by adding his devastating Market-Reforms and CPSU destroying political reforms. So yes it the USSR would have been saved if there wasn't Gorbachev because it was only Gorbachev's Revisionism that put it in crisis to begin with.

Gorbachev did have a choice. He could have continued the Marxist-Leninist line, upheld the constitution of the USSR and the principals it stood for and improved the life of everybody living in the Soviet Union along with other Socialist states by continueing the Planned Economy under the leadership of the Vanguard Party of the Working Class. Or, he could have , as he did, systematically dismantle all the forms of Political and Economic power the working class had by introducing revisionist, counter-revolutionary neo-liberals into the government and destroying the Soviet Economy with Market Reforms putting it on a path towards rapid economic depression and shock therapy. The former was certainly the better and easier option (which only required continueing the amazing progress of the status quo) but instead he opted for the harder, difficult route of actively destroying everything the Soviet people had worked up and died for in past 70 years. This proves Gorbachev was a tool of the Capitalist Class and a conspiritor who broke Soviet law and he should be tried and he found guilty of treason.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 22 May 2014, 09:53
Wow, he was in the pay of the West huh? Well they certainly did a good job, but it must have been a gamble for them I mean I assume they got to him before 1985, so they had no way of knowing he would become the leader of the USSR. How did they manage to convince him to disband the USSR? Did they pay him? Blackmail him?
I’d like the see the evidence, the smoking gun, the bit of paper that says he agrees to dismantle the USSR at the bequest of the West. You got the link?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron