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
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 22 May 2014, 14:03
I said he was a tool of the Capitalist Class. Never said he was paid or bribed by them. They didn't need to, he bought into the propaganda by the Social Democrats within the Party.When he rose to the level of General Secretary of the CPSU the Soviet Union he was acting on the behalf of the Capitalist Class whether he knew it or not. He was their useful idiot that they could discard for someone they liked even better (Yeltson) later. Afterall, the only thing better than a Social Democrat for them, would be a right-wing neo-liberal.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 22 May 2014, 14:31
I don’t believe that at all, there is no one shred of evidence to suggest that, if there is provide the smoking gun evidence!
He was acting on behalf of the capitalist class of which country? They were probably very happy the USSR existed as they could always says to the workers in their countries, look at your workers paradise is that what you want? The answer was no! As no one wanted to move there, run away from there, yes, but not move to.
Moreover a lot of capitalist countries took advantage of the fact that in communist countries you have a cheap labour force that is not unionised.
You cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your dogmatic assertions, whether he knew it or not, what does that mean? So if he did not know it, he can hardly be responsible for it. They could discard him just like that...pfffft as if! How were they going to do that? You could not have scripted the end of the USSR and the capitalist class did not know it was going to end this way. Too much could have gone wrong to stake everything on Gorbachev. It broke up because its economy was on the skids and it had run out of steam. Short of a 2nd round of show trails, gulags and mass murders there was no way to keep the population in line. Thankfully the CPSU did not have the stomach for that, they realised those days were gone, which member of the politburo could have taken over from Gorbachev and put the genie he unleashed back in the bottle?

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/soci ... m-collapse
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 22 May 2014, 19:59
Quote:
I don’t believe that at all, there is no one shred of evidence to suggest that, if there is provide the smoking gun evidence!

Don't believe what? You don't believe that Gorbachev was benifiting the interests of the Capitalist Class? That's a plainly absurd proposition. All you need to do is look at Russia China and Eastern Europe to see who has benifited from the collaspe of Socialism. The Capitalist Class has benifited enormously from the collaspe of Socialism as it opened up billions of people and a third of the world's land and resources to be opened up to Market Exploitation. Capitalism now has a world hegemony and the pro-capitalists can now confidently point to the dissolution of the USSR as proof that Socialism doesn't work (even though it was capitalism that dissolved the USSR). The Capitalist Class were the ones who benifited from Gorbachev's actions and hence he was working in their class interest even if he thought he was doing otherwise.

Quote:
He was acting on behalf of the capitalist class of which country?

The was conspiring with other Social Democrats and Neo-liberals in the USSR to dissolve Socialism. This benifited the Capitalist Class in the West and reinstated a Capitalist Class back into power in Russia and the other former Socialist countries.

Quote:
You cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your dogmatic assertions, whether he knew it or not, what does that mean? So if he did not know it, he can hardly be responsible for it

Gorbachev was actively trying to destroy Socialism and the Soviet Union but he also thought he was acting in the best interests of the people when if fact he was playing right into what the Capitalist Class wanted him to do. His intentions might have been good but what he did was criminal and destructive non-the less. He was resonsible for violating Soviet Law, the Soviet consitution, Lying, destroying the country and it's principals he vowed to serve, and bringing the restoration of Capitalism and the end of Socialism and the USSR even if he thought what he was doing was right.

Quote:
They could discard him just like that...pfffft as if! How were they going to do that?

They did do that. When Neo-liberal political parties and candidates were allowed to run for office they essentially overthrew Gorbachev and his Social Democrats in the USSR and it's republics and replaced them with Yeltson and his neo-liberal right wingers. Once there was a capitalist class in Russia once again they threw away Gorbachev and his Social Democrats who had got them there when the Capitalist Class no longer needed them and replaced them in favor of Right Wingers like Yeltson. Watch that's precisely what happened in 1989-1991.

Quote:
Too much could have gone wrong to stake everything on Gorbachev. It broke up because its economy was on the skids and it had run out of steam. Short of a 2nd round of show trails, gulags and mass murders there was no way to keep the population in line. Thankfully the CPSU did not have the stomach for that, they realised those days were gone,


The Capitalist Class didn't stake everything on Gorbachev and his Social Democrats. Gorbachev and his supporters (the right wing of the CPSU) eventually managed to make their way to the top of the Party where they subsequently dismantled Socialism. The reforms they made benifited only the Capitalist Class and which meant he was working in their interests. It doesn't mean he was actually talking with Rich Bankers and Business owners. It simply means he performing precisely what they wanted him to do and they were the ones who benifited. This isn't even a real conspiracy theory it's a right wing faction of the CPSU takeing over and dismantling everthing. As for the Soviet Economy I already addressed that with statistics.

Quote:
which member of the politburo could have taken over from Gorbachev and put the genie he unleashed back in the bottle?

After Gorbachev brought back Market Capitalism into the economy and brought back Neo-liberals into the government there was little any CPSU members could do short of a coup (which was tried and failed).
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 23 May 2014, 09:12
He could not have destroyed socialism in the USSR and there never was in socialism in the USSR!
All there was there was capitalism of the state variety.

Here is why

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/educ ... over-years

Read the article and come back with counter-arguments to the points raised here. You will probably be interested in the last entries from 1990!

Moreover there is this bizarre idea that you Gorbachev introduced capitalism into the USSR and that brought about it's collapse.

Yet look at China, the CCP are still in power with capitalism

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-27533558

As you can see from this story the state seized assets from this family totalling over $14 billion!
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 25 May 2014, 16:54
The quotes from Lenin provided in the link you posted were completely taken out of context as they were refering specifically to the 1921-1928 New Economic Policy. Lenin considered the NEP as a strategic retreat from socialism. However, he justified the NEP by insisting that it was a different type of capitalism. He viewed it as a form of "state capitalism" which was the last stage of capitalism before socialism evolved. Leon Trotsky and Stalin disagreed over how to develop the Soviet economy after the World War and the Civil War. Trotsky, supported by left-wing members of the Communist Party, believed that socialism in Russia would only survive if the state controlled the allocation of all output. Trotsky believed that the state should repossess all output to invest in capital formation. On the other hand, Stalin supported the more conservative members of the Communist Party and advocated for contineuing the NEP. Stalin managed to wrestle control of the Communist Party from Trotsky. After defeating the Trotsky faction, Stalin reversed his opinions about economic policy and implemented the Five Year Plans. The New Economic Policy was abolished in 1928.

In response to this, the primary argument provided in the link you provided.
Quote:
The social system in Russia can be described as capitalist since the essential features of capitalism predominate: class monopoly of the means of production, commodity production, wage-labour and capital accumulation.


Class Monopoly: Yes, but this is what the dictatorship of the Proletariat is! The entire point of Marxism is the Working class overthrowing the Capitalist Class and instead becoming the ruling class. The Working class can then using the instruments of the state as a weapon against the reemergence of the Capitalist Class. Unlike in Capitalism, in Socialism the Working Class is the ruling class and has the monopoly on power, that is the crucial difference.

Commodity Production: I suggest you check out "Economic Problems" there is an entire chapter devoted to the subject by thinker far more sophisticated at describing it than me.
[4] https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... s/ch03.htm
Quote:
It is said that commodity production must lead, is bound to lead, to capitalism all the same, under all conditions. That is not true. Not always and not under all conditions! Commodity production must not be identified with capitalist production. They are two different things. Capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production. Commodity production leads to capitalism only if there is private owner-ship of the means of production, if labour power appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of production, and if, consequently, the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists exists in the country. Capitalist production begins when the means of production are concentrated in private hands, and when the workers are bereft of means of production and are compelled to sell their labour power as a commodity. Without this there is no such thing as capitalist production.


Wage-labour: "From each according to his ability to each according to his contribution" this was the policy adopted by the Soviet Union for the "lower Communism" phase also known as Socialism where the Working Class becomes the ruling class and uses the state to assert it's class interests against the capitalist class.

Basically, while in Capitalism wealth and income is awarded to those who own the Means of Prouction and Capital and live off the exploitation of the labour of others while not producing any value themelves (with the workers only earning a fraction of the value they produce) in Socialism the workers reap in wages all the value that they themselves produce except for a deduction used to support the State. The purpose of this is to promote productivity. This is done by creating incentives to work harder, longer, more productively and engage in harsh, . The principle is a left over from Capitalism that, according to Marx, would vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance. Marx explains that Socialism doesn't immedietly rise on it's own foundations

"But, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges"

"accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it"-Critique of the Gotha Programme.[1][2]

Image
[2]
I love the irony of this figure. It was proudly displayed on a website showing how the USSR was hypocritical because it was unequal and yet it shows how the income inequalty in the USSR was significantly less than any other country in the world at the time and was reducing this inequality entire latter half of the 20th century before Capitalism shot it up again. To put this graph into perspective the income inequality for other Capitalist countries at the time was between 10 and 30 in 1946. By 1991 it has dropped all the way to 2.2. You might also notice a small increase between 1968 and 1970, which can likely be attributed to the Kosygin Market Reforms occuring at the time.

Indeed by the 1960s with rising living standards and productivty there was a push to reduce the hours per week worked which was unfortunately stoped in it's tracks by the Market Reforms Kosygin had introduced. Despite this we can see that income inequality fell enormously in the Soviet Union over it's history. This was especially remarkable considering the country emerged out of a backward semi-fuedal agrarian society destroyed by WW2, destroyed again by the Russian Civil War, threatened and then invaded and destroyed by the Nazis and Fascism through the 30s and 40s, locked in a direct confrontation by a Nuclear superpower in the 40s-91 and yet it still managed to acheive everything it did. There was economic inequality in the begining because of all these Wars and threats and also because they were sill in the process of struggling against it.

[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... a/ch01.htm
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution
[3]http://akarlin.com/2012/06/ayn-stalin/

As for Capital accumulation, you realize that Soviet industries didn't make profits untill the 1965 Kosygin Market economic reforms. Also capital accumulation is different than industrialization which was performed through central planning.

Quote:
There is no easier road to Socialism than the education of the workers in Socialism and their organisation to establish it by democratic methods

In Imperial Russia, according to the 1897 Population Census, literate people made up 28.4 percent of the population. Literacy levels of women were a mere 13%. The People in Russia couldn't even read or wright at the time, and you expect the vast majority of them to study Socialist literature? This was alleviated by Socialism quite quickly though.In 1926, the literacy rate was 56.6 percent of the population. By 1937, according to census data, the literacy rate was 86% for men and 65% for women, making a total literacy rate of 75%. Eventually illiteracy was almost entirely eleminated in just a few decades. You need to know how to read and write first before you read Marx, or Kapital.

In terms of educating the masses about Socialism, the Soviet Union did do a much poorer job at this than China did at this and this may have partially been a contributing factor to the existance of people like Gorbachev and their making it into the CPSU. This role of educating people in socialism was performed much more vigorously in the time of Lenin and Stalin but was gradually lost in Khrushchev and Brezhnev's time. This is an accurate criticism of the USSR. I should mention however, that while China did educate people on Socialism on a massive scale they too fell victim to Deng Xiaoping and capitalist revisionism. However when you look at polls, (which you deny because they prove you wrong) you always find that even after decades of anti-socialist propaganda, the overwhelming majority of former East German, Romanian, Yugoslav and Soviet citizens still view Socialism positively and want it back.

As for establishing it by democratic methods. I presume they are talking about winning elections in Capitalist countries. That is completely false, you can't beat the Capitalist Class in elections because they own the elections. A few (in the US only two) Parties are the only ones that have any chance of getting elected and there are restrictions and safe gaurds made to protect against Communists getting in power. It can occasionally happen such as in Venezuala but even in venezula they still haven't been able to establish Socialism yet (only a form of radical Social Democracy). No, revolution is the only way to establish true socialist societies and that's how it's happened in every single instance of Socialism, USSR, China, Cuba, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos ect (baring East Germany which was created as a consequence of WW2).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 417
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2012, 01:18
Komsomol
Post 29 May 2014, 14:13
The important thing from the decile income graph is the inequality generated by the stalinist privilege system. There was also pretty much no welfare state or redistribution downwards (only upwards) during that time.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 29 May 2014, 14:27
sans-culotte wrote:
The important thing from the decile income graph is the inequality generated by the stalinist privilege system. There was also pretty much no welfare state or redistribution downwards (only upwards) during that time.
The Soviet revisionists superficially "reduced" income inequality, but their actual privileges increased in ways which made many Soviet workers nostalgic for the times of Stalin. See for instance: http://kasamaproject.org/political-econ ... in-essence

Also wage differentials and "inequality" were heightened under Stalin in response to the need for technical expertise and exceptional productivity during the first Five-Year Plans.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 29 May 2014, 23:32
Quote:
The important thing from the decile income graph is the inequality generated by the stalinist privilege system. There was also pretty much no welfare state or redistribution downwards (only upwards) during that time.

This is incorrect.

Quote:
The Soviet revisionists superficially "reduced" income inequality, but their actual privileges increased in ways which made many Soviet workers nostalgic for the times of Stalin.

Also wage differentials and "inequality" were heightened under Stalin in response to the need for technical expertise and exceptional productivity during the first Five-Year Plans.

The first is false. Despite the fact that revisionism was playing a significant role in the Soviet Union by the time of the 60s 70s and 80s (thanks to the Kosygin Reforms and right-wing leadership) I think this graph still clearly shows that income inequality dropped both before and after Stalin's time despite what revisionism had been introduced.

However the second point is correct. Socialism doesn't mean perfectly equal wages. It means from each according to his ability to each according to his work. Communism may be described as perfect equality as it's a moneyless society (from each according to his ability to each according to his need). The entire point of Socialism is to struggle towards this. Growing the economy and productivity can sometimes result in "high" (it certainly wasn't high when compared to Capitalist nations of the time) inequality but keep in midn this was during a time of high industrializations. Great point Ismail!

Obviously there would be more wealth inequality in 1946. They had just gone through world war II for crying out loud! The neccessities of war, the destruction of wealth in different places all contributed to the high wealth inequality. In 1946-1953 (Stalin's last seven years) the inequality shrunk significantly. It makes sense that in the past there would be higher inequality that gets reduced by more and more over time.

However it's also important to consider the rest of the graph following 1953. Wealth inequality continued to be reduced further and further untill by 1989 it was just 2.2, Then in 1990/1991 Gorbachev's wonderful reforms kicked in and the country's inequality spiked, eliminating all progress made in the past 45 years. Today Russia's wealth inequality is insanely higher than it was in 1989 and significantly higher than it was right after WW2 in Stalin's time.

Also keeping historical context is important. In Britain, France and Germany of the same period had wealth inequality ranging between 10 and 30.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 417
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2012, 01:18
Komsomol
Post 01 Jun 2014, 17:03
Quote:
This is incorrect.



Quote:
I think this graph still clearly shows that income inequality dropped both before and after Stalin's time despite what revisionism had been introduced.

Quote:
In 1946-1953 (Stalin's last seven years) the inequality shrunk significantly.

It clearly shows that there isn't even data between 1946-1953.


Quote:
Obviously there would be more wealth inequality in 1946. They had just gone through world war II for crying out loud! he neccessities of war, the destruction of wealth in different places all contributed to the high wealth inequality.

I don't see how on earth this follows logically.

In fact, inequality increased in the late 20s onwards; the party maximum was abolished by Stalin, which used to limit bureaucrat income to 100-150% of the mean wage; after the abolition income differentials skyrocketed and records of the differential stopped in the mid 30s. Income differential policy purposefully created elites, both bureaucratic and a worker aristocracy; and a restoration of the inheritance law allowed them to pass on their wealth.

Quote:
The Soviet revisionists superficially "reduced" income inequality, but their actual privileges increased in ways which made many Soviet workers nostalgic for the times of Stalin

Before the "revisionists" there was no free education, tiny pensions and no pensions for farmers.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 02 Jun 2014, 07:54
sans-culotte wrote:
Before the "revisionists" there was no free education, tiny pensions and no pensions for farmers.
The revisionists took advantage of the postwar economic reconstruction to enact such measures, which had an opportunist content considering that they were bound up with the false claims that the USSR would achieve "communism" by 1980, that the state and party represented the interests of "the whole people" rather than first and foremost the working-class, that class struggle no longer existed in Soviet society, and that an abundance of consumer goods and out-competing the West in consumer goods production was what was important rather than proletarian revolution.

You are pretty much saying that the revisionists should be praised for enacting these easures at a time when Soviet society could actually enact them thanks to the policies laid down by Lenin and Stalin in prior decades.

As for the party maximum, it was abolished so that party members who worked in industry could take advantage of the same wage increases for greater work done as non-party workers.

Saying that inequality rose therefore Stalin was bad makes about as much sense as claiming the same thing about Lenin, since inequality obviously rose under the NEP as well (as compared to War Communism.) What actually matters is how this inequality manifests itself, and if it endangers the dictatorship of the proletariat. With the seizure of state power by the revisionists and the establishment of a new bourgeois dictatorship issues like wage disparities gave way to the much more fundamental problem of one class owning the means of production and exploiting the labor of another class.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 02 Jun 2014, 15:01
Quote:
Don't believe what? You don't believe that Gorbachev was benifiting the interests of the Capitalist Class? That's a plainly absurd proposition. All you need to do is look at Russia China and Eastern Europe to see who has benifited from the collaspe of Socialism. The Capitalist Class has benifited enormously from the collaspe of Socialism as it opened up billions of people and a third of the world's land and resources to be opened up to Market Exploitation. Capitalism now has a world hegemony and the pro-capitalists can now confidently point to the dissolution of the USSR as proof that Socialism doesn't work (even though it was capitalism that dissolved the USSR). The Capitalist Class were the ones who benifited from Gorbachev's actions and hence he was working in their class interest even if he thought he was doing otherwise.

This doesn't even make sense.. He never lied, he still calls himself a Marxist, Leninist, communist, but his views changed over time.. Why in gods name would Gorbachev introduce a policy which benefitted the capitalist class but not himself in one way or another? Doesn't make sense, what Gorbachev did was (according to himself at least), to introduce "Soviet democracy" (half of the seats elected through competitive elections, half of the seats appointed by the communist party), and increase workers democracy in companies (he introduced it in 1987ish I think).. Gorbachev wanted more democracy, the only problem was this; he was never able to solve the economic problems in the USSR (and, unlike Deng Xiaoping, he was more interested in the moral question then the economic question...)

Note, I've heard that some people here say Ligachev was better, but how? He supported all of Gorbachev's policies until the 19th Conference (and even officially endorsed the decision to introduce competitive elections...) .. No one in the Soviet elite supported the status quo (with the exception of the corrupt ones...) ... Alas, no one in the Politburo wanted a return to the Brezhnev era, or any era for that matter.. Most of the conservatives actually supported the Chinese position, using the market, since everyone knew the planned economy had failed)... You say no? Well you can lie to yourself all the way you like, but its a reason why no highstanding Soviet official actually seeks a return to the planned economy, no one does (since it was a failure)... The present-day communist parties of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia etc support introducing Chinese/Vietnamese reforms (that is, NEP policies). No one supports the reestablishment of hte planned economy, since, the planned economy wasn't as effective as capitalism (and frankly speaking, from what I read the Soviet GINI index was very close to countries like Sweden, Norway....)
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 02 Jun 2014, 17:23
Gorbachev has, in fact, openly identified with social-democracy. The July 1990 program of the CPSU was very obviously social-democratic in all but the slightest use of "communist" rhetoric: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cpsu-programm ... l?t=142763

What's important is that few of his policies were truly "original," most were just a further (one might say creative) development of the policies pursued by the Soviet revisionists since the 50s.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 03 Jun 2014, 02:52
Quote:
The revisionists took advantage of the postwar economic reconstruction to enact such measures, which had an opportunist content considering that they were bound up with the false claims that the USSR would achieve "communism" by 1980, that the state and party represented the interests of "the whole people" rather than first and foremost the working-class, that class struggle no longer existed in Soviet society, and that an abundance of consumer goods and out-competing the West in consumer goods production was what was important rather than proletarian revolution.

You are pretty much saying that the revisionists should be praised for enacting these easures at a time when Soviet society could actually enact them thanks to the policies laid down by Lenin and Stalin in prior decades.

As for the party maximum, it was abolished so that party members who worked in industry could take advantage of the same wage increases for greater work done as non-party workers.

Saying that inequality rose therefore Stalin was bad makes about as much sense as claiming the same thing about Lenin, since inequality obviously rose under the NEP as well (as compared to War Communism.) What actually matters is how this inequality manifests itself, and if it endangers the dictatorship of the proletariat. With the seizure of state power by the revisionists and the establishment of a new bourgeois dictatorship issues like wage disparities gave way to the much more fundamental problem of one class owning the means of production and exploiting the labor of another class.


Overall, agreed. There is no doubt that the revisionism of Khrushchev and those who followed him led directly to the rise of the Gorbachev and to Yeltsin himself along with the eventual collaspe of the Soviet Union. But to say that capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union in the 1960s is to badly overstates the case. If you think that Soviet socialism as it existed in the 1970s and even the 1980s was not worth fighting for, you should talk to more people who lived in Russia in the 1990s. I'm not saying that this is you're position. I'm just putting this out there as I do think a recovery of Socialism was possible in the Soviet Union untill Gorbachev took over as General Secretary of the CPSU.

Gorbachev was a Social Democat. Gorbachev established the Social Democratic Party of Russia in 1996, a union between several Russian social democratic parties. The party was banned in 2007 and Gorbachev founded a new political party, called the Union of Social Democrats. I doubt he was a Marxist-Leninist in 1991 but a Social Democrat in 1996.

If you looked at my statistics you'd realize that the major bone crushing economic depression only started in 1990. Untill then there was low but positive annual growth.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 03 Jun 2014, 11:22
Quote:
If you looked at my statistics you'd realize that the major bone crushing economic depression only started in 1990. Untill then there was low but positive annual growth.

Dude, learn economics.. That growth rate was far to low for a developing country like the Soviet Union. For the Soviet Union to overtake the rest of the capitalist world it needed at least 6 to 7 percent growth (probably around 8, 9 percent). That the growth rate was so low is just proof that the economy stagnated. That the economic crisis came to a head in 1990 is nothing knew, and was a cominbation of bad economic reforms, the sudden collapse in oil prices and so on; not everything can be blamed on Gorbachev, the international economic atmosphere was not very welcoming to the Soviet Union... Russia, in 2000, was nearly at the same position (economically speaking) as the USSR in 2000, but in grew rapidly, why? Oil prices skyrocketed.. In 1989 until the Putin era (lucky for Putin), oil prices were low (compared to what they normally had been). Another sign of Soviet economic weakness was that much of the growth was dependable on export of either weapons or natural resources (when they could not sell weapons and when the prices for natural resources plummeted, it hurt economic growth conisderable). This, in tandem, with not enough economic reforms led to the economic collapse. To say that it was better not doing anything, and let the system continue to rot is stupid. Everyone agreed in 1985, that something was going very wrong. Gorbachev was, as history has proven, not the man for the task, he failed.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 03 Jun 2014, 15:43
Quote:
Dude, learn economics.. That growth rate was far to low for a developing country like the Soviet Union. For the Soviet Union to overtake the rest of the capitalist world it needed at least 6 to 7 percent growth (probably around 8, 9 percent).

In other words, anything short of Chinese level growth rates is unacceptable? All the Soviet Union had to do to catch up to the United States was have growth higher than it. Granted, how much higher will determine how quickly it catches up. If it's only somewhat better than the US it will catch up later than if we have 9% growth. I will note that there was growth much much faster than this during Stalin's industrialization. It only began slowing down with the rise of the revisionist Khrushchev. If 2% annual GDP growth massive economic stagnation and is sufficient reason to betray you're country then the same should be true for the US as it's been growing for an average of 2% for the past 200 years.

Quote:
the international economic atmosphere was not very welcoming to the Soviet Union

Of coarse the international economic atmosphere was not welcome to the USSR, I don't know if you realize this but capitalist countries don't welcome Marxist-governments.

As for oil prices. Nope, sorry. It's widely agreed that the problems of the 1990s was because of the "shock therapy" and introduction to Capitalism by Yeltson. How many statistics do I have to provide in order to show that it was Gorbachev's reforms that caused the breakdown of the Soviet Economy. Untill then it was smoothly sailing at rates comparable to or greater than other capitalist nations and with far higher income equality and social services resulting from it.

Quote:
Everyone agreed in 1985, that something was going very wrong

Gorbachev and his other treasonous supporters agreed, Gorbachev, Yakolev, Shevardnadze, Yeltson etc. Many were supportive of some political and economic reforms of Gorbachev untill they realized he was not a Communist or Marxist-Leninist atall and infact a Social Democrat. A coup to save the country was attempted only for the it fail and the CPSU to be banned in August 1991. The acts taken by Gorbachev and his followers were treason, simple as that. Treason is betraying your country and trying to bring the downfall of the country which is precisely what Gorbachev attempted to do. He even wanted to liquidate the Soviet Union into a loose EU like entity called the "Union of Soveriegn States". Note how Soviet and Socialist were taken out of the name. That's betraying you're country. reviving Capitalism is betraying you're country. Allowing obvious revisionists and outright anti-communists to take over the governments of you and you're allies is being a traitor to not only you're government but all other socialist governments.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 03 Jun 2014, 16:51
Quote:
In other words, anything short of Chinese level growth rates is unacceptable? All the Soviet Union had to do to catch up to the United States was have growth higher than it. Granted, how much higher will determine how quickly it catches up. If it's only somewhat better than the US it will catch up later than if we have 9% growth. I will note that there was growth much much faster than this during Stalin's industrialization. It only began slowing down with the rise of the revisionist Khrushchev. If 2% annual GDP growth massive economic stagnation and is sufficient reason to betray you're country then the same should be true for the US as it's been growing for an average of 2% for the past 200 years.

If you want to spend 70years surpassing the United States then yes, a growth rate of 5 percent will do. but if you talk about surpassing in the close future (as the Soviets said they would), the growth rate they had wasn't nearly enough....

Quote:
Of coarse the international economic atmosphere was not welcome to the USSR, I don't know if you realize this but capitalist countries don't welcome Marxist-governments.

As for oil prices. Nope, sorry. It's widely agreed that the problems of the 1990s was because of the "shock therapy" and introduction to Capitalism by Yeltson. How many statistics do I have to provide in order to show that it was Gorbachev's reforms that caused the breakdown of the Soviet Economy. Untill then it was smoothly sailing at rates comparable to or greater than other capitalist nations and with far higher income equality and social services resulting from it.

I'm talking about oil prices, the prices of natural resources... Really, the international environment isn't friendly towards the Saudi monarchies or China, but they still succeed.... This is extremely simplistic..

Learn you're history, shock therapy was introduced after the Soviet Union collapsed, it was not introduced by Gorbachev. Under Gorbachev, the state still owned 97 percent of the economy (if thats shock therapy you clearly don't know what shock therapy is...)

Quote:
Gorbachev and his other treasonous supporters agreed, Gorbachev, Yakolev, Shevardnadze, Yeltson etc. Many were supportive of some political and economic reforms of Gorbachev untill they realized he was not a Communist or Marxist-Leninist atall and infact a Social Democrat. A coup to save the country was attempted only for the it fail and the CPSU to be banned in August 1991. The acts taken by Gorbachev and his followers were treason, simple as that.


So pretty much everyone the Brezhnev generation appointed to top leadership positions were traitious? It does explain why the system went so badly, there were so few hardliners that the hardliners didn't have a choice but to appoint traitors.. You're logical is, well.. You sound stupid with you're reasoning... THe coup plotters of 1991 supported Chinese style reforms; Yanayev loved China., they even told the Chinese of the coup before it happened. But you don't like China's current economic system do you? So Gorbachev was a capitalist roader, but he never introduced capitalism, but those people who tried to illegally force him from power, and who wanted more economic liberalization, are you heroes? Were is you're logic. Were have you read this from? Soviet-nostalgia.com? It wouldn't surprise.

Quote:
Treason is betraying your country and trying to bring the downfall of the country which is precisely what Gorbachev attempted to do. He even wanted to liquidate the Soviet Union into a loose EU like entity called the "Union of Soveriegn States". Note how Soviet and Socialist were taken out of the name. That's betraying you're country. reviving Capitalism is betraying you're country. Allowing obvious revisionists and outright anti-communists to take over the governments of you and you're allies is being a traitor to not only you're government but all other socialist governments.

He didn't seek the country's downfall; he even regrets its downfall.... Why would he go around saying (as he know does) that the world community never helped him during the 1990s if he sought the Soviet Union's destruction? Logic again is not there... He did not want to create a new union, he was forced; remember that the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of the People's Deputies had a majority of communist deputies (and they still voted for a referendum, and still removed the clause which gave the CPSU a monopoly of power).. Yeeh; things went bad, not even the communists believed that it would be wise to give the CPSU a monopoly of political power... He never revived capitalism. Russia was still state-controlled economy after the USSR collapsed. Again, where do you read these things? Whats you're definition of revisionist? Everyone who opposes the status quo? It was thinking which led to Gorbachev's rise to power in the first place; instead of discussing things, all form of opposition (even party members with different views) were oppressed.

I wonder, have you ever read a history book? Do you know what Marxism is? Because from what I'm reading I'm hearing only accusation and factual inaccuracies .. And answer this; does there exist another country (in history), in which a leader betrays his own country (when its in a superior position militarity?) No, and its a reason for that - no one would do that. It wouldn't be rationale. Whats more clear to me is this, you're rationalizations are not rationale at all (not even close....)
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 03 Jun 2014, 17:50
Quote:
He never revived capitalism. Russia was still state-controlled economy after the USSR collapsed.
Are you implying that Yeltsin's Russia wasn't capitalist?
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 03 Jun 2014, 18:41
Quote:
Are you implying that Yeltsin's Russia wasn't capitalist?

I'm saying that when Yeltsin inherited Russia (after the Soviet Union collapsed), the country still had a state-owned economy, but Yeltsin initiated shock therapy. What I'm saying is this; Yeltsin introduced shock therapy, not Gorbachev.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 04 Jun 2014, 02:33
Gorbachev sabotaged the Economy, Logistics and Distribution apparatus with Perestroika and turned the Media from a Socialist Organ into a Hateful Anti Soviet Propoganda System.

He cut the Brakes and Emptied the Fueltank before letting Yeltsin take the Wheel.

The DDR could have been supported, the Nationalist scum in the Baltics could have been crushed, the Last Five Year Plan could have been followed and if all else failed then Gorby should have been given a nice Airbubble via Hypodermic whilst attempting emergency aid when he fell ill on his Holiday.
"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."
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 04 Jun 2014, 08:31
Quote:
Gorbachev sabotaged the Economy, Logistics and Distribution apparatus with Perestroika and turned the Media from a Socialist Organ into a Hateful Anti Soviet Propoganda System.

Source? I mean it's probably true to an extent but still i'd like to read more about this. Soviet78 wrote something along those lines but i can't find it anymore.

Quote:
He cut the Brakes and Emptied the Fueltank before letting Yeltsin take the Wheel.

Well the USSR was near complete bankruptcy by the time Boris took over, even Moscow was threatened with starvation. So there's that.

Quote:
The DDR could have been supported, the Nationalist scum in the Baltics could have been crushed, the Last Five Year Plan could have been followed and if all else failed then Gorby should have been given a nice Airbubble via Hypodermic whilst attempting emergency aid when he fell ill on his Holiday.

The DDR fell apart completely without a shot fired. How can you support a country whose population wasn't going to tolerate the SED anymore?
About the Baltics, pretty much everyone there was pro-independence ( except maybe the Russian immigrants ). And the Soviet Army and police did kill some border guards and so on there, even storming a TV tower and killing some journalists but to no effect. The last 5 YP probably failed even before it was written up.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron