Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
Forum Index » Discussion » Votes & Polls » why do you think that the soviet union dissolved? [ Go to page ][ 1, 2 ][ Next ]
 05 May 2012, 08:06
I think the biggest reason is the radical nationalism especailly in the baltics
05 May 2012, 16:02
The main reason, according to me, is that there was a gap between the level of education and what job people could expect to obtain. So there was frustration in the Soviet society. The second reason is that there was too much democracy in the USSR, as Chernenko said.
 "Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur 05 May 2012, 16:53
First of all, it's important to note that the USSR was destroyed by a combination of erroneous policy (Gorbachev) and conscious work to dismantle the country (Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, Yeltsin and republican 'presidents', etc.). Gorbachev 'reformed' the economy into the ground, creating deficits for literally everything by 1989, while simultaneously unleashing forces hostile not only to socialism, but to the idea of the union itself through the reform of the political system (new Congress of People's Deputies, destruction of the Central Committee's powers, creation of a national and republican level presidential system). Yakovlev's real hatred for everything the USSR stood for wasn't revealed until later, but he used his position in the Propaganda Department of the CC to unleash a destructive ideological war against socialism and the USSR, appointing many outright counterrevolutionaries in important positions in the academia, the media, and the artistic unions, and convincing the mass intelligentsia (50 million people) and much of the population at large that the entirety of the Soviet experience and everything people had struggled for was a bloody mistake. Shevardnadze worked on the foreign policy front, destroying 40 years of careful diplomacy, abandoning all of the USSR's old allies, ending the USSR's status as a base for socialism in the world, and giving up strategic positions for verbal hints of promises (for example that after the absorption of East Germany into West NATO would not move any further east). Yeltsin and co. -the actual people responsible for signing away the USSR, were merely the result of several years of intense anti-socialist and anti-Soviet warfare on almost every front of activity -social, economic, political. That is why I put 'other'.
"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
05 May 2012, 21:19
A combination of all these things were responsible for the USSR's dissolution. Ultimately it was the Soviet Union's stagnant economy that gave way to its downfall. People had lost faith in the government's ability to fix the growing economic problems, giving way to nationalism and splitting the USSR into 15 separate states.
The arms race, corruption, and nationalism all hastened its downfall.  We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev 05 May 2012, 21:50
Soviet wrote: But you see, the growing economic problems were the result of the reform effort, which upon even cursory appraisal was extremely ill-planned and carried out. The so-called era of stagnation, despite its problems, is probably the most fondly remembered part of Soviet history, if not Russian history as a whole. Also, when you say 'people lost faith', it's important that what an individual thinks and feels is very often largely irrelevant to the social order if there is no voice to speak on his behalf in a public and political manner. Hence people were made to lose faith because precisely at the same time that economic reform was driving the economy into the ground, political reform made it possible for nationalists to voice chauvinist and separatist views. Even more than that, Yakovlev's propaganda apparatus was destroying the historical, cultural and social pillars upon which Soviet socialism rested through intense information warfare, moving the collective outlook of the mass intelligentsia toward liberalism while undermining and demoralizing CPSU loyalists and their supporters from among the working masses. As I've said before, I've often pondered whether any society could withstand the economic, political and social pressures experienced in the USSR in the late 1980s. Of course this is all hypothetical, since the bourgeoisie have few class traitors among their upper ranks, and the ones that do get through are marketed ala Che Guevara to kids rebelling against their parents, the political impact of their artistic or academic efforts thus largely defused. "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
05 May 2012, 22:01
Treason and plot, mostly.
Capitalist roaders viciously exploited people's desire for a less restrictive government in order to push forward treasonous capitalist-roader policy. Unfortunately, the system lacked effective checks on traitorous apparatchicks, and the shit hit the fan. Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
06 May 2012, 01:16
I have two articles originally written in spanish but that I translated in Google (you might find some errors) which are definitely appropriate for this thread. Regarding the poll, there were many reasons for the fall of USSR and every one of the mentioned contributed for it. However, after reading these two articles I'm more inclined to say that was an internal push from the head of the system to bring down the economy and the country to the total collapse, clearly influenced and supported by the USA. As you know a restricted group of persons benefited a lot from the fall of the USSR becoming billionaires overnight while others benefited from a political point of view such as Yeltsin, the Russian president highly supported by the USA Government.
The shortage in the USSR was created in an artificial way The shortage was created in a conscious, artificial, but not at the stage of production, but in the sphere of distribution. The aim was to create social tension in the country. Valentina Rushnikova | Pravda | 20/11/2011 at 7:25 | 1467 reads | 21 comments www.kaosenlared.net / news / shortages-USSR-think-so-artificial 20 years ago, the destroyers of the Land of the Soviets managed to complete the coup and begin the restoration of capitalism in our country. Long before 1991 and had created and was fully operational "fifth column", progressively instilled in the consciousness of people disrespect for the socialist way of life, often causing problems in an artificial way. Not only operated the anti-Soviet propaganda, which made use of certain difficulties of the socialist system, was also up sabotaging activity, hidden until now. One of the main directions to exacerbate the tension in society was the artificial creation of problems related to the supply of consumer goods, primarily food products. Since the mid-80's in many cities and towns became scarce food products in many windows of stores, not just the delicious, but also dairy products. It was a process that was growing from year to year, with the exception of the capital, where the variety of food products remained at a decent level. This bias in favor of Moscow on supplies of food items, generated many problems. Began arriving in the capital flows of people coming from regions near the capital, and even more remote regions of the country. The system travels to the capital to get stuffed, the endless queues at shops, exhausted and motivated people discontent with the situation, both among the Muscovites, and among those who came from outside. That was what they wanted the "foremen of perestroika." Thus, for the current critics of the Soviet period, the main argument against socialism ─ after the "Stalinist repression" ─ was the alleged widespread shortage of food products and other consumer goods. But those same critics fail to mention, on purpose, the real cause of that shortage. For example, in 1987 the volume of production of the food industry, in comparison with the indicators 1980, had grown to 130%. In the meat industry, this growth compared ─ ─ 1980 was 135%, in the dairy industry was 131% in the fish of 132% and the derivative of the flour, of a 123%. In that same period, the population growth was 6.7% while the average wage in the economy grew on average by 19%. Consequently, the production of food in our country was way ahead of population growth and purchasing power. All companies in the food industry working at full capacity, they were guaranteed supplies of agricultural products and other raw materials necessary for its operation and workforce. Mean that the development of food industry in any way could be the cause of the scarcity of gender in grocery stores. Therefore it should only take a deduction: the shortage was generated in a conscious, artificial, but not at the stage of production, but in the sphere of distribution. The aim was to create social tension in the country. By the way, that our generation remembers well the program "600 seconds". In it, in 1990, reports were quite eloquent on how you destroyed sausage, butter, oil and other products that were deficient in that time. In one of the publications of the time, the then mayor of Moscow and now adviser to the mayor (!), Gabriel Popov, recognized those cases where food products are destroyed in order to create scarcity in the city. The press reported how they had stopped in unison, to be repaired, all companies producing snuff, and detergent. In general we still do not know their names, still in shadow, the instigators, organizers and executors of that economic sabotage. It remains a mystery how and in what direction is no such huge amount of food products. The few publications that are available on the subject, only give rise to presuppose how the shortage was generated. The sabotage was successful and the capitalist mode came to replace the socialist mode of production. Bourgeois propaganda continuously deliberates on the windows full of products in stores and on the abundance of food products. One might think that the shortages are resolved. But how? Since then it has not been through the development of the agribusiness sector, but by the importation of foreign food products and ─ and this is the main ─ due to low purchasing power of the population. The shortage remains, only a hidden mode. Furthermore imports are from outside (except for those from Belarus) are of a more than doubtful, he would never have admitted to the USSR. Compared to the Soviet period, has worsened significantly the quality of domestic production. To replace natural materials arrived substitutes, additions and equivalents. The result has decreased product quality in taste. Often food production is not entirely safe for consumer health. The number of products that meet the quality requirements of the state has fallen dramatically. Have been replaced by technical conditions. The fall of the USSR: the myth of economic collapse Increasingly, scholars, experts in their fields, are rethinking many widespread views about the Soviet Union. One of the most widespread myths is that of economic collapse, and also one of those being most challenged ... David Kotz - Fred Weir | East Wind | 09.01.2011 at 8:44 | 2442 reads | 20 comments www.kaosenlared.net / news / drop-USSR-myth-economic collapse Increasingly, scholars, experts in their fields, are rethinking many widespread views about the Soviet Union. One of the most widespread myths is that of economic collapse, and also one of those being questioned. According to this myth, the fall of the USSR would have been the result primarily of a brutal economic crisis (for the inefficiency of the system). However, both in Russia and beyond, many think that the fall of the USSR was not much to do with a supposed economic crisis, but rather, it was a process initiated by the elite of the USSR itself, and economic crisis would not the cause of reform, but the consequence of them, even if used as an excuse. This is a fairly widespread in Russia (see for example studies of Kara-Murza and others, some of them even translated into Spanish), but is also shared by others. Here for example I present the summary of an article by David Kotz and Fred Wair, published in Hungarian "Eszmélet" left ("Conscience"). The article is a summary of his book "Revolution from above: the demise of the Soviet system" (read it partially on the Internet here in English, I have not done it yet). Regarding the article, I disagree with everything that both authors discuss but generally I find very interesting analysis. The authors start from the idea, trying to demonstrate in his text, that although the USSR had serious economic problems, no indication that there is danger of economic collapse, and indeed this did not occur until the country's elites destroyed the economic system existing. It was the country's undemocratic structure that caused the catastrophe, not the planned economy. They start talking about Soviet planning and its history: Since 1917 the Bolsheviks tests various ways in terms of economic structure. Only in the 20 arises what has been called "the Soviet system." Was characterized by all non-agricultural enterprises were socially owned and were led, ultimately, by a central institution in Moscow. Despite this, the Soviet economy achieved high growth and rapid development. Many think that this rapid growth was achieved by the measures Stalinist repression by certain sections of society, and the difficult living conditions. But the authors say it was quite the opposite, that the Stalinist regime slowed economic growth, which could have been much larger than it actually was. Between 1928 and 75 the Soviet economy grew at a rate of 5.1% per year. Between 1950 and 75, when the economy was already industrialized Soviet economic growth remained high, even more than the U.S.. The Soviet system had many advantages over capitalism: for example full employment, the possibility of using corporate profits massively in the development of education and training, and also was not affected by the periodic crises of capitalism. Not everything can be measured by GDP or economic growth, but by 1975, the country was behind the USSR had become an economic powerhouse in many ways competing with the U.S., and some even exceeded them (see for example the space race). In 1960 half of all Soviet families had radio, TV and 10% in 25 refrigerator, in 1985 families had all of these appliances. In 1980 the USSR had more doctors and hospital beds than the U.S.. On the 70 scientific, technological and economic of the USSR was followed with alarm the Western powers. Many thought the future would be the Soviet regime because of its great achievements, despite their negative traits. However, since 1975 the Soviet economy disrupts the rapid development that had until then. And technological progress also stops. For the first time in a decade, the U.S. economy is growing faster than the Soviet. In addition, the arms race, reinforced by the Reagan administration, severely affected the Soviet economy. In 1985 Gorbachev came to power, is the recognition of the elite led by the USSR, that reforms are needed. But his reforms did not bring an improvement of the situation and production continued to be subdued. Between 1985 and 1989 the average Soviet economic growth was 2.2% instead of 1.8% between 1975 and 1985. But since 1975 there has never been negative growth, while in the U.S. it was in three years. By the end of the 80 commodity shortage is accentuated. For Western analysts, this meant the first signs of collapse, but the explanation was another reason was that the family income had increased much more than the production of consumer goods, that were to blame for the economic reforms that had decentralized production and control were no longer income. Thus, if the mid-80's the family income grew by 3-4% annually in 1988 jumps to 9.1% in 1989 to 12.8%. But while prices, which had been set yet by the central institutions, did not change much of anything. So people found a lot of money in the hands that want to spend as soon as possible and then it turned out that the stores were completely empty. In fact consumption continued to grow. It is true that the Soviet economy did not get a remarkable growth in the 80's, but that image of economic collapse is false. However, in 1990 and 1991 is another matter. Gorbachev is losing power against Yeltsin. In May 1990, Yeltsin took power in the Russian Federation and tried to accumulate all the power in their hands and take him away from the Soviet authorities. This economic planning institutions were no real power and the Soviet economy, which was a homogeneous whole, began to decompose rapidly. This is important to highlight: the crisis did not come by the inability of the planned economy, but it was removed by the planned economy and the economy was no effective means of coordination. The elite choose capitalism: How is it possible that the Soviet regime fell without apparent internal opposition? Gorbachev and his circle believed that the main problem of the Soviet regime was the lack of democracy. Thus develops the perestroika (restructuring, reconstruction). In the country there are three focus groups (had more but they were minor): supporters of the reforms, in favor of keeping the system as such, and those who radically rejected communism. It imposed the anti-Communist, led by Yeltsin, especially since it won the support of the country's elites. Studies of Alec Nove, Farmer, Mathews and others show that after the Second World War was the Soviet elite social stratum defined ambitious and unprincipled. They cared only power and personal gain. In 1991 many members of this elite openly acknowledged that they were not Communists, but were in the Communist Party. This breed of opportunists assessed their options with the arrival of Gorbachev's reforms. Not benefited Gorbachev's democratic socialism and very few members of this elite supported the advocacy groups back the old system. Although this was the system that gave them power, while it limited, for example did not allow private ownership and therefore the accumulation of property. When in 1991 there is a coup attempt against the reforms, this fails because the elite positions in favor of Yeltsin. This elite was eager to get the position it enjoyed in the West. And he understood that his position as new capitalists in the country offered many advantages. For example happened with Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russian prime minister between 1992 and 1998, during the Soviet era had been minister of production and gas treatment. Today is one of the richest men in the world and major shareholder of Gazprom. According to an analysis of the 100 leading businessmen from Russia, 62 were members of the Communist elite, 38 come from the black economy and the world of crime. A June 1991 study of American politicóloga Judith Kullberg, shows that 77% of the upper classes favored Soviet capitalism, while 12% of democratic socialism and 10% of "communism or nationalism." According to a 1991 study by an American foundation in European Russia, 10% of the population wanted a return to pre-reform system, 36% were in favor of democratic socialism, 23% Swedish social democratic model, and only 17% wanted a system similar to American or German capitalism. Ie, 69% wanted some form of socialism. Other studies and surveys show even lower rate of support to Western capitalism. The reformists dominated the Soviet structures of power, the capitalists instead dominated the Russians, so his main goal was to somehow destroy the USSR. However, the referendum of 1991 showed that most of the population was against something. The article also mentions interesting facts about the economy of the USSR: Economic Growth 1928-1975: 1928-40: USSR-US-5.8% 1.7% 1940-50: USSR-US-2.2% 4.5% 1950-70: USSR-US-4.8% 2.9% 1975-85: USSR-US-1.8% 2.9% Source: The Real National Income of Soviet Russia since 1928, Abraham Bergson, 1961, Measures of Soviet National Product in 1982 Prices, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. Soviet economic growth between 1986-91 1986: 4.1% 1987: 1.3% 1988: 2.1% 1989: 1.5% 1990: -2.4% 1991: -12.8% Sources: Measures of Soviet National Product in 1982 Prices, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. Article Source: http://www.freeweb.hu/eszmelet/38/kotzweir38.html "If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
06 May 2012, 02:40
JAM wrote: This exposes how much of an abject fraud bourgeois democracy is. In a population composed by 60% social-democrats, 10% communists and 30% traitors, somehow the traitors kept gaining power each and every goddamn time. What a shameless farce! Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
06 May 2012, 02:42
Quote: Thanks JAM, excellent articles. With regard to why Gorbachev and co. decided on this 'internal push', I think your point about distinguishing various actors' motivations is important. In the case of someone like Yeltsin, money, as much as power, played a very important role, given the largess and corruption during his presidency with 'the family'. With people like Gorbachev and Yakovlev, ideological goals and ambitions were more important I think, Gorbachev dreaming of some idealized form of social democracy (and of a role for himself as the freer of Russia and unifier of the world in peace) while Yakovlev was just a (counter)revolutionary who had no ambition but to destroy a system which he intensely hated for many decades while two-facedly singing its praises. Valentina Rushnikova's point about artificial shortages is definitely something to be considered in addition to the other factors that brought the economy to a standstill, and it's something that is still only rarely found in most academic literature I've seen about the collapse. I've seen a couple of those '600 Seconds' programs on youtube, and they show the trainloads of spoiled goods. I'm not 100% certain, but I think the idea of a fifth column within the economy is only part of the story, accounted for by black marketeers seeking higher prices through shortages, and counterrevolutionaries within the leadership (including people like Gavril Popov) who wanted to 'prove the inefficiency' of socialist economics. Part of it too can be accounted for through the elimination of party control over local economic decision-making, occurring after the 1988 Party Conference, which literally ripped the roots out from underneath the economic system, given that these party managers were real regional economic managers responsible for ensuring that production quotas were met, that enterprises had all the necessary components, and that they had a means by which to distribute their finished products. "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
06 May 2012, 02:45
Thr crucial question, of course , is how the hell did it come to this? When did these people take up their positions? Who supported them?
I mean we can see that the CPSU was swarming with outright counterrevolutionaries by the 80s. How did they manage to worm themselves in? 06 May 2012, 03:40
Two-facedness played a huge role, I'd say. When looking up work by Yakovlev, I found one which I believe was called 'On the Edge of an Abyss: From Truman to Reagan", published in 1985, and in it is basically an extreme, even absurdly hateful rant about the United States, its foreign policy, how it treated natives and blacks, etc. Then there was personal patronage and friendship. Gorbachev became very close friends with Andropov when he was first secretary of Stavropol, which had some excellent health resorts which some members of the top leadership visited. As a good apparatchik, Gorbachev would always take care to check up on the leaders personally, to get name recognition going and to build contacts. Among them was of course his contact and eventual friendship with Andropov. What could they have talked about in terms of politics? Probably that the country needed new blood in the leadership, that corruption needed to be cracked down on, that pragmatism rather than dogmatism should guide policy. I've read that they loved to sit around a camp fire, that they sang together, and that they had very friendly personal relations. Other than that it's a matter of speculation as to what they actually talked about, and whether Andropov was a secret liberal (as it is now posh to say among some circles in Russia). It is true that he consulted with some prominent liberal-leaning intellectuals, but he was also imprisoning, exiling and expelling anti-Soviet agitators at the same time.
"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
Soviet cogitations: 694
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol 06 May 2012, 10:12
Other: the slow eroding and dissolution of the Socialist system since 1953, when revisionism became part of the state ideology of the Soviet Union.
 "Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics." Me 06 May 2012, 12:32
Andropov is unjustly caricaturized as a conservative and a hardliner in the West... But he was no Chernenko. He was actually a moderate reformer. He'd been the least heavy-handed, smartest KGB chief in a long time, and he much preferred finesse and subtle manipulation and maneuvering to cracking skulls open. Although he was a bonafide communist, he was probably sympathetic to some of Gorbachev's most palatable policy proposals: (another thaw, making the economy more participatory, cracking down on corruption, that kinda stuff) Gorbachev had not yet decided to put an outright anticommunist to lead Soviet propaganda, so Andropov had no way to know. The KGB, for all its successes, was not prescient.
Gorbachev had supported the Brezhnev doctrine and Soviet policy in general to that time, expressing only marginal reservations and not going into outright opposition. Andropov had no reason to suspect Gorby was anything else than a moderate reformer... So he didn't. It's possible that he realized during his later days, as Gorby got more brash on his Soc-Dem deviation... But Comrade Yuri was gravely ill by that time, and he might've had little chance to stop'im. Gorby's vagueness and vapidness should have raised a few red flags: Andropov just assumed it was due to Gorby's youth, idealism and inexperience, something that'd get ironed out as he aged and learnt Politburo-level politics. Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
06 May 2012, 22:09
Why when the topic of the USSR dissolution is approached there is no minimal reference to the referendum held in 1991 to ask the soviet people if they wanted to maintain the USSR or not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Uni ... ndum,_1991 The turnout was huge and the support for the maintenance of the USSR was overwhelming. The results weren't even contested by the opposition. "If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
07 May 2012, 08:34
Voted "Arms Race" although all of these played a factor. The high amount of spending was very detrimental.
Soviet cogitations: 113
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Jul 2009, 21:32 Ideology: Democratic Socialism Pioneer 07 May 2012, 21:24
Voted 'Other'
I agree with Soviet78's posts, but to point out, I specifically blame the 91 coup attempt made by the hard-liners on the actual dissolution of the union. Revisionism, both de-stalinisation earlier and later on Gorbachev's reforms were instrumental in the decline of socialism and breaking off the solidarity between the working class of the republics, but I believe some sort of a union would have survived if that coup attempt never happened, or if it was successful. 07 May 2012, 22:04
Re: Arms race:
Please take a look at these articles using googletranslate to see how erroneous it is to presume that military expenditure had a role in the collapse of the country: http://tinyurl.com/7dq4686 http://clubs.ya.ru/4611686018427398066/replies.xml?item_no=348107 -> Both articles actually mention that the extreme exaggerations of spending were a part of the information war being waged from within against the Soviet regime, making it clear that the appearance of intolerably high spending played a more important role than the spending levels themselves. newsovietunion, I think that the coup was destined to fail, largely because it was led by the mostly ineffective group of apparatchiks (Oleg Shenin excluded) which Gorbachev himself had promoted to ensure that someone stronger than himself wouldn't emerge to challenge him. By 1991 the CPSU was effectively smashed, nationalist and liberal politicians grew their authority every day and the black marketeers and street gangs had emerged as a real economic (and hence social and political) force. The reason that the coup attempt occurred when it did was because Gorbachev's cabinet got a hold of the secret negotiations between Gorbachev and the republican and regional 'presidents' for the new union treaty, which had been leaked in the press. These secret discussions revealed that in addition to republics, every region and down to the oblast level in some cases would have republican level powers over everything from taxation to health, policing, etc., basically creating over a hundred semi-states within the state (with the CPSU banned from many institutions, such as the army, in the RSFSR and elsewhere). Some contemporary analysts note that if this treaty had gone through, not only the USSR but the Russian Federation and some other republics would be embroiled in civil war, perhaps to the point of national destruction, since those that found power lying on the side of the road would not be likely to give it up easily. In the midst of chaos worse than what occurred historically, there is little doubt that the US, the emergent EU and China would step in to 'restore order' and in the case of the West, 'to protect human rights'. I would say that the point of no return was reached in 1990, where like an idiot, Gorbachev took up the presidency basically signing away most of his duties and responsibility to the republican level 'presidents', who proceed to challenge and fight him for every imaginable form of authority. The critical point for the preservation of Marxist-Leninist socialism had already come as early as early summer 1988, where the socialist economy was effectively smashed and conservative members of the Politburo and Central Committee were forcibly retired at the May-June Party Conference. Not many know about this, but during the closing days of the Conference Gorbachev had put the Moscow Military District on full alert in anticipation of resistance that never came. "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
10 May 2012, 04:21
What soviet78 and JAM said.
loz wrote: The problem has been around since the history of parties (in the Leninist sense of the word). You read Marten's Another View of Stalin? A major theme is the various factions within the CPSU. Even after the Stalin era, Khrushcheve continued periodic purges. Problems started to arise after purging slowed down with Brezhnev. Throughout the party's existence secret police infiltration, careerism out right counter revolutionaries, ect. have all been in the party.  "Don't hate on me bro" - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 808
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2007, 18:04 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol 10 May 2012, 10:30
OP-Bagration wrote: This sounds interesting to me. Could you elaborate? The fall of the USSR was a mixture of internal and external political problems and economic problems, hastened by the disastrous leadership of the late 80s (Gorbachev, a social-democrat). The combination of a weak social-democrat like Gorbachev, and an outspoken anti-worker conservative on the other side, Reagan, let to the destruction of the entire system in only 5 years. Terror without virtue is fatal; virtue without terror is impotent.
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
Forum Index » Discussion » Votes & Polls » why do you think that the soviet union dissolved? [ Go to page ][ 1, 2 ][ Next ]
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
