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

Top 5 mistakes the Soviet Union made.

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9280
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 09 Sep 2008, 22:57
Quote:
Yeltsin's Tenure was after the collapse of the USSR.


He was CPSU member until he got expelled from the party, and "President of the RSFSR" after the 1991 elections. Russia was also the first country to declare independence from the USSR because he wanted more power for himself.
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
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 10 Sep 2008, 03:09
But how are these two men mistakes the Soviet Union made? I thought we were talking about policy decisions here.
"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: 4698
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jun 2005, 23:41
Politburo
Post 10 Sep 2008, 03:46
1. Stalin's failure to take Khrushchev seriously enough to have him shot.
Image

Winner of the Who Is My Baby's Daddy? Mazenov Award
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 258
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Dec 2006, 18:59
Komsomol
Post 10 Sep 2008, 10:48
Quote:
Quote:
4. Boris Yeltsin


Yeltsin's Tenure was after the collapse of the USSR.


He was a trouble maker reformer. The mistake the USSR made was ending purges of such counter-revolutionaries.

RE
The revolution will come!
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 11 Sep 2008, 04:43
Actually I heard Gorbachev say in an interview that he regrets not removing Yeltsin from his position and placing him as an embassador to some country.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 63
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Aug 2008, 03:01
Pioneer
Post 14 Sep 2008, 19:17
Quote:
I have to disagree with this. Stalin's institutional distortions to real Soviet power needed to be ended. The problem was the way Kruschev and his clique used De-Stalinisation as an excuse to push through economic-
liberalisation from which it never recovered.


No, that's what I meant. Khrushchev's approach led the Soviet Union down a self-destructive path.
That, and Khrushchev himself had good things to say about Stalin..until he died.
"Institutional distortions" is also rather vague..Those were turbulent times with the Great Patriotic War and such.
Khrushchev and post-Khrushchev were the worst of the "institutional distortions'.

Yeah, there were problems with how they approached Afghanistan..but they did extremely well for a while, until America stepped in to fund Mujaheddin. They had strong ties in terms of trade and the Soviet Union had a lot to do with Afghanistan's development.
Well, I won't rant about that because i would assume you support the social reforms allowing women greater freedom and such..

Gorbachev says a lot of things..

I recall spotting a headline on the news once..
"Gorbachev: Collapse of the Soviet Union Was a Mistake"
Didn't seem like much of a mistake when he declared it..I briefly skipped through a paper that claimed the collapse due to such reforms was "unintentional". Even if that were the case..it would be a pretty obvious effect with all the reforms he was making.

Looks pretty silly, after collapsing such a large alliance of Socialist republics.."Oops, did I do that?!"

We should do another thread: "Top 5 Mistakes of the United States"
.
"Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."-Antonio Gramsci
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 14 Sep 2008, 22:46
Quote:
Gorbachev says a lot of things..

I recall spotting a headline on the news once..
"Gorbachev: Collapse of the Soviet Union Was a Mistake"
Didn't seem like much of a mistake when he declared it..I briefly skipped through a paper that claimed the collapse due to such reforms was "unintentional". Even if that were the case..it would be a pretty obvious effect with all the reforms he was making.

Gorbachev is trying to twist the whole story of the fall of the Soviet Union. He says that it was unintentional but then he says in present day Russia people have glasnost and they are free to travel where they like. And because of that he doesn't consider perestroika and glasnost as a failure. He applauds Russia in one interview and in another he condemns it.
Quote:
We should do another thread: "Top 5 Mistakes of the United States" .

How about top 100,000 mistakes?
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 63
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Aug 2008, 03:01
Pioneer
Post 15 Sep 2008, 00:49
Quote:
How about top 100,000 mistakes?


Yeah, no kidding.
We could get that many without including the mistakes of their lackeys on the international level (Israel, Pinochet, Saddam, the Taliban, and unfortunately even more so these days, Canada).
"Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."-Antonio Gramsci
Soviet cogitations: 7
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Oct 2008, 21:25
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 16 Oct 2008, 04:24
1.Not preparing for World War 2, when Hitler stated that he would invade.
2.The failure of the 3rd Five-Year Plan (Consumer Goods)
3.Soviet-Afghan War (Destroyed the last thing that the Soviet People had pride in: their army)
4.Not co-operating with the West after the war
5.Sino-Soviet Split

I believe that Glasnost and Perestroika were good decisions and the Soviet People deserved more freedom and justice, but it could have been managed MUCH better and happened more smoothly.
Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot.
Vladimir Lenin
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 16 Oct 2008, 19:08
Quote:
1.Not preparing for World War 2, when Hitler stated that he would invade.

Hitler never stated that he would invade. Ever heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Quote:
4.Not co-operating with the West after the war

Actually both sides are guilty of non cooperation
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 16 Oct 2008, 19:29
1 - Stifling the spirit of Bolshevism through excessive purges of inner party opposition, thus condemning the SU in the eyes of many left sympathisers.

2 - Not allowing foreign CPs enough independence

3 - Ridiculous twists and turns in Comintern policy

4 - Sino-Soviet Split

5 - Perestroika
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 17 Oct 2008, 02:48
Quote:
2 - Not allowing foreign CPs enough independence

To me dominance over other Communist parties was necessary as long as there was a Cold War. Yugoslavia and Albania rejected Soviet dominance. As almost Hungary did. Neutrality would only bring instability to the socialist movement.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 17 Oct 2008, 03:20
I was referring to the CPs in the 20's/30s really.

When they stopped being able to gave Marxist criticisms of the SU and opposing individual policies while retaining a stance of support, this turned non SU CPs on to the back foot, constantly having to defend Soviet actions as opposed to mobilising effectively.

Witness the hilarious U-Turns made by my own party (Communist Party of Britain, then of Great Britain) with their attitudes towards WWII.
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 17 Oct 2008, 03:22
Quote:
To me dominance over other Communist parties was necessary as long as there was a Cold War. Yugoslavia and Albania rejected Soviet dominance. As almost Hungary did. Neutrality would only bring instability to the socialist movement.


Why shouldn't native CPs be able to dictate their own policies? Based on their own national conditions?

Tell me. Do the words "Proletarian Democracy" mean ANYTHING to you?

Trotskyists fail with their ideas of some cumbersome international dictating every move of CPs, while Stalinists fail with their Soviet Union centric stance.

The foreign CPs were deprived of initiative and verve by constantly having to defend the twists and turns of Soviet Policy, while they should have been using their strength in more useful pursuits.

Workers will not be convinced by saying "Look how GREAT Russia is/was", they need to be told that we can set our own feet on the revolutionary path, as equals, not servants, to the Soviet Union.
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 17 Oct 2008, 19:12
Quote:
Why shouldn't native CPs be able to dictate their own policies? Based on their own national conditions?

CP's should follow the Soviet policy because there were not industrialized, a military superpower. I'm not saying that the Soviet Union should take control of all socialist countries, but until they're industrialized and on their feet.
The Cold War should also bring common sense as to why the USSR needed control. Just as the U.S. took control, but under more violent terms.

Quote:
The foreign CPs were deprived of initiative and verve by constantly having to defend the twists and turns of Soviet Policy, while they should have been using their strength in more useful pursuits.

What strengths did these parties have after WWII? Without the help of the USSR, the Western Powers would've been in control. Aren't communists supposed to rally together and overthrow the bourgeoise? Or should they be split and have their own ideas, getting nowhere? Take this forum for example... If we were all part of our own communist party we'd get nowhere.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 19 Oct 2008, 12:41
Quote:
CP's should follow the Soviet policy because there were not industrialized, a military superpower


East Germany and Czecheslovakia? Czecheslovakia and Yugoslavia effected their own workers revolutions with the aid of the advancing red army, but they also mobilised millions of their own supporters to disposess their own bourgeoisies.

Revolution is in it's first stages a national struggle fought by the proletariat against their own national bourgeoisies. Soviet help and solidarity with the Soviet Union is vital, but it is incorrect to offer unqualified and uncritical support of the SU.

Quote:
I'm not saying that the Soviet Union should take control of all socialist countries,


Yes you are. So what happens when they reach industrial parity? Would the CPs be free then?


Quote:
Aren't communists supposed to rally together and overthrow the bourgeoise? Or should they be split and have their own ideas, getting nowhere?


Oh gosh, I don't even know where to start. What about inner party democracy? What about workers Soviets? WHY should having differences of opinion mean you get nowhere?

In your system, who decides which ideas are correct? Saying as you disallow people with "their own ideas" where do ideas come from? A politbureau isolated from the realities of everyday life?

One of the reasons socialists around the world lost faith in the Soviet Union was the Union's heavy handed treatment of dissenters. Dissent is not bourgeois, it is vital. Without criticism of our leaders the leadership ossifies and becomes removed from reality.

Quote:
Take this forum for example... If we were all part of our own communist party we'd get nowhere


But we ARE from different political parties, what we are having here is a degree of democracy and free criticism. We are in different parties working for the same goal, and this forum is facilitating discussion without having to adhere to a party line.

I do believe in one party for one class, but only if that party solves its problems of inner democracy in full consultation with various unions and associations of ordinary people, much like the Cuban Party with it's national conversations over big issues, and it's system of democracy within its Assembly.

And what is to be gained by staying in one party which will always have a correct line? The current line of the Chinese Communist Party is that the PRC is socialist (or moving towards it), under your reasoning, because the leadership declares it is socialist, you are having "your own ideas" by disagreeing with it, and are therefore in the wrong.[/i]
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 26
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2009, 15:17
Pioneer
Post 31 Jan 2009, 01:17
1. Constantly borrowed money from western banks.
2. Getting conned into the Cold War arms race after WWII.
3. Never able to feed its citizens.
4. Murdered most of the smart people.
5. Pact with Hitler.
Soviet Music Fan
Soviet cogitations: 8
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Feb 2009, 20:28
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 04 Feb 2009, 19:28
The number one mistake that led to the unions collapse must have been glasnost in my opinion. Perestroyka was a good idea given the stagnant economy but glasnost rendered the people to stop beeing afraid of the authoraties and that led to upraising I believe.
China however kept the system closed and and authoritarian but opened up the econamy (perestroyka but no glasnost) and they are still kicking.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 04 Feb 2009, 23:32
Both were horribly planned and even more horribly implemented. The economic reforms the Soviet Union needed weren't market. The Soviet economy wasn't stagnant, it was only slowing. The planned economy needed to be overhauled, not destroyed.

For some things, Glasnost was a good idea, but too many changes were made too quickly and that allowed opportunists to take power in important places (basically).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 639
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2006, 20:57
Komsomol
Post 06 Feb 2009, 02:34
Theres only one mistake the SU made that lead to its downfall, the party stopped listening to the people.
Image

"The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.