Why URSS Fall ?

The URSS fall not only by Perestroika and Glanost but it was more than that let me explain what i think :
When Russia got a Socialist Revolution they wasn't a capitalist nation but a Feudal nation so they didn't have all Industrys like west Had .
They pass from Feudal state from Communism of War so how can this help the economy ?
Lenine understand that he need some foreign capital and allowed NEP wich for me was a great move by Lenine .

The NEP ended to soon in 1928 so i guess that stalin could wait until 35/36 and extract more from NEP and his benefits .

The 5 Years plans by Stalin had to follow goals so thta's not good since when they reach the point isn't necessary more .

" We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. " - Stalin

He could allowed prizes to workers who produce more and that could creat more creativity .
He won the War and he put Communist regime in all those lands allied with Germany so i agree that he had to do that but they sould be more independent from Soviet Union and they could produce their needs and not Soviet Union need .
Also choosing the leader's and ideology in other the bloc was bad since they were too much pro URSS and if they can't reach soem goals it was Soviet union who had to backup .
The money that they send to support communist partys should have been less than it was .
After that they faced new colonys becaming independent so they send money and arms to those movments but instead of given aid to Angola Mozambique and Guinea why didn't help the Portuguese Party to coup and end with Salazar regime that will be more cheaper than what they choose.
I also think that all those money spent on Amrs and could be put to improve the economy and really help the people .
With all those goals in economy came the bureaucracy in the economy and you know what they did .
Last one it was the perestroika and glasnost

It "fell" (actually, it was intentionally destroyed) because, after Stalin's murder, covert (and with time, overt) anti-communist forces took power over the country and eventually sold it out completely.

Vasco wrote:

The URSS fall not only by Perestroika and Glanost but it was more than that let me explain what i think :
When Russia got a Socialist Revolution they wasn't a capitalist nation but a Feudal nation so they didn't have all Industrys like west Had .
They pass from Feudal state from Communism of War so how can this help the economy ?
Lenine understand that he need some foreign capital and allowed NEP wich for me was a great move by Lenine .

Lenin not only applied NEP because of the harsh reality of the russian ruined economy but also because the Marxist theory demanded. Lenin and Stalin were always favorable to a capitalist transition in Russia. They only aligned with Trotsky position in 1917 after the bourgeois revolution. They felt that the government was too weak and was not responding to the demands of the people like ending the war. The czarist group was taking advantage of that and getting ready to recover the political power of Russia once again.

However, the reality showed that you cannot skip stages and Russia was a practical example of that.

Vasco wrote:

The NEP ended to soon in 1928 so i guess that stalin could wait until 35/36 and extract more from NEP and his benefits .

He could but then the Nazi invasion would have been successful in 1941. You quoted Stalin yourself: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us."

The industrialization process already arrived late in Russia. More years waiting for the beginning of the process it would have been catastrophic. That is why in 1941 the Red Army was not ready to counter the german offensive right in 1941. The militarization plan was caught in the middle.

Vasco wrote:

He could allowed prizes to workers who produce more and that could creat more creativity .

He did it indeed. Remember the stakhanovite movement? Stalin was the one who argued against the wage leveling of the 20's in USSR.

Vasco wrote:

He won the War and he put Communist regime in all those lands allied with Germany so i agree that he had to do that but they sould be more independent from Soviet Union and they could produce their needs and not Soviet Union need .
Also choosing the leader's and ideology in other the bloc was bad since they were too much pro URSS and if they can't reach soem goals it was Soviet union who had to backup . .

Don't forget that was in the beginning of the Cold War. USSR needed to strengthen its position in the East due to the suspicions and subsequent animosity between USSR and the Western countries (namely the US) and the creation of the Marshall Plan and NATO. It was a form of guaranteeing its sphere of influence in contrast with the USA sphere of influence. That's why the soviet regime always kept a close relationship with the rest of the Eastern Bloc. The Brezhnev doctrine was applied in the East the same way that USA applied in the West and more recently in the rest of the World (Iraq invasion for instance). The grade of dependence was similar in both camps.

Vasco wrote:

After that they faced new colonys becaming independent so they send money and arms to those movments but instead of given aid to Angola Mozambique and Guinea why didn't help the Portuguese Party to coup and end with Salazar regime that will be more cheaper than what they choose.

They couldn't do it. Remember that Portugal was within the American sphere of influence. It could have precipitated a war between the USSR and USA. They helped the PCP in many ways, not only financially. Alvaro Cunhal was in Moscow for several years before returning to Portugal. Even if the Communist Party had overthrown Salazar the Americans wouldn't never let the communists to seize power in Portugal. Don't forget that was the American influence (through its ambassador, Frank Carlucci, a CIA agent) that prevented PCP from taking power in 1975 during the PREC and they even dismissed the socialist prime-minister Vasco Gonçalves. You know it very well.

Vasco wrote:

I also think that all those money spent on Amrs and could be put to improve the economy and really help the people .
With all those goals in economy came the bureaucracy in the economy and you know what they did .
Last one it was the perestroika and glasnost

I think the bureaucracy was unavoidable and preceded the communist regime.

As far as the military spending is concerned, some economic authors considered that the high military spending was one of the main causes of the soviet stagnation and subsequent collapse, while others argue that the excessive military budget was already high in the 50's and 60's when the soviet growth rates were high.

Personally i think that the high military budget was justifiable in the Stalin and some of the Khruschev era because of the second world war and the beginning of the Cold War. However, it was really excessive during the SALT period and the subsequently periods.

Quote:

After that they faced new colonys becaming independent so they send money and arms to those movments but instead of given aid to Angola Mozambique and Guinea why didn't help the Portuguese Party to coup and end with Salazar regime that will be more cheaper than what they choose.

They couldn't do it. Remember that Portugal was within the American sphere of influence. It could have precipitated a war between the USSR and USA. They helped the PCP in many ways, not only financially. Alvaro Cunhal was in Moscow for several years before returning to Portugal. Even if the Communist Party had overthrown Salazar the Americans wouldn't never let the communists to seize power in Portugal. Don't forget that was the American influence (through its ambassador, Frank Carlucci, a CIA agent) that prevented PCP from taking power in 1975 during the PREC and they even dismissed the socialist prime-minister Vasco Gonçalves. You know it very well. [/quote]

I'm Not talking in that period but 59/60/61 when the academic crises got really bad they could lauch a revolution and after thta they could just put some Missiles and make the same deal that they take off the Missiles if USA didn't try to coup them .
USA didn't want to fight against Soviet Union because they know that they will lose in Europe against Red Army and only Nukes can save them from defeat .

------

In the rest that you say i agree with you in most of things .

Vasco wrote:

I'm Not talking in that period but 59/60/61 when the academic crises got really bad they could lauch a revolution and after thta they could just put some Missiles and make the same deal that they take off the Missiles if USA didn't try to coup them .
USA didn't want to fight against Soviet Union because they know that they will lose in Europe against Red Army and only Nukes can save them from defeat .

------

In the rest that you say i agree with you in most of things .

I was referring to the whole period of the Cold War. The Americans wouldn't let the PCP seize the power in Portugal, not in any time during the whole Cold War era. They would always exert their influence to prevent a communist successful turn in Portugal. The USA was already preparing to supply arms to the anti-communist factions as you know it. And not only the USA. The rest of the Western European Countries were also involved in anti-communist activities, especially the West Germany where the Portuguese Socialist Party was founded.

Remember also the reactionary military coup in Chile in 1973. Pinochet was supported by the Americans to overthrown Allende. I don't see why the Americans would react differently to Communist Regime in Portugal. Besides, Allende was not even a communist although he nationalized private companies in Chile. Imagine now how they would react before a communist regime in Western Europe. They would do everything to overthrown it, even if they had to support the reactionaries.

They tried indeed to overthrown Castro in 1961 with the Bay of Pigs Invasion but were unsuccessful because of several factors and conditions which were not reunited in Portugal.

That missile strategy almost brought the WW III. I don't think the USSR was willing to risk that again for Portugal.

The Eastern Bloc was not producing for the needs of the USSR. That is a vicious, popular myth. Most people in the USSR were poor compared to East Germans and Czechoslovaks and Czechoslovakia was 90 percent agriculturally self-sufficient. The only people who propagate this myth are either Western propagandists or Polish people who think every socialist country had empty shelves like them and that Soviets were "stealing their stuff". That is total nonsense - the empty shelves in Poland were caused by their inept politicians and incapability to run a planned economy and during the 1980s, USSR had even worse shortages so they were definitely not living off Polish stuff.

The process of the Soviet Union's demise began earlier, after the October Revolution. By 1918 the Bolshevik Party had transformed itself into a highly centralized, bureaucratic party organization. Furthermore, they had banned the Left SR party after the party's bold attack on a German ambassador to Russia. Whether or not banning the Left SR party was a justified action, considering the warlike, paranoid climate of the time, is debatable.

Even more so, workers' control of industry had been suspended once government authorities realized that the process of transition from managerial positions to democratic workers' control via workers' councils was inefficient, to be replaced by nationalized industry instead based around a centrally-planned economy.

By 1919, democracy had effectively been squelched in Russia.

Stalin was only a symptom of post-civil war Russia's stagnation. Russia under his rule was also, under no circumstances, moving towards communism. That dream died along with the multiparty soviets of revolutionary Russia.

I think the lesson that Lenin and Stalin should provide us is with is that it can be dangerous to disallow democracy and/or multiparty, socialist government.

In no way did the Bolsheviks have a right to rule all of Russia by themselves. In doing so they had to commit countless repressions against many individuals and organizations that were not necessarily "counterrevolutionary."

Sowjetunion wrote:

The process of the Soviet Union's demise began earlier, after the October Revolution. By 1918 the Bolshevik Party had transformed itself into a highly centralized, bureaucratic party organization. Furthermore, they had banned the Left SR party after the party's bold attack on a German ambassador to Russia. Whether or not banning the Left SR party was a justified action, considering the warlike, paranoid climate of the time, is debatable.

Even more so, workers' control of industry had been suspended once government authorities realized that the process of transition from managerial positions to democratic workers' control via workers' councils was inefficient, to be replaced by nationalized industry instead based around a centrally-planned economy.

By 1919, democracy had effectively been squelched in Russia.

Stalin was only a symptom of post-civil war Russia's stagnation. Russia under his rule was also, under no circumstances, moving towards communism. That dream died along with the multiparty soviets of revolutionary Russia.

I think the lesson that Lenin and Stalin should provide us is with is that it can be dangerous to disallow democracy and/or multiparty, socialist government.

In no way did the Bolsheviks have a right to rule all of Russia by themselves. In doing so they had to commit countless repressions against many individuals and organizations that were not necessarily "counterrevolutionary."

Sowjetunion, it will be very hard to any socialist country to have a democracy as long as the bourgeoisie dominates all over the world. The democratic mechanisms introduced by any socialist government will always be used by the international bourgeoisie to subvert the socialist revolution. That is why every time a socialist regime introduces a "democratic" system it tends to disappear very quickly.

I believe in a workers democracy but only once the bourgeoisie is crushed all over the world, at least its influence. Until then it will be very difficult to change the reality as it is.

I disagree, but I see your point. Multiparty democracy is largely problematic under socialism, but just because there is a world bourgeoisie still intact doesn't mean that all other parties should be banned outright and written off as part of the counterrevolution.

The Kadet party in Russia was arguably counterrevolutionary, but did that justify the shutdown of the party and jailing of it's leadership and/or members by the Bolsheviks?

The only party I can honestly justify a shutdown of was the Left SR party however. It not only knowingly tried to assassinate both foreign and domestic government officials, but even tried to murder Lenin, in a reckless bid to make the Germans invade Russia in a last ditch effort to end the so called Brest Treaty.

Extreme Centralization and strict government control of society is not the answer to combating the world bourgeoisie. And while "true democracy" is also far from a viable answer as well, I'd have to argue for a middle-path in politics.

What the Bolsheviks were before, participants in a surprisingly stable coalition government with the Left SR party, was a good example of strong government with democratic safeguards in place to put a check on power so that no one party could have absolute control(to an extent) and dissolve the other party.

Stalin's dictatorship was a personal dictatorship of one man. All of Russia revolved around that man. Is that really the answer to counterrevolution?

Sowjetunion wrote:

I disagree, but I see your point. Multiparty democracy is largely problematic under socialism, but just because there is a world bourgeoisie still intact doesn't mean that all other parties should be banned outright and written off as part of the counterrevolution.

The Kadet party in Russia was arguably counterrevolutionary, but did that justify the shutdown of the party and jailing of it's leadership and/or members by the Bolsheviks?

The only party I can honestly justify a shutdown of was the Left SR party however. It not only knowingly tried to assassinate both foreign and domestic government officials, but even tried to murder Lenin, in a reckless bid to make the Germans invade Russia in a last ditch effort to end the so called Brest Treaty.

Extreme Centralization and strict government control of society is not the answer to combating the world bourgeoisie. And while "true democracy" is also far from a viable answer as well, I'd have to argue for a middle-path in politics.

What the Bolsheviks were before, participants in a surprisingly stable coalition government with the Left SR party, was a good example of strong government with democratic safeguards in place to put a check on power so that no one party could have absolute control(to an extent) and dissolve the other party.

Stalin's dictatorship was a personal dictatorship of one man. All of Russia revolved around that man. Is that really the answer to counterrevolution?

The bourgeoisie will always explore the divisions among a workers state. That's unavoidable. Money and other interests move a lot of things. That is why unity in action is required until the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie once and for all over the world. As long as you have a bourgeoisie domination it will be very difficult to avoid that. I know that this picture is not pretty at all but that is the reality that we must deal with.

The bourgeoisie multiparty system is also illusory since it's controlled by two main parties (center-right and center-left) which essentially defend the same thing. The parties which are out of the dominant ideology never have a chance to govern by themselves within the system or control it. They are always the minor partner of a coalition government. There is why I don't believe in this system.

Regarding the Kadet Party, you are talking about a party which declared support for a constitutional monarchy, 60% of Kadets were nobles and the party had high governmental positions in the Russian Provisional Government. What did you expect?

Extreme Centralization and strict government control of society is not an option but a necessity for the reasons I just explained to you in my previous post. Is not a definitive stage but a temporary one just as long as you have a bourgeoisie dominant influence around the globe. Once the bourgeoisie loses its power to influence other countries then we may create a system much more democratic than the bourgeoisie one.

The Left SR party had very little influence in the soviet government and the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk proved it since they were strongly against it. Even some of its members joined the communist party afterwards.

Quote:

Stalin's dictatorship was a personal dictatorship of one man.

Where is the proof for this?

...Extreme Centralization and strict government control of society is not an option but a necessity....

I respect your opinion, but are we really to assume that a government body is supposed to rule in a totalitarian fashion as long as other nations remain bourgeois?

I believe that the #1 requirement for a genuine workers' state is the workers' council system of industrial management. Extreme centralization and single-party rule would seriously undermine this system, if it even existed under those circumstances that is.

Furthermore, a middle way is necessary to alleviate the problems of too much democracy, and too little democracy. Some semblance of a cross between a dictatorship and a democracy should be implemented, to both allow for the popular people's aspirations to be answered, and to defend the socialist state against foreign and domestic foes.

Hm. I support the ideas of Boris Kagarlitsky who develops the ideas of Pokrovsky. The reasons of the soviet crash are tottali economical - the oil prices rised down and there wer no possibility to pay wetern credits for the Warsaw pact countries and import all needed products from the countries of the firts world

I have not read Kagrilitsky's analysis, but if his theory has declining oil prices as its basis I see no reason to do so. Export in the USSR in the 1980s accounted for about 4% of GNP, half of that oil and gas, and the rest everything else. The reasons for the crash were partly economic, but they were caused by the forcible destruction of the planning apparatus and its replacement with absolutely nothing, resulting in black marketeers and criminal gangs becoming the holders of the first significant capital holdings. The 'oil prices' argument is consistently used in Russian documentaries and papers, but in my view is much more a critique of the contemporary system than an accurate description of what went wrong in the past. If oil prices collapsed TODAY, you'd better believe there would be a catastrophic crisis in Russia. In Soviet times, a loss of about 1% of GNP per annum was not as much of a big deal.

I think the immediate reason was Gorbachev's reforms. The real reason was the Soviet Union spent way too much on the military. You can't expect to spend 17+% of GDP on the military and catch up economically with other countries. The Soviet economy was working very well until Brezhnev came to power. Brezhnev significantly increased military spending, while Krushchev and Kosygin wanted to focus on light industry and consumer goods. Of course, they both had their problems, but the Soviet Union would have been much better off under their leadership instead of Brezhnev. I think the U.S. is a little ridiculous with their consumer products, but that was supposedly the future of economic growth during the 60's and 70's. Many Soviet planners and leaders saw this. It is complete BS that a centralized economy can't produce consumer goods efficiently. Under the Brezhnev era, however, all the investments went to the military instead of investing in light industry and consumer products.

Because of the era of stagnation under Brezhnev, people started thinking capitalism was better than socialism. Gorbachev "confirmed" this by introducing reforms and relaxing suppression. Instead of introducing market reforms, Gorbachev should have significantly cut the military, and keep suppression high until socialism showed an improvement in the economy again. Brezhnev started the downfall, and Gorbachev took the wrong steps to try to correct it.

The neo-Liberal system, where all of the world's resources are put into a world market and bought up by the richest countries, was far greater than the Soviet Planned Economy, where only the resources of one country could be exploited. This may have lead to Khrushchevite Revisionism, where the Soviets quickly grew their own economic empire in which they wanted to exploit the world's resources through client states, but again those states suffered greatly because while the neo-Liberal system allows clients to yield more fruit (because there is a greater prize for the international Bourgeoisie) the Soviet system offered no such thing nor a chance to progress past the Empirical power. Thus the only option really left for Russia was to dissolve that system, join the game, and eventually take it over, as they seek to do now. The only people that lost from that was the Soviet Proletariat, who had to give up their resources to the world markets where they would have otherwise kept them for themselves.

A planned economy is of course better than a Liberal Capitalist system, which has Anarchy in production, but Russia, who under their system could only exploit Soviet resources, stood no chance to the American Bourgeoisie exploiting the world's resources through their post-WWII economic system.

As my father taught me, the USSR never fell. He says it still exists today. He had said that the Soviet Union just is called Russia today, and that the KGB still exist.

Quote:

It "fell" (actually, it was intentionally destroyed) because, after Stalin's murder, covert (and with time, overt) anti-communist forces took power over the country and eventually sold it out completely.

Intentionally destroyed; why would its own elite intentionally destroy its own country. If that in fact happens, doesn't it prove that the system was bad - the elites of bourgeois democracies don't turn their back on their own system...

leftguy wrote:

Intentionally destroyed; why would its own elite intentionally destroy its own country. If that in fact happens, doesn't it prove that the system was bad - the elites of bourgeois democracies don't turn their back on their own system...

What is Bonapartism, Alex?

*Daily Double*

loverussia24 wrote:

As my father taught me, the USSR never fell. He says it still exists today. He had said that the Soviet Union just is called Russia today, and that the KGB still exist.

What's the difference between the USSR and the RSFSR then?