Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way, how did Russian new riches (or New Russians or whatever they are called) evolve? I suppose after Gorbachev (or maybe already in Gorbachev era?) there came a day X when it was clear that the developed socialism was over and all had to tune themselves in a market economy (capitalism) wave. What jobs had those who managed to became rich had done under socialism (or: what did they do on the last day of socialism) ? Where they sort of soviet type managers (директора, председатели колхозов, главные инженеры et cetera?) who I suppose ofc had some vantages compared to those who did some simple work?
Many are oligarchs who grabbed state enterprises under Yeltsin. Some smaller-scale ones are like the former Prime Minister of a certain ethnic republic who was able to "privatize" a lucrative hotel right before retiring. Grabbing state assets in the 90's was a popular game, facilitated by new privatization laws.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 09-04-2016 at 12:59 PM..
Did he really destroy it though? Didn't the system collapse under itself and the state went bankrupt. The communist experiment simply didn't work out.
I don't think the USSRs system was a failure. I think people failed the system, mainly the politicians. I've been over the length and breadth of Russia and from what I have seen the Soviet system was quite capable of doing what it was meant to do. There was just one thing that was beyond its capability to control. Human greed.
Considering the state of America today as a citizen I think we need to pay attention. History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.
By the way, how did Russian new riches (or New Russians or whatever they are called) evolve? I suppose after Gorbachev (or maybe already in Gorbachev era?) there came a day X when it was clear that the developed socialism was over and all had to tune themselves in a market economy (capitalism) wave.
Indeed the "making" of the "New Russians" started already in Gorbachev's times. It started as soon as Russians were allowed to move the goods/money out of the country and put them on "business accounts" in Western banks. And this happened already before Yeltsin came to power.
There was no such thing as "day X" ( when it was clear that Soviet system was over) - these people were actively pushing for that day to come with their "economic activities." So... already in 1991 I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal mentioning 13,5 billion dollars that "Russian businessmen and businessmen from other Soviet republics" got as "export revenues" and deposited them on private accounts in Western banks. Thus the birth of a class of the"New Russians" was rooted in Western banking. These two are joined at the hip. ( Putin was initially part of these people too by the way)))
Quote:
What jobs had those who managed to became rich had done under socialism (or: what did they do on the last day of socialism) ? Where they sort of soviet type managers (директора, председатели колхозов, главные инженеры et cetera?) who I suppose ofc had some vantages compared to those who did some simple work?
It really didn't matter so much what their titles were. What mattered, were two main factors; 1. An access to goods valuable in Western market ( mostly natural resources/metals)
2. An ability to sell these goods to Western buyers via "trustful broker" who, in turn, would share profits and assured the safe deposit of looted money in Western banks, where the rights of the investor would be protected by Western laws, ( former Soviet Jews that immigrated from the USSR to US earlier, were mostly playing the role of such brokers.)
As for the ability to sell/move money out of the country, these people had to have close connections with the highest Communist party/KGB bosses ( sometimes they were the "owners of the business" themselves.) The "Komsomol" ( Communist Youth Organization) was as handy, provided its leaders had the right kind of connections in the KGB/CPSU.
Once the initial capital has been acquired and saved in Western banks, these new "businessmen" proceeded with new ventures, which were particularly profitable in food industry, when the old system of supply/distribution was completely destroyed ( some are saying artificially so,) and cheapest Western products were pushed for threefold price, when Russians already didn't have any choice but to pay for it.
So those were the times of the "biggest opportunities" for the "New Russians," and that's how this class was born.
I don't think the USSRs system was a failure. I think people failed the system, mainly the politicians. I've been over the length and breadth of Russia and from what I have seen the Soviet system was quite capable of doing what it was meant to do. There was just one thing that was beyond its capability to control. Human greed.
Considering the state of America today as a citizen I think we need to pay attention. History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.
Not at all. The USSR' real GDP stopped growing around the end of Khruschev's era.
Starting from the late 60s and on, economically the USSR was one-trick pony. It's main source of income was oil. The price of oil had gone through the roof starting with the Arab oil embargo in the early 70s, which very nicely coincided with the Soviets finding and developing some major Siberian oil and gas reserves in the late 60s. It was largely that oil that paid for the Soviet space program and military buildup of the 70s. And for much of their domestic spending and global involvement.
When the price of oil took a major nosedive in the early to mid-80s which just wouldn't rebound, the Soviet economy was doomed. Which is likely why in '85 they elected the young and energetic Gorbachev and not yet another walking corpse plastered with golden stars all over his chest.
They basically had only two possible scenarios - trying to evolve and adapt, which meant liberalizing the economy since the planned economy was too dependent on the oil revenues - or going the North Korean way and tightening the belts while keeping their population in fear and isolation. I am not sure that the Soviet population was prepared for the latter.
In this respect there's absolutely nothing in common between USSR and USA. Even though I agree that we face many challenges, the very nature of our economy, of our political makeup, and of our problems is different.
In many ways, it's the Russia today that is like a mini-USSR, even though it has a completely different ideology, form of government, and wealth distribution.
Not at all. The USSR' real GDP stopped growing around the end of Khruschev's era.
Starting from the late 60s and on, economically the USSR was one-trick pony. It's main source of income was oil. The price of oil had gone through the roof starting with the Arab oil embargo in the early 70s, which very nicely coincided with the Soviets finding and developing some major Siberian oil and gas reserves in the late 60s. It was largely that oil that paid for the Soviet space program and military buildup of the 70s. And for much of their domestic spending and global involvement.
Then why were the 70's, the Brezhnev era, known as the era of stagnation?
I don't think the USSRs system was a failure. I think people failed the system, mainly the politicians. I've been over the length and breadth of Russia and from what I have seen the Soviet system was quite capable of doing what it was meant to do.
So basically you approve the soviet crimes, killing hundreds of thousand of people by sending them to labour camps to siberia.
Not at all. The USSR' real GDP stopped growing around the end of Khruschev's era.
Starting from the late 60s and on, economically the USSR was one-trick pony. It's main source of income was oil. The price of oil had gone through the roof starting with the Arab oil embargo in the early 70s, which very nicely coincided with the Soviets finding and developing some major Siberian oil and gas reserves in the late 60s. It was largely that oil that paid for the Soviet space program and military buildup of the 70s. And for much of their domestic spending and global involvement.
When the price of oil took a major nosedive in the early to mid-80s which just wouldn't rebound, the Soviet economy was doomed. Which is likely why in '85 they elected the young and energetic Gorbachev and not yet another walking corpse plastered with golden stars all over his chest.
They basically had only two possible scenarios - trying to evolve and adapt, which meant liberalizing the economy since the planned economy was too dependent on the oil revenues - or going the North Korean way and tightening the belts while keeping their population in fear and isolation. I am not sure that the Soviet population was prepared for the latter.
What does it exactly mean - "liberalizing the economy?"
You could "liberalize" it in two ways under the Soviet circumstances.
Number one - to allow private sector ( partially) and to gradually implement changes in order to improve the system, without destroying its positive features.
And number two - to bring it to total destruction and turn the country into an appendix of Western economies, to turn it into an economy based on supply of natural resources ( which what Russia was in many ways BEFORE the October revolution.) The big difference with Soviet-style economy based on oil revenues ( if that's what it was as you are saying) in this case would be the wealth distribution. Under the Soviet ideology these oil revenues were required to support the well-being of general population, assuring free education, free medical services, coverage of basic necessities and sponsoring by the government the childen's upbringing. With other words, in first case scenario the oil revenues were required to support the socialist state. In second case scenario, the "liberalization of economy" combined with abolition of Soviet ideology was leading directly to concentration of wealth in few hands and destruction of the social security net.
Quote:
In this respect there's absolutely nothing in common between USSR and USA. Even though I agree that we face many challenges, the very nature of our economy, of our political makeup, and of our problems is different.
Yes, the problems are different, yet the greed theme is in many ways the same. It was the greed of the Soviet ruling elite ( well part of it) that in hope of personal enrichment allowed the Trojan horse into the country, that destroyed the social security net and led to the untimely deaths of millions. And in case of the US we can speak once again about the greed of the upper crust in the US, striving for the global domination and leading the US to the downfall at the end.
Quote:
In many ways, it's the Russia today that is like a mini-USSR, even though it has a completely different ideology, form of government, and wealth distribution.
And if the wealth distribution is different, the ideology is different - what's similar is there with the USSR? No, today's Russia is much closer to authoritarian governments South American style than to the Soviet Union.
+
Да = Yes, he is a traitor
Нет = No, he is not a traitor
The result: 69% - Yes, Gorbachev is a traitor.
31% - No, he is not a traitor.
Many said that he was not a traitor, but he was a very weak ruler.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
