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.
His excuse was that Parliament was corrupt, or something...?? And the US supported him in this. But you've reminded me now, that it was necessary to re-vamp all the parliaments in all the republics, because they'd been formed under the Soviet constitution. But in the republics, for the most part, the same people came back to their positions. (Otherwise special elections would have been required and I don't recall that this was the case, but my memory is fuzzy now.) Mainly it was a vote to change the constitutions and the parliamentary structure. But in Moscow, all new delegates were voted in.
And there seemed to be an ethnic element, maybe I'm wrong, but the head of Parliament was Georgian, and some of the opposition also was from the Kavkaz, as I recall. So I was wondering if there was some sort of deliberate ethnic purge involved in disbanding parliament. Or maybe it was just political.
So they escaped from one capitalist country to... another?
It seems that they were not escaping capitalism after all
No, of course not. They were escaping the kind of hell that free market capitalism so easily gravitates into, which by itself proves that communism is not the only system that can, and usually does, fail to provide for the wellbeing of the citizenry, but only for those willing to do what it takes to claw their way to the top.
With a few quaint exceptions, every society since the inception of monetization was free-market capitalist right up to Lenin, and few were pretty, from the standpoint of the ordinary working stiff. The sad plight of the citizenry in one economy after the other is exactly why Marx was inclined to try to forge an alternative. Over centuries of capitalism, an overwhelming majority of humans on the planet have been subjected by despotic landlords to cold hungry painful lives, sharing precious little of what bounty there ever was.
But it's true. The unerring certainty that greed will always arise among people assures the failure of both communism and capitalism.
And there seemed to be an ethnic element, maybe I'm wrong, but the head of Parliament was Georgian, and some of the opposition also was from the Kavkaz, as I recall. So I was wondering if there was some sort of deliberate ethnic purge involved in disbanding parliament. Or maybe it was just political.
He is of Chechen descent, but no, the reasons behind the disbanding of parliament didn't have anything to do with "ethnic purge" - none whatsoever.
I'll get back to this later...
Peretstroka and Glasnot destroyed the Soviet Union. Giving the Soviet people political freedom was a bad idea from the start and poor decision making by the Soviet premier. In China they communist party gave their people economic freedom over political ones.
Peretstroka and Glasnot destroyed the Soviet Union. Giving the Soviet people political freedom was a bad idea from the start and poor decision making by the Soviet premier. In China they communist party gave their people economic freedom over political ones.
Gorbachev didn't have any real intention to give people "political freedom" - they've demanded it, as soon as they saw his maneuvers. That's why Russians voted for Yeltsin, who basically accused Gorbachev of hypocrisy, was kicked out of the clan and became "people's hero" overnight. ( Unfortunately as many discovered later, all of it was more of a legend than plain truth.)
Russia is not China - not quite the same thing.
Gorbachev didn't have any real intention to give people "political freedom" - they demanded it, as soon as they saw his maneuvers.
What are you referring to here?
I didn't see Glasnost and Perestroika as "political freedoms". That was the West's interpretation. The purpose of Glasnost' originally was to allow analysis and discussion/critique of the economy, so that problems could be corrected (Perestroika), and the economy could be improved and made more efficient. Gorby was a devoted Party boy, he just wanted to modernize. Also, with the advent of computers and the internet, it would have been difficult to control the people's access to information anyway, so some loosening of control was inevitable. From there, things spun out of hand and took their own course, far beyond anything Gorbachev had envisioned.
I didn't see Glasnost and Perestroika as "political freedoms". That was the West's interpretation. The purpose of Glasnost' originally was to allow analysis and discussion/critique of the economy, so that problems could be corrected (Perestroika), and the economy could be improved and made more efficient. Gorby was a devoted Party boy, he just wanted to modernize. Also, with the advent of computers and the internet, it would have been difficult to control the people's access to information anyway, so some loosening of control was inevitable. From there, things spun out of hand and took their own course, far beyond anything Gorbachev had envisioned.
I am referring to criticism of Stalin's days, which became quite popular ( and encouraged) at that time.
Quite reminiscent of "thawing" under Khrushev.
The Georgian movie "Repentance" made a la Fellini's "Amarcord" was a big hit. People were standing up and applauding in the movie theaters - something I've never seen before.
It was an eye opener for many of the Soviet youth in those days.
I see an analogy between how Russia went from Tsarism to democracy to communism
and how the Soviet Union fell to democracy and began restoring Tsarism.
It was the 1917 democratic revolution that deposed Russia's Tsar. Then, later that year
there was a second revolution, the bolshevik revolution. Then came the murder of Russia's Tsar,
civil war, then the soviet state until Gorbachev.
Russia became "democratic", but not without the 1991 and 1993 revolution & civil war similitudes.
Beginning in 1993, Tsarist symbols of state were restored and orthodox churches began to be
restored/rebuilt - but there was no real Tsar. Then suddenly on Y2K eve, Yeltsin surprised the world
by suddenly resigning giving Vladimir Putin power. Vladimir Putin has ruled Russia for over 12 years.
Medvedev is interesting too. Besides being Putin's stand in puppet, his name is symbolic. Medvedev
was the name of one of the bolshevik guards involved in the murder of God's Tsar. So, Vladimir Putin
returning to the presidency, symbolizes Russia's complete restoration to Tsarism.
.
Last edited by king's highway; 08-19-2012 at 10:52 AM..
His excuse was that Parliament was corrupt, or something...?? And the US supported him in this. But you've reminded me now, that it was necessary to re-vamp all the parliaments in all the republics, because they'd been formed under the Soviet constitution. But in the republics, for the most part, the same people came back to their positions. (Otherwise special elections would have been required and I don't recall that this was the case, but my memory is fuzzy now.) Mainly it was a vote to change the constitutions and the parliamentary structure. But in Moscow, all new delegates were voted in.
And there seemed to be an ethnic element, maybe I'm wrong, but the head of Parliament was Georgian, and some of the opposition also was from the Kavkaz, as I recall. So I was wondering if there was some sort of deliberate ethnic purge involved in disbanding parliament. Or maybe it was just political.
OK, back to the question on disbandment of parliament..
If you'd ask me circa 90ies what were my thoughts on parliament's rebellion, as the majority of Moscovites I didn't want to have any of it. The Soviet system was supposed to be gone, everything was supposedly moving smoothly to the "brighter democratic future" and those were nasty commies why tried to withstand popular democratic president. At least that was the common mood in Moscow I think and that's how it was presented by the US TV. I was already out of the country of course, and once I saw the events on TV, I called my girl-friend in Moscow who lived next door, and told her matter-of-factedly that I think that tanks are rolling in Moscow and I'd really appreciate if she'd look out of the window and tell me whether she could see anything of interest. She said that she didn't have a clue, ( although we lived close to the Red Square lol,) but the unspoken truth was that we both hoped that it was just a nuisance that would be soon taken care of.
No one was talking about 'European vs American model of economy," or IMF, or USAID, or foreign loans - those were all unknown factors to the general Russian population; the majority of Moscovites wanted Yeltzin to succeed trusting him with the ways he was planning to accomplish his plans. Little did we know what was coming after disbanding of that pesky parliament and why.
So let me re-post the excerpt from the book of Reddaway and Glinsky that describes the situation with parliament and how its disbandment was directly related to foreign loans;
"Yeltsin’s propensity to terminate the political impasse by going outside of the Russian constitution was encouraged by a series of interventions in Russia’s internal affairs by the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Treasury.
In August 1993, the IMF sponsored a conference in Moscow at which its officials criticized the budget bill currently under consideration by the Supreme Soviet. This bill included wide support in the parliament, but it included a budget deficit that exceeded what the IMF was willing to accept. In early September, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary [Lawrence] Summers testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He viewed the recent developments in Moscow with alarm: “The battle for economic reform in Russia has entered a new and critical phase in which many of Russia’s accomplishments on the economic front [sic] are being put at risk. The momentum for Russian reform must be invigorated and intensified to ensure sustained multilateral support.” The IMF, as later press leaks revealed, was “unhappy with Russia’s backtracking in reforms during the summer.” An IMF official said off the record, “Important measures in the budget field have not been taken, and credit discipline has been relaxed. This has put their reform program off track.”
Later, after the crackdown, [columnist] William Safire highlighted Yeltsin’s pre-approval from the West: “Last week, the confrontation between the reform executive and the red legislature [sic] came to a head over – of all things – the budget. Parliament proposed a foolhardy deficit [sic] of 25 percent of GNP, which it was ready to pass over Yeltsin’s veto. . . . With his Red Army and KGB and Dzherzhinsky [Division] ducks all in a row, and his personal relationship with Washington secure, the Russian leader – assured that no Clinton bet on him would be hedged – made his move. This is a calculated power play, long-planned and extra-constitutional, that is likely to put too much power into the hands of the Russian chief executive.”
Historians will be able to judge later from the archives whether the United States got more specific information from other sources and how far it gave Yeltsin advance approval for his actions. . . . On September 16, Yeltsin visited the Dzherzhinsky Division of the Interior Ministry at its base outside Moscow and was photographed brandishing a machine gun. . . . Western sources attributed the reappointment of [shock-therapy advocate Yegor] Gaidar to direct prodding from the IMF, saying that “Yeltsin acted under considerable pressure from the United States and international lending institutions like [the IMF].” . . .
On September 19, the IMF made public its decision to delay indefinitely the disbursement of the $1.5 billion loan to Russia. The IMF complained that Russia had not made promised budget cuts and had not reined in credit to industry. Accordingly, the money would not be forthcoming unless and until Russia “returned to the path of economic reform.” The World Bank also delayed a planned $600 million loan for Russia. A senior Clinton administration official said, We’re very encouraged by Gaidar’s return and by indications from the Russian government that they now see the need for a rapid turn toward stabilization.”
After visiting Moscow on September 14-15, Treasury Undersecretary Summers said that the Russian situation had improved since mid-summer: “The recent inflation has been too high, but I am encouraged by Russia’s official plans to get financial conditions back under control. It is crucial that these plans be implemented as a basis for economic growth in Russia and for the full effectiveness of Western support.”
The summers visit was critically important [as one commentator noted]: “Just before Yeltsin’s dissolution of the Congress September 21, the administration sent . . . Summers to Moscow to talk about the conditions for impending IMF aid. . . . Gaidar was immediately brought back as first deputy prime minister, and for the first time he really applied the shock therapy the IMF had been demanding. Bread prices were raised to the point where the daily minimum wage was roughly equal to the price of a loaf of bread in Moscow, and Gaidar promised a vigorous reduction of subsidies beginning January 1 of [1994]."
(So if Greece is complaining now about austerity, what was in cards for Russia as the result of those "economic reforms" - not even austerity, but bloody murder, literally.)
This is yet another interesting show on a subject - the Verdict of History that came recently on Russian TV, where they are analyzing the events of those days, comparing the reasons behind the disbandment of Russian parliament in 1993 by Yeltzin with disbandment of Russian Duma in 1907.
Both Khasbulatov ( then chairman of the parliament) and Rutskoy ( then vice-president) take part in this program, and it's particularly interesting to listen to Khasbulatov, who gives additional details to what's described in the mentioned above book. Approximately on 8:30 he is talking about his meeting with Michele Camdessus, (then Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.) Khasbulatov is saying that Camdessus was surprised by his knowledge of international economy and Washington's "consortium" in particular.
" The very economic policies that they've enforced on us" he says "in spite of the resistance of the Supreme Soviet... So I told Camdessus that he is wasting his time and that Russian administrative circles won't accept this program. We don't need the attempts to Americanize our economy - we need something more agreeable, the market economy more within the lines of Scandinavian, Israeli, or Western European versions. To which Camdessus responded before he left; "Mr. Speaker, you are a very capable person, you know finances and you know economy, but you'll feel sorry that you did not accept my offer."
( at that point the facilitator of the program laughs and says that exactly the same situation was back in 1907; "accept the foreign loans on onerous terms, or else.")
So if I'd known then what I know now, my outlook on those events might have been different, particularly if to take in consideration that once Yeltzin consolidated power in his hands and changed constitution, it was only a matter of time before he put this power in Putin's hands.
Well, I must say, this explains a few things...!! Thank you for posting all that.
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.
)
