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.
I think the failure of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan emboldened a lot of people. The Soviets were economically stretched to keep 50,000 soldiers there fighting the insurgents, exposing their moribund economy. Add Ronald Reagan with a dramatic ramping-up of American military spending and the Soviet economy basically blew a gasket trying to keep up.
Everybody is wanting to depict Putin as the new bogeyman but, in truth, he is presiding over a very weak state with a GDP roughly 7% that of the United States. And even that is ephemeral given the Russians' dependence on oil and gas revenue.
The fall of Communism was fast. The fastest of any empire in history, I might say (except that I don't know). But compared to Rome and England it was much faster.
All this happened in a blink of the eye, historically.
The whole history of "communism" and the Soviet Union was about 70 years, a half-blink of an eye historically, worth half a footnote in history "books" 500-1000 years from now, not even half a page.
Much more important episodes in history from 500-1000 years ago across Eurasia lasting well more than 70 years have been long forgotten, except among a few specialists and a few more armchair historians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
The Soviets were economically stretched ... exposing their moribund economy. Add ... dramatic ramping-up of American military spending and the Soviet economy basically blew a gasket trying to keep up.
I can relate to this depiction, not ideological mumbo-jumbo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
Everybody is wanting to depict Putin as the new bogeyman but, in truth, he is presiding over a very weak state with a GDP roughly 7% that of the United States. And even that is ephemeral given the Russians' dependence on oil and gas revenue.
Foreign bogeymen have been a standard hook-line of domestic political theater since year one, new generations get hooked on it, every generation, one-by-one, generation after generation. It's a classic, it never grows old, and it is so cheap.
I think the failure of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan emboldened a lot of people. The Soviets were economically stretched to keep 50,000 soldiers there fighting the insurgents, exposing their moribund economy. Add Ronald Reagan with a dramatic ramping-up of American military spending and the Soviet economy basically blew a gasket trying to keep up.
Everybody is wanting to depict Putin as the new bogeyman but, in truth, he is presiding over a very weak state with a GDP roughly 7% that of the United States. And even that is ephemeral given the Russians' dependence on oil and gas revenue.
The economy was in trouble already in the 70's; Russia, an oil-producing nation and oil exporter, was experiencing economic stagnation at the very time that oil prices skyrocketed, due to the Arab oil embargo. If they couldn't make a go of the economy then, the implications for the future, under less favorable conditions, were worrisome.
That was when some economists began to meet in secret, to try to figure out what was wrong. Gorbachev took that process, brought it above-board, removing the taboo against criticizing the regime, and introducing the idea of constructive criticism as a patriotic act, to improve the system. The problem is, that economists educated in a system of voodoo economics can't solve the problem of why voodoo economics doesn't work. Gorby also didn't anticipate that a lot of people, especially in the satellite countries and the ethnic republics, just plain wanted out.
The extent to which Soviet economists were completely lost was laid bare after the crash, when articles began to appear in newspapers nation-wide, titled "How To Set Prices". They were so used to prices for goods and services being plucked out of thin air; they had no idea how to calculate production expenses, store overhead, etc., to determine a price. For awhile, it was believed that whatever goods and services sold for in the US was the "real" value (never mind that prices were different in India, Mexico, Sweden, Italy, etc.), and to settle for a penny less meant you were being scammed. No understanding of LOCAL/national economic conditions, wages, utility costs, etc., as being relevant to setting prices.
Correct. History has shown the changes can emerge quickly and even the changes what do not seem to be the most probable in this very moment. ...eg who could foresee the end of east bloc, let's say, in year of 1987? Nobody.
Back in 1980 or so, when I was couple of years out of school and have already quit my second job ( now when I think of it, it was "Gorky Park" out of all places, lol ) my mother told me that if I continue to walk this path, "the Soveit gov. won't pay you a pension."
To which I've replied that by the time I have to retire, there will be no Soviet Gov.
She was shocked to say the least.
But my parents never understood much in politics; they were typical representatives of Khrushev's generation I suppose, however OTHER members of my family that basically raised me, did.
I was raised by older, Stalin's generation as I've mentioned before on few occasions; these people were born on a cusp of revolution, to the upper class family, and lived to tell.
I feel lucky to spend a lot of time around them, because it gave me so much insight into Russian/Soviet history, that my peers didn't have. And they were talking about politics over my head, since I was the "under the table pedestrian" ( Russian expression here.)
So the picture I've got from them, is that in spite of all the Gulags and persecutions ( they never denied it; in fact they barely survived themselves, since literally nothing short of miracle saved them from being sent to one of those camps,) people in Stalin's government were better educated, of more flexible mind, and overall the economy reminded more of a "mixed economy" than what came after that. I've been told that the specialists ( engineers, professors) - were still paid much better than workers, which has changed after Khrushev's arrival to the office.
So to sum it all up, Stalin's government, in spite of its brutality, was making a lot of necessary and timely changes in economy, keeping in mind how much Tzarist Russia was lagging behind the developed countries in industrialization. And from what I understand, both Stalin and Lenin didn't have any particular hang-ups on the "political correctness" of ideology. If they felt that private sector was beneficial for economy, they'd keep it around.
It all changed however when Khrushev came to the office.
My great-parents detested him, considering him to be a "hick out of sticks," ( even though they admitted that he gave a relief to the peasantry class, which they felt Stalin personally hated.)
So the biggest problem of the society from that point on they told me, was that the ideology started dictating each and every move in economy, with people less capable intellectually, but more loyal to the system getting all the perks, while restricting the gifted ones. And the "party bosses" were often in charge of technological decisions, instead of the professionals.
So I have have been told, that sooner or later Soviet society was going to run into the ground, because ( as my grand-parents told me) ANY society that would constantly impede its most capable part of its population would run into the ground.
So by the beginning of the eighties I could already see the signs of the nearing crisis; the apathy of general population, the cynisism of the soviet nomenclatura ( knew quite a few of them, in my extensive family including,) the shortages of goods, and the list could go on and on.
So yep, I already knew back then what was coming.
P.S. And since you've mentioned Lavrentiy Beria on the Politics forum...
I've read both versions - in Russian Wiki and English Wiki.
Both articles give different accounts of B. activities and what/who he was. For me personally the fact that he was the chief of the NKVD was enough to not to look at the "brighter side" of Beria.
I was not aware of the facts you've mentioned - the plans he had for East Germany and Baltic countries, but he comes across as a very capable man, who was definitely feared by the rest of the Central Committee.
Had he remain in charge of the country, who knows what direction things might have taken ( if what English WIKI says was true
"Based on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the uprising, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. For example, Beria gave Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania serious prospects of national autonomy, possibly similarly to other Soviet satellite states in Europe.[43][44][45]"
P.S. P.S. Another thing I want to mention, but keep on forgetting - the reason why Stalin kept Baltic countries as part of the S.U. rather than setting them as satellites, is because after the WWII he practically reinstated the Russian Empire in its previous borders. Baltic countries used to be part of it, all three of them. When it comes to Finland - I think they've decided to keep it as a buffer zone between Russia and Sweden.
Perhaps I ought to say a few more words. Stalin was both an ideologue and brutal thug. To my mind, the deterioration of the USSR happened on 2 levels: first, through over-extension in the Third-World and second through ideological struggles within the leadership about the kind of societies in which Communist Revolutions could take place (as in the Third-World). Stalin was far more focused than his followers. My belief is that he would have avoided trying to "Communize" Third-World countries and would have focused on consolidating gains he made at Yalta and Potsdam in Eastern Europe, once he untangled the USSR from the Arab-Isreali conflict (my speculation).
The TRUE problem here is not even the "right wing" people that "despise socialism and Russia," but the "International Financial Institutions" that enforce so-called "liberal economy" on former EE countries, Russia including. And as history showed us, American liberals ( i.e. Democrats, not conservatives,) support this idea as well. ( When it's enforced elsewhere of course, not in THEIR homeland, God forbids. Over there they sing a totally different song.)
The reason it happens, is because Western capital ( be that American or European capital) invested in E.E countries after the fall of the Soviet Union, demands the biggest return on its investments.
And that means, in order to boost profits, they need to cut down first of all the "spending" on the local population - be that medical care, or education, or living conditions, or even the paid vacations.
So of course the majority of EE population will find themselves thoroughly exploited in the newly-found "freedom."
See, the "liberal economy" touted by some in the Western world, already spelled "disaster" in the US back in the times of Great Depression, and it is thoroughly avoided in "Old Europe."
But that's a "gift" that has been offered to Eastern Europeans, and to Russia first of all back in the nineties, when Americans were all over the place there, in Kremlin including.
Of course the Russian thugs sitting in the government at that time, were blinded by the enormous profits, that the West promised them in return for the "liberal" ( economy-wise) reforms.
So instead of enjoying the newly-found freedom from communist dogmas, Russians (AND Eastern Europeans) plunged into the new disaster of the "wild capitalism," ( i.e. "liberal economy,") which is a no-no practice in the *developed Western countries* themselves.
Why? Because their rulers figured out long time ago, that in order to avoid all these "Socialist-Communist revolutions" ( as in Russia) they are better off giving a slack to their subjects, offering them to share in wealth, vacations, and what's not.
The "Eastern Block" however can be mercifully exploited, because... they'll be afraid to turn to "left ideas" after their own years of misery ( as these "financial institutions" reason out.)
However, as you rightfully noted, there was not only "misery" in those years, as much as SOME would like to make you believe.
So couple of days ago, I already saw a sea of red flags across the Russian cities ( about 51 of them.)
The "left wing" in Russia is getting wiser and stronger every day, as "International Financial Institutions" are increasingly whispering to Russian gov. to push forward more and more "liberal reforms."
And this whisper has an attentive ear in Russian gov., with left-overs of "neo-liberals" sitting there from the nineties.
So do not despair Anhity - we live in the interesting times.
This article pretty much states that Eastern Europe is owned by the West (specifically Germany) since almost all the firms in Eastern Europe are majority foreign owned. Russia came very close to ending up like this in the 90s when Yeltsin was in charge (he used foreign "advisors" to help privatize assets). Putin reversed all that and even jailed the oligarchs (specifically Khordorkovsky and his company, Yukos). Yukos had five Americans on its board of directors and even an American CFO. Putin took over Yukos and pretty much wrecked the company and gave its assets away to his oligarchs (the Yeltsin oligarchs were Western friendly). That was pretty much the point of no return and that's when the West turned against Putin.
This article pretty much states that Eastern Europe is owned by the West (specifically Germany) since almost all the firms in Eastern Europe are majority foreign owned. Russia came very close to ending up like this in the 90s when Yeltsin was in charge (he used foreign "advisors" to help privatize assets). Putin reversed all that and even jailed the oligarchs (specifically Khordorkovsky and his company, Yukos). Yukos had five Americans on its board of directors and even an American CFO. Putin took over Yukos and pretty much wrecked the company and gave its assets away to his oligarchs (the Yeltsin oligarchs were Western friendly). That was pretty much the point of no return and that's when the West turned against Putin.
This article has no point, the West colonized "eastern europe" (that is: Central Europe) so what? I'd like to see an article by someone under 50 who isn't an American, otherwise the whole pensioner's view from 1989 doesn't apply in a world where China is a player and where Europe is far more fragmented.
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.
) my mother told me that if I continue to walk this path, "the Soveit gov. won't pay you a pension."
