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 have a question relating to the nostalgia for Soviet Union in Russia. I just thought there could be two main causes for it.( Or maybe there ares some other factors as well)
- the first one, let´s call it "nationalistic" or "political": people are missing USSR because it was a powerful super country compared to post-soviet Russia, esp. the Yeltsinian Russia
or
- are people more missing of the soviet society, lifestyle, culture: socialistic with no povert risk, no gap between poor and rich, free from capitalist pitched battle of everybody against everybody and so on.
What do you think, which out of these two is the predominating cause of nostalgia for USSR ?
It's the second one, overwhelmingly so.
The first sentiment is there too, but it's not shared by too many.
For the most part people are more concerned with the social aspects of life.
It was a CRUCIAL MISTAKE on behalf of the US gov. to not let Russians have European model of capitalism, in which they would have been much more content and potentially successful, but to push them into American one.
Oh well. The rest is history.
It's the second one, overwhelmingly so.
The first sentiment is there too, but it's not shared by too many.
For the most part people are more concerned with the social aspects of life.
It was a CRUCIAL MISTAKE on behalf of the US gov. to not let Russians have European model of capitalism, in which they would have been much more content and potentially successful, but to push them into American one.
Oh well. The rest is history.
Thanks. That´s very logical, I supposed an answer like that. Really, it seems the most people, wherever or in what country they live, always care way more about the social, everyday aspects of life than any abstract political ideas like nationalism and et cetera. At least, they in their essence do it.
I will always prefer European model of capitalism to American too, there is no any doubt in it, European one has way stronger social aspect. Unfortunately there is an american one or leaning to American one, here too.
Re: 'Most Russian believes Gorbachev is a traitor. It is a fact'
Sorry been away for awhile. Just saw the comment Maksim.
As a Russian, why do you think most Russians believe him a traitor? I thought he was a man of vision who was extremely realistic on the future of events and where the country was headed. Russians indeed are noted for their 'realism'. If Russian pride was hurt it wasn't Gorbachev who caused it but simply the confluence of events catching him and people in a storm.
They believe him to be a traitor because he "destroyed" the Soviet Union. As you can see from subsequent posts, people miss the security of the old regime. Even though family economies were very limited, there was a cradle-to-grave system that took care of people's basic needs, including higher education. When the system changed, suddenly there was mass unemployment, and people could take nothing for granted anymore. The bottom dropped out from under them, and they were in free-fall. From our perspective, G did a revolutionary thing, but that perspective doesn't take into account the traumatic effect on people's day-to-day lives. You can't feed your kids on freedom of expression.
Also bear in mind that it was NOT Gorby's vision to dissolve the system. To the contrary, he wanted to improve it. In order to improve it, it was necessary to allow analysis and critique of what wasn't working. That hadn't been allowed, before. Economists needed to be allowed to figure out what was wrong with the system. For example, during Brezhnev, which coincided with the Arab oil embargo, when oil prices worldwide skyrocketed, the economy was in stagnation, in spite of Russia being an oil producer. That's when the more daring economists began to meet secretly, to try to determine why the economy wasn't growing, to say nothing of prospering. Gorbachev wanted to bring that type of discussion into the open, so that a new and improved socialism could be had. Somehow, the whole thing snowballed out of control, and then Yeltsin took advantage of the situation to effect a coup.
I think it could have been pretty cool to keep the old system, but have a more open society. I don't see the two as being entirely incompatible. But it only would have worked if the system could have improved people's standard of living.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 09-01-2016 at 12:33 PM..
I believe the both could be important but that do you think, which out of these two is the predominating cause of nostalgia for USSR ?
The Western world is an illusion of freedom. USSR is an illusion of justice. Many Russians are tired of "freedom" (capitalist grin), they are nostalgic for justice. Sometimes they remember Stalin as an image of fair leader. They do not want to remember the repression and the Gulag, but they remember the tight control and equality.
A good song about it. It is a satire, filthy language and stupid videos, but A.Elin wrote an excellent text, which reflects the situation.
They believe him to be a traitor because he "destroyed" the Soviet Union. As you can see from subsequent posts, people miss the security of the old regime. Even though family economies were very limited, there was a cradle-to-grave system that took care of people's basic needs, including higher education. When the system changed, suddenly there was mass unemployment, and people could take nothing for granted anymore. The bottom dropped out from under them, and they were in free-fall. From our perspective, G did a revolutionary thing, but that perspective doesn't take into account the traumatic effect on people's day-to-day lives. You can't feed your kids on freedom of expression.
Also bear in mind that it was NOT Gorby's vision to dissolve the system. To the contrary, he wanted to improve it. In order to improve it, it was necessary to allow analysis and critique of what wasn't working. That hadn't been allowed, before. Economists needed to be allowed to figure out what was wrong with the system. For example, during Brezhnev, which coincided with the Arab oil embargo, when oil prices worldwide skyrocketed, the economy was in stagnation, in spite of Russia being an oil producer. That's when the more daring economists began to meet secretly, to try to determine why the economy wasn't growing, to say nothing of prospering. Gorbachev wanted to bring that type of discussion into the open, so that a new and improved socialism could be had. Somehow, the whole thing snowballed out of control, and then Yeltsin took advantage of the situation to effect a coup.
I think it could have been pretty cool to keep the old system, but have a more open society. I don't see the two as being entirely incompatible. But it only would have worked if the system could have improved people's standard of living.
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.
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.
No. It was doing fine, everything was running as always until after the coup. Then, all construction around the country was abandoned, half-finished apartment buildings all over the place, abandoned. Funding to regional governments was cut back a year later, and people began to be laid off in large numbers. That all happened after Gorbachev. With a better understanding of economics, and with better vigilance and reforms to fight corruption, it could have worked.
No. It was doing fine, everything was running as always until after the coup. Then, all construction around the country was abandoned, half-finished apartment buildings all over the place, abandoned. Funding to regional governments was cut back a year later, and people began to be laid off in large numbers. That all happened after Gorbachev. With a better understanding of economics, and with better vigilance and reforms to fight corruption, it could have worked.
Allow me to disagree Ruth.
The system was not doing "just fine" and "everything was not running as always" starting from approximately 1987 ( i.e. already few years BEFORE the coup.) However he ( Gorbachev that is) was tinkering with economy for two years after he announced his "Perestroyka," it was not working out for the best. In fact things were getting worse and worse - visibly worse and I would tend to believe Yavlinsky, that Gorbachev was NOT willing to implement REAL economic reforms, that were timely and were necessary. Because these reforms would have truly opened the new venue, new competition and could have brought new people to power at the end. Gorbachev was not ready for that - he wanted to remain that "benevolent leader" on top for years to come, and these serious reforms could have jeopardized his position. But at the end his stubbornness/stupidity ( call it as you wish) was precisely what finished him off as a leader, when Russians overwhelmingly supported Yeltsin over him. Because Yeltsin was symbolizing the true changes at that time, not just pretense Gorbachev style.
Allow me to disagree Ruth.
The system was not doing "just fine" and "everything was not running as always" starting from approximately 1987 ( i.e. already few years BEFORE the coup.) However he ( Gorbachev that is) was tinkering with economy for two years after he announced his "Perestroyka," was not working out for the best. In fact things were getting worse and worse - visibly worse and I would tend to believe Yavlinsky, that Gorbachev was NOT willing to implement REAL economic reforms, that were timely and were necessary. Because these reforms would have truly opened the new venue, new competition and could have brought new people to power at the end. Gorbachev was not ready for that - he wanted to remain that "benevolent leader" on top for years to come, and these serious reforms could have jeopardized his position. But at the end his stubbornness/stupidity ( call it as you wish) was precisely what finished him off as a leader, when Russians overwhelmingly supported Yeltsin over him. Because Yeltsin was symbolizing the true changes at that time, not just pretense Gorbachev style.
Thank you, this is interesting. When did you leave, by the way? Did you witness this, or did you hear about it from friends/relatives?
But I wouldn't call Yeltsin a reformer (we don't need to get into the Jeffrey Sachs story again, do we? ). An opportunist, perhaps? Anyway, he gave free reign to the oligarchs. I wouldn't call that reform, or anything constructive. I would have liked to see those timely, necessary reforms that opened new venues. It may not have brought new people to power in the end; there's no way to know, now. In any case, overhauling an enormous country like the USSR, within a framework that could still be called socialism, would be an enormous task.
Thank you, this is interesting. When did you leave, by the way? Did you witness this, or did you hear about it from friends/relatives?
No, I witnessed it myself - his "Perestroyka" on initial stages ( I traveled extensively at that point because of my job,) the jumps in economy, the *rise* of Yeltsin ( or rather rumors about him as a new "folk hero" back in the day, since he dared to challenge Politburo on a subject "If you want "Perestroyka, why don't you start with yourself? Why don't you refuse of your special stores and personal autos?" That kind of stuff - that was the initial reason why he became popular.)
I can't figure out now, whether I've left in 1987 or 1988, but I could sense that it was the beginning of the end already, because clearly things were NOT "as always" from economic point of view.
It's the second one, overwhelmingly so.
The first sentiment is there too, but it's not shared by too many.
For the most part people are more concerned with the social aspects of life.
It was a CRUCIAL MISTAKE on behalf of the US gov. to not let Russians have European model of capitalism, in which they would have been much more content and potentially successful, but to push them into American one.
Oh well. The rest is history.
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?
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.
). An opportunist, perhaps? Anyway, he gave free reign to the oligarchs. I wouldn't call that reform, or anything constructive. I would have liked to see those timely, necessary reforms that opened new venues. It may not have brought new people to power in the end; there's no way to know, now. In any case, overhauling an enormous country like the USSR, within a framework that could still be called socialism, would be an enormous task.