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.
First-the Soviet Union was socialist, not communist (in spite of the name chosen by the central party). Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Communism is (theoretically) the "next evolutionary step" after socialism where "government" no longer exists and ownership is by "society" and "the people" own everything and make up all the rules.
No one with half a brain would suggest that there was no government under the Soviet Union. There was-and like under virtually every socialist government, they were totalitarian or close to it.
The Soviet Union "died" because socialism is an utter failure as an economic system. It destroys productivity, output, innovation, any incentive to work or excel. By destroying any incentive for the best and brightest of their society to excel, to innovate, to produce-they ensure the misery and eventual starvation of their entire society-or at least those members that do not "work" for the government.
The Soviet Union "died" because socialism is an utter failure as an economic system. It destroys productivity, output, innovation, any incentive to work or excel.
... and yet, oddly enough, the market-based 'social democracies' that follow the Nordic model are the most successful economic system known to man in terms of quality of life, happiness of the people, work-life balance, longevity, healthcare outcomes and infant mortality. Conservatives in the U.S. falsely slap the "socialist" label on the Nordic model but the two couldn't be more different.
Huh? Firstly just because you live in rural area does not mean you are stupid. Secondly if you are a farmer you know how to farm, the issue starts when government policy created by someone who has no clue about farming is dictating how you farm.
No, it doesn't mean that ALL people "who live in rural area" are stupid. Not at all.
But what happened in case of Russia ( and Americans usually don't understand it, because they tend to project THEIR OWN society onto Russia,) is that Russia IS/WAS much more "class society" than America ever was.
So when the Socialist revolution took place back in 1917, it became all about "class" and "origin" of people. And that means that often, if you were coming from the class of "peasant and workers," that was all that mattered, NOT your natural abilities. You could be very limited in your natural abilities, yet "ideologically trustworthy," ( i.e. repeating the slogans of "Marxism-lenininsm" ad naseum and adhering to "communist theories" unconditionally.) In this case scenario you could be put in charge of whatever endeavors, over the people who were actually specialists. ( OR as ideological overseers of the specialists, looking over their shoulder and dictating them what to do.)
And that means that even intelligent and capable people from the rural areas were passed in promotions/not trusted enough, UNLESS they were "ideologically trustworthy."
Most of intelligent people ( be that rural or urban dwellers) have tendency to question things, when they see they don't go right, while being dictated by people "from above." So if a peasant for example would point at the fact that "this particular culture ( be that oats or rye) never grew well in our region, but it's doing great 200 miles south of us," he could be accused of "sabotage" and "suspicious activities," if someone from the local "party committee" would send the order to saw oats or rye in the region in question. It's just an example, but there were plenty of them.
During Stalin's times the genuine specialists were still honored ( although executed often enough - that's true too, because of a number of reasons - be that "reports of suspicious activity" written by their neighbors to KGB (then NKVD) or just general atmosphere of paranoia in Stalins' cabinet - whatever.)
However when Khrushev came to power, that's when the whole array of people with "peasant background," ideologically trustworthy" made their way in key positions.
Krushev himself belonged to that category ( hence his famous "banging the shoe" during his angry speech in the UN, and his orders to "grow corn" where it couldn't be grown.
By the way, Khrushev was in many ways at fault during that famine in Ukraine (currently referred as "golodomor,") because being a hick out of sticks that he was, he ( and his buddies) were promising Stalin the "unconditional success" and setting quotas of appropriated grain so high, that it led to starvation of the local population.
Once the idiot realized what he has done, he was too afraid to ask Stalin for help ( he finally did, and yes, Stalin was VERY angry, when he received the report about the REAL situation in Ukraine.)
Gorbachev was coming from the same mold; "peasant background," for god knows what reason appointed as the "General Secretary of the Soviet Union."
He too was trying to "reform Soviet economy" without actually reforming it.
I mean by the sound of it, he was better off just allowing downright the creation of the private sector in the USSR, which would make sense for any intelligent person, but not to "ideologically trustworthy" individual, because it was still going against "Marxist-Leninist theories."
And that's why Gorbachev "economic reforms" brought only more chaos and hardship for Soviet people instead of awaited relief.
Yeltsin was no better in terms of his upbringing/outlook, even though the Russians initially put a lot of trust in him.
So as my grandmother once said, "Any country that shuts its intelligent people down, that doesn't allow its most brightest and capable to do their job, will nosedive. Any country."
And it all happened "in the name of ideology."
Now you will hopefully understand what I refer to as "hicks out of sticks," when talking about certain Soviet leaders.
Collectivism always fails, be it communism, socialism, fascism, or nationalism.
The only reason the U.S.--a hybrid of socialism and fascism--hasn't yet failed is the Federal Reserve printing up trillions of dollars of worthless money to keep the ship from sinking like the Titanic.
$200 trillion in unfunded liabilities are about to finally sink the ship for good, though, especially when the Petrodollar is no longer the reserve currency.
First-the Soviet Union was socialist, not communist (in spite of the name chosen by the central party). Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Communism is (theoretically) the "next evolutionary step" after socialism where "government" no longer exists and ownership is by "society" and "the people" own everything and make up all the rules.
No one with half a brain would suggest that there was no government under the Soviet Union. There was-and like under virtually every socialist government, they were totalitarian or close to it.
The Soviet Union "died" because socialism is an utter failure as an economic system. It destroys productivity, output, innovation, any incentive to work or excel. By destroying any incentive for the best and brightest of their society to excel, to innovate, to produce-they ensure the misery and eventual starvation of their entire society-or at least those members that do not "work" for the government.
I don’t draw the conclusion it fails guaranteed. My conclusion is it requires enormous perseverance and voluntary willpower, results not in economic optimization but a happier reward for each successful step taken, an increased worldly awareness, a much improved trust between neighbors, and social amenities that can’t be bought with individual wealth.
Drawbacks are enormous
1) like any disruption, transitioning to it wrecks what systems were previously driving economic gains. But you know this just from when Apple or Samsung upgrades software people go nuts
2) requires congruency and diverse distrustful populations in a nation must reconcile their clashes before any hope of moving to socialism
3) national Fiscal discipline is a pre-requisite to even try socialism. If you don’t have it you gain zero from trying it. Implementing socialism is a high startup cost
4) you have to be willing to ride out failures and fix them as you go. If you are afraid of failure, socialism will fail immediately
5) The will to try has to be voluntary, though frustration during implementation can lead to some unwanted mandates much like if you have a will to lose weight but you get frustrated with a personal trainer saying you didn’t do enough sit-ups and do 15 more. That’s ok, but the end goal desire has to be voluntary.
Last edited by Siberiaboy; 03-28-2019 at 11:22 AM..
I don't need researches for this. I lived at those times. And I remember very well the 4 hour lines for bones. Why USSR collapsed? Because people did not believe in it anymore.
Just because you "lived at those times," doesn't mean that you "don't need researches for this."
I would never judge the attitude of people in the country overall by "me and mine."
I would definitely not judge the situation by my own surroundings as well.
What people were tired of by the end of the Soviet system, was the chaos and hardship crated by Gorbachev's "reforms" most likely.
But lo and behold, this is what's coming up recently more and more often;
It collapsed, because they ran out of all the other peoples money.
What is "other peoples money," when everyone is employed by the state and paid by the state?
A catchy phrase, that means nothing.
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.
