POLL: The Fall of the U.S.S.R.

Remove all ads!

The Idea of communism was a very good one: a Utopia for all mankind. Everyone as an equal. There was only one problem: mankind itself. It doesn't work like that, despite everything one strives to be greater, better an richer than his fellow man. So communism was doomed to fail, although the regime wasn't really communism like Marx described it. It was changed into Leninism and Stalinism, which brought great grief to the people unlucky enough to fall under their regimes. So the system itself was seriously flawed en impossible to hold together.

 

So it was Human greed and lust for power that messed everything up?

 

I don't think greed as much as it destroys personal ambition. For example say you worked in a factory, and every week, you made 100 widgets. The guy working right next to you only made about 50 widgets a week. At the end of the week, your pay checks were the same. Since your harder work was not rewarded with higher pay, the following week you are much less likely to bust your hump to make 100 widgets again. If you are going to get paid the same regardless, why not just make 50 widgets?

 

Aldeth, a good example would be the colony set up by the Puritans in Massachusetts. In the beginning, all land was owned by the community at large and everybody shared in what was grown. But it didn't take long before people noticed that some of their brethren were not working as hard as the others. They realised that it wasn't fair that these slackards take in as much as those who worked hard, so the land was divided among the colonists.

 

The early christians tried it and it failed. As Gro'Mul said the problem is humanity itself.

 

Weeeelll, the fact that many early revolutionaries used to be bandits and deserters made for a less than perfect "pioneering elite" as well. Just my humble opinion
Aside from that, Gorbachev might have wanted only to reform the Soviet Union, but it was that reform that led to its downfall. However, problems had been accumulating slowly ever since Brezhnev. I suppose a lot of western leaders might want to be remembered by the world as the people who brought down the big bad USSR, but were it not for the problems the system inflicted upon itself Gorbachev would never have seen the need for reform. It wasn't Reagan who started the war in Afghanistan, although he certainly wanted to prolong it. If anything, the war between Iran and Iraq he inspired was rather useful to the Soviets - they could sell weapons to both sides
Still, if the relatively peaceful fall of the USSR (peaceful here being perhaps even more impressive feat than fall) could be limited to the influence of one man, it would be Gorbachev and no other.

 

I think that the Iran-Iraq war had very little to do with Reagan -- he was the one who wanted a peaceful government in Iran in the first place -- it was the hardliners who replaced the shah that went to war with Iraq.

I think your other point is kind of a circle. Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope, etc. all fought communism because it was a bad system -- it was doomed to fail because it was a bad system.

The question is whether it would have fallen faster or slower without people fighting it.

 

I voted to "other (state in reply)". It's surprising how many votes Gorbachev has. He was a big reformer, but his reforms just modified the system -- they just made a better, a bit more pleasant atmosphere. They aren't directly responsible for USSR's end. As St.James mentioned in one of his previous posts, the reason is Communism. Let's talk more about it a bit.

What causes the end of a political system? A coup. Maybe. But in USSR's case, the primary reason was the economy. Socialistic economy (for those not familiar with it: planned economy, ignoring demand/supply, central prices etc. etc.) isn't a self-sufficient economy. And such economies are sentenced to death.
So Communism is a wrong system because of its economy primarily. The tools of dictature didn't cause the USSR's end! I mean, noone dared to rebel. People didn't want to die or be in prison for a decade or two. People were afraid to rebel.

Back to the economy, why can it kill a system? Because: wrong economy -> no money, very low life standard. Since it's socialistic system, workers have no intention to make quality. They get the same salary regardless of what they do in quality. Only the quantity is important.
USSR had a very powerful nuclear arsenal and army, but USA was better (remember that MIG 29 might be the maneuvering plane but the electronics of F16 and other American planes are the best in the world!). USA was better, and no matter how much USSR spent on military, they could't be better -- why? Because USA had a powerful economy. If economy is good, the whole system works fine, generally. Every area of life.


A few words about rebellion. I didn't say they weren't (basically illegal) opposition groups and such, but there was no chance of a big revolution. So the end of the system was actually the end of a long process (and not a sudden rebellion).

Before finishing my posts, let me tell a few words about everyday life. For those Western citizen who've never lived in dictature.
Only those had high(er) life standards who or whose relatives were affiliated with the governing Party (in the only existing official political force)
If you have been a simple person, you couldn't reach anything. You had talent -- no, unis usually didn't accept you because you had no one in the government position. You were clever -- thinking is prohibited! Do physical work!
Food -- meat could be bought once per week. Better quality meat only if you know the butcher well.
Every company was owned by the state. And you had no own property (own real estate) basically. (Personal example: the town was advertising the area of our garden for sale, as an area that can be used to build something on it. WITHOUT our knowledge and approval. It was a hell, but finally the advertisement was removed. It was official, I emphasize. Not a cheat, or a mistake of the town leaders. It was INTENTIONAL. And normal. Normal.)
If you have told e.g. in the pub that you didn't like the government, the police was authorized to take you and beat you, torture you. Etc.

It's good that the system is over. I hope that the similar systems such as Cuba will be free some day. (In North Korea/ Vietnam, the system is still running. Horrible, isn't it? But let's NOT expect from the people of these countries that they will rebel. They have no way to.)

 

Baronius, you are right about the economy and for Gorby being a reformer, but I would still hold this is why the USSR collapsed - he attempted a much more radical reform than the system could take. As a stable and bureaucratic system, the eastern bloc and especially the USSR had a very low tolerance for change. So when Gorbachev attempted a reform, even if a limited one by Western standards, it was taken as a gesture of incredible proportions and the political security most people had taken for granted disappeared. It was somewhat similar to the effect of the de-stalinization plenum of Khruschev - but while Khruschev decided to quell (by force if necessary) any divergent ideas both among the Soviet inteligentsia and the Eastern bloc "allies", Gorbachev was determined to let the reform run its course. Soon, some of the USSR republics wanted autonomy, and since he refrained from calling in the tanks, eventually he had to start giving them more and more autonomy. People on the inside could probably already feel that communism and the USSR wouldn't last long - and an idea held by so many people is a powerful thing in determining their behavior.

--- Voted for Gorby and proud of it---

 

I voted "other." But I think Reagan had a lot to do with it. Economics collapsed the USSR. Prompted in part by Reagan's massive military buildup. I don't think the Soviets price control economy could handle it. Having to spend vast amounts of money and resources on competing in space and in conventional and nuclear weapons...It bankrupted the USSR.

I think Gorbachev saw it coming, and extended Perestroika to the West in an attempt to make political gains before the economic realities were seen.

 

I am not sure Gorbachev saw it coming. Additionally, although made serious reforms, he never supported capitalism, many people don't know this but Gorbachev believed in socialism -- he thought socialism could be a working system. (It isn't. At least not in that sizes.)

 

Gorbatsev is the man who took this decision after all he could ignored it (postponed for other to take it) so he had the courage to put his signature on a piece of paper that ended a malfunctioning situation. Regardless of the pressures he was having from various groups and political figures (Reagan and Pope), he could just ignore them.

 

It collapsed because we, Eastern Slavs, could no longer tolerate such a disgusting, foreing and Anti-Slavic system such as Communism. As simple as that.
A system not rooted into traditional Russian Pravoslavnie Culture, which hated and despised everything Russian and Slavic could not last for long.
The fact Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians had to fed up a bunch of backwarded and useless Republics did not help either.
I am glad it ended.
PS: I see a lot of crap being said. Countries like Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, etc were never part of URSS.

 

The person most responsible was Josef Stalin. Though Stalin himself was capable, he murdered almost everyone who showed talent, since they might someday oppose him, and left only mediocrities to succeed him. Gorbachev, in fact, tried to re-vitalize the structure, but he failed.

 

Svyatoslav: it is USSR and not URSS. The countries you mention weren't direct members of the USSR but USSR's influence (direct control!) was unquestionable. But you're right in case of Czech Republic: there was no such country, it was called Czechoslovakia until 1993.

 

I voted Gorbatjev. I did a essay on him and his politics (glasnost, perestroika) in school, and IMO what he did was against most of the stuff that the politicans before him had enforced.

 

I agree with Baronius. As a 2nd generation American whose grandparents immigrated to the U.S. from Czechoslovakia, the Russian influence over the Eastern Bloc countries was unquestionable. I will grant that the Eastern Bloc countries were not part of the USSR per se, as the satellite republics of Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc., were, but all of the countries that were listed were part of the "Iron Curtain".

 

Aldeth,

Would you know if you are either Czech or Slovak?
Anyway, I agree with the Iron Curtain influence, but it is still fairly different from being a Soviet Republic.

 

Slovak - from the area near Prague.