If the USSR wasn't such a bad thing, then why did it collapse?

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,932
Slovenia, EU
#11
How about the economic warfare waged on the USSR?

The information belongs in this link belongs in this discussion, but it can not be copied and pasted. The west waged economic warfare against the USSR as it waged economic warfare against Cuba. No economy can flourish when it faces such economic warfare.

From Blockade to Trade: Allied Economic Warfare Against Soviet Russia, June 1919 to January 1920 on JSTOR
USSR was a big space with lots of people and resources so it is a nonsense to compare it with Cuba and it is normal to not have free economic exchange with a state which is openly proclaiming that it will destroy you.
 
Oct 2012
621
#12
USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was created only in 1922. There were 15 Soviet Republic by 1985. Russia needs to conquer all of 14 post-Soviet Republics to bring back Soviet Union or they must willingly join Russia. However, there won't be USSR even if modern Russia conquers all of it's neighbors.

Now RSFSR is a different matter. RSFSR was Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and one of the Republics of USSR. It would require big societal and economical changes for modern Russia to become RSFSR again.

If RSFSR somehow emerges and then gains control of all other Republics, then USSR will return.

I'm pretty sure that you've never lived through the 1990's and early 2000's.
I don`t think you got my point.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,421
#13
Life in the USSR might have genuinely been better than what occurred in the 1990s. Since that point in time, though, things have been gradually getting better.
Mostly in Russia you mean... A lot of rest of the post-Soviet sphere has been less fortunate in that respect. But then in the break-up Russia made off with something like 90% of the exploitable Soviet natural resources.

Disruptive as the 1990's was – and most people today will agree it was badly bungled, AND very badly advised by the kind of people from the west brought in to "fix" things, meaning mostly breakage, AND largely left in the lurch to fend for itself by the west – the 1990's still also involved a lot of optimism, and a considerable amount of opportunity. Unfortunately too often those opportunities presented themselves to the wrong people, too few of them, and not at all to weak groups in the post-Soviet societies. But things did fundamentally change for he better in the 1990 – it's just easily missed behind the chaos and misery; problems of perspective. (I.e. fair bit of Putin's subsequent economic accomplishments were inherited from things done in the 1990's.)

Compared to that today Russian society is relatively well-managed. But otoh the opportunities have largely dried up. Russia is striking in how little apparent direction forwards there now is, no sense of it going anywhere, aside from military shows of strength and an official rhetoric stressing how the world around it is hostile (bunker-talk). Resembles in some ways the late Soviet situation...
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,421
#14
How about the economic warfare waged on the USSR?

The information belongs in this link belongs in this discussion, but it can not be copied and pasted. The west waged economic warfare against the USSR as it waged economic warfare against Cuba. No economy can flourish when it faces such economic warfare.

From Blockade to Trade: Allied Economic Warfare Against Soviet Russia, June 1919 to January 1920 on JSTOR
The USSR was a pretty much completely autarchic economic sphere compared to the western market economies. It was a separate economic system. It was one of its main points.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,000
Lisbon, Portugal
#15
That`s right. The claim of USSR apologists, how things were better then is akin to "the slaves were better off before the emancipation".
No single slave will ever say they were better before emancipation, but millions of Ex-Soviet citizens that are old enough to remember that period, miss the Soviet Union, especially its social programs, overall stability and lack of stress over life.
 
Oct 2012
621
#16
No single slave will ever say they were better before emancipation, but millions of Ex-Soviet citizens that are old enough to remember that period, miss the Soviet Union, especially its social programs, overall stability and lack of stress over life.
You have a point there, I must admit.
 
Likes: robto
#17
Gorbachev tried to introduce perestroika (democracy) and glasnost (freedom of the press), while at the same time retaining the socialist features and geographic integrity of the old Soviet Union. But by that time, things had gone too far, and the whole system collapsed. People had access to television, and saw the prosperity, luxury goods, and wealth of America and Western Europe. They didn't see the poverty there. The Baltic nations wanted their old historic independence back. As did the Transcaucasian nations. The rulers of the Turkestanic republics were intent upon becoming wealthy, glorious independent rulers, and put personality-cults in place. Ukraine and Belarus looked to Poland as a model for independence.

Nowadays, many of the people miss the economic security (not so much prosperity as financial security), low prices for basic living essentials, health-care, retirement, and stable jobs that the old socialist economy provided, and this is understandable. They're frustrated by the high prices, layoffs, lack of access to health-care, difficulty of finding jobs, destitute retirement, etc. that comes with a competitive capitalist economy. They miss the security of socialism, and they're troubled by the competitiveness of capitalism. The freedoms of speech and of the press are important to the educated population, but probably not so much as the working-class population. The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill.
 

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
#18
The USSR was a pretty much completely autarchic economic sphere compared to the western market economies. It was a separate economic system. It was one of its main points.
Just because it was different, it doesn't mean it could not succeed if it were not for the economic warfare waged against it. I would say, in the west today we have corporate control that is like the empires of old, only they are aligned differently. These corporations are multi-national and yet they get the services of national military power paid for by citizens and this profits the industries of the Military Industrial Complex nicely, but the citizens, the mild class, appears to be loosing ground. I think we need a better understanding of all systems. What does autarchic mean?

We have a labor intense economy but we no longer have labor intense industry so maybe we need to rethink our own economy?
 
Jun 2017
2,885
Connecticut
#19
And why don't Russians bring it back?

Some people over on my other thread said that those bad things I mentioned were during Stalin's regime and that the USSR had all sorts of good things as well and that that I was fed Western propaganda and the USSR wasn't really all that bad.......
You're misunderstanding what "Soviet Union" means it's a union of soviets, each soviet is one country in the Union, Russia is just the largest one. The Soviet Republic in Russia might have been restored post 1991 without our interference there was a point where it almost was but that would not be the "Soviet Union". Would be Communist run Russia. When we use Russia and Soviet interchangeably we forgot this. Breakup of USSR was more about independence than it was an ideology change. Also the Soviets voluntarily chose to not resist the fall of the Iron Curtain. For a bunch of reasons.

Stalin was considerably worse than any other Soviet leader and it isn't fair to put any wrongdoing the other leaders did in the same category. Man and his crimes were condemned the moment he died, heck it's possibly they even killed him(my money's on Tito from Yugoslavia cause he stated his intent to try but I believe he was assassinated by someone regardless). He has his fingerprints on Mao's atrocities as well, as most deaths caused by Mao's China were a product of Stalin's methods which Mao didn't have the authority to say no too. Mao also unlike Stalin lost power pretty early and the "cultural revolution" wasn't actually when he was charge of China and had more in common with hippie counter culture in the US as a cultural insurrection than the government crackdown it's often treated as.

USSR wasn't great or anything though. Thing is non industrialized countries were never intended to have Communism. You need means of production to divide resources that way. Russia was always economically backwards and rural though. Stalin period might have been the worst things ever got though. Even there Hitler certainly contributed to that misery.
 
Last edited:

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
#20
USSR was a big space with lots of people and resources so it is a nonsense to compare it with Cuba and it is normal to not have free economic exchange with a state which is openly proclaiming that it will destroy you.
What comparison did I make between Cuba and the USSR other than the west practiced economic warfare against these communist countries? I think this thread needs the fact of economic warfare preventing targeted countries from having economic success. No other similarity between these targeted countries is implied.

Economic warfare was part of the Christian expansion and the West continues to use economic warfare because it works.