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

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
#21
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.

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 though.
Professor Vejas Gabrial Liulevicius provides the course Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century through The Great Courses. He links the terrors of war, revolutions, and genocides to ideas of Utopia coming out of the Age of Enlightenment. Marx was extremely proud of being scientific and his movement was presented as a global movement, not a national movement. I think at this time in history we are overly sure of ourselves. If we relate our present mindset of being very sure of ourselves and confident of what technology will do with us, with Germany and world wars and the communist revolutions, we might gain an understanding of thinking all we need to do is destroy the old to have the Utopia, rational and scientific thinking, can give us. We continue to think when push comes to shove we will become violent. I hear people speaking of another revolution in the US with no plan of what will follow the revolution. It is amazing people can think like that but they do. They just need the great leader for the great war and Utopia is theirs.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,714
Sydney
#22
The USSR made very great efforts to suppress Russian nationalism and religion
many Russians then were quite vocal ( in private ) in being treated like the poor nag dragging the overloaded cart along
re-creating the USSR for Russian today has very little attraction
 
Jun 2017
2,895
Connecticut
#23
Professor Vejas Gabrial Liulevicius provides the course Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century through The Great Courses. He links the terrors of war, revolutions, and genocides to ideas of Utopia coming out of the Age of Enlightenment. Marx was extremely proud of being scientific and his movement was presented as a global movement, not a national movement. I think at this time in history we are overly sure of ourselves. If we relate our present mindset of being very sure of ourselves and confident of what technology will do with us, with Germany and world wars and the communist revolutions, we might gain an understanding of thinking all we need to do is destroy the old to have the Utopia, rational and scientific thinking, can give us. We continue to think when push comes to shove we will become violent. I hear people speaking of another revolution in the US with no plan of what will follow the revolution. It is amazing people can think like that but they do. They just need the great leader for the great war and Utopia is theirs.
Marx did believe he was being scientific and as a historian and analyst of the past he's among the very best. And I defend him based on being sure of his predictions in 1848, wrong as they turned out to be. The century after that was considerably more dynamic and different than any since maybe the first or second centuries BC, looking at history from a 1848 perspective things look very stagnant and predictable. Heck look how huge a year 1848 was(talking other events) and how little tangible long term change the year produced. His argument also depended on Capitalists being the same as aristocrats which was a faulty conclusion and why all the revolutions inspired by his work were overthrowing aristocrats because that's the point of reference his certainty came from. Regardless put any intellectual from 1848 into a time machine and send them to 1948. They would be utterly floored at how things transpired. Maybe ones from 1748 to 1848 would be a little too but most earlier centuries if you do that, things more or less would be the same with very minor changes.

But Marxism isn't really utopian, it's followers tend to be and Marx might have, but Marxism was supposed to be a prediction of what would occur naturally with or without people advocating for it to occur. People don't need to advocate for gravity, if you jump you'll fall regardless and people working to induce something that's supposed to be an inherent product of the human condition seem to be missing the supposed point of making predictions.

In terms of revolution in the US, tends to be more about restoring Social Democracy.Per desire to restore Social Democracy there was a revolution removing it so there's a desire for a revolution to restore it in much the same mold. At least thinking of the movements I support that use such phrasing. At least in terms of the mass appeal I think that's true, there's some Marxists who will naturally try and piggy back this to get what they really want, heck that's not too far from what happened to create the USSR. That's why I despise Marxists not cause of any uneducated "it's an ideology that kills people" nonsense but cause of the almost inherent backstabbing dishonesty of Marxist activists(in all eras and places). I have never seen another group tell you they plan to betray you and then expect you to be like "okay that's cool". They are leeches who use the popularity and merit of other people's idea's to gain power then kill said people and take it for themselves. That's what Lenin did with the Social Revolutionaries and anti war movement that's what most successful Communists have done and it's the horrible part of Communism that gets overshadowed in the rush to say Socialism and Communism are the same. Yeah "Socialism leads to Communism" if the plan is for the Communists to kill the more popular Socialists. But yeah generally the phrase is used in the sense "drastic change" like industrial revolution, rather than the alternative Marxist definition which basically is a fancy word for coup or overthrow.
 
Last edited:

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,714
Sydney
#24
It's a political constant , not unlike Darwinism
that those who are closer to your policies are your deepest enemies to be disposed off first
same pool of supporters
Trotsky destroying the Kronstadt Soviet in a pitiless military assault do spring to mind
 
Nov 2015
1,788
Kyiv
#26
The USSR made very great efforts to suppress Russian nationalism and religion
many Russians then were quite vocal ( in private ) in being treated like the poor nag dragging the overloaded cart along
re-creating the USSR for Russian today has very little attraction
Maybe you can mention at least one citizen of the USSR who was tried in the USSR for Russian nationalism from 1922 to 1991 (more precisely, Russian bourgeois nationalism)? And this is despite the fact that the Gulag was packed with convicts for Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Turkic and other bourgeois nationalisms.

Russian nationalism has never been persecuted in the Soviet Union. At the same time, the accusations of Ukrainian, Belarusian, Lithuanian and other non-Russian nationalisms were one of the most serious in that country. And although it constantly shouted about fraternity and equality of all peoples - the Russian dominant was quite obvious in the propaganda, ideology and culture of the USSR since the 1930s

And when the Russian people were mentioned in the official context of the USSR, an epithet great was usually applied to it - THE GREAT RUSSIAN PEOPLE

I remember the time in the USSR, when the words Russian and the Russians were pronounced like a sacred mantra. And the resonance of the struggle for the abandonment of Russian priorities in culture and science - a noisy campaign under Stalin - was still alive. And at that time dozens of times I watched Soviet films where the Russian always stood above the non-Russians (natsmen), and his words sounded like the ultimate truth. The supremacy of Russians was constantly promoted in Soviet culture, although it was accompanied by formal declaration on the equality of all peoples of the USSR

Even on the numerous Soviet posters on which representatives of different nationalities of the USSR were depicted, the Russian was always at the center and stood out sharply with the modern urban costume or — in the worst case — working overalls. And all non-Russian characters on the posters were in archaic national dress. The Russians on the posters were much more modern, advanced and devoid of archaic than the representatives of non-Russian ethnic groups of the USSR.

I remember even the joke of the time.

All nations in the USSR are equal. But the Russian people - is he most equal of all the peoples of the USSR







As for the popularity of the USSR in today's Russia, then you are clearly cunning. The USSR is very popular in nowadays Russia. And Putin at one time called the disintegration of the USSR into national states in 1991 the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.\

As follows from the results of the Levada Center survey in Russia at the end of 2017, the proportion of those who regretted the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 reached 58%. And twice less Russians do not regret of the collapse.

Ностальгия по СССР
 
Last edited:
Nov 2015
1,788
Kyiv
#27
USSR 1989
population ~300 milion, GDP $2.5 trilion

USA 1989
population 250 milion, GDP $5 trilion


Not bad
... the economy of the USSR ... to the beginning of Perestroyka was an economy of a mobilization type ... with an extremely high level of militarization, enormous differences in the technical equipment of sertain industries, deeply autarkic, with an overweighted structure, administrative system and completely special mechanism of labor motivations. Along with significant achievements in some areas, the Soviet economy bore the stamp of undoubted degradation and degeneration.

Yaremenko Yu. V. On the economy // M: MAKS Press, 2015. - P. 202. - ISBN 978-5-317-05082-5.
 
Jul 2017
292
Srpska
#28
... the economy of the USSR ... to the beginning of Perestroyka was an economy of a mobilization type ... with an extremely high level of militarization, enormous differences in the technical equipment of sertain industries, deeply autarkic, with an overweighted structure, administrative system and completely special mechanism of labor motivations. Along with significant achievements in some areas, the Soviet economy bore the stamp of undoubted degradation and degeneration.
Those are all meaningless epithets. Bottom line is, there was good money, high GDP.
 
Jul 2017
292
Srpska
#29
USSR Countries 2018

Russia 145 mp, $1.6 trillion
Estonia 1.5 mp, 0.045 trillion
Latvia 2 mp, 0.035 trillion
Lithuania 3 mp, 0.05 trillion
Belarus 10 mp, 0.060 trillion
Ukraine 40 mp, 0.150 trilion
Moldova 4mp, 0.050 trillion
Georgia 4 mp, 0.040 trillion
Armenia 3 mp, 0.03 trillion
Azerbaijan 10 mp, 0.05 trillion
Kazakhstan 20 mp, 0.170 trillion
Uzbekistan 30 mp, 0.040 trillion
Turkmenistan 6 mp, 0.040 trillion
Kyrgyzstan 6 mp, 0.01 trillion
Tajikistan 9 mp, 0.01 trillion


SUMMARY USSR Countries today
~300 million people GDP $2.4 trillion


USSR Countries in 1989
~300 million people, GDP $2.5 trillion