8 ms·

Gorbachev: Perestroika Lost

81 points by ph0rque 17y ago

hristov 17y ago
Great article by a brilliant man. I like the fact that while he admits his mistakes and points out problems with Putin he does not shy away from pointing out some problems that are completely ignored in the western reporting on Russia -- that the so called "shock therapy" that was urged and urged by western economists and bankers was a total disaster and that the second election of Yeltsin and the first election of Putin were fraudulent.
- idlewords 17y ago
  Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. It worked extremely well in the Eastern Bloc satellites that tried it, and the general trend was that the more drastic the privatization, the faster the recovery and ultimate rise to European living standards. In the former Soviet Union, though, 'shock therapy' turned into simple looting. The country was too big and the political system too rotten to actually carry out any program of reform.
  - ugh 17y ago
    “The country was too big …” So it was bad advice?
    - idlewords 17y ago
      The problem is we only get one shot at history. So it's hard to look back and assign the right reasons for the failure. It's conceivable that a different set of leaders could have made shock therapy work in the former USSR. It's also possible that no political system could have survived the trauma at that scale. My point is that it was not obviously bad advice. For the countries that managed to push it through politically, it worked extremely well.
  - hristov 17y ago
    Wow, I wonder what those "eastern block satelites" where it "worked extremely well" are. I was born in an eastern block country and still follow the news there, and let me tell you it did not work very well there. In fact it was very similar to a miniature version of what happened in Russia (except for the oil and gas money). Your last sentence is the typical way the Chicago boys excuse themselves after their repeated failures -- just by using racism. "Our theories are sound but the locals are too rotten for our high minded theories" ...
    - idlewords 17y ago
      Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic.
      - Zev 17y ago
        Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence. Hell, in Czechoslovakia, the workers actually put in unpaid overtime to make up for the work that they missed while they were protesting to gain freedom. // edit: Don't include Romania, actually. ATB pointed out, rightfully, that the Romanian revolution was among the more violent of the revolutions in 1989. If you look at the Balkans (countries that used to make up Yugoslavia (sans Slovenia), Bulgaria, Albania, etc), the economic story is slightly different. In Bulgaria, for example, the economy only got back up to pre-1989 levels in mid-2004. The economies here were much more tied to the Soviet Union's and its collapse hit them much harder. Or, they just devolved into a series of ethnic battles, which doesn't go over well with the economy.
        idlewords 17y ago
        And we both forgot the plucky Baltic states, which have done very well indeed!
        Zev 17y ago
        Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia? They weren't satellite states during the Cold War; they were part of the Soviet Union (or Russia, if you go back to before World War 1). They broke off afterwards. To me, it doesn't make much sense to examine these states the same way you would satellite states. They weren't in the same situation during the Cold War. Although, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia did simply vote themselves out of the Russian Federation, rather then joining it after the Soviet Union collapsed, so, there's a common thread for success, I suppose.
  - moo 17y ago
    "The country was too big and the political system too rotten to actually carry out any program of reform." In other words it was bad advise for the situation in Russia. If it is not one size fits all then it is not good advise. Also I don't think this Friedman economics worked out so well in Chile either. The industries that work in the U.S. are government subsidized ones like agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and military technology spending. The bank bailouts also do not lead me to believe the U.S. follows its own advise.
  - adobriyan 17y ago
    > Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. If you don't count those who died of starvation because savings were burned in hyperinflation and pensions were (and still are) _tiny_, those who were killed during inevitable criminalization of society, Russians who were killed because of nationalizm in USSR republics, _millions_ of unborn children because of economical and political instabilities, then, yes, it wasn't bad advice.
- adobriyan 17y ago
  > brilliant man This clown made amazing decisions like taking Bush et al words_ that NATO won't spread to the East, sincerely thinking that West is here to help and so on. > that the second election of Yeltsin and the first election of Putin were fraudulent. It was fraudulent since 75% voted for preserving USSR at 1991.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Can't quote a source, unfortunately, but I read a long essay last month which used the original diplomatic notes to research this "NATO Promise" business. Long story short -- there was never a promise not to expand NATO. EDIT: Dug up a couple from Google, although they weren't the ones I was referring to. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomatic_mystery http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomati... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16289 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16...
- m0th87 17y ago
  I'm surprised no one has commented on this thread that The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (leaving her strong political leanings aside) provides an excellent overview of the shock therapy as it was applied to the USSR and other nations. It was by far the most disturbing book I've ever read.
  - johnyzee 17y ago
    On the same topic, 'Baghdad year zero' is also fascinating: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
andyjdavis 17y ago
Does anyone else marvel at Mikhail Gorbachev's writing appearing the in the New York Times? That, if nothing else, is a sign of how far we've come from the cold war days.
- jackfoxy 17y ago
  No, I don't marvel at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews I think any major English language periodical would publish his editorial, which generates more high-brow interest in the English speaking world than in his own country. He has absolutely no influence in Russia today, or for quite some time. I once had a Ukrainian immigrant barber, who maintained Gorbachev's Russian was very pedestrian, but he had a great English interpretor who could translate on the spot into prosaic English. He (the barber) was very opinionated, and I have never seen anyone make this claim in print.
  - coffeemug 17y ago
    Gorbachev has a tremendous command of Russian, but he used it in a way somewhat opposite to that of Hemingway. When he was first elected, people were glued to the TVs to listen to a man who could speak quickly, with an energetic voice, discuss the issues, and do it all without reading from a piece of paper (a huge novelty back then). But he could talk for hours without actually saying anything. The English articles are far more matter of fact - they get to the point much faster than Gorbachev ever did in Russian.
  - steamboiler 17y ago
    Why would a great interpreter translate something pedestrian to something prosaic? (factual; dull; unimaginative http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosaic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosaic)
    - dfranke 17y ago
      I think "prosodic" is the word he meant.
bh23ha 17y ago
I think everyone will agree the core thesis that a "primitive" economy based on natural resources will not make Russia a great country in the future is true. The implication that it is fear that's keeping a more modern, complex and innovative economy from a evolving is more nuanced. I think dictatorships like Singapore are not necessary bad for a strong and diverse economy. I think a true democracy is better, but not by much pure in economic terms. I think it's much better for your humanity. What really plagues Russia is chaos, corruption and lawlessness. That's what's keeping the small and mid sized business down, they are the ones that could diversify the economy.
- andyjdavis 17y ago
  Being a dictatorship is not inherently bad for the economy. But as you say democracy tends to be better for your humanity, so to speak. Being a dictatorship magnifies the impact of the quality of the leadership/rulers. In most western democracies our governments are relatively weak. Their ability to help or hinder the economy is somewhat limited as they generally don't directly control the organizations that make up the economy. On the other hand in a country where the government wields absolute power the government's impact is enormous. Historically most governments around in the world haven't been great so the countries that have done consistently well are those whose governments have limited influence over the economy ie democracies. Its not that democracy helps your economy. It just dilutes the governments ability to fvck it up.
  - camccann 17y ago
    I don't think anyone would disagree that, in theory, the ideal government is a wise, benevolent dictator. The primary problem, in practice, is finding such a dictator (the secondary problem, of course, being how to get rid of him when he turns out to be insufficiently wise and/or benevolent after all). Democracy is actually a pretty terrible way to run things; as Churchill said, it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried so far.
megaduck 17y ago
It's interesting that he called out Medvedev as a voice of reason. Outside of Russia, Medvedev is often seen as a simple puppet of Putin. I'm reminded of a joke I heard a few years ago: One day, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev went out to a restaurant for a fancy dinner. Putin, naturally, ordered first. "I'll have the steak." The waiter replied, "Very good, sir. Now, what about the vegetable?" To which Putin answered, "He'll have the steak too."
- volodia 17y ago
  That joke is from the Time magazine article, where they name Putin man of the year.
- klipt 17y ago
  There's a similar joke about Margaret Thatcher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4agXi15LfS0#t=2m03s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4agXi15LfS0#t=2m03s (via Spitting Image) Which came first?
jbellis 17y ago
Wow, Gorbachev has always avoided directly criticizing Putin until now, afaik. I wonder if there's a nice hot cup of thallium in his future now.
- coffeemug 17y ago
  I actually thought the article was very reserved at criticizing Putin. The point is basically that Putin destroyed all progress toward democracy, but the article never assigns blame to him exactly. It tends to refer to an abstract entity ("Russia") rather than a specific person (Putin).
  - varjag 17y ago
    Which is not without justification, as Putin is very much a product and reflection of modern Russian society.
Zev 17y ago
The party’s top bureaucracy organized the attempted coup in August 1991, which scuttled the reforms. This bit made me laugh for some reason. Using "scuttle" makes it seems like a rather whimsical take on one of the more important events of the 1990's. If anyone doesn't know what he's referring to, its the KGB and other branches of the Soviet government taking himself (Gorbachev) hostage and throwing a coup. In turn, Boris Yeltsin led protests to restore Gorbachev to power. Due to his actions, Yeltsin gained popular support and was, in effect, the leader of the Soviet Union as the president of Russia; Gorbachev had resigned a few days after the coup. And the Soviet Union was nearing its end as well; it ceased to exist just over four months later.
- pvg 17y ago
  Don't confuse "scuttle" with "scuttlebutt". There's nothing whimsical about the usage of "scuttle". Pretty standard fare. Main Entry: 3scuttle Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): scut·tled; scut·tling \ˈskət-liŋ, ˈskə-təl-iŋ\ Date: 1642 1 : to cut a hole through the bottom, deck, or side of (a ship); specifically : to sink or attempt to sink by making holes through the bottom 2 : destroy, wreck; also : scrap 2
ost 17y ago
A man who ruined a one whole world still "has so many ideas".
- wynand 17y ago
  Could you elaborate on that? I think a lot of people here probably don't share your reservations and it would help to say what they are.
  - ost 17y ago
    The second part is a citation of a 15-year old popular joke on Gorbachev, about his incompetence combined with wishful thinking combined with unwillingness to admit his own mistakes. A world I was referring to is a so called Second World, that was a Soviet block. Being second here does not mean to be somewhere between the first and the third, it means standing on par with (self-proclaimed) First World. And Soviet Union really was a developed, technologically and culturally advanced world. Now we see degradation everywhere, we are on a clear path to the Third World, and we need this modernization. Well, Russia has undergone some successful modernizations in the past, all of them were quite painful. Last one was led by Stalin so you can get an idea of what I mean by "painful", and failed modernizations were even worse. So, it is arguable that Gorbachev made more evil for his people than Stalin did.
    - ajuc 17y ago
      I'm always wery surprised, that for some people USSR and company was as good as "the West". I mean - ok, you were sending rockets to space, but at that time people in eastern block were many times less wealthy than people in the west, were less free, couldn't even choose the gov. It was not sustainable, without Gorbachev it would have ended the same, only later and probably more violent. When you build your civilization on power and military strength and keep people on your side without their consensus, it isn't surprising that you have to spend on military a lot. And when you add inefficient economy to the mix, it's obvious it will fail.
      - 17y ago
dfranke 17y ago
I'm 24, which means I'm just young enough to only know about Gorbachev's premiership through history textbooks. This is not the first time I've seen him back in the headlines, but it's still an incredibly weird feeling every time that I do. It's like hearing from a ghost.
eplanit 17y ago
I hope this history is not lost on my fellow Americans: "The Soviet system, created on the precepts of socialism amid great efforts and sacrifices, had made our country a major power with a strong industrial base. The Soviet Union was strong in emergencies, but in more normal circumstances, our system condemned us to inferiority." We're at a similar brink, though via dissimilar circumstances. While we properly are looking for ways to repair and improve, I hope that there is a strong resurgence of both Democratic and Capitalist principles. The alternative, as some are leaning towards, has a well-documented trajectory. It would condemn us to inferiority.
- sophacles 17y ago
  Yes obviously spiraling military costs (aka security costs) had nothing to do with it. We should focus on stopping all infrastructure improvements, and all services and instead funnel that money to the Homeland Security and DoD. They only spend a few trillion a year.
  - eplanit 17y ago
    I quoted his own words. He's the first to say that Communism failed. So, to you, Capitalism is nothing other than military spending??? Read some history.
    - sophacles 17y ago
      How do you get that from my statement? I never claimed capitalism is just military spending. Nor did I claim that communism did not fail. I was however reacting to your implication that some social programs are full on communism. It is pretty accepted that one of the major reasons for Soviet collapse was massive military spending (unsustainable...). You are suggesting that the way the US is moving recently will make us collapse just like the Soviets. You fail to mention the periodic and massive increase in military spending, which is not recent. This spending now constitutes a very very large portion of the US budget. I worry far more about the constant growth of that spending than about some new programs that cost and order of magnitude less.

81 points by ph0rque 17y ago

Great article by a brilliant man. I like the fact that while he admits his mistakes and points out problems with Putin he does not shy away from pointing out some problems that are completely ignored in the western reporting on Russia -- that the so called "shock therapy" that was urged and urged by western economists and bankers was a total disaster and that the second election of Yeltsin and the first election of Putin were fraudulent.

idlewords 17y ago
Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. It worked extremely well in the Eastern Bloc satellites that tried it, and the general trend was that the more drastic the privatization, the faster the recovery and ultimate rise to European living standards. In the former Soviet Union, though, 'shock therapy' turned into simple looting. The country was too big and the political system too rotten to actually carry out any program of reform.
- ugh 17y ago
  “The country was too big …” So it was bad advice?
  - idlewords 17y ago
    The problem is we only get one shot at history. So it's hard to look back and assign the right reasons for the failure. It's conceivable that a different set of leaders could have made shock therapy work in the former USSR. It's also possible that no political system could have survived the trauma at that scale. My point is that it was not obviously bad advice. For the countries that managed to push it through politically, it worked extremely well.
- hristov 17y ago
  Wow, I wonder what those "eastern block satelites" where it "worked extremely well" are. I was born in an eastern block country and still follow the news there, and let me tell you it did not work very well there. In fact it was very similar to a miniature version of what happened in Russia (except for the oil and gas money). Your last sentence is the typical way the Chicago boys excuse themselves after their repeated failures -- just by using racism. "Our theories are sound but the locals are too rotten for our high minded theories" ...
  - idlewords 17y ago
    Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic.
    - Zev 17y ago
      Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence. Hell, in Czechoslovakia, the workers actually put in unpaid overtime to make up for the work that they missed while they were protesting to gain freedom. // edit: Don't include Romania, actually. ATB pointed out, rightfully, that the Romanian revolution was among the more violent of the revolutions in 1989. If you look at the Balkans (countries that used to make up Yugoslavia (sans Slovenia), Bulgaria, Albania, etc), the economic story is slightly different. In Bulgaria, for example, the economy only got back up to pre-1989 levels in mid-2004. The economies here were much more tied to the Soviet Union's and its collapse hit them much harder. Or, they just devolved into a series of ethnic battles, which doesn't go over well with the economy.
      - idlewords 17y ago
        And we both forgot the plucky Baltic states, which have done very well indeed!
        Zev 17y ago
        Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia? They weren't satellite states during the Cold War; they were part of the Soviet Union (or Russia, if you go back to before World War 1). They broke off afterwards. To me, it doesn't make much sense to examine these states the same way you would satellite states. They weren't in the same situation during the Cold War. Although, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia did simply vote themselves out of the Russian Federation, rather then joining it after the Soviet Union collapsed, so, there's a common thread for success, I suppose.
- moo 17y ago
  "The country was too big and the political system too rotten to actually carry out any program of reform." In other words it was bad advise for the situation in Russia. If it is not one size fits all then it is not good advise. Also I don't think this Friedman economics worked out so well in Chile either. The industries that work in the U.S. are government subsidized ones like agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and military technology spending. The bank bailouts also do not lead me to believe the U.S. follows its own advise.
- adobriyan 17y ago
  > Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. If you don't count those who died of starvation because savings were burned in hyperinflation and pensions were (and still are) _tiny_, those who were killed during inevitable criminalization of society, Russians who were killed because of nationalizm in USSR republics, _millions_ of unborn children because of economical and political instabilities, then, yes, it wasn't bad advice.
adobriyan 17y ago
> brilliant man This clown made amazing decisions like taking Bush et al words_ that NATO won't spread to the East, sincerely thinking that West is here to help and so on. > that the second election of Yeltsin and the first election of Putin were fraudulent. It was fraudulent since 75% voted for preserving USSR at 1991.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Can't quote a source, unfortunately, but I read a long essay last month which used the original diplomatic notes to research this "NATO Promise" business. Long story short -- there was never a promise not to expand NATO. EDIT: Dug up a couple from Google, although they weren't the ones I was referring to. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomatic_mystery http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomati... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16289 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16...
m0th87 17y ago
I'm surprised no one has commented on this thread that The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (leaving her strong political leanings aside) provides an excellent overview of the shock therapy as it was applied to the USSR and other nations. It was by far the most disturbing book I've ever read.
- johnyzee 17y ago
  On the same topic, 'Baghdad year zero' is also fascinating: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

andyjdavis 17y ago

Does anyone else marvel at Mikhail Gorbachev's writing appearing the in the New York Times? That, if nothing else, is a sign of how far we've come from the cold war days.

jackfoxy 17y ago
No, I don't marvel at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews I think any major English language periodical would publish his editorial, which generates more high-brow interest in the English speaking world than in his own country. He has absolutely no influence in Russia today, or for quite some time. I once had a Ukrainian immigrant barber, who maintained Gorbachev's Russian was very pedestrian, but he had a great English interpretor who could translate on the spot into prosaic English. He (the barber) was very opinionated, and I have never seen anyone make this claim in print.
- coffeemug 17y ago
  Gorbachev has a tremendous command of Russian, but he used it in a way somewhat opposite to that of Hemingway. When he was first elected, people were glued to the TVs to listen to a man who could speak quickly, with an energetic voice, discuss the issues, and do it all without reading from a piece of paper (a huge novelty back then). But he could talk for hours without actually saying anything. The English articles are far more matter of fact - they get to the point much faster than Gorbachev ever did in Russian.
- steamboiler 17y ago
  Why would a great interpreter translate something pedestrian to something prosaic? (factual; dull; unimaginative http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosaic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosaic)
  - dfranke 17y ago
    I think "prosodic" is the word he meant.

bh23ha 17y ago

I think everyone will agree the core thesis that a "primitive" economy based on natural resources will not make Russia a great country in the future is true. The implication that it is fear that's keeping a more modern, complex and innovative economy from a evolving is more nuanced. I think dictatorships like Singapore are not necessary bad for a strong and diverse economy. I think a true democracy is better, but not by much pure in economic terms. I think it's much better for your humanity. What really plagues Russia is chaos, corruption and lawlessness. That's what's keeping the small and mid sized business down, they are the ones that could diversify the economy.

andyjdavis 17y ago
Being a dictatorship is not inherently bad for the economy. But as you say democracy tends to be better for your humanity, so to speak. Being a dictatorship magnifies the impact of the quality of the leadership/rulers. In most western democracies our governments are relatively weak. Their ability to help or hinder the economy is somewhat limited as they generally don't directly control the organizations that make up the economy. On the other hand in a country where the government wields absolute power the government's impact is enormous. Historically most governments around in the world haven't been great so the countries that have done consistently well are those whose governments have limited influence over the economy ie democracies. Its not that democracy helps your economy. It just dilutes the governments ability to fvck it up.
- camccann 17y ago
  I don't think anyone would disagree that, in theory, the ideal government is a wise, benevolent dictator. The primary problem, in practice, is finding such a dictator (the secondary problem, of course, being how to get rid of him when he turns out to be insufficiently wise and/or benevolent after all). Democracy is actually a pretty terrible way to run things; as Churchill said, it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried so far.

megaduck 17y ago

It's interesting that he called out Medvedev as a voice of reason. Outside of Russia, Medvedev is often seen as a simple puppet of Putin. I'm reminded of a joke I heard a few years ago: One day, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev went out to a restaurant for a fancy dinner. Putin, naturally, ordered first. "I'll have the steak." The waiter replied, "Very good, sir. Now, what about the vegetable?" To which Putin answered, "He'll have the steak too."

volodia 17y ago
That joke is from the Time magazine article, where they name Putin man of the year.
klipt 17y ago
There's a similar joke about Margaret Thatcher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4agXi15LfS0#t=2m03s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4agXi15LfS0#t=2m03s (via Spitting Image) Which came first?

jbellis 17y ago

Wow, Gorbachev has always avoided directly criticizing Putin until now, afaik. I wonder if there's a nice hot cup of thallium in his future now.

coffeemug 17y ago
I actually thought the article was very reserved at criticizing Putin. The point is basically that Putin destroyed all progress toward democracy, but the article never assigns blame to him exactly. It tends to refer to an abstract entity ("Russia") rather than a specific person (Putin).
- varjag 17y ago
  Which is not without justification, as Putin is very much a product and reflection of modern Russian society.

Zev 17y ago

The party’s top bureaucracy organized the attempted coup in August 1991, which scuttled the reforms. This bit made me laugh for some reason. Using "scuttle" makes it seems like a rather whimsical take on one of the more important events of the 1990's. If anyone doesn't know what he's referring to, its the KGB and other branches of the Soviet government taking himself (Gorbachev) hostage and throwing a coup. In turn, Boris Yeltsin led protests to restore Gorbachev to power. Due to his actions, Yeltsin gained popular support and was, in effect, the leader of the Soviet Union as the president of Russia; Gorbachev had resigned a few days after the coup. And the Soviet Union was nearing its end as well; it ceased to exist just over four months later.

pvg 17y ago
Don't confuse "scuttle" with "scuttlebutt". There's nothing whimsical about the usage of "scuttle". Pretty standard fare. Main Entry: 3scuttle Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): scut·tled; scut·tling \ˈskət-liŋ, ˈskə-təl-iŋ\ Date: 1642 1 : to cut a hole through the bottom, deck, or side of (a ship); specifically : to sink or attempt to sink by making holes through the bottom 2 : destroy, wreck; also : scrap 2

ost 17y ago

A man who ruined a one whole world still "has so many ideas".

wynand 17y ago
Could you elaborate on that? I think a lot of people here probably don't share your reservations and it would help to say what they are.
- ost 17y ago
  The second part is a citation of a 15-year old popular joke on Gorbachev, about his incompetence combined with wishful thinking combined with unwillingness to admit his own mistakes. A world I was referring to is a so called Second World, that was a Soviet block. Being second here does not mean to be somewhere between the first and the third, it means standing on par with (self-proclaimed) First World. And Soviet Union really was a developed, technologically and culturally advanced world. Now we see degradation everywhere, we are on a clear path to the Third World, and we need this modernization. Well, Russia has undergone some successful modernizations in the past, all of them were quite painful. Last one was led by Stalin so you can get an idea of what I mean by "painful", and failed modernizations were even worse. So, it is arguable that Gorbachev made more evil for his people than Stalin did.
  - ajuc 17y ago
    I'm always wery surprised, that for some people USSR and company was as good as "the West". I mean - ok, you were sending rockets to space, but at that time people in eastern block were many times less wealthy than people in the west, were less free, couldn't even choose the gov. It was not sustainable, without Gorbachev it would have ended the same, only later and probably more violent. When you build your civilization on power and military strength and keep people on your side without their consensus, it isn't surprising that you have to spend on military a lot. And when you add inefficient economy to the mix, it's obvious it will fail.
    - 17y ago

dfranke 17y ago

I'm 24, which means I'm just young enough to only know about Gorbachev's premiership through history textbooks. This is not the first time I've seen him back in the headlines, but it's still an incredibly weird feeling every time that I do. It's like hearing from a ghost.

eplanit 17y ago

I hope this history is not lost on my fellow Americans: "The Soviet system, created on the precepts of socialism amid great efforts and sacrifices, had made our country a major power with a strong industrial base. The Soviet Union was strong in emergencies, but in more normal circumstances, our system condemned us to inferiority." We're at a similar brink, though via dissimilar circumstances. While we properly are looking for ways to repair and improve, I hope that there is a strong resurgence of both Democratic and Capitalist principles. The alternative, as some are leaning towards, has a well-documented trajectory. It would condemn us to inferiority.

sophacles 17y ago
Yes obviously spiraling military costs (aka security costs) had nothing to do with it. We should focus on stopping all infrastructure improvements, and all services and instead funnel that money to the Homeland Security and DoD. They only spend a few trillion a year.
- eplanit 17y ago
  I quoted his own words. He's the first to say that Communism failed. So, to you, Capitalism is nothing other than military spending??? Read some history.
  - sophacles 17y ago
    How do you get that from my statement? I never claimed capitalism is just military spending. Nor did I claim that communism did not fail. I was however reacting to your implication that some social programs are full on communism. It is pretty accepted that one of the major reasons for Soviet collapse was massive military spending (unsustainable...). You are suggesting that the way the US is moving recently will make us collapse just like the Soviets. You fail to mention the periodic and massive increase in military spending, which is not recent. This spending now constitutes a very very large portion of the US budget. I worry far more about the constant growth of that spending than about some new programs that cost and order of magnitude less.