4 ms·

As a former Soviet citizen, I fail to see why anyone would care what this clown has to say. No one in Russia cares, for example. He basically ran a superpower i

As a former Soviet citizen, I fail to see why anyone would care what this clown has to say. No one in Russia cares, for example. He basically ran a superpower into the ground in 6 years flat, from space shuttle to hunger and abject poverty for most of the population. Not even a CIA puppet regime would be able to do a better job.

Nomentatus 10y ago
As I remember, the price of oil and the previous Soviet neglect of their oil field infrastructure figured in heavily, there.
- tilt_error 10y ago
  Not to mention the tremendous cost of handling the Chernobyl catastrophy...
- general_ai 10y ago
  You "remember" wrong. I actually _was_ there. Neglect and price of oil weren't in any way fatal to a largely self-sufficient country. Complete collapse of all branches of the government was.
  - jayjay71 10y ago
    I'd like to hear more. Can you be more specific about what you think led to the fall of the Soviet Union?
    - david38 10y ago
      It didn't help that the US did everything it could to drop the price of oil specifically to destroy the income source of the USSR. USSR is too dependent on that single income source and left itself open to attack.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    The empire certainly wasn't self-sufficient, although the Russian center was richer. The empire depended on very large-scale oil exports, to subsidize the bloc. Even with those exports, the line-ups for basics was real in Russia, too. Russia's self-sufficiency isn't much in evidence today, either, as the economy shrinks year-on-year, and three-quarters of a million of the most capable people emigrate each year.
aphextron 10y ago
I wish people wouldn't downvote someone for an alternate opinion. It's interesting to see the Russian view point on these things. I think the parent poster is indoctrinated with the typical anti-western mindset, but it's still valid and adds to the discussion. > He basically ran a superpower into the ground in 6 years flat, from space shuttle to hunger and abject poverty The Soviet Union was in free fall economically long before Gorbachev. It was a systemic failure. To pile the genocidal failings of 3 generations of communist rule onto the first leader to free his people from that oppression is a terrible perversion of history.
- throwaway122916 10y ago
  I lived in Soviet Union as well during the collapse. I think there is a lot of propaganda from the west that makes you think it wasn't Gorbachev's fault. People were happy, had children and believed in their country and made progress in art and science. Then one person who possibly had good intentions "gave everyone freedom". You can't just do that without consequences. It should have been a very gradual transition similar to how it is in China. Instead the country got completely destroyed. Every single thriving industry collapsed and people's savings were worth nothing basically overnight. Police stopped enforcing laws, gangs appeared all over the place, everyone started doing drugs. It was a disaster. Gorbachev was almost immediately hated throughout the country. If USSR economy was in free fall, how come GDP per capita was about 2x smaller in Soviet Union compared to USA in 1989 while income distribution was much more even? Edit: If you believe propaganda in US doesn't exist, look at this law https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
  - viljar 10y ago
    > People were happy Russians - may be, All the other oppressed and occupied nations - no. Cant vouch for other but almost every Estonian secretly hoped for freedom and despised Russians. When our chance came we acted swiftly. Soviet Union was just another form of Russian Empire and a way to try to control the world.
unknown_apostle 10y ago
Gorbachev inherited 65 years of Soviet communism: a super fragile system, based on very tight, top-down command & control. On the surface these command & control societies appear more orderly than democratic societies, but they are very bad at dealing with complexity and at adapting to big changes. Gorbachev made the "mistake" of perturbing the system too much through his attempts at reform. Also, economically, I don't think the Soviet Union was in such great shape as you say. A space shuttle is not the same as having an economy that creates surplus wealth in real terms. The war in Afghanistan and having to compete with a West bouncing back from 1970s stagflation were other factors not under Gorbachev's control. The same will at some point happen to e.g. North Korea or Cuba. It has happened to some of these Arabic regimes: when the top echelons are removed or the repressive nature is relaxed, the entire order collapses, leaving a big void and a population which has less than before. In some cases, much less... (Hopefully, North Korea and Cuba will receive lots of support from their neighbours, so it won't be too bad.) It may also happen with our financial system, the continuation of which comes with ever escalating costs, top-down intervention, bluff, guarantees and outright financial repression. Like Gorbachev, some politician or bank would accidentally upset the balance and would get the blame. E.g. "he raised the rates too fast". Or "too slow", depending on what actually happens. But in reality you should blame the historical fragility of the system itself. (I like the term Soviet monetarism.)
- gspetr 10y ago
  The problem with your argument is the existence of China, to this day ruled by the Communist party of China. It's GDP grew by a factor of 25 since the fall of the Soviet Union.
  - unknown_apostle 10y ago
    Don’t really know much about China to be honest. They definitely managed to open up gradually, even if mainly in terms of allowing private investment decisions. Let's see how the Chinese communist party handles a situation where the low hanging fruit of pedal-to-the-metal big percentage GDP growth has been picked.
  - AzzieElbab 10y ago
gspetr 10y ago
Can vouch that this is a mainstream point of view in Russia. Virtually nobody takes Gorbachev seriously no matter their political views.
ncr100 10y ago
This Attack on the man is flawed. Cold war lasted longer than his 6 years in power.

Nomentatus 10y ago

As I remember, the price of oil and the previous Soviet neglect of their oil field infrastructure figured in heavily, there.

tilt_error 10y ago
Not to mention the tremendous cost of handling the Chernobyl catastrophy...
general_ai 10y ago
You "remember" wrong. I actually _was_ there. Neglect and price of oil weren't in any way fatal to a largely self-sufficient country. Complete collapse of all branches of the government was.
- jayjay71 10y ago
  I'd like to hear more. Can you be more specific about what you think led to the fall of the Soviet Union?
  - david38 10y ago
    It didn't help that the US did everything it could to drop the price of oil specifically to destroy the income source of the USSR. USSR is too dependent on that single income source and left itself open to attack.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  The empire certainly wasn't self-sufficient, although the Russian center was richer. The empire depended on very large-scale oil exports, to subsidize the bloc. Even with those exports, the line-ups for basics was real in Russia, too. Russia's self-sufficiency isn't much in evidence today, either, as the economy shrinks year-on-year, and three-quarters of a million of the most capable people emigrate each year.

aphextron 10y ago

I wish people wouldn't downvote someone for an alternate opinion. It's interesting to see the Russian view point on these things. I think the parent poster is indoctrinated with the typical anti-western mindset, but it's still valid and adds to the discussion. > He basically ran a superpower into the ground in 6 years flat, from space shuttle to hunger and abject poverty The Soviet Union was in free fall economically long before Gorbachev. It was a systemic failure. To pile the genocidal failings of 3 generations of communist rule onto the first leader to free his people from that oppression is a terrible perversion of history.

throwaway122916 10y ago
I lived in Soviet Union as well during the collapse. I think there is a lot of propaganda from the west that makes you think it wasn't Gorbachev's fault. People were happy, had children and believed in their country and made progress in art and science. Then one person who possibly had good intentions "gave everyone freedom". You can't just do that without consequences. It should have been a very gradual transition similar to how it is in China. Instead the country got completely destroyed. Every single thriving industry collapsed and people's savings were worth nothing basically overnight. Police stopped enforcing laws, gangs appeared all over the place, everyone started doing drugs. It was a disaster. Gorbachev was almost immediately hated throughout the country. If USSR economy was in free fall, how come GDP per capita was about 2x smaller in Soviet Union compared to USA in 1989 while income distribution was much more even? Edit: If you believe propaganda in US doesn't exist, look at this law https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
- viljar 10y ago
  > People were happy Russians - may be, All the other oppressed and occupied nations - no. Cant vouch for other but almost every Estonian secretly hoped for freedom and despised Russians. When our chance came we acted swiftly. Soviet Union was just another form of Russian Empire and a way to try to control the world.

unknown_apostle 10y ago

Gorbachev inherited 65 years of Soviet communism: a super fragile system, based on very tight, top-down command & control. On the surface these command & control societies appear more orderly than democratic societies, but they are very bad at dealing with complexity and at adapting to big changes. Gorbachev made the "mistake" of perturbing the system too much through his attempts at reform. Also, economically, I don't think the Soviet Union was in such great shape as you say. A space shuttle is not the same as having an economy that creates surplus wealth in real terms. The war in Afghanistan and having to compete with a West bouncing back from 1970s stagflation were other factors not under Gorbachev's control. The same will at some point happen to e.g. North Korea or Cuba. It has happened to some of these Arabic regimes: when the top echelons are removed or the repressive nature is relaxed, the entire order collapses, leaving a big void and a population which has less than before. In some cases, much less... (Hopefully, North Korea and Cuba will receive lots of support from their neighbours, so it won't be too bad.) It may also happen with our financial system, the continuation of which comes with ever escalating costs, top-down intervention, bluff, guarantees and outright financial repression. Like Gorbachev, some politician or bank would accidentally upset the balance and would get the blame. E.g. "he raised the rates too fast". Or "too slow", depending on what actually happens. But in reality you should blame the historical fragility of the system itself. (I like the term Soviet monetarism.)

gspetr 10y ago
The problem with your argument is the existence of China, to this day ruled by the Communist party of China. It's GDP grew by a factor of 25 since the fall of the Soviet Union.
- unknown_apostle 10y ago
  Don’t really know much about China to be honest. They definitely managed to open up gradually, even if mainly in terms of allowing private investment decisions. Let's see how the Chinese communist party handles a situation where the low hanging fruit of pedal-to-the-metal big percentage GDP growth has been picked.
- AzzieElbab 10y ago

gspetr 10y ago

Can vouch that this is a mainstream point of view in Russia. Virtually nobody takes Gorbachev seriously no matter their political views.

ncr100 10y ago

This Attack on the man is flawed. Cold war lasted longer than his 6 years in power.