3 ms·

USSR economy was heavily dependent on their export oil prices. Once they fall, USSR fell with them almost immediately.

somenameforme 1y ago
Economic issues can cause an empire to start effectively dissolving itself, as happened with the British Empire, but that's not what happened with the USSR. It was forcibly dissolved from within as regions began literally just declaring their independence and refusing to recognize central authority, and that was largely caused by decades of increasing dissatisfaction with the system that simply reached it's final decline under the policies of Gorbachev. One can also look to examples like the US which survived numerous catastrophic economic collapses, like the Great Depression, wholly intact.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > One can also look to examples like the US which survived numerous catastrophic economic collapses, like the Great Depression, wholly intact. "Wholly intact" might be stretching things, unless you see no problem with describing someone as surviving Alzheimer's "wholly intact".
  - ben_w 1y ago
    While I would describe the economic transition of the USA going from laissez-faire to New Deal as being as much of an "end of capitalism"* as the collapse of the USSR was the "end of communism", the country of the USA itself remained cohesive in the New Deal. As Russia itself was cohesive, I guess you could analogise e.g. Texas to Kazakhstan (leaves), and Alaska to Siberia (remains)? * as it was understood at the time, and to my limited grasp of the history of such matters
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Pretty much all the "USA #1" types place Peak America after WW2, not before it. Reasonable historians would agree that it was less of a world power than the European nations before WW1, roughly on-par at the time of the Washington Naval Treaty, and surpassing them at some point between 1930 and 1945. The Great Depression did a lot of damage to individuals but FDR's response to that, and later the war, strengthened the US as a nation.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  > It was forcibly dissolved from within as regions began literally just declaring their independence and refusing to recognize central authority It's disputed. Some say it was top down, like USSR could roll tanks as usual when republics protested but it didn't. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Historiographic_explanations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio... and talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Papers_are_being_deleted_for_no_reason._(Brian_D_Taylor,_Mark_Kramer,_John_B_Dunlop,_Adrian_Karatnycky,_Peter_J._Potichnyj,_Taras_Kuzio,_Laura_Blaj) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dissolution_of_the_Soviet...
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    I don't think there needs to be a dichotomy between the two. Leaders of a system tend to come from that system, and are not immune to such discontent, and are themselves even often victims of said systems - which shapes them in the future. Gorbachev lived through Stalinism and his early political positions would include strong advocacy for de-Stalinization. And similarly, if you've never read about Xi Jinping's early life [1] it's extremely enlightening with regards to the nature of his character. To put this another way, would the USSR have lasted longer if not for Gorbachev? Almost certainly. Would the USSR exist today if not for Gorbachev? That, I very strongly doubt, certainly not in anything like its historic character. It's similar to e.g. slavery in America. Did Lincoln end slavery? Absolutely. Would slavery have ended without Lincoln? Absolutely, and perhaps in an even more desirable fashion. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Early_life_and_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Early_life_and_educ...
- matkoniecz 1y ago
  > that was largely caused by decades of increasing dissatisfaction with the system Dissatisfaction was present earlier, just that Russia was able to crush it. USSR collapsed due to partially inability and partially unwillingness to murder people again, like they did previously.

Economic issues can cause an empire to start effectively dissolving itself, as happened with the British Empire, but that's not what happened with the USSR. It was forcibly dissolved from within as regions began literally just declaring their independence and refusing to recognize central authority, and that was largely caused by decades of increasing dissatisfaction with the system that simply reached it's final decline under the policies of Gorbachev. One can also look to examples like the US which survived numerous catastrophic economic collapses, like the Great Depression, wholly intact.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
> One can also look to examples like the US which survived numerous catastrophic economic collapses, like the Great Depression, wholly intact. "Wholly intact" might be stretching things, unless you see no problem with describing someone as surviving Alzheimer's "wholly intact".
- ben_w 1y ago
  While I would describe the economic transition of the USA going from laissez-faire to New Deal as being as much of an "end of capitalism"* as the collapse of the USSR was the "end of communism", the country of the USA itself remained cohesive in the New Deal. As Russia itself was cohesive, I guess you could analogise e.g. Texas to Kazakhstan (leaves), and Alaska to Siberia (remains)? * as it was understood at the time, and to my limited grasp of the history of such matters
- pjc50 1y ago
  Pretty much all the "USA #1" types place Peak America after WW2, not before it. Reasonable historians would agree that it was less of a world power than the European nations before WW1, roughly on-par at the time of the Washington Naval Treaty, and surpassing them at some point between 1930 and 1945. The Great Depression did a lot of damage to individuals but FDR's response to that, and later the war, strengthened the US as a nation.
throwaway290 1y ago
> It was forcibly dissolved from within as regions began literally just declaring their independence and refusing to recognize central authority It's disputed. Some say it was top down, like USSR could roll tanks as usual when republics protested but it didn't. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Historiographic_explanations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio... and talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Papers_are_being_deleted_for_no_reason._(Brian_D_Taylor,_Mark_Kramer,_John_B_Dunlop,_Adrian_Karatnycky,_Peter_J._Potichnyj,_Taras_Kuzio,_Laura_Blaj) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dissolution_of_the_Soviet...
- somenameforme 1y ago
  I don't think there needs to be a dichotomy between the two. Leaders of a system tend to come from that system, and are not immune to such discontent, and are themselves even often victims of said systems - which shapes them in the future. Gorbachev lived through Stalinism and his early political positions would include strong advocacy for de-Stalinization. And similarly, if you've never read about Xi Jinping's early life [1] it's extremely enlightening with regards to the nature of his character. To put this another way, would the USSR have lasted longer if not for Gorbachev? Almost certainly. Would the USSR exist today if not for Gorbachev? That, I very strongly doubt, certainly not in anything like its historic character. It's similar to e.g. slavery in America. Did Lincoln end slavery? Absolutely. Would slavery have ended without Lincoln? Absolutely, and perhaps in an even more desirable fashion. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Early_life_and_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Early_life_and_educ...
matkoniecz 1y ago
> that was largely caused by decades of increasing dissatisfaction with the system Dissatisfaction was present earlier, just that Russia was able to crush it. USSR collapsed due to partially inability and partially unwillingness to murder people again, like they did previously.