2 ms·

> This was a planned economy, and yet no one was looking at production and consumption numbers? It's important to understand about that "planned economy" is th

by lutusp 13y ago

> This was a planned economy, and yet no one was looking at production and consumption numbers? It's important to understand about that "planned economy" is that it was guided by ideology, not facts. In practice, this meant anything that contradicted ideology was ignored or denied. In the later years that was a habit of mind, but in the 1930s, Uncle Joe purged anyone who doubted the ideology -- liquidated them. The survivors took that lesson to heart. This is how a bogus biological theory (Lysenkoism, or inheritance of acquired traits) because the centerpiece of Soviet biology in Stalin's time -- he killed anyone who suggested that his pet belief was wrong. This undermined all of Soviet biology and science, and destroyed any chance to have an effective science-based agriculture program. SO much for the planned economy. But my point is that, as more and more signs of collapse appeared, the older policy-makers went into profound denial. That's what made Gorbachev possible -- once in power, he was willing to consider alternatives to the party line.

jessaustin 13y ago
Gorby took office in 1985. If the CIA had noticed that event and the significance you attribute to it, when it happened, they still would only have gotten passing marks. To get the gold star, they should have noticed years earlier. That they never noticed, is what leads one to wonder what the hell they were doing all those years.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > If the CIA had noticed that event and the significance you attribute to it, when it happened, they still would only have gotten passing marks. With all respect, you're assuming too much in hindsight. What Gorbachev was to do might not have been apparent even to Gorbachev in 1985. > That they never noticed, is what leads one to wonder what the hell they were doing all those years. You're assuming that the events were predictable in advance, by anyone. Obviously if the Politburo had been able to anticipate what Gorbachev would do, they would have had him killed instead of appointing him premier. On the basis that he won the post, no one had even the crudest foresight. Certainly not the CIA.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Obviously if the Politburo had been able to anticipate what Gorbachev would do, they would have had him killed instead of appointing him premier. If Gorbachev had known the results of his actions ahead of time, he might well have chosen differently. I certainly don't assume that he wanted to kill the USSR. I agree with you that none of the old conservative dudes would have done what Gorbachev did, but that was the reason they chose him rather than another old dude in the Brezhnev-Andropov-Chernenko line. Even the old dudes knew that the economy was failing, and had been for a decade. Therefore they chose their youngest member as Premier. When he made major changes as they had asked him, I'm sure they were uncomfortable, and they might not have anticipated those particular major changes, but they couldn't very well be surprised. If there had been a radically authoritarian hard-line Communist option that he felt stood a major chance of saving the USSR, Gorbachev might well have chosen that. In any case, please don't take Gorbachev's actual, unsuccessful attempt to save the USSR as proof that no one knew it needed saving. Gorbachev's actions were not so unlike Deng Xiaoping's in a similar situation, although of course results differed. That events turned out so much better for the Chinese Communist Party might be because they got a slightly earlier start, because of differences between China and USSR, due to chance, due to something else, or (probably) a combination of all of these. We in the West hold a more nuanced view of Deng, because we had a chance to see what he did after he won. I'll make this prediction: if the government of Iran ever starts genuinely reforming itself from within, it will be because they have judged Iran to be in a very precarious situation, from which their current policies are unable to extract them. If the result is a radical departure from the existing political structure, simpletons in the West will lionize whichever youngish cleric is most associated with the reforms. If instead they succeed in their intentions, and just make small necessary adjustments to Iranian society, we'll all ask ourselves "why couldn't Iran have had a Gorbachev?"

by lutusp 13y ago

jessaustin 13y ago

Gorby took office in 1985. If the CIA had noticed that event and the significance you attribute to it, when it happened, they still would only have gotten passing marks. To get the gold star, they should have noticed years earlier. That they never noticed, is what leads one to wonder what the hell they were doing all those years.

lutusp 13y ago
> If the CIA had noticed that event and the significance you attribute to it, when it happened, they still would only have gotten passing marks. With all respect, you're assuming too much in hindsight. What Gorbachev was to do might not have been apparent even to Gorbachev in 1985. > That they never noticed, is what leads one to wonder what the hell they were doing all those years. You're assuming that the events were predictable in advance, by anyone. Obviously if the Politburo had been able to anticipate what Gorbachev would do, they would have had him killed instead of appointing him premier. On the basis that he won the post, no one had even the crudest foresight. Certainly not the CIA.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Obviously if the Politburo had been able to anticipate what Gorbachev would do, they would have had him killed instead of appointing him premier. If Gorbachev had known the results of his actions ahead of time, he might well have chosen differently. I certainly don't assume that he wanted to kill the USSR. I agree with you that none of the old conservative dudes would have done what Gorbachev did, but that was the reason they chose him rather than another old dude in the Brezhnev-Andropov-Chernenko line. Even the old dudes knew that the economy was failing, and had been for a decade. Therefore they chose their youngest member as Premier. When he made major changes as they had asked him, I'm sure they were uncomfortable, and they might not have anticipated those particular major changes, but they couldn't very well be surprised. If there had been a radically authoritarian hard-line Communist option that he felt stood a major chance of saving the USSR, Gorbachev might well have chosen that. In any case, please don't take Gorbachev's actual, unsuccessful attempt to save the USSR as proof that no one knew it needed saving. Gorbachev's actions were not so unlike Deng Xiaoping's in a similar situation, although of course results differed. That events turned out so much better for the Chinese Communist Party might be because they got a slightly earlier start, because of differences between China and USSR, due to chance, due to something else, or (probably) a combination of all of these. We in the West hold a more nuanced view of Deng, because we had a chance to see what he did after he won. I'll make this prediction: if the government of Iran ever starts genuinely reforming itself from within, it will be because they have judged Iran to be in a very precarious situation, from which their current policies are unable to extract them. If the result is a radical departure from the existing political structure, simpletons in the West will lionize whichever youngish cleric is most associated with the reforms. If instead they succeed in their intentions, and just make small necessary adjustments to Iranian society, we'll all ask ourselves "why couldn't Iran have had a Gorbachev?"