Why did the soviet union collapse?
could it have been prevented?
how?
also just a reminder it your going to recourse to some argument about certain political and economic systems being doomed to inevitable failure, you can at least substantiate it with some kind of actual reasoning
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
massviolence.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>why
Socialism
>prevented
Not having socialism
>how
Capitalism
First post is best post.
>Why?
Price of oil, Polstroika/Glasnost informed Soviet citizens that their quality of life was pretty garbage compared to the Capitalist nations
>Preventable?
Unless you can find a way to make transnational trade markets irrelevant, no
Oil wise they were also a bit fucked after the petro dollar. Should have stayed closer to the saudis.
It's the retarded system that doesn't reward merit ot work.
Lets say I have a field and I produce wheat. I usually produce 4-5 tons each year. I need 1 ton for myself and sell the rest on the market, the more I produce, the more money I get. Yeah, but then the communists come and steal everything from me, rape and wife and daughter and send me and my family to some bumfuck village to live in poverty, but we're talking hypothetically, so let's assume they don't do it. So the commies come and tell me "You can still work on that land, but you can only keep 1 ton of it for yourself, the rest goes for """"""the peope""""""". The question now is - do I continue to work just as hard knowing that whatever I do at the end of the year I'll be getting just this 1 ton of wheat for me?
Yes, of you learn to actually give a shit about """""the people"""". Stay a self absorbed capitalist who doesn't move beyond the second conception of life, and no.
>implying it isn't rational and moral for people to expect to be rewarded for working harder
Stay autistic.
It got an STI
That's not what socialism is. The Soviet Union didn't fall because people felt no incentive to work, it fell because a state-centralized industry couldn't economically compete with developed capitalist industries.
Because then if some coal miner decides to just mine 1 ton of coal for himself and fuck everybody else they can freeze the system does not work and you deserve to be raped for being a counter-revolutionary reactionary
What if the man in question wants to sell that coal and earn money for himself?
That's a stupid situation. If a community finds themselves in that scenario then they're fucked no matter what their economic ideology is.
>OP says not to argue without reasoning
>replies argue without reasoning
Veeky Forums is trash
OP, the Soviet Union had structural flaws that hurt economic growth. This wasn't because it was communist, but because the Soviet system did not really allow for constructive criticism in order to reform.
Economic problems did not mean its demise was inevitable, but they(and some social issues) are what drove Gorbachev to pursue the policies of Glasnost and Perestroika in order to encourage an open reform of the system.
In the end, there were too many problematic factors and the possibility of reform was ended by various republics challenging the authority of the Soviet Union(which had already been challenged internally by dissent and an unsuccessful reactionary coup).
It's a shame that the Soviet Union fell apart just as young reformers were taking charge, and I think Russia really suffered for it.
>Why did the Soviet Union collapse?
Revisionism. Also, didn't transition out of war economy after WWII. Also, Russification was a waste of money, time, and resources in an attempt to deal with 'uppity minority groups.'
>ad homs
Read a book my friend.
>This wasn't because it was communist, but because the Soviet system did not really allow for constructive criticism in order to reform.
This time it will work, eh mate?
Coming from the commie? But of course, your system which forces people to share (On thread of death or jail) is better than the voluntary systems which work better and do more good deeds than the SU ever did (Like the thousands of hospitals and schools the Catholic church has built).
>This wasn't because it was communist
>it isn't because our system smothers economic growth, eliminates economic signalling, and effectively requires corruption to run
That's why the system didn't work. Nobody felt they should work beyond what was the minumum requirenment.
Okay.
I read a book and it said that the capitalist countries are still here and most of the communist ones are dead.
>being this analpained
Are you some alt-rightist or something? I'm not even a communist, i'm pointing out that the soviet system was inherently repressive and did not allow for natural reform.
>"I don't understand this issue, so I'll try and simplify it as much as I can, so it can fit into my very specific, biased view of the world"
Reductionist mongs
>OP is a filthy commie
Why am I not surprised lmao
A reform would mean turning into a free market economy, you idiot. You can't reform communism.
alright so since everyone so far in this thread clearly knows very little about how the soviet union actually worked.
After world war 2 and stalin the soviet leadership were extremely paranoid about being invaded and as a result invested a preposterous portion of GDP in defense, to the detriment of pretty much the entire country. To their credit they built a massive and probably unbeatable military force (wait for all the murrican butthurt at this statment)
but this combined with a system where official accountability didnt exist meant that the leadership became a paranoid clique of militarists, especially after Khrushchev's attempts to reform the economy and progress the nation failed. Brezhnev abandoned economic reform and built the country into a massive military industrial complex fueled by exporting oil.
Furthermore the paranoia of the leadership meant that not having complete control of their European satellites was unacceptable. Had Hungary and Czechoslovaki been allowed to pursue their own form of socialism within the warsaw pact the European satellites other than poland probably would not have rejected socialism as suddenly and completely as they did.
Brezhnev's opposition to any systemic change meant that the soviet union basically stopped developing in the 70s. By the time Gorbachev took power and tried to fix shit it was already pretty much completely fucked and he had to fight against a massive state bureaucracy to make fairly small changes.
The failure of the reforms to turn the system around allowed ample opportunity for Gorbachev's opponents on both sides to criticize him. once the european satellites fell the writing was basically on the wall, Gorby was the last thing holding the country together and when he was deposed the union promptly collapsed.
That falls under "inherent flaws of communism."
No shit that a system that requires the state to eliminate private property is going to be repressive, and will discourage adaptation and growth. That is a 100% inevitable consequence of the ideology itself.
Socialism cannot compete economically (and thus, on many other levels) with capitalist nations. This escalates and throws everything in a tantrum.
How do you prevent that? By not having socialism.
What would the solution be? Freedom aka capitalism.
>you can't reform communism
i'll take marxist-leninism for ten, mark
Your argument makes it sound as if you've never heard a counter argument to your position ever. Seriously, read about the concept you intend to criticise before offering your largely ignorant and useless contribution. You are living proof that voluntary systems don't work. They produce far too many self-righteous degenerates like yourself.
>Socialism cannot compete economically (and thus, on many other levels) with capitalist nations
is there a reason for this or are you just regurgitating what you heard on fox news
>they built a massive and probably unbeatable military force (wait for all the murrican butthurt at this statment)
I'm from Eastern Europe and that statement is retarded. The only thing the Eastern bloc had was a lot of conscripts, which is not really a big plus in a modern war. Technologically it was behind the West.
These people have never worked a day of manual labor in their lives, guaranteed, or they wouldn't be talking about how lovely it is to do that shit for free.
There are many reasons, first of all government is very rarely more efficient than private enterprise, no matter what it is about. Be it roads, healthcare, transport, space programs. And add to that regressive taxes, laws and other things that hinders private enterprises.
Second of all, less freedom (read: socialism) is negative for society overall, combine these two, a lack of freedom and a lack of economic power (due to government controlling everything) and all sorts of problems arise.
You do understand that socialism isn't a monolithic system? That there are a wide number of economic varieties contained under the umbrella of socialism, that function so differently to one another that they often seem barely related? You do understand that is the same with capitalism? Your argument is already based on a false premise that there is one form of each. The assumption that capitalism must = freedom is also a completely subjective notion, which is completely useless to mention. Capitalism is certainly not freedom to a significant portion of the world's population. Anyone could claim that socialism is freedom with the same degree of confidence.
>I'm from Eastern Europe and therefore am an expert in military history
uh-huh
the soviet union alone had more men and tanks than all NATO forces in western europe, and NATO tanks only became qualitatively better than their russian counterparts in teh mid 80s. go figure
>no price incentives
>no economic signalling
>no barrier between government and business means that government officials can more easily steal everything
>no competition between businesses means no incentives to improve
>no real reward for competence
Literally every time the government ie. """"the people"""" seizes the means of production the economy goes into free fall.
This is well known shit here.
>NATO tanks only became qualitatively better than their russian counterparts in teh mid 80s
That's bullshit.
Also
>muh conscripts
I know what the communist conscription was, you retard. It was ineffective and just a way to get the young men through the meat-grinder. muh rush tactics. Idiot.
The Soviet economic system is also a single factor involved in the collapse of the union. There are many other factors, much of which relate to Gorbachev's leadership, Russificiation, reforms e.t.c. to think of ""'socialism"""' as having caused the collapse alone is to not understand the historical context whatsoever.
>first of all government is very rarely more efficient than private enterprise
really? seriously? your just gonna say that as if its a well known fact? (i bet your response to this is actually going to be 'yes it is a well known fact' instead of any actual argument or examples)
> less freedom (read: socialism)
so you are just regurgitating fox news. well thanks for confirming that. though at the same time to provide you with some food for thought, socialism is a economic system, it can be implemented in a variety of political systems. the UK was pretty much socialist from 1945 until basically the 80s and all of Scandinavia is pretty much socialist, yet those countries are still 'free'. you should probably read some actual books on politics rather than just watching TV.
Every different variety is still shit as its under socialism.
Socialism is inherently fucking terrible, it's complete trash in every single sense.
Capitalism is pro freedom, socialism is anti freedom.
You're claiming that capitalism somehow is not freedom to a significant portion of the worlds population, well yeah, obviously it's not if they don't live under capitalism. Anyone could claim that socialism is freedom but they'd be fucking retarded if they did so.
>he thinks the decline of the USSR didn't start with Brezhnev
>he thinks Gorbachev didn't inherit an untenable government
Seriously though, once the oil couldn't pay for things, it fell apart.
This isn't complicated, country's economic system doesn't work, oil keeps it afloat for a while, oil prices fall, country collapses.
Yes, of course there is never only one thing to blame especially in big conflicts, but not having socialism would be a very good step if you want to avoid said conflicts. And it did play a great part in the conflict as well, you can't take that away. But you're right that there is more to it, I thought that was obvious.
The strange thing is that every single feature of the Soviet economic system you have mentioned is not integral to socialism at all. The "socialism is when duh guberment owns all the biz" meme needs to die. It shows not just ignorance of socialist theory, but a failure to understand left-wing and libertarian politics in their entirety.
>Why?
Gorbachev
>Prevent?
No Gorbachev
Literally socialism is when "the people" have control of the means of production.
If you don't have that, you have social capitalism, which is a completely different system, and works pretty well.
>That's bullshit.
so what your saying is that the American M-60 was qualitative superior to the T-72? for real bro? you should probably look this shit up
>conscripts
say what you want about them, they fucked up the wermacht
>really? seriously? your just gonna say that as if its a well known fact? (i bet your response to this is actually going to be 'yes it is a well known fact' instead of any actual argument or examples)
I wonder who cares more if a factory is successful - the guy who owns it or a bunch of fat cats in the government.
>say what you want about them, they fucked up the wermacht
The German army was also conscripts, you retards.
>Capitalism is pro freedom, socialism is anti freedom.
I'm not sure if this is a joke
>it took the US, USSR, and Britain to take out Germany last time
>USSR expects to win against Germany, Britain, and the US
pfffft
>price incentives
well there are a plethora of other possible incentives for success such as promotion
>no economic signalling
what?
>no barrier between government and business means that government officials can more easily steal everything
holy shit, you actually tapped into one of the actual flaws of a socialist system. well done
>no competition between businesses means no incentives to improve
except when the state is all like 'we need to improve this thing' and orders people to improve it
>no real reward for competence
again, promotion within the system
>every time the government ie. """"the people"""" seizes the means of production the economy goes into free fa
indeed, the russin economy completely collapsed after the soviets seized power and due to this they were totally overrun by the german invasion in 1941
oh wait
You literally can not have capitalism without freedom, as it is solely based on free choice. If you fail to understand that I don't know what to say.
well if the government owns the means of production
than the government is the guy who owns it
so they will care just as much as an owner in a capitalist system
probably should have thought that one through
so why are you dissing conscripts?
you think this in any way helps your cause? rofl the commie delusion is unreal
Commies and Russians actually unironically believe they single-handedly defeated Germany tho.
I'm saying conscription in the communist states was a joke and consisted of marching up and down, guarding shit and sometimes training with AK47. And I'm also calling you a retard for saying that makes a good army. Modern weapons are much much more important than a bunch of civillians rushing to the enemy.
what cause?
Nice capitalism you got there.
>indeed, the russin economy completely collapsed after the soviets seized power
It did. The depression caused by the Russian Civil War was the worst that Russia's faced in centuries.
>and due to this they were totally overrun by the german invasion in 1941
>oh wait
Lenin himself realized that some capitalism was required to rebuild Russia, hence the NEP. Stalin went full-tilt afterwards. And in doing so, he killed tens of millions. Forced collectivization, the use of slave labor, forcing multiple families to live in small kommunalkas, the mass-export of agricultural products to pay for Western machinery despite widespread famine, etc. The industrialization of the Soviet Union was probably the most inhumane and destructive in human history.
It did help result in the Soviet Union winning WWII, but it was truly horrific.
>well if the government owns the means of production
>than the government is the guy who owns it
>so they will care just as much as an owner in a capitalist system
>probably should have thought that one through
You clearly have no real life experience with businesses owned by a normal guy/s and a business owned by the state.
Pro-tip: the state one almost always is worse.
As a tankie who defends the USSR rigorously, it was dead in the water the moment its growth slowed below 2% annually. The Soviet system depended on constant growth to reinforce itself. Once it went away, the people lost any faith in the system, because they had been told that that couldn't happen under the Soviets.
It wasn't an economic collapse, it was a social collapse. Without the Soviet state and economy maintaining extreme amounts of power, it couldn't hope to hold back the forces of nationalism and dissent. Even most of the hardcore commies realized it was over when fighting started breaking out in the Caucasus.
Let's try a little thought experiment.
We have two people, we'll call them Tim and Ivan.
Tim runs a grocery store. If the grocery store goes under, he's fucked. He is accountable directly to the consumer.
Ivan is the manager of a state run shop. The shop can't go bankrupt. There is 100% employment in Ivan's country, so he'd have to actively sabotage things to get into trouble.
Which one of these individuals keeps the shelves stocked and smiles for the customers?
Now let's do one for economic signalling.
We have two countries, freedomland and commiestan.
In both of these countries, bidets suddenly catch on in the eastern half.
In freedomland, toilet paper is manufactured and distributed by private corporations. They notice that TP sales are down in east freedomland. They redirect the production run to places where there is still demand, lower the output, and lower the price to compete with this new paperless toilet craze.
In commiestan, toilet paper is a state enterprise. Nobody tells the central planning committee that they can't sell toilet paper any more, because people who bring bad news up the chain of command don't do well. Individual store owners start burying the toilet paper out in the woods, while the people who actually want toilet paper still have to have ration cards and wait in long lines.
okay well the long and short of it is that soviet military technology was ahead of the west at least in terms of ground warfare until the later 80s. furthermore the east german army was one of the best trained in the world and while the rest of the warsaw pacts troops were pretty sub par, they outnumbered their western counterparts by such a margin it was pretty much irrelevant
>my singular experience in private and public businesses is the absolute truth and is the same everywhere else in the world and for the entire past and future
dude really? you may have had some bad experiences with state run enterprises but do you really think that means all other public services and businesses are the same?
>Economy of Nazi Germany
>Capitalism
im laffin
>soviet military technology was ahead of the west at least in terms of ground warfare until the later 80s
I really doubt that. And even if it's true it doesn't matter in the least without navy and air supremacy. Also, as I said, muh conscripts are useless cannon fodder.
If state run enterprises could do the same job cheaper, they wouldn't need taxes to keep them going.
>do you really think that means all other public services and businesses are the same?
Yes. It is.
How old are you fucker? Where are you from? You really sound like a teenager in the West who fell for the "muh communism is a just and working system, if only tried right" propaganda.
>Lenin himself realized that some capitalism was required to rebuild Russia, hence the NEP. Stalin went full-tilt afterwards. And in doing so, he killed tens of millions. Forced collectivization, the use of slave labor, forcing multiple families to live in small kommunalkas, the mass-export of agricultural products to pay for Western machinery despite widespread famine, etc. The industrialization of the Soviet Union was probably the most inhumane and destructive in human history.
you say this as if the industrialization of capitalist countries didnt also involve suffering and poverty on a massive scale
also if you think the introduction of NEP amounted to a reintroduction of a capitalist system you should probably check what they actually are/were
Ultimately, because Gorbachev wouldn't send the Tanks into Poland and East Germany. The Soviet Union failed as soon as its leaders were unwilling to use violent force to keep the subject populations in line.
I defy you to find me a country in Western Europe or North America that went through nearly as much suffering during peacetime as the USSR did during Stalin's rule.
>Soviet Union collapsed because they wouldn't send tanks into other countries
???
As the tankie who posted above, the industrialization of the Soviet Union was indeed more extreme. Most capitalist countries had time to industrialize over several decades. The Soviet Union didn't have that luxury. Stalin's industrialization compressed all of those economic forces and human sufferings into a period of only ten years. Nothing on the scale had been seen before, and likely never will be seen again.
diss ivan all you want, tim's out of a job and his town has lost its grocery store because of capitalism
the toilet paper example is exceptionally bad, you simply presume that officials will always pretend toilet roll sales are higher than they are, without this the whole example falls apart
Parts of the nomeclatura and with Boris Yeltsin in the lead saw the potential of opening up the economy to the rest of the world so they could live luxurious lives. They were cynical alcoholics who saw people as little bits and parts of a rusted old factory that they could just sell off for an easy living.
Gorby did nothing wrong.
laffin instead of reading
because you're an idiot
It might come as a shocker, but nobody wanted communism because it was shit. The only thing keeping Eastern Europe under this retarded system was the thread of the Soviet army coming to "liberate" them again.
>Yes. It is.
>t-trust me, just read.. it really was capitalism
Here's the thing.
If Tim's grocery store is unprofitable, it's wasting resources.
If resources are wasted, then standard of living must go down.
Better to have Tim directly on a minimum income scheme then provide inefficient make-work jobs that harm the economy as a whole.
Also
>you simply presume that officials will always pretend toilet roll sales are higher than they are
>things that always, always happen in command economies because every incentive is to do so and there are no market forces to prevent it
>the toilet paper example is exceptionally bad, you simply presume that officials will always pretend toilet roll sales are higher than they are, without this the whole example falls apart
Pro-tip: there was ALWAYS a lack of toilet paper in the shops. Among other things, obviously, but it's a nice example of a basic product that is missing because the system can't function.
dude seriously just do some research on teh cold war plans. im making it out to be more of a one sided affair than it was, but NATO was planning an entierly defensive war for a reason.
ITT: Retards who don't know anything about Soviet history.
The reason that the Soviet Union fell was because of the August Coup.
A majority of the citizens in the Soviet Union wanted it to continue on in a more confederated form, but Gorbachev seized the opportunity to destroy the Eastern Bloc after the coup.
do any reading about dickensian britain
the poor were left to die in the street, diseases swept the nation, children got their arms cut off in mills and blown up in coal mines. the vast majority of the population of europe lived in what we would consider abject poverty until at least teh 1890s and im many areas much longer
>the reason the Roman Empire fell is because of Alaric and Odoacer
t. historically illiterate
Gee, that referendum in a totalitarian state sure look realistic. Almost as much as all the referendums in Eastern Europe after WWII.
>mfw all pre-industrial societies are like that
Without an economic surplus, standards of living will inevitably be lower.
How many people died in England, faggot? How many people died during the indistrualization of Stalin, FAGGOT?
>Gorbachev's USSR
>totalitarian
lmfao
You do realize that survey was done in Russia, not all former Soviet Republics?
If you want to grasp the inherent problems of the USSR, consider the fact that a good chunk of the nations in it wanted nothing more than to leave. Most from being forcibly incorporated up until the final collapse.
The USSR was, in a very real sense, a giant forced labour camp of varying severities of punishment. The entire border guard service was more concerned with preventing people from leaving than entering. That alone tells you most of how salvageable the system was.
Most non-Russian nations wanted no part of it - any actual autonomy could have ended in no other way than them leaving.
Could it have been salvaged in a way to convince them to stay? Could you convince Jews the Third Reich should be kept together, with any amount of reforms? The damage was done, at that point. Decades of repression, Russification, corruption, stagnation, stukachs and lies.
Would you stick around?
>you say this as if the industrialization of capitalist countries didnt also involve suffering and poverty on a massive scale
I don't think you understand. Agrarian nations are poor by default. Capitalism didn't magically make them poorer. The vast majority of people weren't migrating to the cities to work in factories because they had no other choice(with the exception of Britain, because of enclosure), they did so because the factories paid more in 2 months than they'd receive from the best harvest they'd ever possibly have in a year. And as these farmers left to go to the cities, other farmers nearby would buy their land and reinvest their higher profits to buy better capital, increasing the standard of living of not just the people who left, but those who remained. There were abuses that occurred, especially with regard to people working in dangerous factories for 12 hour shifts. These led to unions forming in order to negotiate an equilibrium between those who are employed and those who employ where both made profit in the end.
In the Soviet Union however? No unions. No safeguards. No choices. If the state requisitioned your family's entire harvest to import a factory conveyor halfway across the nation, you didn't have recourse. You starved. Your collective farm didn't hit its quota this year? Oh, well we still need the money to pay for new machines in some other factory. You starve. Tough shit. The state wants you to work in a factory in a city far away that doesn't have enough housing? You get put in a 3-bedroom kommunalka with 2 other families. Each family gets a room and shares the rest. Also, you better make your quota, the 5-year plan must be met or else you'll have to work double-time for the same pay. What's that? You don't like what's happening? COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY! *boom* Your dead.
Oh yes. The Soviet Union was totally not worse than America. Absolutely not. It was definitely paradise. Say otherwise and your neighbor will denounce you.
Are you fucking stupid?
>If Tim's grocery store is unprofitable, it's wasting resources.
or there was a sudden market crash that had nothing to do with tim but resulted in a drastic drop in people's disposable income and thus the store became unprofitable.
tim worked just as hard as ivan, only one of them still has a job
also you're taking a systemic trend of officials lieing to be an absolute and unavoiable truth. also market forces dont preven lieing about things, why did ENRON happen? or the 2008 financial crash?
>mfw all pre-industrial societies are like that
including the stalinist soviet union, guess he wasnt so bad after all
>The entire border guard service was more concerned with preventing people from leaving than entering. That alone tells you most of how salvageable the system was.
This. People were literally risking their life trying to escape communist countries, but you never hear about people trying to get in.
Isn't it Alex?
>the Soviet Union didn't fall apart because most of the countries in it wanted to leave and the ones who didn't were shitholes
>it was because of this one guy, and there were no historical forces that made this inevitable
>in a related note, there would still be a Roman Empire if it weren't for those pesky chieftains
>no internal decay or broad, sweeping historical forces here