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
>why
Socialism
>prevented
Not having socialism
>how
Capitalism
>>1140581
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
>>1140625
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?
>>1140663
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.
>>1140696
>implying it isn't rational and moral for people to expect to be rewarded for working harder
Stay autistic.
It got an STI
>>1140663
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.
>>1140663
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
>>1140723
What if the man in question wants to sell that coal and earn money for himself?
>>1140723
That's a stupid situation. If a community finds themselves in that scenario then they're fucked no matter what their economic ideology is.
>>1140574
>OP says not to argue without reasoning
>replies argue without reasoning
/his/ 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.
>>1140574
>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.'
>>1140706
>ad homs
Read a book my friend.
>>1140746
>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?
>>1140756
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).
>>1140746
>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
>>1140723
That's why the system didn't work. Nobody felt they should work beyond what was the minumum requirenment.
>>1140756
Okay.
I read a book and it said that the capitalist countries are still here and most of the communist ones are dead.
>>1140581
>"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
>>1140786
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.
>>1140786
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.
>>1140799
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.
>>1140804
>you can't reform communism
i'll take marxist-leninism for ten, mark
>>1140768
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.
>>1140813
>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
>>1140809
>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.
>>1140838
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.
>>1140813
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.
>>1140843
>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
>>1140838
>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.
>>1140876
>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.
>>1140813
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.
>>1140865
>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.
>>1140874
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.
>>1140888
>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.
>>1140888
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.
>>1140880
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.
>>1140574
>Why?
Gorbachev
>Prevent?
No Gorbachev
>>1140911
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.
>>1140885
>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
>>1140896
>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.
>>1140927
>say what you want about them, they fucked up the wermacht
The German army was also conscripts, you retards.
>>1140897
>Capitalism is pro freedom, socialism is anti freedom.
I'm not sure if this is a joke
>>1140927
>it took the US, USSR, and Britain to take out Germany last time
>USSR expects to win against Germany, Britain, and the US
pfffft
>>1140880
>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
>>1140938
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.
>>1140929
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
>>1140936
so why are you dissing conscripts?
>>1140946
you think this in any way helps your cause? rofl the commie delusion is unreal
>>1140939
Commies and Russians actually unironically believe they single-handedly defeated Germany tho.
>>1140948
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_%281973%E2%80%9390%29
YOU
http://www.massviolence.org/The-Last-Military-Dictatorship-in-Argentina-1976-1983-the
COMPLETE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan
FUCKING
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%9374
MORON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
>>1140957
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.
>>1140963
what cause?
>>1140980
Nice capitalism you got there.
>>1140946
>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.
>>1140955
>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.
>>1140574
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.
>>1140946
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.
>>1140983
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
>>1140996
>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?
>>1140980
>Economy of Nazi Germany
>Capitalism
im laffin
>>1141004
>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.
>>1141015
If state run enterprises could do the same job cheaper, they wouldn't need taxes to keep them going.
>>1141015
>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.
>>1140994
>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
>>1140574
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.
>>1141037
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.
>>1141041
>Soviet Union collapsed because they wouldn't send tanks into other countries
???
>>1141037
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.
>>1140999
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.
>>1141023
laffin instead of reading
because you're an idiot
>>1141048
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.
>>1141036
>Yes. It is.
>>1141063
>t-trust me, just read.. it really was capitalism
>>1141061
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
>>1141061
>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.
>>1141024
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.
>>1140574
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.
>>1141047
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
>>1141089
>the reason the Roman Empire fell is because of Alaric and Odoacer
t. historically illiterate
>>1141089
Gee, that referendum in a totalitarian state sure look realistic. Almost as much as all the referendums in Eastern Europe after WWII.
>>1141097
>mfw all pre-industrial societies are like that
Without an economic surplus, standards of living will inevitably be lower.
>>1141097
How many people died in England, faggot? How many people died during the indistrualization of Stalin, FAGGOT?
>>1141101
>Gorbachev's USSR
>totalitarian
lmfao
>>1140574
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?
![kommunalka[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/86iqui4.jpg "kommunalka[1].jpg")
>>1141037
>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.
>>1141100
Are you fucking stupid?
>>1141075
>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?
>>1141107
>mfw all pre-industrial societies are like that
including the stalinist soviet union, guess he wasnt so bad after all
>>1141116
>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.
>>1140815
Isn't it Alex?
>>1141122
>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
>>1141123
The USSR and the Eastern bloc countries had billions of debt owned to the West. Not the other way around. Do you understand that?
>>1141129
No, no comrade - is raking of beaches to stop spies from entering! Is very likely spy is swim ashore.
>>1141111
if you want the answers to those questions you should probably google them
>>1141137
I find it amusing how commies simultaneously think the USSR was super stronk and totally working properly and the theory that it was fucked up by one single traitor.
>>1141048
>>1141069
The irony of it is that Gorbachev was the first true believer Socialist to be premier of the Soviet Union, instead of being a commissar or a spy like the rest of them. His career had been in the agricultural part of the party.
In contrast, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov (Andropov is less important for the five minutes he spent as premier than for the decades he spent working his way up to that position, but yes, Andropov is very important) were all experienced with getting what they wanted through violent force. Brezhnev was responsible for the last major famine in Europe when he cleared Moldova of Romanian nationalist elements.
Contrast that to Gorbachev, who actually believed that Socialism was the solution for the world's problems, and that being honest about the Soviet Union's problems could improve it as a society and that Soviet allies would stay allies voluntarily. This optimism lead to an unwillingness to use violent force, and that in turn lost him the Warsaw Bloc, which made him vulnerable to Russian Nationalists lead by Yeltsin.
>>1140574
>Why did the soviet union collapse?
economical mismanagement
>could it have been prevented?
not with Russians in charge
>how?
not being completely retarded
>>1141118
>There were abuses that occurred, especially with regard to people working in dangerous factories for 12 hour shifts
you say that as if it wasnt the reality of the majoirty of working people for almost a hundred years
>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.
you say that as if the state and employers didnt do everything in their power to suppress and prevent the growth of unions
now your description of life in the soviet union is a carecature but noting in it is outright false. the problem here is that you cant see how the conditions under capitalism were essentially the same.
you think many families werent crammed into houses in capitlaist societies? that workers werent given quotas and made to work more if they failed to meet them? that the poor werent left to starve? that people who tried to change the system werent shot?
>>1140804
>>1140810
You guys are just blowhards. >>1140786
has a point. I don't think that all of the flows of the soviet union can just be summed up as "inherently communist".
>>1141186
Time for a commie joke:
An American and a Russian are talking. The American says "In our country we have freedom. I can go out on the street and should that the American president is an idiot". The Russian replied "In our country we also have freedom. I can also go out on the street and should that the American president is an idiot."
>>1141186
The USA didn't have a majority-urban population until the 1890s. And like I said, the people who moved to the cities did so of their own accord. They chose to make that trade-off of making much more in exchange for harsh, dangerous work. And people in the USA could CHOOSE their profession. Ain't that a thing? You could apprentice yourself to auto-mechanic and become one yourself. You could save up money to buy your own grocery store. You could negotiate for a raise or leave to work in a better factory across town. You could strike and create a union and know that there was 90% chance it wouldn't end with a firing squad(notice how I didn't say 'all'). You could choose to go back to farming if you wished by buying one of the many farms that were vacating at this time. You couldn't do any of those things in the Soviet Union. It's not a caricature. It's fact.
And as for housing. People in the USA could save up and buy a better house and apartment. They weren't forced to live like rats by the state.
P.S. My family lived in the tenements in East Harlem a century ago right after they arrived penniless from Southern Italy. They ended up saving up money as a family and bought a dairy farm within a few years. A decade later, they built a cheese factory and the family then bought newly built townhouses in the Bronx(not a bad borough until the 60s) with some of their new wealth. Within a decade and a half, my forefathers went from penniless to upper-middle class.
None of that was possible in the Soviet Union. Stop being such a commieboo. Socialism is a shit economic model that only results in shitholes.
P.S.S. Sweden isn't socialist. It's a mixed economy.
Yes.
>>1140799
>muh socialism
>Not Russia-centric imperialism turning every part of the USSR outside of the Metropol into glorified clay shield shitholes that were good for nothing but rocket installations and having their resources taken.
People tend to shortsell how shitty the USSR was politically.
(Also >>1140746)
Hitler killed the Soviet Union. It just took 50 years for the wounds to prove fatal.
Destruction of the young male population combined with the relocation of agriculture into the interior of the state doomed the USSR. The great patriotic victory was really a victory of propaganda. The Soviets got annihilated. If it hadn't been for dreadful conditions and western intervention, there's no question they would have lost outright before 1945.
>central planning
>working
>ever
>>1141259
holy shit, i did not expect anyone in this htread to have any serious historiacal knowledge.
now to be honest most of what you say is true about the development of the USA. however the USA was the exception not the rule. in european countries. there was no option to go back to the countryside and land simply wasnt cheap enough for anyone other than the rich to buy it. furthermore the option to buy something does not translate into the ability to do it. if your being paid subsistence wages your simply never going to afford a better house or living conditions, which was the reality for most of the world as it developed.
now when you look at the soviet union, sure there werent the oppertunities there were in the USA, but at the same time the soviets achieved quite a bit, russia in the 80s was pretty shit, but nothing compared to russia pre ww1.
socialism has a pretty bad track record yes, but you really think there arent capitalist countries that are still shitholes? look at argentina after the 60s, the country was completely fucked over by free market policies.
also you got me on teh sweden one, most of the /pol/ tier idiots on this board have probably never heard of the term mixed-economy so i used it against them.
>>1141301
stay mad
>>1141259
Tom Sowell, is that you?
>>1141349
Stay dead
>>1141225
heres a better one
Stalin, Khruschev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev are on a train. in the middle of nowhere the train stops and the driver announces that they are having technical diffculties.
Stalin immediately throws open the window and shouts 'this is an outrage, the driver must be liquidated!'
Khrushchev then says 'no no no, that is only a temporary solution, the driver must be re-educated'
Brezhnev then says 'why dont we all calm down, close the window and just pretend the train is still moving'
Gorbachev finally says 'no you morons, we need to get this train moving, waht we must do i we must get out and we must push the train ourselves'
>>1141259
>>1141329
Absolute central control by the state and Laissez-faire free markets are both terrible, terrible ideas. The only reason either still gets entertained is because people are fucking retarded.
>X is bad, so the exact opposite HAS to be good!
I really wish Americans were as immune to economically liberal freeaboo wagecucks as they were to commies.
>>1141366
>muh k/d
war isnt a game, child
>>1141380
Generally speaking if you take fewer losses than the enemy you're more likely to win.
The Soviet casualty rates were horrendous and untenable. They were doomed without western materials and physical intervention.
>>1141393
>Generally speaking if you take fewer losses than the enemy you're more likely to win.
but the real question is, did you win?
and the answer is NO bitch, germany took the big red dick of communism right up its ass
>>1141401
Only because the allies stepped back and let the Russian apes handle the dirty work of taking Berlin. Nothing in history has been more disposable than the Russian solider.
If Germany had been able to make terms with the western powers, the Soviets would have never made it out of their 'Republic'.
>>1140897
Mein gott. That's a serious case of ideology you have there
>>1141401
Germany still exists today. How's the USSR doing?
>>1141412
and if stalin hadnt completely ignored all teh warnings that hitler was planning to invade, or hadnt purged the officer corps, the wermacht would have been massacred in 1941.
but history isnt about what could have happened, its about what did happen. What did happen is an idiotic leader led germany into an unwinnable war and the country paid a horrible price for it.
>>1141425
russia still exists aswell, but the third reich is dead and gone and has been for over laf a century, let do some comparison shall we.
third reich 1933 - 1945 12 years
soviet union 1918-1991 73 years
i think the winner is clear
So how is it that three small SSRs managed to fuck off relatively cleanly and then get recognized as independent by Moscow?
>>1140885
>That's bullshit.
Until the large amounts of 120mm armed tanks, there was very little the L7 armed NATO tanks can do to T-72s. The first round that came out for the L7 that can penetrate T-72 Ural came out ~1980 by then T-72As were the main MBTs which couldn't be penetrated by DU ammo that was introduced in 1991. Meanwhile, the 125mm was able to penetrate NATO tanks at all combat ranges.
>>1141379
I never stated I was against sensible regulations. Honestly, I support a 25% flat tax for annual redistribution in order to have universal basic income. This allows the benefits of free market capitalism to continue while also fixing the problems that the socialists recognized. It provides freedom both in the capitalist sense, and in the socialist sense. That's the only government redistribution program necessary. Everything else is horrifically inefficient like social security and various other forms of welfare.
>>1141329
Here's my personal opinion above with regard to current policy. Essentially libertarian(not ancap) with some redistribution to allow for complete freedom. I agree that industrialization was harsh universally. Less so in the USA than Europe. But I'm nearly every other nation's transition was much better and less inhumane than that of the USSR.
>>1141355
I may be part-eggplant, but I'm not THAT black.
>>1141401
Calm down, commie. Once you take into account how many enemies Germany was fighting at once and all the supplies the Allies gave the Soviets, your glorious victory seems pretty unimpressive.
>>1141472
The Gulf War 1990-91 showed us all how great Russian tanks were.
>>1141494
>i am unimpressed with your victory
nigga you think i give a shit about yo opinion?
you can play the total annihilation of nazi germany any way a sore ass loser can play it, you still lost and soviet communism still won
>>1141523
Don't confuse me with a Nazi just because of my hate for you commie subhumans. Without Allied help you would have been long gone, don't try to present WWII as a one on one fight, retard.
>>1141500
>'i know fuck all about Russian military equipment' the post
look up 'export models'
>>1141539
oh fair, you sounded like a right wheraboo
and the allies would have lost the war on their own aswell, it was a team effort
>>1141500
Yes, if you managed to fail at destroying 20 years older with complete air superiority you should disband your military.
>>1141539
>Without Allied help you would have been long gone
Wehrmacht at their strongest couldn't beat the Red Army at its weakest at Moscow. How did you think Nazis can win?
>Why did the Soviet Union collapse
Internal unrest.
Way too high expenditures on the military prevented further economic growth.
The Reds simply couldn't keep up with America and its allies.
This all triggered certain sectors of the Politburo to put foward economic, diplomatic and political reforms.
They esentially admited defeat in the Cold War.
>Could it have been prevented?
All Empires inevitably fall. It could have been postponed, but not prevented.
>How?
I think that the Soviet Union should have invested more resources in Asia rather than Europe.
Imagine if in the peek of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, China, India, Indonesia, Persia and Iraq/Saudi Arabia, were all allied.
Do you honestly think that shithole countries in East Europe helped the USSR anyway in the long run?
No, they didn't. They simply drained shit tons of manpower, money and time from the Soviet Union.
Many barely did have any acting intelligence agencies or decent army.
If the USSR looked to Asia instead of Europe, these Asian resource and population rich countries could make an effective political economical bloc to realistically stand up against Western powers.
Eastern bloc would be solely used for scorched earth tactics against NATO.
USSR ensures Korea is unified under socialism, prevents Sino-Soviet split, invades Japan with Kim Jong Il and Mao Zedong, spreads communism to Persia, India and Indonesia.
Later on invades the Gulf and tries to ally Iraq.
This kind of thing.
I think it could work.
>>1141598
...or the 1991 coup attemp succeeds.
>>1140722
Compete requires improvements, improvements doesnt just occur, you want to create that 10ton wheat so u can become rich, but if u cant become rich by improving, why improve at all...
>>1141607
They improved anyways. They made light bulbs that lasted dozens of years, because they weren't subject to the planned obsolescence of capitalism among a host of other technologies that the western world deliberately avoided for nearly fifty years.
>>1140722
>couldn't economically compete with developed capitalist industries.
Except it did, against both that, and the entire western world trying to sabotage them at every turn for nearly a half century. Staying neck and neck, and in some ways ahead, of the most powerful military on Earth, and maintaining the space race - winning it, really, save for the moon thing.
Communism doesn't work - but that's the reason the USSR never tried it. What they did have was a totalitarian nationalist system, that was extremely effective, especially when you consider it was more or less them versus the entire world. (Given that the relationship with China was considerably less than smooth.)
There's a number of ways the fall could have been prevented, but it would have required the west to take a "friendly competition" approach to the USSR, rather than a deliberately hostile one, and for the USSR to reciprocate. Maybe if Wallace had become president, and Christof headed up the Kremlin, or some such.
The only other possibility would be that the USA had back-door funded the USSR to maintain the "useful adversary" relationship. As, while living on the edge of nuclear annihilation on a daily basis kinda sucked, the relationship provided a certain amount of world wide stability, and pushed mankind to technological heights that he simply hasn't seen since. Hell, we woulda been on Mars by now, and staking out sides on the moon.
Yes, the USSR fell - but that was an incredible run against incredible odds that no other nation has seen since, right after defeating the most spectacular rise of a military power the world had ever seen in the form of Nazi Germany. That's a story of amazing resilience, not failure.
>>1141037
More whataboutism from a deluded pinko.
Go figure.
