Did Mikhail Gorbachev bring Capitalism to the Soviet Union or was and he is a Sociali

[tradeunionsupporter]

Did Mikhail Gorbachev bring Capitalism because of his reforms to the Soviet Union or was and he is a Socialist ?

[Nolan]

He was one of the main architects in the USSR's demise. Look at Ismail's signature.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Do Communists/Socialists not like Mikhail Gorbachev ?

[Nolan]

Love 'im.

[Demogorgon]

You can't bring capitalism to something that already had it, but to answer your question properly, Gorbachev intended to make changes that he believed were needed to fix the stagnating Soviet Union, but many of these changes were not a good idea (stuff like opening up debate and making elections fairer was good, but hardly went far enough, other stuff was just a flat out bad idea) and also the implementation was incompetent to say the least.

As for is political position, Gorbachev was an is a Social Democrat. That was a major problem with the Soviet Union incidentally, the lack of political pluralism meant that the Communist Party could not be communist. Instead it was simply the association of the ambitious and people of every political stripe were in it, paying lip service to official ideology but not believing (or enacting) a word for it. At least Gorbachev was vaguely on the left, because that is more than can be said of many of the members. Yeltsin was a member after all as were many of those who seized control in the Nineties. Not just across the former Soviet Union, but across all of the Eastern Bloc. A very good practical reason for why Communism needs multi-party democracy.

[Abyss Crown]

He was too much of a die-hard reformer he tried to reform the USSR in to short of time. As for my opinion on him, I don't know a lot about him, to be honest. I've never been interested Gorbachev in even the slightest matter to read about him.

[Bud Struggle]

Gorbachev just acknowledged the inevitable. There was a general hatred and fear of the government by the Soviet people. The society and economy had been stagnated for decades. The KGB was a constant source of fear, there was little freedom of speech and the people were by Western standards poor.

What was worse is that the increase in contact with the West TOLD the Soviet people that they were poor. Plus vast amounts of pressure were being put on the SU by both Reagan and Pope John-Paul II (The Pope having a few more divisions than Stalin supposed! :D)

When the SU fell--no one cared besides for a few generals and old timers. In the final analysis Gorbachev didn't end the Soviet Union, it ended itself.

[Nolan]

Look at me, I write your kid's history textbooks.

Cool story, Ronald Reagan. Too bad popular support for the USSR's demise was not enough, and overshadowed by support for continuing it. (http://soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1991march&Year=1991&Theme=4e6174696f6e616c6974696573&navi=byTheme) In fact, it had almost nothing to do with popular pressure and everything to do with the elite that stood to benefit from a return to capitalism. (http://freespace.virgin.net/pep.talk/KotzWeir.htm)As in 60% of the richest Russians in 1996 being former high ranking party officials.

Had Gorbachev not completely wrecked the economy and created the long lines to get soup that you love to tell us about, support for capitalism would likely have been almost non-existent.

[#FF0000]

It's not as if it was all pivotal on one individual, Captain Cuba. The USSR was headed in a bad direction before Gorby came around. He certainly didn't help but it's just not possible to know what might've happened had someone actually dedicated to socialism had power.

So, no, Gorbachev is not well-liked by communists at all.

[Nolan]

It's not as if it was all pivotal on one individual, Captain Cuba. The USSR was headed in a bad direction before Gorby came around. He certainly didn't help but it's just not possible to know what might've happened had someone actually dedicated to socialism had power.

So, no, Gorbachev is not well-liked by communists at all.

Oh of course not, I never meant to imply otherwise. But Gorbachev is special in that he managed to turn a serious problem into a full scale disaster - with the intent of turning the Soviet Union into a capitalist society. Look at the data given in my second source, the Soviet economy was still stable and growing at an acceptable rate until Perestroika, when it shrunk for the first time I believe.


It's not as if it was all pivotal on one individual, Captain Cuba.

The first time, I read that as if you were saying I wasn't solely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[RedScare]

Personally, I don't think Gorbachov had bad intentions, ie wanting to bring in Western capitalism. He just listened too much to Yeltsin, and not enough to Ligachev. He really should have sent Yeltsin in ambassadorial exile when he kicked him out the leadership.

And yea, the destruction of the Soviet Union was much more the work of local elite in a few key republics rather than a general popular uprising in every republic. It was mainly Boris Yeltsin in Russia, Stanislav Shushkevich in Belorussia, and Leonid Kravchuk in Ukraine who conspired to break the Union up so that they would profit by it.

[Agnapostate]

He was in a pro-market contingency, but his reforms would have gone along the lines of Deng's path for China in a market socialist direction, not a capitalist turn. The Soviet government was essentially split between hardliners who favored a return to central planning, reformers who favored market socialism, and reformers who favored capitalism. In the end, the reformers who favored capitalism won, and the spotlight on Russia as the manifestation of all evil authoritarianism in the world faded even as Boris Yeltsin became a dictator himself. And yes, I favor the standard anarchist position of the USSR as non-socialist, but I can't think of any better name but "market socialism" at the moment, since it remains distinct from capitalism.

[Homo Songun]

I don't know of any communist parties or communist individuals in the United States that uphold Gorbachev. Even the CPUSA opposed Gorbachev. He used words like "perestroika" (openness) but what he was really about was destroying what working class power there was in the Soviet Union. For example, even before he destroyed the Soviet Union, under Gorbachev's perestroika regime the percentage of workers and peasants in the Soviet legislature continually decreased while bureacrats and white collar workers continually increased. I can't be bothered to look up the stats but Sam Marcy's book Perestroika has a graphical representation somewhere in it.


Personally, I don't think Gorbachov had bad intentions, ie wanting to bring in Western capitalism. He just listened too much to Yeltsin, and not enough to Ligachev. He really should have sent Yeltsin in ambassadorial exile when he kicked him out the leadership.It was not about Gorbachev being some kind of mediator between the Ligachevs and Yeltsins. You have to go deeper and further than that to understand what really happened. Keep digging.

[RedScare]

It was not about Gorbachev being some kind of mediator between the Ligachevs and Yeltsins. You have to go deeper and further than that to understand what really happened. Keep digging.
That was certainly a part of the issue, the struggle between the neo-Stalinists, the Ligachevs and the Yeltsins over the pace and depth of reforms, but of course there were other aspects.

[ReinoTheProle]

And besides, USSR was not even truly communist since Lenin's death. Marxism_leninism is not communism, since it has its own elite, the " Soviets " , whereas we have few selected CEOs and government types in same position here. :mad:

[Bud Struggle]

Cool story, Ronald Reagan. Too bad popular support for the USSR's demise was not enough, and overshadowed by support for continuing it. (http://soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1991march&Year=1991&Theme=4e6174696f6e616c6974696573&navi=byTheme) In fact, it had almost nothing to do with popular pressure and everything to do with the elite that stood to benefit from a return to capitalism. (http://freespace.virgin.net/pep.talk/KotzWeir.htm)As in 60% of the richest Russians in 1996 being former high ranking party officials.

Actually Comrade, this is the point that I've been making around here for some time--that there is little difference between Feudal lords, Capitalist CEOS and high "Communist" Party leaders.

Certain people gravitate to certain places of power in any society. Try as it may to be egalitarian society creates a stratification of certain people at the top and certain people at the bottom. And those position become heriditary. I'm sure in the USSR a General's son had a better chance of getting a good commissar job than some unknown Proletarian.

Th interesting question is: why do Communist/Socialist societies degenerate in this manner rather than perfect Communism? One would have imagined that Communism in the USSR after Stalin (who one might consider an aberration) heal itself and go back on a road to a more Marxist Communism--but instead it slides to State Capitalism up Capitalism itself.

[AK]

Do Communists/Socialists not like Mikhail Gorbachev ?
That's an understatement...
To some he was a dirty revisionist.
To others he was a state capitalist dickhead.
To others, still, he was a fully-fledged bourgeois sonofa*****.

[Che a chara]

Change had to be made, and no doubt the pressure from Regan and the US had part to play in the USSR's demise. But there was dissent from the people in the various republics who wanted some sort of change, not necessarily for capitalism, but change nonetheless and by then, the will for many to socialize/communize society again was low.

What would have been the perfect scenario for Gorbachev, especially given the low morale to the whole economy and the pressure from the West .... i'm sure some of the 'elites' were easily persuaded.

[RGacky3]

Actually Comrade, this is the point that I've been making around here for some time--that there is little difference between Feudal lords, Capitalist CEOS and high "Communist" Party leaders.

Thats true, which is why we have to minimilize and eventually eliminate all of those power structures, be them CEOs, lords, or party leaders.


Th interesting question is: why do Communist/Socialist societies degenerate in this manner rather than perfect Communism? One would have imagined that Communism in the USSR after Stalin (who one might consider an aberration) heal itself and go back on a road to a more Marxist Communism--but instead it slides to State Capitalism up Capitalism itself.

Stalin was'nt the one that hurt the USSR, it was Lenin and the bolsheviks in the beggining, as soon as democracy lost out over part hedgemony socialism failed, the fall of the USSR was not a fall of socialism or communism, it was the fall of the Communist Party.


Certain people gravitate to certain places of power in any society. Try as it may to be egalitarian society creates a stratification of certain people at the top and certain people at the bottom. And those position become heriditary. I'm sure in the USSR a General's son had a better chance of getting a good commissar job than some unknown Proletarian.

But with an egalitarian society (which the USSR was not) we minimilize the damage power does.


When the SU fell--no one cared besides for a few generals and old timers. In the final analysis Gorbachev didn't end the Soviet Union, it ended itself.

Gorbechev tried to save it, one thing NO ONE tried (for good reason, it would weaken the party), is to empower the actual soviets to make real desicions and to lessen the power of the central government thus democratizing (in a real sense) the soviet union, why not try live up to your name?

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB261/nyc_400.jpg


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB261/index.htm

There are a lot of first hand documents at this website about the fall of the Societ Union.

[Blake's Baby]

He was neither a socialist nor restored capitalism. The USSR was capitalist anyway (state capitalist, of course) and Gorbachev was trying to save what was possible to save from the shipwreck of Stalinism. All his 'reforms' were about propping up the system and continuing with the USSR (with him as head, naturally).

Since before the death of Brezhnev there were competing factions inside the CPSU that wanted their own guy in power. Andropov was the reformers' candidate; he died; then Chernenko was the choice of the 'old guard'; he died; then Gorbachev was up to bat for the reformers again. There really wasn't another way to decide policy when there's only one party; it has to represent everything.