USSR Collapse: All Gorbie's fault?

[Scary Monster]

Because Gorbachev says so himself:



'My Ambition was to Liquidate Communism'

Mikhail Gorbachev

My ambition was to liquidate communism, the dictatorship over all the people. Supporting me and urging me on in this mission was my wife, who was of this opinion long before I was. I knew that I could only do this if I was the leading functionary. In this my wife urged me to climb to the top post. While I actually became acquainted with the West, my mind was made up forever. I decided that I must destroy the whole apparatus of the CPSU and the USSR. Also, I must do this in all of the other socialist countries. My ideal is the path of social democracy. Only this system shall benefit all the people. This quest I decided I must fulfil.
I found friends that had the same thoughts as I in Yakovlev and Shevernadze, they all deserve to be thanked for the break-up of the USSR and the defeat of Communism.
World without communism is going to be much better. After year 2000 the world will be much better, because it shall develop and prosper. But there are countries which shall try to struggle against this. China for one. I was in Peking during the time of the protests on Tienanmen Square, where I really thought that Communism in China is going to crash. I sternly demanded of the Chinese leadership that I want to speak to the protesters, but they did not allow me to do so. If Communism would fall in China, all the world would be better off, and on the road to peace.
I wanted to save the USSR, but only under social democracy rule. This I could not do. Yeltsin wanted power, he did not know anything about democracy or what I intended to do. We wanted the democratic USSR to have rights and freedom.
Then Yeltsin broke up the USSR and at that time I was not in the Kremlin, all the newspaper reporters asked me whether I shall cry? I did not cry, because I really managed to destroy Communism in the USSR, and also in all other European Socialist countries. I did not cry, because I knew that I fulfilled my main aim, that was the defeat of communism in Europe. But you must also know, that communism must be defeated in Asia also, to make the transition quicker to democracy and freedom in the whole world.
The liquidation of the USSR is not beneficial to the USA, since they have now no mighty democratic country (the former USSR) which I wanted to call the Union of Independent Sovereign Republics. I could not accomplish all of this. All the small countries now are thanking the USA for the help. I wanted the USA and the former USSR to be partners without the scourge of Communism, these could have been the ruling countries of the world. The road towards democracy will be a long one, but it is coming very quickly. The whole world must now defeat the last remnants of communism!
This is from an interview by newspapers with Gorbachev in Ankara, Turkey where he was a guest at a seminar at the American University. It was published in the 'Dialog' newspaper in the Czech Republic. Courtesy: 'Northstar Compass', Toronto, February, 2000.


http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm

If Gorbachev really believed everything he has said above, how could he be so damn naive? Why did he think capitalism was better for the world, with its endless all-out wars, puppet dictatorships, mass starvation and enforced poverty, etc? Sounds to me like he barely analyzed the world and did not know what he was talking about (or was living under a rock during the 20th century), before he decided to institute a full-on western-style market economy.

I know the USSR was weakened long before the collapse, due to Afghanistan, the arms race, Party members and bureaucrats seizing control of resources and the means of production after Stalin's death, etc, but isn't it true that only after Gorbachev acted upon his intentions of destroying communism in the world, did the USSR fall?

[GPDP]

Gorbachev may have ultimately dealt the killing blow to the USSR, but you have to wonder about the integrity of a system that would have allowed someone like him attain power, let alone give him the opportunity to carry out his "ambition."

[Red Commissar]

His partner in crime, the then Secretariat of the CPSU CC, Alexander Yakovlev, was one of the main figures behind Perestroika.

Following collapse of the Soviet Union, Yakolev, made is anti-Communist standpoints very clear. And he probably held these when he formed Perestroika.

As for Gorbachev, he was a naive idiot. The very act of him even managing to secure power in the Soviet Union was to me indicative of how open the CPSU, and the Soviet Union, was to parasitic and opportunistic politicians and other bourgeoisie figures.

[manic expression]

A lot of times, I put a lot of emphasis on Gorbachev, that he was utterly incompetent, indecisive, oblivious and worse. But there's far more to the picture than this. I do think that his policies were beyond destructive to the USSR, of course, and much of the fall was directly related to his actions. And really, it's hard not to pin so much guilt on Gorbachev, it's too tempting, kind of like James Buchanan bumbling his way to the Civil War.

But that's only a starting point, as severe problems were there before Gorbachev came to power, and in many ways the tragic road that followed was paved by those very problems. The USSR was in economic trouble by 1985, and it was dealing with a challenging and support-sapping internationalist campaign in Afghanistan...plus, there is little doubt that the party and the state had limited internal democracy, and both had become disconnected from the working class. An anti-Marxist twit like Gorbachev should have never gotten within a country mile of any leadership position...the fact that he got where he did is pretty hard evidence that the vanguard party wasn't doing it's job.

As far as Gorbachev's stated intentions ("I meant to do it!"), that's more than likely nonsense, just like everything else that comes out of his mouth. It's hard to imagine Gorbachev planning anything out, because the story of the fall is basically Gorbachev losing control of just about everything. Gorbachev opened up a Pandora's Box and then fanned those flames of reaction through immaturity. If becoming one of the most pathetic, loathsome figures of the 20th Century was his "ambition", perhaps only then he can say he fulfilled his mission.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The USSR collapsed because the economy run by the bureaucracy ran up against a brick wall. It had nowhere to go - and all the perestroika and glasnost were never going to save it.

As for the interview - Gorby is looking for bookings on the lecture circuit.

[GPDP]

A lot of times, I put a lot of emphasis on Gorbachev, that he was utterly incompetent, indecisive, oblivious and worse. But there's far more to the picture than this. I do think that his policies were beyond destructive to the USSR, of course, and much of the fall was directly related to his actions. And really, it's hard not to pin so much guilt on Gorbachev, it's too tempting, kind of like James Buchanan bumbling his way to the Civil War.

But that's only a starting point, as severe problems were there before Gorbachev came to power, and in many ways the tragic road that followed was paved by those very problems. The USSR was in economic trouble by 1985, and it was dealing with a challenging and support-sapping internationalist campaign in Afghanistan...plus, there is little doubt that the party and the state had limited internal democracy, and both had become disconnected from the working class. An anti-Marxist twit like Gorbachev should have never gotten within a country mile of any leadership position...the fact that he got where he did is pretty hard evidence that the vanguard party wasn't doing it's job.

As far as Gorbachev's stated intentions ("I meant to do it!"), that's more than likely nonsense, just like everything else that comes out of his mouth. It's hard to imagine Gorbachev planning anything out, because the story of the fall is basically Gorbachev losing control of just about everything. Gorbachev opened up a Pandora's Box and then fanned those flames of reaction through immaturity. If becoming one of the most pathetic, loathsome figures of the 20th Century was his "ambition", perhaps only then he can say he fulfilled his mission.

These are great points. A strong, functioning system (revisionism and authoritarianism aside) would not have allowed someone like Gorbachev to get into power, and even if, by some miracle, he managed to be smart enough to deceive the party into thinking he was a genuine Marxist (laughable, I know, considering his incompetence), I doubt his policies would have been able to fly.

Gorbachev's deathblow to the USSR can only be understood in the context of a system in deep, deep crisis. The USSR was pretty much on the brink of terminal decline. Gorbachev just gave it the last necessary push to throw it overboard once and for all.

[Nolan]

It's not like everything was peaches and cream before Gorbachev took power. Gorbachev just gave it the coup de grâce.

[robbo203]

Because Gorbachev says so himself:



http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm

If Gorbachev really believed everything he has said above, how could he be so damn naive? Why did he think capitalism was better for the world, with its endless all-out wars, puppet dictatorships, mass starvation and enforced poverty, etc? Sounds to me like he barely analyzed the world and did not know what he was talking about (or was living under a rock during the 20th century), before he decided to institute a full-on western-style market economy.

I know the USSR was weakened long before the collapse, due to Afghanistan, the arms race, Party members and bureaucrats seizing control of resources and the means of production after Stalin's death, etc, but isn't it true that only after Gorbachev acted upon his intentions of destroying communism in the world, did the USSR fall?


Gorbachev didnt destroy communism. It wasnt communism to begin with anyway but a form of capitalism - a state capitalist "command economy" - that was arguably doomed because of its inherent rigidities. As the Soviet Union developed a more diversified economy, moving away from its traditional focus on heavy industry, it was inevitable that state enterprises would take on more and more of the responsibilities of decisionmaking and become more and more like conventional capitalist enterprises. The old system had become too unwieldy and cumbersome and, in an increasingly competitive global environment, inappropriate.


In fact, the collapse of the Soviet Union was not the result of some huge groundwell of public opinion against "communism", it was rather a consequence of a "revolution from above". This thesis pioneered by the likes of the Russian New Left dissident Boris Kagarlitsky has been further elaborated by David Kotz (with Fred Weir) in Revolution from Above: Demise of the Soviet System, (Routledge; London 1997). According to Kotz and Weir, the party-state elite, in the wake of Gorbachev's reforms and the deteriorating economic circumstances, opportunistically decided to switch allegiance from the jaded old bureaucratic model to "market capitalism" as a way of preserving and extending their influence and wealth. A key moment in this process was in 1990/91 when the regional elites abandoned Gorbachev in favour of Yeltsin. Correspondingly, there was a widespread defection from Soviet to Republican institutions - most notably in the form of companies redirecting their tax payments to the latter. The shock therapy of 1992 which heralded a programme of rampant privatisation, provided some in the nomenklatura with a golden opportunity to seize control of much of the economic assets of Russia, using their considerable connections, political patronage and influence to morph into modern-day Russian oligarchs. Indeed, according to one estimate, even today, two decades on, 43% of the super rich oligarchs were previously high ranking members of the communist party nomenklatura ("Postcommunist Oligarchs in Russia: Quantitative Analysis Export", Serguey Braguinsky, The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 52, No. 2. (1 May 2009), pp. 307-349.) . In other parts of what once was the Eastern bloc the proportion was much higher - most notably in Romania

[CommunityBeliever]

The collapse of the Soviet Union can hardly be accredited to a single person. It is the bourgeoisie media that really focuses in on single individuals rather they be Gorbachev, Stalin, Hitler, Reagan, Nixon or any other leader, the bourgeoisie use them as a sort of scapegoat that way people won't look into the real causes for things (causes like capitalism, imperialism, etc) and to foster the bourgeoisie election system, by focusing on a single person it gives people the delusion that if they just elect someone new everything will change.

So what is the real reason that the Soviet Union fell? I would blame the active opposition of the international bourgeoisie and the United States against the Soviet Union. The bourgeoisie have shown that they are willing to kill hundreds of millions of workers and bring the world to the brink of destruction to maintain their control of the world's wealth.

Between the white army, the Polish invasion from the east, the build of fascism internally in the Soviet Union and all around it with Spain, Germany, Italy, and Japan, then the Winter War, the Nazi Invasion and WW2, the Cold War, the United States unscrupulous use of Nuclear Weapons and their threat of using them on Moscow, the Korean War, etc when was the Soviet Union ever at peace?

I don't think calling them state capitalist, socialist, or any other label very effectively gets to the heart of the problem, they were really a military state, a state at constant war, a war with the bourgeoisie, when did they ever have the time or the opportunity to build a good and strong socialist economy? They simply weren't given the opportunity to build a strong economy, so what they got instead was a strong military.

Then the U.S used Afghanistan as a means of furthering harming the Soviet economy and this really delivered the final blow, the Soviet Union was in shambles and the threat of Afghans with U.S weapons was simply too much and then Gorbachev came in and truly ended things. I am not really the best qualified to speak on this, but this is my understanding of what happened

[Comrade Mango]

Couldn't there have been backing by other politicians?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

As far as Gorbachev's stated intentions ("I meant to do it!"), that's more than likely nonsense, just like everything else that comes out of his mouth. It's hard to imagine Gorbachev planning anything out, because the story of the fall is basically Gorbachev losing control of just about everything.

The whole he wanted to ruin it was most likely added later to make himself look good to outsiders. His desperate and idiotic attempts at keeping things together as they were unravelling went rather far, like that little foray into Azerbaijan...

[rednordman]

Oddly enough, it was Maggie Thatcher who inadvertantly warned everyone of Gorbies poor leadership qualities, by declairing that he was a man she 'could do buisness with'.

I mean, You could be forgiven into assuming that she and the west had a bigger say in getting him in power than the elites of the USSR. That being as it turned out so dam convienient for them.

[scarletghoul]

He's blatantly lying when he said he intended to destroy the USSR. It's clear that he in fact wanted to just make it a more nice place rather than destroy it. He just says that now as a kind of "Er.. I meant to do that" to cover up that he is the fuckup of the century.

Anyway obviously it's not all his fault. In addition to the international pressure and the politicians around him, Gorbachevism must be blamed on Brezhnev, who in turn is a product of Khruschev, who is a product of Stalin, who is a product of Lenin who despite his best efforts could not stop the Party getting all seperate from the masses.

[Svoboda]

Because Gorbachev says so himself:



http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm

If Gorbachev really believed everything he has said above, how could he be so damn naive? Why did he think capitalism was better for the world, with its endless all-out wars, puppet dictatorships, mass starvation and enforced poverty, etc? Sounds to me like he barely analyzed the world and did not know what he was talking about (or was living under a rock during the 20th century), before he decided to institute a full-on western-style market economy.

I know the USSR was weakened long before the collapse, due to Afghanistan, the arms race, Party members and bureaucrats seizing control of resources and the means of production after Stalin's death, etc, but isn't it true that only after Gorbachev acted upon his intentions of destroying communism in the world, did the USSR fall?
No Gorbachev didn't destroy the Soviet Union, if anything he thought he was trying to save it, but his reforms still didn't really do much for the masses, and the mistake was that he allowed dissent through glasnot. I know a joke from that time period where an American dog and Soviet dog are talking to each other and the American dog says "I hear things are getting better there now(as in through the reforms of Gorbachev)" and the Soviet dog replies "Well the bowl's still empty but at least the leash is a little longer".

Overall the collapse of the USSR and the eastern bloc under Soviet influence was inevitable simply due to massive economic inefficiency.

[Nolan]

To sum it up:


Oh shit...Uh...I meant to do that. Yeah.

[Tatarin]

I guess a simple line to it could be that China "succeeded" where the Soviet Union failed - to become a one-party state with capitalism as the economic system.

I always wondered, Gorbatheft has on numerous occasions proclaimed his everlasting love for social-democracy, so why does he wave the "new" Russia as such a big success? The majority of the Soviet Republics became less-than-nice places to live in, and all turned to homophobic, right-wing nutcases (imagine that, after 80 years of reading Marxism in the classrooms :) ).

And, as it was said before - yes, how could a person like Gorbatcherf become the leader in the first place, the system must have had problems on itself. But this can also be extended to the Republics - none of which decided to keep "Soviet socialism" going, or improving what the USSR failed to do. So it's not like Marxism was lacking only in the Kreml, it seems to have lacked everywhere.

[Homo Songun]

It boggles my mind that people think Gorbachev was some kind of naive fuck-up. The record shows that Gorbachev more or less knew what he was doing from the beginning of his administration. Open a book. From day one he was basically continually manipulating the economy and political superstructure in the direction they ended up at. And lo and behold, here he is saying, "I knew what I was doing".

[Nolan]

It boggles my mind that people think Gorbachev was some kind of naive fuck-up. The record shows that Gorbachev more or less knew what he was doing from the beginning of his administration. Open a book. From day one he was basically continually manipulating the economy and political superstructure in the direction they ended up at. And lo and behold, here he is saying, "I knew what I was doing".

I strongly doubt he intended to break up the USSR. More likely, he just failed where the Chinese succeeded. He wanted a market capitalist society with a red flag. Yeltsin is the one that got his way completely.

[M-26-7]

As you can see in this Pizza Hut advertisement, the Russian people themselves are still having a lively debate over the meaning of Gorbachev's legacy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9lvzzH0STw

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

As you can see in this Pizza Hut advertisement, the Russian people themselves are still having a lively debate over the meaning of Gorbachev's legacy:

C9lvzzH0STw

I love how candid the commercial is.

[Kiev Communard]

Gorbachev was, of course, Dengist in hiding. However, it would be absurd to place the blame for the USSR breakup on the shoulders of one man. More precisely, Gorbachev was just a representative of Soviet bureaucratic ruling class ("Industrial Politarists" as contemporary Russian Neo-Marxist historian Yuri Semyonov calls them) that wished to transform the common class property of Soviet nomenklatura into the personal (or corporate) property of themselves as members of new capitalist ruling class. However, their differing backgrounds and certain frictions by national lines led to them pursuing dramatically different course in this regard than, for instance, the CCP or CP of Vietnam, as they turned to Right-wing Liberalism as the new dominant ideology instead of simply hypocritically preserving the previous one.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Gorbachev was, of course, Dengist in hiding. However, it would be absurd to place the blame for the USSR breakup on the shoulders of one man. More precisely, Gorbachev was just a representative of Soviet bureaucratic ruling class ("Industrial Politarists" as contemporary Russian Neo-Marxist historian Yuri Semyonov calls them) that wished to transform the common class property of Soviet nomenklatura into the personal (or corporate) property of themselves as members of new capitalist ruling class. However, their differing backgrounds and certain frictions by national lines led to them pursuing dramatically different course in this regard than, for instance, the CCP or CP of Vietnam, as they turned to Right-wing Liberalism as the new dominant ideology instead of simply hypocritically preserving the previous one.

Didn't he promise the people a multi-party democracy along with a Swedish-style welfare state? He's always struck me as a European-style social democrat, whereas Yeltsin was the hardcore "shock-therapy" capitalist.

I'd say that if not for people like Yeltsin standing in Gorby's way, the USSR would have evolved into a Chinese-style state-capitalist / private enterprise system, albeit with more political openness and a multi-party government.

Of course, that kind of political reform effectively meant that people like Yeltsin would inevitably rise to wield power -- especially after the suppressed information about the horrors of Stalinism, the Stalin-era and post-Stalin-era ideological decay of the CPSU, and the lingering inefficiency and corruption of the bureaucrats became apparent during the glasnost years. (Not that Gorbachev's experiments with the market helped solve the economic inefficiency problem.)