Mikhail Gorbachev

[Bostana]

What is your guy's opinion on Mikhail Gorbachev. Was ha a fraud that helped with the collapse of the Soviet Union? Or did he try to preserve it and then just give up?

[Ostrinski]

Revolutionary hero and champion of the masses. /shit

[Irrelephant]

Although he was certainly far from a revolutionary like Lenin,Trotsky etc. one cannot help but admire how his move towards social liberalism (with Glasnost and such) was a move back towards the socially liberal ideas of the initial period of the revolution and of the Bolsheviks in general.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Would-be reformer who was unable to overcome the antagonism of the nationalities, economic decline, a vanguard party that had lost its support amongst the workers and various other factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Veovis]

Ended the Cold War, but threw Russia in the gutter to do it.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The Union was in the gutter long before Gorbachev became Gensek.

[Prometeo liberado]

Counterrevolutionary who would admit years after the fall of the Soviet Union that his goal since a college student was to overthrow the CP and then the whole of the Soviet Union.His only failure was that the Soviet Union was half dead by the time he took power. Nothing more than a rat feeding on a dying corpse from the inside. Every word ever spoken or written by him or his toy boy Shevardanze is a total sham made to buy him and his more time to destroy. Maybe I'm wrong.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Closet-Capitalist/liberal who intended to shut down the soviet union from the start. I hate him.

[Ilyich]

Gorbachev was nothing other than a Stalinist bureaucrat. In fact, an argument can be made than he was even more of a Stalinist than Brezhnev, Khrushchev, and Stalin himself. Gorbachev's mission was to destroy the degenerated workers' state that was the Soviet Union and replace it with a capitalist state. This might appear to be strange. Why would a Stalinist bureaucrat want to destroy the very bureaucratic state he controls? The answer is that the bureaucracy, which is a caste (it has political power but does not own the means of production), naturally wants to become the new bourgeoisie, which is a class (it has political power and owns the means of production). In a bureaucratically degenerated or deformed workers' state, the state own the means of production. Therefore, in order for the ruling caste to become a ruling class, the degenerated workers' state must be destroyed. The bureaucracy must wrest the means of production from the state and establish private ownership. When Stalinism collapsed (1989-1992), the Stalinists won and became capitalists. The losers were the workers of the degenerated and deformed workers' states. Gorbachev spearheaded the movement to destroy Stalinism. It cost him politically (he gained less than one percent of the vote in the 1996 presidential election) but he emerged a capitalist who hangs around billionaires.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Gorbachev was actually forced to shut dissolve the Union because the August putsch prevented the execution of a new Union treaty. The real blame for the dissolution of the Union therefore falls upon the coup-makers, Kryuchkov, Yanayev et al. and Boris Yeltsin, who took advantage of popular opposition to the August putsch to push forward with the dissolution of the Union. Gorbachev sought to reform the Union, and was thwarted both by the old guard as well as Yeltsin. It would be a mistake to ascribe Yeltsin's role is dissolving the Union to Gorbachev as that was not his intention.

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't want to get into dates as per when "stalinism" ceased or whatever. We are talking about Gorby here. And as he said soon after becoming General Sec. the country needed fixing to cure the economic stagnation. Thus came all his hidden bourgeois knives. Perestroika, Glasnost and Democracy couched as greater Leninism. Slow destruction, and the drug that would couch the pain was market socialism. He has retired to the lecture circuit and often ruminates of how he dreamed and plotted all of this. The only thing he says that he could not foresee was the speed in which it all happened. He didn't need the help of a coup to do what he did, he set the ball rolling and the rest was just window dressing.

[Ilyich]

The real blame for the dissolution of the Union therefore falls upon the coup-makers, Kryuchkov, Yanayev et al.

It would be nearly impossible to figure out what the true motives of the Augustists were. One could, however, make the argument that they were unconscious bureaucrats who were legitimately concerned about the future of the Soviet Union. According to this argument, they saw Gorbachev's reforms as an attempt by Gorbachev to gradually dissolve the Soviet Union. If this is the case, they were right. They, as unconscious Stalinists who were trying to preserve the Soviet Union, led a poorly planned coup against he who sought to destroy the Soviet Union: Gorbachev. If this is correct, then you have it backward. Gorbachev was trying to destroy the degenerated workers' state while the Augustists were trying to preserve it.


and Boris Yeltsin, who took advantage of popular opposition to the August putsch to push forward with the dissolution of the Union.

Yeltsin was another Stalinist bureaucrat and Gorbachev's chief rival. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin had the same broad goal (the fall of the Soviet Union). They were political competitors, however, and competed with one another for personal power. Still, their main goal was the same.


Gorbachev sought to reform the Union, and was thwarted both by the old guard as well as Yeltsin.

One cannot reform Stalinism from existence and Gorbachev was smart enough to know that. If he had really been interested in bringing democracy and socialism to the Soviet Union, he would have criticized the bureaucracy from without rather than tweak it from within.


It would be a mistake to ascribe Yeltsin's role is dissolving the Union to Gorbachev as that was not his intention.

See the link in Ismail's signature.

[The Stalinator]

Socialism in the Soviet Union was pretty much dead before he arrived. Like an old dead toenail, and Gorbachev was the dude who ripped it off and caused a giant capitalist staph infection.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Counterrevolutionary who would admit years after the fall of the Soviet Union that his goal since a college student was to overthrow the CP and then the whole of the Soviet Union.His only failure was that the Soviet Union was half dead by the time he took power. Nothing more than a rat feeding on a dying corpse from the inside. Every word ever spoken or written by him or his ***** boy Shevardanze is a total sham made to buy him and his more time to destroy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Language please.

[Blake's Baby]

He was a politician. Of course he wanted power - he also wanted to preserve the Soviet Union. What politician willingly says, 'hey, I'm going to give away 40% of the land I'm in charge of, 45% of the population, and a shedload of the wealth that comes from it, make a whole load of neighbours who really fucking hate me and piss of my own military (the second-most powerful in the world and the biggest industry in the country), turn an empire into a rump of a third-world rump gangster-state and retire into hated obscurity'?

He tried to pilot a ship that wasn't just out of control but 3/4 sunk. He barely made it out alive. Was he a hero? Of course not. Tragic clown? No. Super-villain? Hardly. Out of his depth? Probably. Wrestling with impossible tasks? Definitely. Deserving of sympathy? No. Deserving of hatred? Probably not that either. The Soviet Union was going down whatever Gorbachev did.

[Ilyich]

What politician willingly says, 'hey, I'm going to give away 40% of the land I'm in charge of, 45% of the population, and a shedload of the wealth that comes from it, make a whole load of neighbours who really fucking hate me and piss of my own military (the second-most powerful in the world and the biggest industry in the country), turn an empire into a rump of a third-world rump gangster-state and retire into hated obscurity'?

A politician who stands to gain ownership of the means of production with the collapse of the degenerated workers' state would say that.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

He was a politician. Of course he wanted power - he also wanted to preserve the Soviet Union. What politician willingly says, 'hey, I'm going to give away 40% of the land I'm in charge of, 45% of the population, and a shedload of the wealth that comes from it, make a whole load of neighbours who really fucking hate me and piss of my own military (the second-most powerful in the world and the biggest industry in the country), turn an empire into a rump of a third-world rump gangster-state and retire into hated obscurity'?

Oh no, not this crap again.. "All politicians are corrupt and evil and only work for their personal gain..."

I do think that Gorbachev sucked, but to say that no politician ever cares about his/her people is just a bunch of anarchist rubble.

[Blake's Baby]

A politician who stands to gain ownership of the means of production with the collapse of the degenerated workers' state would say that.

And did he? Did Gorbachev have more control or less after 1991?



Oh no, not this crap again.. "All politicians are corrupt and evil and only work for their personal gain..."

I do think that Gorbachev sucked, but to say that no politician ever cares about his/her people is just a bunch of anarchist rubble.

Funny, I don't think I did say that. I said he wanted power. Can you name a politician that doesn't want power?

If the opposite of 'anarchist' is 'idealist', I'll take 'anarchist' as an insult every time.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Funny, I don't think I did say that. I said he wanted power.

What's the difference? :rolleyes:


Can you name a politician that doesn't want power?

I don't think that Lenin was 'power-hungry', yet he was the leader of the Soviet Union.

[Sir Comradical]

Should have been publicly hanged in Red Square.

[∞]

Although he was certainly far from a revolutionary like Lenin,Trotsky etc. one cannot help but admire how his move towards social liberalism (with Glasnost and such) was a move back towards the socially liberal ideas of the initial period of the revolution and of the Bolsheviks in general.

Thats very strange. I thought most Leninists disliked him for stepping backwards because he privatized sectors with perestroika. I don't consider it backwards nor fowards, but I know Leninists do.


Should have been publicly hanged in Red Square.

What a deep and insightful opinion.

[Prometeo liberado]

Language please.
Very correct, my apologies.

[Sir Comradical]

What a deep and insightful opinion.

I agree!

[seventeethdecember2016]

An incompetent revisionist whose policies ruined the progress of world revolution. I give him a few claps for getting rid of the Nationalist policies.

I hate revisionist Western tools. If he had some brains, he would have isolated the US from Africa, South America, and the Socialist world by building another Comintern. A Dualism between Trotskyism and Marxist-Leninism would have saved the Union, and the world from the Imperial grasps of Capitalism.

Fuck Gorbachev! Now we have to start over.

[Blake's Baby]

What's the difference? :rolleyes:


Are you deliberately being dense, or is it an accident? Can you really not tell the difference between the statement 'Gorbachev wanted power' and the statement 'no politician cares about his people'?

Is it possible for a human being to want one thing while caring for something else? I want a cup of tea, but at the same time I care about whether or not my children are safe. Tadaa! I have just demonstrated that two things can happen simultaneously in the human brain. Thank you, no, don't applaud, throw money.

So, having demonstrated that in the abstract it's possible to want two things at the same time, I think it's up you to demonstrate that the statement 'Gorbachev wanted power' is incorrect (by proving he didn't want power) or is the same as 'no politician cares about his people' - or that Gorbechev 'caring about his people' (if he did, you can prove it if you like) means that he can't have wanted power.

As to Lenin, of course Lenin wanted power. How was he going to change how Russia functioned without power? If he didn't want power he'd have stayed in Switzerland.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Wouldn't a historical materialist posit that the fall of the Union was more the cause of material conditions than Gorbachev's so-called revisionism. A heard look at material conditions with respect to the inability of the Union to solve the nationalities question as well as adverse economic conditions, some of which were due to policy errors dating back to the Stalin era but some of which were developments in the international capitalist system (eg. low prices for commodities which the Union exported). There were multiple reasons for the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and simply blaming Gorbachev avoids some difficult questions that we must answer in order to revive the revolutionary movement.