who is responisble for the breake down of the USSR

[farooq]

This is not a light weight issue that can be stated in one line or any one can not say that only one person is the total responsible for all,but there is a time in which this breaking down started and reached at the peek where there was the end of USSR.

basically i am in labor party Pakistan which supports Stalin as great and powerful leader whose decisions where strong and in the favor of stability of USSR.
when ever there are many comrades who were against Stalin and and are sporting Trotsky.

I have read many books and discussed with party comrades that who is/are responsible for fall down of USSR so i ask for the views and write the decisions of the Stalin and Trotsky which were the cause of its fall down.

[Yuppie Grinder]

History is the story of the masses, not of great men. No single figure is responsible for the birth or death of any nation.

[tuwix]

The last leader of the Soviet Union was Gorbatchev. It is his political resposability that he allowed to be dissolved.

[RedMaterialist]

This is not a light weight issue that can be stated in one line or any one can not say that only one person is the total responsible for all,but there is a time in which this breaking down started and reached at the peek where there was the end of USSR.

basically i am in labor party Pakistan which supports Stalin as great and powerful leader whose decisions where strong and in the favor of stability of USSR.
when ever there are many comrades who were against Stalin and and are sporting Trotsky.

I have read many books and discussed with party comrades that who is/are responsible for fall down of USSR so i ask for the views and write the decisions of the Stalin and Trotsky which were the cause of its fall down.

Here is my opinion: Stalin ran a dictatorship of the proletariat, just like Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky advised (it wasn't pretty, but that is another story.) This dictatorship eliminated the capitalist class in the Soviet Union. Once society had no class left to suppress, the basis for the existence of the state (class suppression) ceased to exist. The state then collapsed, just like Marx and Engels predicted.

However, the Soviet Union was an experiment of socialism in one state. When the Soviet state collapsed, the surrounding world-wide capitalists rushed into the vacuum and a semi-capitalist state was reestablished under Yeltsin.

Another possible explanation is that the Soviet Union tried to go from a feudal/capitalist economic system to a socialist economy before allowing for the full development of capitalism. I personally don't think this is reasonable because I doubt the Soviet Union could have survived WWII without a fully functioning socialist, centrally planned economy.

[#FF0000]

Here is my opinion: Stalin ran a dictatorship of the proletariat, just like Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky advised (it wasn't pretty, but that is another story.) This dictatorship eliminated the capitalist class in the Soviet Union. Once society had no class left to suppress, the basis for the existence of the state (class suppression) ceased to exist. The state then collapsed, just like Marx and Engels predicted.

However, the Soviet Union was an experiment of socialism in one state. When the Soviet state collapsed, the surrounding world-wide capitalists rushed into the vacuum and a semi-capitalist state was reestablished under Yeltsin.

lmfao this post holy shit

For content: The collapse of the USSR is a complicated thing and there were a lot of factors that played into it, though there's a few that could be pointed out in particular. One being the Soviet reliance on heavy industry -- particularly military production. From WW2 and throughout the Cold War, the USSR prioritized the military, and so the best engineers and the best scientists and the bulk of their material resources went towards it. This was a massive drain on the Soviet economy and eventually bankrupted them.

So, from that, I suppose you could say that Stalin is to blame, but pinning it on one person like that would be supremely lazy. Like everything else in history, "it's complicated".

[Brutus]

There were still peasants (as there were kolkhoz) and proletarians.
Lmfao indeed

[helot]

lmfao


I share this laughter. It's a pretty funny joke.




As for the topic at hand you'd be better off trying to evaluate the material conditions both within the USSR and not to mention the USSR's relation to external forces.

[RedMaterialist]

lmfao this post holy shit

For content: The collapse of the USSR is a complicated thing and there were a lot of factors that played into it, though there's a few that could be pointed out in particular. One being the Soviet reliance on heavy industry -- particularly military production. From WW2 and throughout the Cold War, the USSR prioritized the military, and so the best engineers and the best scientists and the bulk of their material resources went towards it. This was a massive drain on the Soviet economy and eventually bankrupted them.

So, from that, I suppose you could say that Stalin is to blame, but pinning it on one person like that would be supremely lazy. Like everything else in history, "it's complicated".

I'm surprised anyone except bourgeois apologists still uses the old economic argument. The U.S. forced the Soviet Union to spend all its money on missiles? The Russians were scared by the mighty Reagan economic machine? Millions of Russians fought Hitler to the death suffering the kind of brutality the West can barely imagine. And you think some accounting problems with cash flow destroyed the Soviet Union? You need to take the capitalist mental blindfolds off and do your own thinking. The idea that a world power can be destroyed by bankruptcy is the direct product of the neo-liberal, capitalist mindset. At least the neo-cons claim that the Soviet Union was the evil empire which God helped Reagan to destroy.

BTW, I didn't say Stalin caused the collapse of the SU. The SU collapsed because the dictatorship of the proletariat finally suppressed, but only in the SU, the capitalist class. When the entire world becomes a socialist dictatorship and the capitalist class is finally destroyed, then that dictatorship will too collapse; not because it became bankrupt, but because there will be no class left to suppress.

[RedMaterialist]

There were still peasants (as there were kolkhoz) and proletarians.
Lmfao indeed

That's not the question. Where were the capitalists? Either underground or moved to Connecticut.

[#FF0000]

The U.S. forced the Soviet Union to spend all its money on missiles? The Russians were scared by the mighty Reagan economic machine? Millions of Russians fought Hitler to the death suffering the kind of brutality the West can barely imagine

Yes all of these are true.


And you think some accounting problems with cash flow destroyed the Soviet Union?

Not exactly. I think pouring resources into the most unproductive economic activity that could be engaged in - war production, played a large part in bringing down the USSR.



You need to take the capitalist mental blindfolds off and do your own thinking. The idea that a world power can be destroyed by bankruptcy is the direct product of the neo-liberal, capitalist mindset.

Hahaha ohhhh wow.


BTW, I didn't say Stalin caused the collapse of the SU. The SU collapsed because the dictatorship of the proletariat finally suppressed, but only in the SU, the capitalist class. When the entire world becomes a socialist dictatorship and the capitalist class is finally destroyed, then that dictatorship will too collapse; not because it became bankrupt, but because there will be no class left to suppress.

Only the "lmfao" part was directed at you, because you are absolutely clueless re: everything. And I'm not trying to be mean or anything here. I am deadly seriousand I am not exaggerating when I say this -- you have no clue what you're talking about, at all.

[The Idler]

An excellent pamphlet on the subject
Eastern Europe The Collapse Of The Kremlin's Empire | The ... (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/eastern-europe-collapse-kremlins-empire)

[Brutus]

That's not the question. Where were the capitalists? Either underground or moved to Connecticut.

The capitalists were gone, but there were still classes.
You had the nomenklatura oppressing and exploiting the proletariat.

[Q]

I already referred you (http://www.revleft.com/vb/responisble-breake-down-t181075/index.html?p=2623610#post2623610) to this video (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html), which gives a detailed analysis as to why the USSR collapsed. But a few days ago I described the mechanics in a nutshell (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unemployment-soviet-union-t180906/index.html?p=2622210#post2622210) for a different thread and it is useful to repost it:


I'd say those figures are accurate. The USSR had the highest employment rate in the world and this was the result of a social problem, not of "planning".

Soviet society was structured in such a bureaucratic way that planning wasn't possible. Instead you had a target economy (targets not being the same as planning; the latter implies rationality, the former can zigzag as bureaucrats naturally do). Furthermore, there was no competition incentive between firms. So, the capitalist mode of continuous technological revolution wasn't working in the USSR.

When new machinery arrived from, say, Germany the bureaucrats were expecting to increase production with it and, as such, lower working time over time or fill up shortages. From the standpoint of workers though, this just meant higher exploitation, longer working hours in the immediate at a faster pace and with probably the same amount of resources.

So, what you got was this phenomena where new machinery just stood outside the factory, rusting in the snow. Many reports go on and on about this. The bureaucrats just couldn't understand the problem they themselves created. And they came up with solutions that only a bureaucrat can come up with, such as internal passports and closed off cities.

Instead of technological revolution then, to increase production, the USSR relied upon amassing the great countryside to become proletarians. This was the main reason for the collectivisation: To free up a huge number of people for industry. But there was always a shortage of workers. It became normal that the Red Army helped with gathering the harvest, at times even schoolchildren were recruited for such work.

In the 1960's we saw a leveling out of the migration from the rural to industrial areas and this is also where we see the leveling off of the "planned" economic growth, only to continue in inevitable terminal decline since the late 1970's.

Hope it helps.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm surprised anyone except bourgeois apologists still uses the old economic argument. The U.S. forced the Soviet Union to spend all its money on missiles? The Russians were scared by the mighty Reagan economic machine? Millions of Russians fought Hitler to the death suffering the kind of brutality the West can barely imagine. And you think some accounting problems with cash flow destroyed the Soviet Union? You need to take the capitalist mental blindfolds off and do your own thinking. The idea that a world power can be destroyed by bankruptcy is the direct product of the neo-liberal, capitalist mindset. At least the neo-cons claim that the Soviet Union was the evil empire which God helped Reagan to destroy.

BTW, I didn't say Stalin caused the collapse of the SU. The SU collapsed because the dictatorship of the proletariat finally suppressed, but only in the SU, the capitalist class. When the entire world becomes a socialist dictatorship and the capitalist class is finally destroyed, then that dictatorship will too collapse; not because it became bankrupt, but because there will be no class left to suppress.

*leaves the internet forever*

[RedMaterialist]

Yes all of these are true.



Not exactly. I think pouring resources into the most unproductive economic activity that could be engaged in - war production, played a large part in bringing down the USSR.



Hahaha ohhhh wow.



Only the "lmfao" part was directed at you, because you are absolutely clueless re: everything. And I'm not trying to be mean or anything here. I am deadly seriousand I am not exaggerating when I say this -- you have no clue what you're talking about, at all.

"Socialism breaks down when they run out of other people's money." Margaret
Thatcher.

"Socialism breaks down when they spend too much of other people's money on bullets." You.

The reason this subject, the collapse of the Soviet Union, shows up every now and then on this site is that even the socialists don't know why it happened. History happened for the first time in 1917, in the first successful workers' revolution, and again in 1989, when the world's first workers' state (maybe a degenerated workers' state) collapsed. Collapsed...world superpower...no warning...never happened before in history...just collapsed overnight...And your explanation? Milton Friedman and the rest of the capitalist toadies said socialism can't work.

History happens whether you understand it or not.

You're deadly serious and not exaggerating....that is supposed to be an argument?

After you finish laughing, then you can argue, after you argue, then you will lose, etc.

[RedMaterialist]

An excellent pamphlet on the subject
Eastern Europe The Collapse Of The Kremlin's Empire | The ... (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/eastern-europe-collapse-kremlins-empire)

The pamphlet is at least clear in its tendencies: "We have consistently opposed the notions of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and all their followers."

The pamphlet argues that no socialist of any consequence has lived since Karl Marx. Except maybe Gorbachev.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The pamphlet is at least clear in its tendencies: "We have consistently opposed the notions of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and all their followers."

The pamphlet argues that no socialist of any consequence has lived since Karl Marx. Except maybe Gorbachev. Uh
No
They merely mean that they are not followers of those particular names.
._.

[RedMaterialist]

The capitalists were gone, but there were still classes.
You had the nomenklatura oppressing and exploiting the proletariat.

Who did Gorbachev ever oppress, except the bureaucrats who had to listen to him? Even Solzhenitsyn had left by 1955 (?) and was living large in the U.S.

[human strike]

The proletarian class, within its role as the crisis in capital, was responsible for the breakdown of the USSR.

[RedMaterialist]

The proletarian class, within its role as the crisis in capital, was responsible for the breakdown of the USSR.

Once the proletariat class had completely suppressed the capitalist class, in the Soviet Union, then there was no basis for the existence of a state. The state then collapsed. The bureaucracy lingered on but represented by whom? The inept Gorbachev.

As far as Eastern Europe, those states were prisoners of the Soviet Union for the crimes they committed in WW I and II. Hungary, for instance, was probably more fascist than the Nazis. When the jailer decided to quit, the prisoners tore down the prison.

[human strike]

Once the proletariat class had completely suppressed the capitalist class, in the Soviet Union, then there was no basis for the existence of a state. The state then collapsed. The bureaucracy lingered on but represented by whom? The inept Gorbachev.

Are you really saying that under Gorbachev the Soviet state effectively didn't exist? Funny that there were still thousands upon thousands of people in prison in the USSR during that period. I guess the prison bars and walls had effectively collapsed but the inmates decided to stay put.

[#FF0000]

The reason this subject, the collapse of the Soviet Union, shows up every now and then on this site is that even the socialists don't know why it happened. History happened for the first time in 1917, in the first successful workers' revolution, and again in 1989, when the world's first workers' state (maybe a degenerated workers' state) collapsed. Collapsed...world superpower...no warning...never happened before in history...just collapsed overnight...And your explanation? Milton Friedman and the rest of the capitalist toadies said socialism can't work.

Yo I never ever say "this dude is a troll" but...

[Per Levy]

Here is my opinion: Stalin ran a dictatorship of the proletariat, just like Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky advised (it wasn't pretty, but that is another story.)

nay, stalin was the head of a party dictatorship over the proletariat, and something like the SU was nothing marx would've "advised".


This dictatorship eliminated the capitalist class in the Soviet Union. Once society had no class left to suppress, the basis for the existence of the state (class suppression) ceased to exist.

there were still classes in the SU, and the state had to supress a class, the state supressed the proletariat wich was just as exploited as in other capitalist nations.


The state then collapsed, just like Marx and Engels predicted.

marx and engels said the state would wither away after the workers emancipated themselfs, nothing of that did happen in the SU.


"Socialism breaks down when they run out of other people's money." Margaret
Thatcher.

"Socialism breaks down when they spend too much of other people's money on bullets." You.

And your explanation? Milton Friedman and the rest of the capitalist toadies said socialism can't work.

as you could see, #FF0000 tendency is left communism, for left coms the SU was at no time socialist but a state capitalist society.


Once the proletariat class had completely suppressed the capitalist class, in the Soviet Union, then there was no basis for the existence of a state. The state then collapsed. The bureaucracy lingered on but represented by whom? The inept Gorbachev.

yes the secret services, like the kgb, were just there not state to direct them. the army, just felt like going in afghanistan and also takeing lots of the SU recources for the army, no state gave them directions or anything. and the economy, state controlled mind you, was probally controlled by the workers, right?


As far as Eastern Europe, those states were prisoners of the Soviet Union for the crimes they committed in WW I and II. Hungary, for instance, was probably more fascist than the Nazis. When the jailer decided to quit, the prisoners tore down the prison.

ok what did belarus do to be a prisoner? or the ukraine? you do realize that russia did some horrbile things in ww1 too as anyone else right?

you make absoloutly no sense, are you in a troll mood?

[RedMaterialist]

you make absoloutly no sense, are you in a troll mood?

no troll...that's just what i think.

[Comrade #138672]

Stalin ran the DOTP? By himself?

Apparently you need just one person for a DOTP. We need not let the proletariat interfere with this DOTP.

[Old Bolshie]

USSR was doomed to failure once it became isolated. If I had to point one name I would say Stalin for the simple fact that he was the main proponent of Socialism in One Country and USSR's isolation.

[billydan]

Gorbachev he was responsible

[Q]

Gorbachev he was responsible

No, he was just the executioner. If it wasn't him, it would've been someone else.