Did Ieltsin destroyed USSR?

[Guardia Rossa]

Did the USSR fall because Ieltsin removed Russia from the USSR, removing its torso and head? Or am I messing up the timeline?

[tuwix]

He initiated and signed a pact dissolving the Soviet Union. But the process of collapse was started by Lenin. It couldn't survive centuries in that form.

[Rafiq]

He initiated and signed a pact dissolving the Soviet Union. But the process of collapse was started by Lenin. It couldn't survive centuries in that form.

The collapse of "socialism" and the collapse of the Soviet Union as a political entity are two very different things in this context. The question of whether the Soviet Union could have persisted as some kind of social democracy is the one of importance here.

And ultimately, the answer is no. It's tempting to think that the Soviet Union could have become another China, but the nature of the bureaucratic apparatus as well as historical considerations make this impossible. What Mao learned from the Soviet experience was how to pursue a bourgeois revolution - the right way, so when the economy began to stagnant, when the revolutionary energy had exhausted itself, the transition to capitalism was arguably easier, more efficient and smoother than any countries. We can conceive this not only within the context of the nature of China vs. the Soviet Union, but also the relationship both had to globalization.

Frankly, there would have been no place fro the Soviet Union in the new, neoliberal globalized order, and to this day Russia is antagonistic towards it. Conversely, China has been absolutely pivotal in its emergence in its industrialization. There could be no organic bourgeoisie that would be capable of emerging in the Soviet Union, without a wider relation to globalization in general, and the structural basis for maintaining and regulating this wasn't present like it was in China. This might relegate back to the fact that the Soviet Union had to carry the historically mutant baggage of actually being born out of a proletarian revolution.

[ComradeAllende]

Did the USSR fall because Ieltsin removed Russia from the USSR, removing its torso and head? Or am I messing up the timeline?

Technically speaking, Yeltsin was President (for two days) when the USSR was dissolved, so yes. But in terms of the actual causes of the USSR's collapse, no. The USSR collapsed (in part) because of the sclerotic bureaucratic apparatus that centralized planning decisions and secured special "privileges" for itself. The inefficiency of the planning apparatus, along with the arms buildup started by the US and NATO in the 1950s and accelerated under Reagan in the 80s, overwhelmed the Soviet economy.

[John Nada]

Did the USSR fall because Ieltsin removed Russia from the USSR, removing its torso and head? Or am I messing up the timeline?Yeltsin alone didn't destroy the USSR and it was irreversibly FUBAR by the time of Gorbachev took over. It was the withdraw of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in the Belavezha Accords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belavezha_Accords), which Yeltsin pushed for and Gorbachev agreed to uphold, that ended the USSR. Although it's possible that it could've kept going, it'd just be outright capitalist Russia with a red flag.
The collapse of "socialism" and the collapse of the Soviet Union as a political entity are two very different things in this context. The question of whether the Soviet Union could have persisted as some kind of social democracy is the one of importance here.I think it could've been a sham social democracy, with Putin presiding over a zombie that only upholds the USSR as synonymous with the Russian nation rather than even the pretense of socialism.
And ultimately, the answer is no. It's tempting to think that the Soviet Union could have become another China, but the nature of the bureaucratic apparatus as well as historical considerations make this impossible. What Mao learned from the Soviet experience was how to pursue a bourgeois revolution - the right way, so when the economy began to stagnant, when the revolutionary energy had exhausted itself, the transition to capitalism was arguably easier, more efficient and smoother than any countries. We can conceive this not only within the context of the nature of China vs. the Soviet Union, but also the relationship both had to globalization.Strangely the economy of the PRC was growing at a decent rate besides the years 67-68. The growth after the restoration of capitalism in the late 70's likely was already occurring. The new "national" bourgeoisie were just the ones' to reap the benefits of the new infrastructure and a newly proletarianized populous. And they were willing to do austerity at their own pace too, as opposed to the "shock therapy" that was orthodoxy back in the early 90's.

IMO theoretically Russia/USSR could've done this, basically say "fuck you workers and peasants!" and team up with US imperialist capitalism. But there was a series of event, internationally and inside the USSR, that enabled China to get there first. This weakened the USSR's ability to also just have unabashed capitalism with the occasional red flag.
Frankly, there would have been no place fro the Soviet Union in the new, neoliberal globalized order, and to this day Russia is antagonistic towards it. Conversely, China has been absolutely pivotal in its emergence in its industrialization. There could be no organic bourgeoisie that would be capable of emerging in the Soviet Union, without a wider relation to globalization in general, and the structural basis for maintaining and regulating this wasn't present like it was in China. This might relegate back to the fact that the Soviet Union had to carry the historically mutant baggage of actually being born out of a proletarian revolution.I'd say it was more to do with international relations. Organski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.F.K._Organski) proposed the US form an alliance against China with the USSR. However, the Brezhnev Doctrine and the invasion of Czechoslovakia showed that Comecon and the Warsaw Pact were a threat to NATO and EEC. The USSR supported north Vietnam against the US. At the same time the USSR and the PRC fought in a short skirmish. Both nuclear armed countries. The PRC viewed the USSR as possibly a greater threat, and the US was perceived to be weakened in Vietnam and no long a threat. A couple years later, the PRC takes the ROC place on the UN security council as a permanent member with veto powers. The PRC was prominent in the Non-Aligned Movement too. And it was a big market with a large workforce.

So while the USSR did get some trade, loan and nuclear arms treaties in the detente a little after the US-PRC improved relations, the Soviet-Afghan War started about the same time. Both the US and the PRC supported the mujaheddin. Then oil prices fell. Since the USSR was primarily an exporter of raw material and not manufactured goods, it took a hit. Because the USSR depended on Comecon for favorable trade, they lost out to the Warsaw Pact also restoring capitalism.

If the USSR had a snowball chance in hell of being revolutionary again, it would've required something like another Great Purge or Cultural Revolution, if not an outright civil war. The workers were not willing to overthrow the bureaucracy, nor was the bureaucracy willing to risk nuclear war or their potential privileges. If the bureaucracy was, well, more competent, they might have be able to successfully jam through anti-worker "reforms" and officially become bourgeoisie and preside over a service and manufacturing economy, though they'd risk playing second-fiddle to imperialist-capitalists. But instead the USSR tore itself apart and its successor states implemented that "Shock Therapy", resulting in an economies largely dependent on raw material like oil, natural gas or precious metals, and poverty for tens of millions.

[Hatshepsut]

Historical cause is a tough subject with lots of guessing games. The USA might not have survived its civil war given the incompetence of Union military leaders early on had Grant and Sherman not stepped up to lead the armies, and perhaps if Hamblin as vice president hadn’t gotten Seward on as secretary of State for the inevitable negotiations with Europe. (Oddly, the USA bought Alaska from Russia just after this war.)

So, with the USSR, look at events leading up to the adoption of its 1977 constitution. Such as importation of grain from the USA with its attendant embargoes and extortion of hard currency. Then look at Lech Walesa and Solidarity in Poland, 1980-81. When Jeruzelski declared martial law he interned, but did not punish, Walesa for fear of popular reaction in Poland. This was a first crack in the structure as the ability of the USSR to hold together depended on its ability to keep the Warsaw Pact in orbit. The constituent republics could use Soviet failure of will in Europe as a test guage indicating whether secession, a thing the 1977 constitution permitted, would actually be feasible.

By the time Walesa came to the Round Table in early 1989 the USSR was probably finished as an effective power. The USA and its Western bloc had long since hounded the communist countries toward bankruptcy through restriction of trade, a condition exacerbated by years of poor internal management in the USSR itself. Ronald Reagan had pursued a massive American arms buildup, invading countries from Grenada to Lebanon and, by proxy, El Salvador and Nicaragua, without much Soviet opposition, causing the Kremlin to lose prestige. West Germany then knocked the Berlin Wall down while Honecker did nothing, and all the Soviet republics knew they could withdraw to pursue their own fortunes, if ready to push hard enough. In 1990 the Baltic republics tested these waters, which provoked a brief Soviet military intervention but no long-term commitment to prevent their leaving. (Post-Soviet Russia upon nationalistic reasons did keep troops in the Baltics for several years, however.)

This history is a good demonstration project for why Marxism adamantly opposes granting theoretical merit to national and ethnic sentiments. Solidarity was Poland, not just a trade union as capitalist propaganda claims. True, it’s become Europe and capitalism since then, but the initial political battles were all national in character.

[Guardia Rossa]

Rafiq always appears to answers the questions the best, but all answers contribute one to eachother. Could the USSR remain socialist if there was a transparency in government and more popular involvment in the economy?
If I remember well most people supported a continued USSR, even if capitalist.