Did Russians and other soviet peoples in the late 80s/early 90s really want the collapse of of the Soviet System, or was it something forced to them?
Did Russians and other soviet peoples in the late 80s/early 90s really want the collapse of of the Soviet System...
Other urls found in this thread:
the majority of Soviet citizens wanted to preserve the USSR, but wanted aspects to change. the problem occurred when liberals, nationalists, and other anti-communist groups hijacked these movements. similar things happened in countries like the DDR for example, where many of the protesters in 1989 said that they didn't want to get rid of socialism.
in a way, yes. there demands for positive changes were not met and instead a small clique headed by Yeltsin basically had the final say and dissolved the Union despite over 75% of citizens opposing it (as seen in the 1991 Soviet Referendum), which resulted in the Soviet people not only not receiving the actual changes they may have wanted, but also lost all the benefits socialism gave them as their countries turned into shitholes run by oligarchs, mafia, and western corporations who were more than ready to exploit the new investment opportunities of 90s Eastern Europe.
Most people probably didn't care about politics.
the polls that showed a majority wanted X is just out of the people who actually care about politics which isn't much tbh
There was also a poll which specifically asked about the socialist economic system, not just keeping the USSR together as a single state. I can't seem to find it but a majority of people either said that they wanted the ML system to stay intact or that they wanted a more democratic form of socialism.
Look at this nigga buying into spooky, capitalist propaganda.
Even anecdotes don't hold up here.
The most "evil" thing I've heard somebody IRL complain about, was some Pole complaining about having a rationed amount of M&M's.
The USSR was based on many ways, but it wasn't a genuine DotP.
Ty based Juche user.
good, it minimizes infighting, and stops it from weakening the workers
That didn't even work, and there's no reason for it to exist, if everybody is non sectarian.
Reactionaries aren't people, and Hungarians, and Czechs were planning to ally with NATO. Bat'ko was hogging the Ukraine as well
They had a say in who appointed them, and that's democratic, but ok.
They deserved it
Tbh it is pretty damning that only 10% supported the status quo and only 30% viewed the CPSU favourably. Also that an elite chosen partly for its supposed loyalty to socialism would prove so fickle That was a disaster waiting to happen.
No, it stops the workers from being able to hold their leaders accountable. Riddle me this user, if you have a guine inner party democracy, then why have a party at all?
It did work in the sense that it was used to shut down dissent and organized opposition from within the party. See: the disbanding of the left and right opposition in 1927.
I'm not talking about reactionaries. I'm talking about alternative approaches to socialism and alternative policies promoted by opposition.
I can't speak for the Czechs, but in the case of Hungary the farthest they went was demanding neutrality on the Yugoslavian patter, while keeping socialism intact. Even the most right-wing elements of the 1956 revolt never expressed an interest in joining NATO.
Read the CPSU constitution. IIRC the party congress elected the central committee and the politburo, but it only met every five years. The rest of the time the politburo held pretty much all the power, and could only be held accountable by a party congress or the CC.
If the managers weren't elected directly by the workers then its not workplace democracy.
Do you unironically think that all opposition from within the party is reactionary?
Do you have single non-imperialist source to back that up?
It's living proof that anti-revisionism from above can never work. No matter how many of them you purge, some of them will always make their way through. Take Albania as an example. Hoxha was perhaps the most solidly Stalinist leader ever, and conducted numerous purges of alleged revisionists. At the same time he groomed a handpicked successor, who immediately implemented market reforms the second Hoxha died. Revisionists always worm their way through, and when they do they emerge in possession of a massive repressive apparatus that was originally designed to attack them. They always then proceed to use it to attack anti-revisionists, see: Tiblisi riots of 1956, modern day China cracking down on Marxists, etc. The only check on revisionism is the working class itself. If we aren't willing to trust that they can lead themselves down a socialist path then we don't really believe in socialism then do we?
I really doubt that he is serious.
Staying neutral after breaking up with the USSR only hurts it, and benefits them (their socialism becoming more prominent, and successful). That's the same thing as actively working against them.
source me, and don't say "hurr durr, elections only every five years=state capitalism"
Having the wrong opinions hurts people other than you, and this prevents that.
Workplace democracy is the application of democracy in all its forms (including voting systems, debates, democratic structuring, due process, adversarial process, systems of appeal) to the workplace, does that not sound like what they had? It wasn't perfect but they had to transfer to communism, and they couldn't do that yet thank Wikipedia for the definition
Nah, but revisionist/liberal opposition is autistic
*sorry for the reddit tier meme**
If the USSR didn't want the Hungarians to leave the Warsaw Pact then they shouldn't have invaded them in violation of their agreement with Nagy's government, and in opposition to the advice of their agents in Hungary. Hungary declared neutrality only after the Soviets began re-deploying troops to the country on November 1st, while denying that they were doing so.
Ah four years my bad.
Also state capitalism has nothing to do with it. The USSR was socialist, it just wasn't democratic. The structure of the party and the way party congresses were handled would be the equivalent of a bourgeois state only allowing parliament to convene once ever four years.
That assumes that you are right, which can never really be known until it has passed through the crucible of debate and criticism.
The CPSU repressed far more than just revisionists and liberals.
Spoken like truly enlightened opportunist high-ranking part member. Don't remember to add
Power was still bottom up (democratic) btw (That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected.
That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations.
That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members -declaration in 1917)
Nagy was wrong because of the reasons I listed about multi party democracy, i.e allowing sectarian infighting retardation from mega autists, like SocDems, and ISO level Trots.
I've factored debate, and we're doing it again, fren
Socialism isn't as good as communism, and is a stepping stone, but I guess saying that makes me a liberal caricature of Stalin.
Except all democratic elements of the party that did exist were severely compromised by the other measures I described. The ban on factions meant that any organized opposition in the party could easily be expelled and neutrilized. Their interpretation of democratic centralism (the submission of the minority to the majority) effectively meant that the minority was not allowed to openly criticize the existing line. In addition to this media was firmly under the control of party leadership, so opposition figures had no means of publishing their views for consideration by the workers.
So your view of democracy is one in which people don't actually debate issues and come into conflict as they naturally should, but instead all just agree on the same thing and anybody who doesn't is a "revisionist"? A democracy requires the free exchange of criticisms, otherwise the population has no real choice in what path to take, and thus no political power.
You should also change your flag if you're going to make these arguments tbh. The IWW is dominated by libsocs and anarchists.
One of the USSR's biggest failures was not having a rigorous enough form of genuine proletarian democracy. It's not "capitalist propaganda" to criticize the notion of democracy in the USSR. There is nothing inherently "Marxist" about a one-party state and complete party domination of political life, bureaucracy, etc. I think the USSR was socialist but there is plenty of room for criticism
This would be great if direct democratic principle existed
which were corrupt as fuck and nobody was accountable unless really great corruption scandal was revelead
In other words, subordination of younger, more progressive elements by established conservative line
Back to point 1
Comrade, countries of washaw pact were constitutional republics. Just like we see infighting between liberal parties in our government - each representing different section of oligarchs - we can assume that multi party goverment in socialist republic would be infighting between different sections of proletariat. Freedom ain't free, sure, some retarded socdems and trots might be able to get some minuscule support which could bring people headaches, we could have seen also raise of leftcoms criticizing schooling system and """marxist education""", cybernetics calling for more efficient planned economy and so on and on
I agree, but politburo used this reasoning to get rid itself from any real progress of society.
The system was definitely exploited sometimes (Stalin purging random un envolved artist niggas who disliked his harshness), and I'm not denying that, but with effective debate, the majority faction should outnumber autists that aren't willing to change their views.
We should have already arrived at a sensible conclusion, due to the socialism coming into that nation that's fit for that type of socialism(Russia needed Bolshevisms appeal to Russians,on top of it's history and the U.S needs the IWW's Americanism, and it's history), and the large strides in left unity this conclusion helps you arrive at.
If you don't acknowledge some people won't
change their minds, you are utopian (pic related people)
Fuck them then
Nikita, and Gorbachev are two examples of why you need this, and why the union wasn't perfect, but you can improve the system of purges, and general governance (the rest of your points).
Tankies acknowledge the union had a stupid amount of flaws.
Wasn't there a period in Russian history where Nazbols, and white nationalists almost couped Yeltsin?
I want to do some reading on it.
I always thought that "tankie" is term for person which can't comprehend the idea that USSR was not absolute perfect paradise which did absolutely nothing wrong.
Dubcek was a SocialDemocrat who later came out to support the Social-Democratic party of Czechia (Refusing to even support the by then Eurocommunist Czech and Bohemian Communist party)
There was various factions in Hungary so simply saying that "The Hungarians" were planning on joining NATO is false
Nagy and his faction of the Hungarian socialist party pretty much just wanted Tito - Albo style neutrality but yes there were some Ultra-Nationalists and liberals mixed in who probably would have supported NATO
What the fuck happened here?
I should add that this book is excellent for anyone looking for a leftist history of the dissolution of the USSR:
The beginning of the worst timeline
…so czechs nor hungarians didn't want to join NATO, is that what are you trying to say?
"Did Americans want the Great Depression in the 1930s?"
Can you see the problem with posing the question the way you did. No one had any control over the collapse of the Soviet Union any more than they had control of the collapse of the Great Depression.
but planned economy?
Every capitalist factory has planned production. The Soviet Union was just a really really big factory with its own government and private army. Planned production actually made the SU collapse faster because it was so efficient in exploiting wage labor.
Nationalists in satellite states wanted independence from Russian oppression and Russians wanted democratic socialism with more freedoms.
Mostly this, the world needed more Titos not more Rakosis.
Also tbh I'd take desires of Russians for socialism with a hint of salt since for a lot of people it merely means "Russia being strong and pensions and shit". Not that is inherently bad but still.
The downfall of the USSR was literally caused by a cult that wormed its way into power called The Nine who claimed to be the avatars of the Ancient Egyptian Gods.
Idk about the Czechs but the Hungarians by and large did not. Anti-socialist elements in the Hungarian uprising were always in the minority, and while many people in the worker’s councils were demanding that Hungary leave the Warsaw Pact and become neutral, nobody was saying they wanted to join NATO. Nagy himself didn’t declare neutrality until the Soviets reneged on their promise to withdraw troops from Hungary and lied about it to his face.
should have ended your sentence there, that didn't happen
The Communist Party of China says that the USSR collapsed not because "people wanted a collapse" but because the Communist Party of the Soviet Union lost faith and/or betrayed the USSR and Eastern Europe by introducing political reforms (glasnost). I tend to agree with their point because as alludes to it, most Russian people, like most Americans, are herdlike normies who don't care much about politics aside from standard jingoism and idiotic fairy tales like their renewed faith in Orthodox Christianity and all it takes is for a weakened, pacifistic political establishment and a large enough minority of separatists/nationalists to destroy everything.
“My father thinks Gorbachev is an idiot.” - Deng Zhifang, Deng Xiaoping’s son, 1990
Don't forget that Jiang Zemin & Deng Xiaoping of China, Kim Il-sung of North Korea and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya supported the 1991 coup attempt against Gorbachev.
Those are two cuties in that image 💓💓💗💗💓💝💞💓💗💗💖💖💖💘💕💘💖💗💞
calm your gynomastia afflicted male breast cancer having tits having pedo.
Kill yourself pedofaggot.
As someone who lives in a post soviet country I can safely say: YES!
And you believe people told the truth in the soviet union.
u comrade? C:
The ruling elite decided they would be better off as capitalists than bureaucrats.
The people wanted to stick with socialism, the problem was a lack of freedom, not economic woes.
people keep using this argument when it doesn't mean anything. it was a proper referendum, the very liberal by that time Soviet government weren't going to punish those who voted "no" (and they didn't for the minority of people who did). and furthermore, what was the point in creating some rigged poll in support of the USSR if they ended up pulling the plug anyway? talk about 4D chess.
also lmao at the cliche "i'm from a former soviet country therefore i can speak for all nearly 300 million of even though i was never alive during socialism and haven't even provided evidence to prove that i'm telling the truth!"
simply saying you're from x country doesn't make you an authority figure on these things, especially when you haven't even proved you are from a former Soviet country. anyone can lie on the internet, bucko.
and once again, even if you were, that doesn't give you the soapbox to decide what hundreds of millions of people think, including the majority of Russians who still regret the collapse of the USSR.
if only you had any idea of what you're missing
In my opinion, the reason USSR lost is the weakening of the proletariat class as a whole, in both CCCP and the world. Anyway, when research any problem, we should find primary materials, which came from ex-USSR themselves.
I find this analysis quite detailed (in Russian, google translate is your friend):
While not agree wholeheartedly with work-way, but I think they have arrived at a somewhat right answer: one of the reason USSR collapsed is that WW2 had reduced the rank and (political) quality of the proletariat significantly, while the middle-class mostly stayed away from the front. It also expressed in the philosophy education of USSR, philosophy before 1953 focused on history of ideological struggle and their reality basis, while philosophy after 1953 focused on the study of dialectical categories, which is nothing but Hegelism in Marxist shell. In fact, congress XX was the coup of middle-class, USSR after Stalin was socialism under the vision of middle class, not proletariat. This, leaded to enlargement of shadow economy and finally the 1991 counter-revolution which restore capitalism, because a part of higher middle class felt they were too constrained by the socialist super structure.
AHH LE NOT MAINING MEMe :)
le charlie epic random wildcard fake vidya xd tv/ editon ;^^^)
[YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) [YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed)
[YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) ]
PIZZA ROLLS r DONE!!!
le epic so ebin dae le epin win xD pwn’d ftw le bacon narwhale xP
wellllllllll m’goodsir, I think u thought u had me beat, but wacht this !!!!
*charges up energy*
*goes super sainant*
XD NINJAS RAWR PIE CAKE IS A LIE XDDD
[YouTube] eiffel65 im blue 10 hours (embed)
le epic so ebin dae le epin win xD pwn’d ftw le bacon narwhale xP
le epin troll i coax youed int o al e ruxze xD D D tfw no gf xD ayy lmao! :p
upboated good sir i tip my fedora to you, fine gentlemen le real men have class xD real human bean!!1 dae cake is a lie lel
epic fail!!!!!!!! ;p for YOU!! :DDD XD we r :)isijwjwmsd