I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Nov 4th, 2004 08:08 AM

Zhukov

I said to myself while typing that "It probably wont be worth it."

But you know what?! It sooo was.

Nov 4th, 2004 08:03 AM

Nov 4th, 2004 07:52 AM

Zhukov

Mburbank: Gorbachev, Economic implosion etc

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

and B.) They [Republicans] believe Reagan won the cold war, and gave no credit whatsoever to the economic implosion of Russia, much of it caused by Afghanistan, or Gorbachev's noble attempt to allow Russia to change as opposed to initiating the end of the world.

Firstly; the economic hardships of Russia didn't come from outside elements - Reagan or otherwise. The ruling bureaucracy based itself on the nationalised, planned economy and played a relatively progressive role in developing the productive forces, although at three times the cost of capitalism, with tremendous waste, corruption and mismanagement, as Trotsky pointed out even before the WWII when the economy was advancing at 20% a year. Economic tradgedies would not have meant teh USSR collapsing the way it did. The billions spent on military would have been spent anyway, just like the US is doing now.

B) Why do all liberals love Gorbochev? It wasn't a "noble attempt to change", it was a pathetic way to combat the black market - which not only dealt in levis and ball point pens; but an unhealthy percentage of oil, steel and coal. Gorbachov could not reform the Soviet Union, because he was acting in the interests of the bureaucracy.

Having failed to control the problem of corruption and the black market by repression, Gorbachov made a feeble attempt to lean on the working class to strike blows against corruption by introducing a measure of "democracy." This was the in real meaning of "Perestroika" and "Glasnost." Gorbachov tried to loosen the system up and make it more flexible, but without abolishing the power and privileges of the ruling caste. His reform was bound to fail, and it did. It was doomed to be swept away, and it was. In Russia 'Perestroika' is called 'Katastroika', which is like perestroika only catastrophic :/

Instead of improving things, Gorbachov's reforms introduced a further element of destabilisation, speeding up the dissolution of the system. Only two alternatives were possible. In the absence of a movement of the working class in the direction of a political revolution, the balance tilted sharply in the direction of a move towards capitalism; even though the pro-capitalis members of the communist party were not a large faction.

The outcome of the 1991 coup was Yeltsin succeeding temporarily in stabilising the situation and taking decisively to the road of capitalism, which Gorbochev was unable to do, and every one in the communist party suddenly quiting.

Where is Perestroika now? Nowhere to be seen. The end.

PS I don't usually make a big thing, but Gorbochev pops up alot.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off