If Gorbachev was replaced by someone else

**sephodwyrm** · May 27, 2009, 06:18 PM

So I was reading some articles and how Gorbachev criticized China for abandoning the Socialist Path and nurtured quite a few millionaires. And then Gorbachev then went on ahead to have political reforms AHEAD of economic reforms.

I don't know what Russians were thinking, but for a while people were applauding how democracy stretches from "London to Vladivostok" (ignoring the fact that both Seoul and Tokyo are both in democratic countries). And then Russia became the big bad ass again. Scarcely a week goes by without some articles about Russian aggression and how Russia is NOT a democracy.

So as a Taiwanese, I concluded that Gorbachev ruined Russia. And would Russian and world fortunes turn around if Russia had some sort of an ingenius market liberal instead of a political baby as premier.

And this thread is directed at Russians. Like Volh and Total_fanatic.

**ivan_the_terrible** · May 27, 2009, 06:21 PM

Well, generally speaking, Gorbachev isn't as well-liked in Russia as he is in the west precisely because he cocked up the transition so badly. Of course, westerners who didn't have to live through it would say he was a great man etc etc. Just it's kind of hard to like him when made life so much more difficult than it needed to be, economically.

**sephodwyrm** · May 27, 2009, 06:25 PM

A question:
Besides Gorbachev, was there any contenders to the Soviet premiership? Someone who could recognize that market liberalization was way more important than political liberalization?

Is it possible for the USSR to have adopted the Deng model (and stave off the dissolution of the Soviet republics)?

**Urban fox** · June 03, 2009, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

A question:
Besides Gorbachev, was there any contenders to the Soviet premiership? Someone who could recognize that market liberalization was way more important than political liberalization?

Is it possible for the USSR to have adopted the Deng model (and stave off the dissolution of the Soviet republics)?

There was in fact Yuri Andropov was such a man, he advocated slow reforms to the economy in a step-by-step process.

His political goals were most to reduces corruption in the CPSU, this process caused such fear that a lot of high officials actually killed themselves much to public amusement. Andropov wasn’t liked by the Soviet public but he was respected. If he'd lived longer maybe his policies would’ve paid dividends as it was Cherninko reversed most of them when he took over. There were others in the CPSU who favored slow reform they supported Gorbachev, but he later ousted them.

It should also be rembered Andropov was the former head of the KGB so he had the clout & power base to control the country and keep party factions or dissidents in check. In fact a lot of people have said Putin models himself on Andropov.

Gorbachev's economic ideas were half-assed they went like this:

1)Weaken central planning.
2)???
3)Profit

Also starting Glasnot before the economy was recovering and people saw real improvement to their living standards was just crass stupidity, Gorbachev's did the opposite he started Glasnot after he

ed the economy up sending from stagnation into tailspin.

He did to save his own skin not because he was a ''good guy'', he was a two-faced party hack and a weakling who bent over to any pressure foreign or domestic Gorbachev was Russia Tony Blair.

**ivan_the_terrible** · May 27, 2009, 06:33 PM

In all honesty - I'm not sure about other possible contenders. At least not off the top of my head.

But dissolution came after Gorbachev. Basically, Yeltsin, Shushkevich and Kravchuk got together for a retreat in the picteresque Belarussian forest, got drunk and decided to break up the union.

**sephodwyrm** · May 27, 2009, 06:40 PM

Basically, Yeltsin, Shushkevich and Kravchuk got together for a retreat in the picteresque Belarussian forest, got drunk and decided to break up the union.

Faint.
Don't tell me your generation (or the one before) voted for these guys.

**ivan_the_terrible** · May 27, 2009, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

Faint.
Don't tell me your generation (or the one before) voted for these guys.

Yeltsin got the popular vote for sure, not sure of the exact percentage, but definitely over half. The others I don't know about, but they were probably top or near-top party officials in their republics.

And no, I was only a small child when this was happening (and living in Kyrgyzstan - a periphery in every sense), so I didn't vote for them.

**Heathen Hammer** · May 28, 2009, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible

Yeltsin got the popular vote for sure, not sure of the exact percentage, but definitely over half. The others I don't know about, but they were probably top or near-top party officials in their republics.

And no, I was only a small child when this was happening (and living in Kyrgyzstan - a periphery in every sense), so I didn't vote for them.

It is pretty significant that on referendum on preservation of USSR majority of people voted for preserving it (even in most of republics).
So all those scumbags like Yeltsin went against popular will. Many people supported them, because Yeltsin and others promised that it will be "just like in Europe".

**ivan_the_terrible** · May 28, 2009, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Volh Vseslavich

It is pretty significant that on referendum on preservation of USSR majority of people voted for preserving it (even in most of republics).
So all those scumbags like Yeltsin went against popular will. Many people supported them, because Yeltsin and others promised that it will be "just like in Europe".

Well that's very dubious. A referendum was held in Ukraine later, where 90% (!!!) voted in favour of independence....so it's a double-edged sword of an argument.

**Enemy of the State** · May 28, 2009, 09:49 AM

I am thankful. He was a terrible leader, but I wouldn't be posting here if it wasn't for his failure.

**sephodwyrm** · May 28, 2009, 12:10 PM

I am thankful. He was a terrible leader, but I wouldn't be posting here if it wasn't for his failure.

Why would that come to past?
Even China, which has stricter internet laws, have people logging on and posting (a while back). The only reason that's holding them back is their poor English and what I'd consider to be an anti-Sinic atmosphere epitomized by certain members.

**Tiberios** · May 28, 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

Why would that come to past?
Even China, which has stricter internet laws, have people logging on and posting (a while back). The only reason that's holding them back is their poor English and what I'd consider to be an anti-Sinic atmosphere epitomized by certain members.

Well I'm sure Timothy Leary prefers to live in an independent nation than under Russia rule were he can post freely. I can't blame him.

**Sphere** · May 28, 2009, 01:39 PM

It is actually the hard-liners that staged a coup agaisnt Gorbachev that should be blamed for the dissolution of the USSR. Gorbachev had finished negioiating a new Constitution with the Republics that would have kept the Union together under a looser federation, but before he could return from Georgia the attempted military coup in Moscow began.

Yeltsin and other reformists used the coup to come to power and dissolve the soviet congress. Whether or not Gorbechav's plan would have worked is debateble, but certainly things would have been different. Also, the USSR was in ecomonic shambles, which Gorbechav couldn't really be blamed for. Communism had slowly rotted the soviet economy for decades, Gorbechav could not in a few short years work an economic miricale.

**sephodwyrm** · May 28, 2009, 05:41 PM

Communism had slowly rotted the soviet economy for decades, Gorbechav could not in a few short years work an economic miricale.

China's economic miracle did not happen in a few years either. But it took at least a decade of work (while maintaining central authority).

I guess my new proposal is whether the USSR would dissolve if she stalled political liberalization and worked on a step-by-step economic liberalization like the Chinese model instead.

**Alkarin** · May 28, 2009, 05:44 PM

the reason the USSR's economy crumbled is because all non communist countries began an embargo on them...it was not the system

while China on the other hand, their main trade partner is the US, which in turn added more of a free market in a almost fascist way i would say.

@sephodwyrm: i would not see the USSR to slowly go to economic liberalization due to thats what they were completely based off of. if they got rid of that their whole goal would be gone.

**ShockBlast** · June 04, 2009, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Alkarin

while China on the other hand, their main trade partner is the US, which in turn added more of a free market in a almost fascist way i would say.

A small correction EU is China's best trading buddy from 2004.

**ivan_the_terrible** · June 04, 2009, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by ShockBlast

A small correction EU is China's best trading buddy from 2004.

His point still stand though - it is in both China's and USA's interests to maintain the flow where China gives US money so it can buy Chinese stuff.

**sephodwyrm** · May 28, 2009, 05:48 PM

if they got rid of that their whole goal would be gone.

Same argument could be used for NEP or Deng's Chinese Socialism. Yet both happened and NEP fished out the early USSR economy while the later made China an economic rating. The goal of a nation state is not to prove that some ideology works but use those that work to keep her people fed, clothed and educated to play a contributing role in society.