Causes of the Collapse of the Soviet Union

[Yeekim]

And as we all know, correlation isnt causation. Ethnicity has little if anything top do with it, people who benefit from the CCP's government are more likely to be loyal to it, whether they are Han, Tibetan or ethnically Zulu

Stating the obvious while neglecting to answer my question...

 

[RedRalph]

Stating the obvious while neglecting to answer my question...

If you need the phrase 'economic relationship' explained to you, get someone else to do it...

 

[Louis XXIV]

He should have followed Androprov's reforms. It's said by certain members of the CIA that if Andranoprov was 15 years younger when he took power, then the USSR would still exist today.

I think, in many ways, Gorbachev can be seen as a continuation of Andropov. Sure, he did it at a bit more aggressive of a pace, but there had also been more time wasted (and Chernenko wasn't a fan of continuing Andropov's reforms). Plus, he didn't have Andropov's KGB background that allowed him to do things behind the scenes. His only option was to change the structures of government. When viewed as actions to bipass those opposed to reform, Glasnost and Perestroika make a lot of sense.

 

[Yeekim]

If you need the phrase 'economic relationship' explained to you, get someone else to do it...

I beg your pardon? You were one who said that Chinese are moving back to China, even though they enjoy higher standard of life elsewhere - while simultaneously insisting that loyalties of people can be described solely by "economic relationships", discounting their ethnicity.
This seems contradictory to me and I asked you to explain why do you think these people act in the way they do.

 

[Karalysia]

I think, in many ways, Gorbachev can be seen as a continuation of Andropov. Sure, he did it at a bit more aggressive of a pace, but there had also been more time wasted (and Chernenko wasn't a fan of continuing Andropov's reforms). Plus, he didn't have Andropov's KGB background that allowed him to do things behind the scenes. His only option was to change the structures of government. When viewed as actions to bipass those opposed to reform, Glasnost and Perestroika make a lot of sense.

Gorbachev was provinicial, small minded, arrrogant, inexpirenced, and petty. He thought the CPSU was a danger to his program so he actively worked to dismantle the party, his capitalist reforms were simply outrageous, he followed Andrprov's reforms early on but then he diverged and followed radical capitalist reforms, against the will of the majority of the people of the Soviet Union. He did nothing about the second economy, and indeed sought to replace the socialist economy with the second economy, and we all know the disaster that was with state property being essentially privatized by corrupt party officals who would take it for themselves, becoming the new breed of oligarchs.

 

[RedRalph]

I beg your pardon? You were one who said that Chinese are moving back to China, even though they enjoy higher standard of life elsewhere - while simultaneously insisting that loyalties of people can be described solely by "economic relationships", discounting their ethnicity.
This seems contradictory to me and I asked you to explain why do you think these people act in the way they do.

Cutlass said You cannot allow people freedom and expect people to continue to do what you want them to unless you have made what you want them to do more attractive than the alternative. The Soviet system as a whole failed to do that. Enough information made it in from the West so that they knew that the West was better off. I said that wasn't the cause of the collapse, because people often return to relatively poor and repressive countries just because they are home. ~we can see how this happens today.

You tell me how ethnicity decides the loyalties of the chinese people. Honestly, I'm massively interested to hear this.

 

[Yeekim]

Cutlass said You cannot allow people freedom and expect people to continue to do what you want them to unless you have made what you want them to do more attractive than the alternative. The Soviet system as a whole failed to do that. Enough information made it in from the West so that they knew that the West was better off. I said that wasn't the cause of the collapse, because people often return to relatively poor and repressive countries just because they are home. ~we can see how this happens today.

You tell me how ethnicity decides the loyalties of the chinese people. Honestly, I'm massively interested to hear this.

1) Your conclusion does not follow. USSR didn't collapse because people left to the West in droves (though many did). It did because people were fed up with the system and wanted to liberalize it according to Western model - while staying "home". Thus Cutlass was correct and your counterexample does not invalidate what he said.

2) You said it yourself.
A) They express their loyalty to China by returning there.
B) They return to China because it's their home.
C) China is their home because they are ethnically Chinese.
ERGO: They are loyal to China because they are Chinese.
Q.E.D.

 

[RedRalph]

1) Your conclusion does not follow. USSR didn't collapse because people left to the West in droves (though many did). It did because people were fed up with the system and wanted to liberalize it according to Western model - while staying "home". Thus Cutlass was correct and your counterexample does not invalidate what he said.

He said it was the cause, you agree with me that it wasn't and now you are saying he's right and I'm wrong???

2) You said it yourself.
A) They express their loyalty to China by returning there.
B) They return to China because it's their home.
C) China is their home because they are ethnically Chinese.
ERGO: They are loyal to China because they are Chinese.
Q.E.D.

Look up the words 'nationality' and 'ethnicity' in an English dictionary and get back to me.

 

[Yeekim]

you agree with me that it wasn't

Where did I say that?

Look up the words 'nationality' and 'ethnicity' in an English dictionary and get back to me.

I know the difference. So?

 

[RedRalph]

Where did I say that?

We are completely at cross-purposes here Yeekim. Read back over the thread please.

I know the difference. So?

I don't have the energy or patience to explain why what you are saying is nonsensical. If you cannot see the many, many flaws in your argument then I can't help you. If you actually mean the 'so' in that sentence, thern that is a pretty big cop-put.

 

[bombshoo]

Gorbachev was provinicial, small minded, arrrogant, inexpirenced, and petty. He thought the CPSU was a danger to his program so he actively worked to dismantle the party, his capitalist reforms were simply outrageous, he followed Andrprov's reforms early on but then he diverged and followed radical capitalist reforms, against the will of the majority of the people of the Soviet Union. He did nothing about the second economy, and indeed sought to replace the socialist economy with the second economy, and we all know the disaster that was with state property being essentially privatized by corrupt party officals who would take it for themselves, becoming the new breed of oligarchs.

Gorbachev small minded, provincial and a capitalist? Are we talking about the same Gorbachev? He was one of the most open minded leaders the USSR ever had. He had traveled extensively and was well educated. He also never even renounced communism, believing instead that he was saving it. Most of the selling off of state property to corrupt party bosses was under Yeltsin anyways. He was inexperienced I guess, but I would rather have some new blood than another already half dead bureaucrat like what came before him.

Gorbachev made a lot of mistakes, but your perception of him just seems way off.

 

[Alassius]

That's pretty funny, considering they beat an actual nationalist government to win the civil war.

The KMT call themselves nationalists, but they never really got popular support. The CCP on the other hand ran a nationalistic platform from beginning till today. They have been quite successful at that.

Huge amounts of Chinese immigrants do in fact return to China, the majority AFAIK. My point is that even when people have been shown what is a 'freer' and more gainful life, they still often return home. Chinese people can generally have a higher standard of living here in ireland than they can in China, but they still tend to go back home.

A more gainful life may mean a freer life, but not necessarily so. For many Chinese, getting rich is more important than getting a political voice, if you can get the former without needing the latter. Since they have an equal if not better chance at getting rich in China, the personal freedom they have in Ireland is discounted. Considering other factors such as relations, friends, cultural differences, or food, it's not clear if they can indeed have a higher standard of living in Ireland.

Cutlass said You cannot allow people freedom and expect people to continue to do what you want them to unless you have made what you want them to do more attractive than the alternative. The Soviet system as a whole failed to do that. Enough information made it in from the West so that they knew that the West was better off. I said that wasn't the cause of the collapse, because people often return to relatively poor and repressive countries just because they are home. ~we can see how this happens today.

You tell me how ethnicity decides the loyalties of the chinese people. Honestly, I'm massively interested to hear this.

Today's China is drastically different from the Soviet Union of 1990. If you are highly educated, life in Ireland isn't necessarily more attractive than life back in China. Within the mainland, people still often want to get out, but staying and working hard is, for most people, more viable than either emigrate or overthrow the government. The Soviet Union failed to make honest hardworking viable. The Chinese leaders learnt from those mistakes, and they turned the economic system upside down in a bid for survival. They've managed impressively well so far.

 

[Karalysia]

Gorbachev small minded, provincial and a capitalist? Are we talking about the same Gorbachev? He was one of the most open minded leaders the USSR ever had. He had traveled extensively and was well educated. He also never even renounced communism, believing instead that he was saving it. Most of the selling off of state property to corrupt party bosses was under Yeltsin anyways. He was inexperienced I guess, but I would rather have some new blood than another already half dead bureaucrat like what came before him.

Gorbachev made a lot of mistakes, but your perception of him just seems way off.

Nonsense. He was nothing compared to Andropov.

 

[LightSpectra]

I do agree that Gorbachev contributed to the death of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, given that he was by far the least oppressive of all of the chairmen of the CPSU, he's by extension the greatest of them all. Anybody, including socialists, should agree with me on this point; unless they consider violent communism to be superior to human rights.

 

[RedRalph]

I do agree that Gorbachev contributed to the death of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, given that he was by far the least oppressive of all of the chairmen of the CPSU, he's by extension the greatest of them all. Anybody, including socialists, should agree with me on this point; unless they consider violent communism to be superior to human rights.

How was he by far less oppresive than Yuri andropov?

 

[LightSpectra]

How was he by far less oppresive than Yuri andropov?

Andropov was the one who planned the invasion of Czechslovakia in response to the Prague Spring, was he not?

 

[bombshoo]

Andropov also targeted dissidents as head of the KGB where he acted extremely conservative. He considered human rights advocates as traitors being manipulated by the capitalist nations to undermine the Soviet system. The only progressive thing I can think of Andropov doing during his short administration was try to look for a way out of the Afghan War, though I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

 

[Karalysia]

You have little knowledge of Androprov, in his 15 months in office he began one of the most energetic reform programs in the USSR.

And a socialist dictatorship is always superior to a bourgeois democracy. Thus Andrpov > Gorbachev

 

[LightSpectra]

You have little knowledge of Androprov, in his 15 months in office he began one of the most energetic reform programs in the USSR.

To what is the first clause of this sentence a response to, and what is the relevance of the second clause to anything stated thus far?

And a socialist dictatorship is always superior to a bourgeois democracy.

Sure, in everything except for political freedom, economic success, technological advancement, not being gulag'd, life expectancy, educational standards, bureaucratic corruption, et al.

 

[xchen08]

I said that wasn't the cause of the collapse, because people often return to relatively poor and repressive countries just because they are home. ~we can see how this happens today.

You tell me how ethnicity decides the loyalties of the chinese people. Honestly, I'm massively interested to hear this.

Here's the thing. For your argument to work, the Chinese must be returning to China (which they aren't since most students don't have the option of remaining and so must be discounted) because they prefer a socialist dictatorship over capitalist democracy, despite lower living standards. Which is obviously absurd, since China is far more capitalist and has less social welfare than the U.S., much less Europe, and a returnee can expect a general increase in living standards.

You've already ruled out Chinese returning because of national loyalty, which is nonetheless very real.

And returning because they prefer the food, speaking their birth language, living in their own culture says nothing about their preferences for political or economic systems.