Gorbachev and Perestroika/Gladnost

[Ajidica]

I've been studying the fall of the Soviet Union in school and I'm mainly interested in its final years so a few questions relating to that.
1. With the benefit of hindsight, was there anything Gorbachev could have done to prevent the disintigration of the USSR while keeping his policies of Perestroika/Gladnost?
2. With the diverse ethnic groups and control shifting toward the workers with movements such as Solidarity; why did Gorbachev think it was a good idea to 'open' the government and give the workers more economic freedom?
3. For those who paid attention during the fall of the Soviet Union and communist Russia, what were your views on it at the time? Most the sources from people I know are either 'no opinion' or 'in depth socio-economic analysis' and I'm interested in different opinions.

I realize this might be considered a what if thread, but I'm looking more for possibilities rather than an alternate history thread. If this is considered to be a what if thread, move it to the OT forum.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

One thing that must be realized is that Gorbachev's reforms were grounded in the same "thawing" ideas that led to the Khrushchev thaw. The difference, of course, was that Khrushchev was a communist and Gorbachev a social democrat. When Khrushchev and Co. tried it (Kosygin and others were heavily involved, as Khrushchev was only the leader of a bunch of leaders), the Soviet economy was much more stable; it was essentially the "right" time to do that, directly after the capital-goods-expansive Stalin years. But those efforts were either largely blocked or reversed by Stalinists, or by Stalin-lite obsessives with heavy industry (in this light I consider Brezhnev a regressive, almost a reactionary against further-left initiative) and orderly conformism. Only with the deaths of Andropov and then Chernenko did that slate of leaders who matured during the Stalin years get cleared, and someone not accustomed to dealing with nomenklatura boot-licking came to the fore again (one of the big Khrushchev projects reversed by Brezhnev was active dismantlement of nomenklatura and replacement with meritocratic methods). But the Soviet economy was much more vulnerable and weakened, no thanks to the great problems of the 1970s. Perestroika only served to amplify the problems of the lopsided economy, and the government's inability to answer this problem thanks to forced increases in military spending (which is really the only credit that Reagan gets for "ending" the USSR).

Also, the Soviets were taking an increased stake in their Eastern Bloc sister states' economies, trying to stabilize, for example, the failing Polish economy due to that country's extensive debts to the West that had failed to produce the expected growth.

 

[Ajidica]

Thanks. But why did Gorbachev see the need to institute Perestroika at that moment? He wasn't stupid so shouldn't he have been able to see that the number of negative solutions outnumbered the positives.
I also read somewhere that gladnost actualy helped the USSR but perestroika prevented Gorbachev from being able to capitalize on popular support; to the extent of your knowledge is that true?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thanks. But why did Gorbachev see the need to institute Perestroika at that moment? He wasn't stupid so shouldn't he have been able to see that the number of negative solutions outnumbered the positives.

It had been his position for a long time, IIRC. He was from a younger generation, born after the foundation of the USSR; having very little professional contact with the Stalinist era, he was not confined by the thinking that Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov were, which was essentially "keep your head down and don't mess with stuff." I don't think it was a matter of him seeing the bad (which I don't know that he did) and saying screw it, but rather that they really had little choice by that point. These were reforms that were going to have to come about if the Soviets were going to build mature socialism, and as I said, they had been attempted before, though hamstrung and subsequently reversed. They were unlucky enough to have the next attempt come around at a moment of economic weakness, and during a Vietnam-like war, even though Gorby had entered office intending to wrap it up quickly. As I said, these things were amplified by those reforms.

I also read somewhere that gladnost actualy helped the USSR but perestroika prevented Gorbachev from being able to capitalize on popular support; to the extent of your knowledge is that true?

I don't know anything about that. I do know that some books from the late Soviet era, like one I have about Magnitogorsk, effectively question if the USSR can even be considered totalitarian anymore, after the newest set of reforms. So its possible, but I haven't read much of the book, so I can't speak about that either way. Perhaps I should do so.

 

[bombshoo]

Thanks. But why did Gorbachev see the need to institute Perestroika at that moment? He wasn't stupid so shouldn't he have been able to see that the number of negative solutions outnumbered the positives.
I also read somewhere that gladnost actualy helped the USSR but perestroika prevented Gorbachev from being able to capitalize on popular support; to the extent of your knowledge is that true?

I think what you should remember is that glasnost was partly implemented as a way to make perestroika workable. Gorbachev believed that a more open society was needed in order for market mechanisms to work, particularly so the Soviet Union could develop a high tech industry (an area the Soviets were lagging behind terribly), which if you look at Silicon Valley (what Gorbachev wanted to base the new tech industry off of) the free flow of information was necessary. The main problems with perestroika were essentially that you all of a sudden had market mechanisms put in place though nobody had any models to follow and thus you ended up with something that was even more inefficient than what they had before.

Regardless, glasnost probably did help the Soviet Union by allowing it to go out with more of a putter rather than simply closing itself off to all outside information or dissolving in some violent series of rebellions. The flow of information from the West was probably unstoppable by this time, so by being more open about it, it allowed for the idea of real change to be put on the table.

Gorby's problem was that he never officially renounced communism despite the fact that glasnost essentially ruined the idea of building socialism for any true believers left, while he also was somewhat hypocritical on issues like trying to cover up Chernobyl despite the fact everyone knew about it. He lost a lot of the cred with the people he might have otherwise had from this. His attempts to combat alcoholism was none too popular either. I've always found it humorous that despite the fact Gorbachev's popularity was tanking in the USSR, he was quite well liked in the West for his reforms.

 

[Yeekim]

His attempts to combat alcoholism was none too popular either. /QUOTE]
...and the fact that he got it started chiefly by liquidation of zakuska...

 

[joycem10]

3. For those who paid attention during the fall of the Soviet Union and communist Russia, what were your views on it at the time? Most the sources from people I know are either 'no opinion' or 'in depth socio-economic analysis' and I'm interested in different opinions.

I was in high school at the time and I remember being in shock. I had just read Red Storm Rising, the media had just completed stuff like Amerika and The Day After (which featured a nuke war beginning over West Berlin and here the Berlin wall comes down 5-6 years later). All of a sudden it was over and we (as an american) had won. There wasnt going to be a nuke war, I wasnt going have to get a mohawk and shoulderpads and scrounge for gas and canned food in a b-movie apocalypse.

When I was a kid in the seventies it seemed like the Sovs were winning. We were the country in a maliase. The economy was crap, the military just had its ass handed to it and seemed to be full of heroin addicts intent on scragging officers. You had to wait in line for gas. The city that I was raised in was turning into a '70s version of modern day Detriot with the end of the steel industry. The Sovs were winning proxy wars all over Africa and Asia, had an army that pretty much everyone believed could overrun Europe and were putting together a navy that could challenge the USN. They even kicked our ass in the Olympics. Momentum (or the historacle dialectic or whatever the marxist propaganda was) seemed to be on the Sovs side.

It was real difficult to believe that 10 years later all that had reversed. The economy recovered. The military seemed competent again. The Sovs lost in Afganistan. The wall comes down... and then the Soviet Union is gone. For me at least, as a teenager, it was shocking.

I knew a kid whose family was Lithuanian and I remember how they partied when the Baltics left the USSR. It was like Mardi Gras.

 

[LightSpectra]

1. With the benefit of hindsight, was there anything Gorbachev could have done to prevent the disintigration of the USSR while keeping his policies of Perestroika/Gladnost?
2. With the diverse ethnic groups and control shifting toward the workers with movements such as Solidarity; why did Gorbachev think it was a good idea to 'open' the government and give the workers more economic freedom?

Perestroika and gladnost were essentially concessions in order to sustain the Soviet Union whilst it was crumbling. By the time Gorbachev was implementing reform, dissolution was largely inevitable.

3. For those who paid attention during the fall of the Soviet Union and communist Russia, what were your views on it at the time?

As one who loves freedom, I joyfully embraced it.

 

[Ajidica]

As one who loves freedom, I joyfully embraced it.

Please explain. After the USSR collapsed things did get worse with 'gangster economics' in Russia and bloody collapse of Yugoslavia things did not get better. In addition, many of the Eastern European economies tanked in the halfway point between communism and capitalism. While they were more free, life wasn't as livable. Prices increased up to 26 times on some commodities while production fell 20 %. Inflation was also on the rise. Based on these conditions, wouldn't a moderatly free life under gladnost/perestroika with some sense of security be better than a 'complete free' society that is experiancing an economic collapse?

 

[LightSpectra]

Please explain. After the USSR collapsed things did get worse with 'gangster economics' in Russia

Russian GDP since the fall of the Soviet Union. The economy crashed, but by 2003 it was much stronger than it ever was during the Soviet era.

and bloody collapse of Yugoslavia things did not get better.

Yugoslavia was never a part of the Iron Curtain to begin with. Nevertheless this is obviously the worst case scenario amongst formerly communist countries. Nobody in their right minds think that Poland, East Germany, the Ukraine or any of the Baltic nations aren't nigh-infinitely better off than they were before. (Before people bring up that recent survey in East Germany where people reminisced about the communist era: I point out that even if they're politically socialist, they almost universally hated the Soviet Union for their civil repressions.)

In addition, many of the Eastern European economies tanked in the halfway point between communism and capitalism. While they were more free, life wasn't as livable. Prices increased up to 26 times on some commodities while production fell 20 %. Inflation was also on the rise. Based on these conditions, wouldn't a moderatly free life under gladnost/perestroika with some sense of security be better than a 'complete free' society that is experiancing an economic collapse?

Save for perhaps Moldova, there are no countries in East Europe that are currently worse off -- politically or economically -- than they were in the 1980s.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You need to watch this documentary, LS, if you think that things are better post-Soviet for anyone save an extremely few people.

Link to video.

 

[bombshoo]

Hardly anything at all save for maybe Haiti is worse off than it was in the 1980s. Standard of living just generally increases overtime regardless of any economic or politic system.

 

[Ajidica]

Yes, the GDP is better and average life quality is marginaly better, but that also occured under Putin who is arguably a more absolutist leader than Yeltsin so that slighty impacts your idea that Eastern Europe is better because it is free.

And although Eastern European countries are no worse off than in the soviet era, they have sort of stagnated with regards to technology and quality of living. They haven't really recieved the benefits of capitalism and free market. Even in the industrial sector which has traditionaly been the favored soviet industry. I read an article from the New York Times a while ago where some Russian factories are using Stalinist, even Tsarist era machines because the economy hasn't improved enought. I do agree life is a bit better now than in the soviet era though. However the global economic downturn coupled with decreasing oil prices plus Putins increased absolutism may reverse that trend. There has been a growing movement in Russia that looks favorably at Communism. While you might have been less free and less consumer goods, you at least had a dedicated wage with which to do something and the knowledge that the govt would support you.

Do you have any sources that say that life post soviet was better than under Gorbachev? It was my impression that most of the 'bad communist' institutions had been done away with during Gorbachevs reforms.
Life under the Soviets appeared more stable than under capitalism. As evidenced by the Brezhnev stagnation vs capitalist economic collapses. Is that a fair statement to make?

EDIT: After watching to first part of that video, a few questions:
1>Is the town covered in pt 1 typical for Russia? You can find some places like that in America.
2>Most of the people complaining about the economic conditions in Russia are elderly. Do the youth feel the same way?

 

[LightSpectra]

You need to watch this documentary, LS, if you think that things are better post-Soviet for anyone save an extremely few people.

I've watched the first video in the series. I've yet to see any contention that it was any better during the Soviet era, but I'll finish the videos before I respond.

Nevertheless, even if life is worse for the Russians (yet inarguably better for Poland and the Baltics), the end of the Cold War is still a cause for celebration because it meant the political liberation of Eastern Europe. Though I'm sure you don't agree, insofar that you'll defend the Soviet Union under the Stalinist era, you seem to value economic equality much higher than human rights. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I've watched the first video in the series. I've yet to see any contention that it was any better during the Soviet era, but I'll finish the videos before I respond.

Nevertheless, even if life is worse for the Russians (yet inarguably better for Poland and the Baltics), the end of the Cold War is still a cause for celebration because it meant the political liberation of Eastern Europe. Though I'm sure you don't agree, insofar that you'll defend the Soviet Union under the Stalinist era, you seem to value economic equality much higher than human rights. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Funny that in all Eastern Bloc nations but Poland, either a majority or very near a majority of the population both regrets the transition to "democracy" and capitalism.

 

[Ajidica]

Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the worst human rights violations were over by the time of Gorbachev. America used torture under Bush and for some suspened the right of habeus corpus; does that mean America doesn't value human rights? Heck, we even invaded Iraq on misleading and in some cases fake pieces of evidence that most of the alleged crimes that served as a cassus belli were during the Iran-Iraq War. If America wanted to go into another country to 'liberate the populance', why not go into Sudan or any of the other numerous African nations currently experiancing Genocide?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

They were ended by Khrushchev, more than twenty years before.

 

[red_elk]

Do you have any sources that say that life post soviet was better than under Gorbachev?

It's impossible to answer to your question generally.
1. Some people got awfully rich, very quickly.
2. It's become possible to buy good food, clothes, etc. - but for majority of people all this was still inaccessible.
3. People got possibility to travel to the other countries, still only a few percents of population could (and can) afford it.
4. Millions of people got dog-poor or died because of drugs, alcohol addictions, increased criminality.
5. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed or expelled in ethnic conflicts (Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Nagorny Karabakh, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Tajikistan, etc.)

2) and 3) became better during Putin's time, thank's to increased oil prices.
Some of ethnic conflicts are partially resolved today (like Chechnya).

EDIT: After watching to first part of that video, a few questions:
1>Is the town covered in pt 1 typical for Russia? You can find some places like that in America.

For small cities, unfortunately, such situation is rather typical than exception. In large ones the situation is better.

2>Most of the people complaining about the economic conditions in Russia are elderly. Do the youth feel the same way?

Young people mostly remember Yeltsin's time which was even worse.

 

[Ajidica]

So basicaly life for the average person sucked but for a few it got alot better? As for the youths distaste for Yeltsin and his policies, that would explaint th trend for a more favorable look at communism.

 

[red_elk]

So basicaly life for the average person sucked but for a few it got alot better?

This is oversimplification, but generally yes, I would say so.

As for the youths distaste for Yeltsin and his policies, that would explaint th trend for a more favorable look at communism.

This is probably some psychological phenomena. Younger people don't remember Soviet times, but they can see what's happening to their country. Older people tend to remember good sides of living in USSR. It was not a paradise either, but there were aspects which were incomparably better than those in modern Russia.

There is a feeling that people are beginning to understand that they had a house with leaking roof - and instead of fixing it, they decided that their house is bad, exploded it and now are trying to build a new house from wreckage of old one.

"I was aiming at communism, but hit Russia"
A. Zinoviev