We have yet to pay back the money we borrowed to win the Cold War.

We could yet end up like the USSR.

Virtually no expert foresaw collapse of USSR except for Ukrainian nationalists and Zbigniew Brzezinski who planned it with USA by keeping oil prices artificially low and bankrupting the USSR in 1989. If Russia wants to recreate the glory of the old empire it desperately needs to bring Ukraine back under its control. Ukraine was the workhorse of the former Soviet Union... the industrial, scientific and military workhorse of the former USSR. see Thirty Seven (37) early warning signals of the collapse and decay of the Russian Federation (Putinism) and Ukraine (Yanukowych Regime) http://bit.ly/gDR578

Low (below $100 per barrel) or reversal of oil / gas and commodity prices will bankrupt the Russian government again. (Last year Russia said it needs oil at $100 per barrel for the next 5 year just to break even-now even that price may not be enough. At $95-$100 a barrel, Russia is going broke-- just like the straw that broke the camel's back in 1989 and 1991)

Why did the Soviet Union Collapse?...According to Yegor Gaidar, who was the acting prime minister of Russia, minister of economy, and first deputy prime minister between 1991 and 1994.
"The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.
As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive. The Soviet leadership was confronted with a difficult decision on how to adjust. There were three options--or a combination of three options--available to the Soviet leadership.
First, dissolve the Eastern European empire and effectively stop barter trade in oil and gas with the Socialist bloc countries, and start charging hard currency for the hydrocarbons. This choice, however, involved convincing the Soviet leadership in 1985 to negate completely the results of World War II. In reality, the leader who proposed this idea at the CPSU Central Committee meeting at that time risked losing his position as general secretary.
Second, drastically reduce Soviet food imports by $20 billion, the amount the Soviet Union lost when oil prices collapsed. But in practical terms, this option meant the introduction of food rationing at rates similar to those used during World War II. The Soviet leadership understood the consequences: the Soviet system would not survive for even one month. This idea was never seriously discussed.
Third, implement radical cuts in the military-industrial complex. With this option, however, the Soviet leadership risked serious conflict with regional and industrial elites, since a large number of Soviet cities depended solely on the military-industrial complex. This choice was also never seriously considered.
Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership decided to adopt a policy of effectively disregarding the problem in hopes that it would somehow wither away. Instead of implementing actual reforms, the Soviet Union started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely...
The money was suddenly gone. The Soviet Union tried to create a consortium of 300 banks to provide a large loan for the Soviet Union in 1989, but was informed that only five of them would participate and, as a result, the loan would be twenty times smaller than needed. The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.
In 1985 the idea that the Soviet Union would begin bargaining for money in exchange for political concessions would have sounded absolutely preposterous to the Soviet leadership. In 1989 it became a reality, and Gorbachev understood the need for at least $100 billion from the West to prop up the oil-dependent Soviet economy.
Walter Derzko

Every Russian reform movement from Ivan the Terrible, through Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Lenin, Stalin and Gorbachev has been imposed from the top. The moment the leader has died, been removed or lost their drive it stops. The Mongol invasion destroyed the emerging Russian civil society and it was replaced by a top down authoritarian rule that has lasted for a millenium. What has changed?

A CALL FOR PEACE THROUGH EDUCATION OF THE WORLD'S POPULACE

-------------------------------------------------------

I have documented for over a decade the tactics used by the fbi in their efforts to silence or neutralize me. Their efforts have failed because the truth of my reports are self-evident, especially as I produce abundant evidence of the harassment, libel, torture, threats, attempted murder against me (see links below). I have also suggested that all who do not challenge (at least verbally) the tyranny and murderous oppression of the current United States war lords [notably those in the fbi/cia] are partly responsible by default for the continuing crimes against humanity that are ongoing under the surface (i.e., hidden by the popular media) around the globe:

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/worldwidenetwork.html

Also, one must beware of the French horns and Baritones evident in the Marine Corp’s TV appeal to our young men and focus more on the misuse of our military by the low life assassins of the fbi/cia:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-Army-Lies-To-Our-Young-by-GERAL-SOSBEE-080929-134.html

Perhaps the last hope for the education of the public is through the Indymedia groups and/or private websites of activists for peace. In this regard see a recent order from a shill (ruben stevens) that I stop posting on Indymedia:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2011/06/408969.shtml?discuss

Finally, in order for the reader of this report to investigate for himself the evidence of the emerging world inhumane domination by assassins, see the links shown below. THANK YOU KINDLY. geral

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part4-worldinabo.html

COINTELPRO: The FBI's Covert Action Programs Against American Citizens

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

cia atrocities:

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/barbarahartwella.html#time%20line

modern day cointel tactics:http://presentation-de-la-situation.lacoctelera.net/post/2009/04/23/media-releases-in-10-languages-april-23-2009

more hate & death messages sent from street thugs and fbi shills here:

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/hatephonecallsan.html

fbi’s subliminal message to Sosbee :

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/hatemail-partten.html

Imbecilic sgt at arms:

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/hatemail-partele.html

more death messages:

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/hatemailpartsix.html

fbi operative exposed:

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/thefbistonyiomm.html

COINTELPRO in acton (19 plus parts):

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/mystory.html

COINTELPRO overview:

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/cointelprorevisi.html

Excerpt:” To impugn the sanity of the target is another common tactic, with the intent that friends and family will not believe the horror stories of persecution and will instead believe the target to be mentally unbalanced or "paranoid". It is true that 'clinical' paranoia is a form of psychopathology; on the other hand, as those of us so targeted know all too well, the persecution is not 'imagined' (as a function of abberant psychology, such as delusions) but very real; it is life-destroying and often life-threatening in one way or another.”

My report on Bar Journal article:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/05/375399.shtml

-Glasnost' led the Baltic states to begin demanding rights theoretically guaranteed to the 15 Soviet republics by the constitution of the USSR, including the right to secede. The Baltic states sought to overturn their annexation during WWII. Look up "The Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania" and the murder of independence demonstrators in Vilnius' TV tower in January 1991.

-Smaller political units within the USSR began demanding political autonomy in return for funding the Russian federal and Soviet central governments. Regions like Tatarstan (in central Russia) were net donors to the Soviet budget, and chafed at propping up non-performance regions. By contrast, Tajikistan's economy was buoyed by an aluminum plant that required both raw materials and orders to be sourced from faraway republics, defying any sense of P&L managment. (The Soviet Union didn't use dual-sheet accounting.)

-The Soviet Union's balance of trade with its Eastern European satellites was disadvantageous for decades. Russia would send heavy machinery to its Comecon partners, and receive spoiled fruit or shoes in return. Early in his term, Gorbachev warned the other Warsaw Pact members that they'd be on their own, and couldn't expect economic or military assistance from the USSR. This was not really a cash economy anyway, as Walter Derzko pointed out in his comments.

-As with any contrived socialist economy, the Soviet one stagnated only a few decades after the post-WWII expansion of massive industrial projects. Pouring cement for dams and large housing estates creates economic growth for only a while, and then specialization is required to prevent stagnation. With state-controlled production planning that was naturally unreceptive to the needs of both business and consumers, and no possibility of filling the void with consultants and entrepreneurs, the Soviet Union was doomed to remain stagnant. When Gorbachev's reforms encouraged black market/proto-capitalist entrepreneurs, the earnings of the latter stayed in private hands, or were reinvested in durable goods that held their value, rather than ending up as tax receipts for reinvestment in the Soviet economy.

-The Soviet Union also foolishly squandered its petro-dollar foreign currency reserves from the 1970s by propping up the pro-Soviet Afghan government and then prosecuting the large-scale war in that country. Those reserves could have gone toward stocking store shelves in the USSR, or retooling the economy toward the Lenin-era NEP, or toward buying new capital equipment to increase oil production or exportable light industrial goods.

Why is everything I know wrong? Somewhere in your five-page essay, I may have missed the ultimate cause of collapse. You may have emigrated too early to appreciate what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

ANJKill's Gorbachev power ballad would of been a way better alternative to that terrible duet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew9YQVRSlHE

The author goes over the economic woes of the Soviet Union leading up to collapse, but waves them away with fundamentally-suspect stats about wage increases, and benchmark comparatives with those from market economies. It's a shambles of an argument. Who cares if 'wages' rose X percent during a certain period, or if the 'job growth' rates would have been considered anemic but survivable elsewhere? Wages paid in nonconvertible/hard-to-convert rubles cannot be compared apples to apples with wage rates in the US or NATO. The wages themselves were paid in credit chits that weren't adequate instruments of value. Starting in the 70s, Soviet citizens carried large balances of rubles in the equivalent of bank accounts. Savings rates, on an incremental unit level, put most Western societies to shame. But the price of a good or service in the 70s and 80s Soviet Union was often the least important data point in completing a transaction. Was it available? Who might I have to bribe to get it X days faster because I need it now? How much 'sit time' would be needed to wait for access to the good, and what was the opportunity cost of doing so? What cost was incurred in having imperfect information and market access? Was the good of sufficient quality at that price point and time invested before another could be acquired, once the true total cost of acquiring a good was factored in? People socked money away because there was essentially nothing to really spend it on. And then that 'money' was shoveled back into the enterprises as 'capital''. It was mostly funny money being shuffled around on the basis of a wink. Employment growth' during these years could not be tied back to a consistently definable variable when so many jobs were placed at enterprises with drastically-dropping productivity (one of the few measurements possible across economies).

The Soviet Union towards the end became a petro-nation, dependent on arms sales and energy to make the hard currency purchases they needed to survive as a modern state. They had no credit, or basis for credit, and the 'trading in kind' mechanism in place for the Soviet Union's captive market was a sham of moving widgets to and fro. Everything, regardless of value, was traded at pre-set prices that rarely hurt the Russian overlords. It got to the point where weapons were traded for foreign oil, at poor rates, so the Soviets could re-sell oil for hard currency. They'd call the different foreign aid, but the fact of the matter is they had no ability to assign value to goods that would bear scrutiny with another party.

The miracle of the early Soviet economy was pretty straightforward. They cashed out the wealthy peasant farmers, converted their proceeds into heavy industry and then kept pouring in the 'capital' (on paper) so that the activity of converting inputs produced growth. The system collapsed as it became increasingly harder to pretend the capital meant what it said, and the resources they had to allocate became harder to procure. And then oil dropped to $20/barrel, losing 3/5 of its hard-currency-generating value.

He's right that the cost of the Afghan War didn't bankrupt the country. It was more expensive than 4-5 billion (I saw a 14 billion-dollar figure for the entire duration of the war), but if it were just the money it wouldn't have been enough. The Afghan War was a morale blow to the country that grew increasingly fragile to shocks. When it came time to deal with the sudden revenue hold left by a multi-year drop in oil prices, they had to borrow money or stop costly enterprise refits needed to drag them out of the 1950s. The only ones willing or able to lend the Soviet Union money for the time they needed to survive the shortfall were NATO countries. Political conditions were clearly forthcoming, spelling a wound to the inland empire and its control over its European buffer states.

The effort of trying to undergo economic reforms while not managing political reforms better led to the revolution, and the problems afterwards.

I'm kind of slow.Prefer some terseness.Your headline is as a bouncing betty..

what an amazing article. thanks a lot.

The title is really good. Not only most people, but Mr Aron himself, seem to have the wrong image of the collapse. Behind an impressive listing of famous supporters of Mr Gorbachov's I lack the central figure: his wife. Mrs Gorbachova, a professor of philosophy, is credited to have elaborated the theory of the Perestroyka and the Glasnost. But then, what she did, was just an enlargement and adaptation of Alexander Dubcek's "Socialism with the human face" theory. In Dubcek's time, the situation was not ripe for his reforms, mainly because of a fierce resistance from the part of the DDR, Poland and Bulgaria. In Gorbachev's time, the situation was more favorable. Also, given his position at the helm of the world's largest power, made the implementation easier. Though not easy enough to live on unscathed.

I heard a story in Moscow in 2001 from someone who had been a student at Moscow University in 1980 when John Lennon was assassinated in New York. Essentially, he said, the collapse of the Soviet State started then. John Lennon was the icon of the 'peace movement' which was code for a broad anti-establishment dissident movement in the USSR. The assassination created a major trauma in the movement which brought out students en masse in an evening vigil which despite their efforts the KGB failed to break up. From that moment on, said my friend, the system loooked to be challengeable.Many students from MU who were the elite of the Soviet education system carried the belief in freedom from oppression into the wider society. Of course this was just part of a larger picture. But it was a defining moment. The breakup of the USSR had absolutely nothing to do with Ronald Reagan's speeches and everything to do with the development of a powerful movement for change within Soviet Society. Hopefully that will reemerge.

I don't get this article.

I remember reading in a well known US newspaper about how Ronald Reagan met with two micro-economists whose findings indicated that the Soviet economy was shrinking at a startling yearly rate. The economists based their conclusions are crunching a huge number of real facts about the Soviet economy. These economists predicted that the USSR would collapse economically and politically sometime around 2008-2012.

Ronald Reagan decided to accelerate this collapse by touting the Strategic Defense Initiative, which everyone knew was basically fictional. But the intent was to get the USSR to overspend in an effort to outpace the US SDI. This overspending would accelerate the collapse of the Soviet economy.

Now the is overspending on the military, and on keeping insolvent big banks running (and mismanaged), and on special breaks so US corporations can increase hiring outside the USA. Europe is lurching into disaster because Germany, exporting high priced equipment, does not want to devalue the Euro, a step necessary to stabilize its political and economic union. The EU too is promoting shrinking economies in Europe in a desperate effort to keep its insolvent big banks up and running (and mismanaged).

Perhaps this overspending by the USA and the grim, economy shrinking austerities of the EU represent the real failure to learn from the Soviet Union's collapse.

"Anti-anti communists"???

I think it was the anti-communists who exaggerated Soviet power. I will let you figure out the reasons.

Unless you are a Russian or come from a country with a similar type of historical and cultural background, you will have difficulty understanding its current political situation. Yes, indeed, many in the political elite in 1980s recognized that the Soviet system was extremely corrupted and morally backward. Corruption was rampant and people betrayed each other and stabbed each other in the back. Economic problems were also obvious. Gorbachev and his government then instituted wide revolutionary reforms liberalizing Soviet economy, freedom of speech and even political representaion of the Soviet republics. All of that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What many non-Russians fail to understand is what followed in most Soviet Republics (except really for the Baltic States). Collosal economic collapse, phenomenal moral collapse even worse than the one seen in 1970s and 1980s. Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Uzbekistan and many other republics fell into chaotic Wild West capitalism. Everything was for sale. Money and status became the prime concern of most people. Crime, "Russian" mafia (really post-Soviet one), murders, huge gap between rich and poor became rampant. Many economists even argued that in 1990s, Russia's economic strife was 3 times worse statistically than America's in the Great Depression. I lived during those times and I can say it was abhorrent. In 1996 Chechnya gained independence. Then during 1996-1999 Chechen leaders aimed to conquer and create a pan-Islamic Sharia-ruled state, spreading the fight to Dagestan and other reputlics. People were hijacked, murdered, terrorism was rampant. Russian was collapsing. People were starving. The country was ruled by Oligarchs only caring about their pockets. Russia was being divided, people were robbed..the country was a puppet of the West, owning bilions of dollars. Am i brainwashed by Putin to say that? No, i've lived in Canada for the last 13 years and am educated and can say that objectively having been exposed to Western, as well as pro-government media and anti-government media in Russia. By late 1990s people hated democracy and liberalism. Strong hand, strong leadership and a revival of Russian patriotism was needed. How can a country of 150 million people that has achieved so much in its history (indeed a lot by bad means, but still achieved), has come to this?

Then came Putin. Out of nowhere. Yes, he centralized the government and took away many liberties. Yes, he crushed Chechnya cold-bloodedly and instituted a war lord. Yes, he kicked out and jailed a lot of oligarchs. Yes, he intervened in former Soviet republics. Yes, he even poisoned and killed many journalists and activists (the thing I do oppose utterly). However, the country became stabilized. It was COLLAPSING. Argue what you want how stable it is right now, but its nowhere at the state it was in 1990s. Maybe it was ALL oil and liberal reforms of the 1990s, but a strong hand brought ORDER to economic and regional strife. Millions of Russians achieved economic stability, thousands prosperity. People CAN and do criticize government and have freedoms that they only dream of in 1980s. Chechnya is under control and has phenomenal economic prosperity, never seen in that region before since the modern times.

Now Medvedev is bringing some reforms - gradually, methodically. Sure, Russia can trust liberals again and just institute another glasnost 2.0. You know what's gona happen? Russia will collapse. Tens of millions will go into severe poverty. Nuclear weapons will be sold and get to terrorists' or rogue regimes' hands. Historically and culturally, Russia always needed a strong hand. Russia's borders were always invaded: Mongol, German, Ottoman, French, Polish, Lithuanian, Swedish, Japanese have all vied for Russia's territory. Aggressive imperial expansion, central government and emphasis on the military was essential for survival of the Russian people. Culturally and economically, boyars, capitalists, oligarchs and simply the rich have exploited Russian people and divided the land. Every single time strong leaders were absent, Russia fell into chaos. Everyone suffered.

Russia simply cannot turn into a liberal totally free democratic country overnight. It's not as prosperous as many Western countries, it does not have historic or cultural affiliations with these principles. Its surrounded by 15 nations, it has many republics and areas striving for some kind of self-determination that it even more authoritarian than Putin's (i.e. Sharia-ruled pan-Islamic Chechen/Dagestani incursions in late 1990s). It's a complicated huge nation of 144 million people (today). Strong leadership is vital at the moment. Slow democratization is also necessary to achieve moral and economic prosperity. It's not going to be Bush's experiment with Iraq when he and his government just assumed that invading Iraq would turn it into a prosperous free nation over night. Russia is following more of a Chinese example as well . Different in many aspects, but many Russians, approve of it and see things going the right way. My argument is...give Putin and Medvedev time. Many things are being done, not as fast as many would want, but that could be a good thing.

"The Soviet Union seemed to have adjusted to undertaking bloody "pacifications" in Eastern Europe every 12 years -- Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980 -- without much regard for the world's opinion. "

Hmmm. The Soviet Union engaged in "bloody 'pacification' in . . . Poland in 1980"--REALLY? Wow. Too bad all the history books missed that one.

Not even with the benefit of hindsight, twenty years later, and most certainly not after having red this article, might we understand what is wrong with everything we know about the collapse of the Soviet Union. The last place to search for that understanding is the American Enterprise Institute.
It would suffice to say that, out of a multitude of circumstances, the single most important reason for the collapse was that the people finally had enough of the lies. To fight a dictatorship requires more than just a desire to defeat it. That which lacks may take some time to acquire: The will of the people.

All the comments here rubbish the USSR and assume it had nothing to contribute.

Aron's article is totally lacking in historical sense.

Without the Soviet Union Germany would have dominated Europe mlitarily, and that would have been a very different world. Germany would have won World War Two.

Fancy that?

The problem that Russia seems to have is simply that the great majority of its people are distinctly illiberal, The wonderful virtuosity of so many liberals tends to blind us westerners to this reality. Even with a new perestroika I do not see how anyone rationally can be bullish on Russia in the short, medium or long term. This is truly a tragedy.

I recall reading an article by Brzezinski about his conviction and arguments that the USSR was doomed, way back when I was an FSO serving in the Middle East. It may well have been in Foreign Policy magazne since I subscribed and Zbig was a friend of Holbrooke's, which counted for something back in the day.

This article greatly oversimplifies what happened and gives far too much weight to economic issues, Gorbachev and the role of Glasnost/Perestroika.

I would suggest reading French historian Hélène Carrère d'Encausse's excellent book on the fall of the Soviet Empire. She demonstrates that the the events leading up to the fall of the Soviet Empire was really a resurgence in ethnic nationalism that started in peripheral provinces and gradually engulfed the entire country. It was the first revolts by the Kazakhs in 1986 that started a domino effect, leading to revolts in the Caucases, the Baltics, Ukraine. The leaders of the Soviets in the various Republics began demanding greater autonomy and recognition, eventually resulting in dissolution of the country.

The article understates how bad things really were in the USSR prior to collapse. David Horowitz is worth a read:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Road%20to%20Nowhere.htm

"........Let us look at what has been revealed by glasnost about the quality of the ordinary lives of ordinary people after 70 years of socialist effort -- not forgetting that 40 million human beings (the figure is from current Soviet sources) were exterminated to make possible this revolutionary achievement.

Official statistics released during glasnost indicate that after 70 years of socialist development 40% of the Soviet population and 79% of its older citizens live in poverty.[19] (Of course, judged by the standards of “exploitative” capitalist systems, the entire Soviet people live in a state of poverty.)

Thus, the Soviet Union’s per capita income is estimated by Soviet economists as about one-seventh that of the United States, somewhere on a par with Communist China.[20]

In the Soviet Union in 1989 there was rationing of meat and sugar, in peacetime; the rations revealed that the average intake of red meat for a Soviet citizen was half of what it had been for a subject of the Czar in 1913. At the same time, a vast supermarket of fruits, vegetables and household goods, available to the most humble inhabitant of a capitalist economy, was permanently out of stock and thus out of reach for the people of the socialist state. Indeed, one of the principal demands of a Siberian miners’ strike in 1989 was for an item as mundane and basic to a sense of personal well-being as a bar of soap. In a land of expansive virgin forests, there was a toilet paper shortage. In an industrial country with one of the harshest and coldest climates in the world, two-thirds of the households had no hot water, and a third had no running water at all. Not only was the construction of housing notoriously shabby, but space was so scarce, according to the government paper, Izvestia, that a typical working class family of four was forced to live for 8 years in a single 8x8 foot room, before marginally better accommodation became available. The housing shortage was so acute that at all times 17% of Soviet families had to be physically separated for want of adequate space.

After 50 years of socialist industrialization, the Soviet Union’s per-capita output of non-military goods and services placed it somewhere between 50th and 60th among the nations of the world. More manufactured goods were exported annually by Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea or Switzerland, while blacks in apartheid South Africa owned more cars per capita than did citizens of the socialist state. The only area of consumption in which the Soviets excelled was the ingestion of hard liquor. In this they led the world by a wide margin, consuming 17.4 liters of pure alcohol or 43.5 liters of vodka per person per year, which was five times what their forebears had consumed in the days of the Czar. At the same time, the average welfare mother in the United States received more income in a month, than the average Soviet worker could earn in a year.

Nor was the general deprivation confined to households and individual consumption. The “public sector” was equally desolate. In the name of progress, the Soviets devastated the environment to a degree unknown in other industrial states. More than 70% of the Soviet atmosphere was polluted with five times the permissible limit of toxic chemicals, and thousands of square miles of the Soviet land mass was poisoned by radiation. Thirty percent of all Soviet foods contained hazardous pesticides and six million acres of productive farmland were lost to erosion. More than 130 nuclear explosions had been detonated in European Russia for geophysical investigations to create underground pressure in oil and gas fields, or just to move earth for building dams. The Aral Sea, the world’s largest inland body of water, was dried up as the result of a misguided plan to irrigate a desert. Soviet industry operated under no controls and the accidental spillage of oil into the country’s eco-systems took place at the rate of nearly a million barrels a day.[21]

Even in traditional areas of socialist concern, the results were catastrophic. Soviet spending on health was the lowest of any developed nation and basic health conditions were on a level with those in the poorest of third world countries. A third of the hospitals had no running water, the training of medical personnel was poor, equipment was primitive and medical supplies scarce. (US expenditures on medical technology alone were twice as much as the entire Soviet health budget.) The bribery of doctors and nurses to get decent medical attention and even amenities like blankets in Soviet hospitals was not only common, but routine. So backward was Soviet medical care, 30 years after the launching of Sputnik, that 40% of the Soviet Union’s pharmacological drugs had to be imported, and much of these were lost to spoilage due to primitive and inadequate storage facilities. Bad as these conditions were generally, in the ethnic republics they were even worse. In Turkmenia, fully two-thirds of the hospitals had no indoor plumbing. In Uzbekistan, 50% of the villages were reported to have no running water and 93% no sewers. In socialist Tadjikistan, according to a report in Izvestia, only 25-30% of the schoolchildren were found to be healthy. As a result of bad living conditions and inadequate medical care, life expectancy for males throughout the Soviet Union was 12 years less than for males in Japan and 9 years less than in the United States -- and less for Soviet males themselves than it had been in 1939.

Educational conditions were no less extreme. “For the country as a whole,” according to one Soviet report, “21 percent of pupils are trained at school buildings without central heating, 30 percent without water piping and 40 percent lacking sewerage.”[22] In other words, despite sub-zero temperatures, the socialist state was able to provide schools with only outhouse facilities for nearly half its children. Even at this impoverished level, only 9 years of secondary schooling were provided on average, compared to 12 years in the United States, while only 15 percent of Soviet youth were able to attend institutions of higher learning compared to 34 percent in the U.S.

Education, housing and health were the areas traditionally emphasized by socialist politics because they affect the welfare of a people and the foundations of its future. In Deutscher’s schema, Soviet schools (“the world’s most extensive and modern education system,” as he described it) were the keys to its progressive prospect. But, as glasnost revealed, Soviet spending on education had declined in the years since Sputnik (while US spending tripled). By the 1980s it was evident that education was no more exempt from the generalized poverty of socialist society than other non-military fields of enterprise. Seduced by Soviet advances in nuclear arms and military showpieces like Sputnik, Deutscher labored under the illusion of generations of the Left. He too believed that the goal of revolutionary power was something else than power itself.

For years the Left had decried the collusion between corporate and military interests in the capitalist West. But all that time the entire socialist economy was little more than one giant military industrial complex. Military investment absorbed 25% of the Soviet gross product (compared to only 6% in the United States) and military technology provided the only product competitive for export. Outside the military sector, as glasnost revealed, the vaunted Soviet industrial achievement was little more than a socialist mirage -- imitative, archaic, inefficient, and one-sided. It was presided over by a sclerotic nomenklatura of state planners, which was incapable of adjusting to dynamic technological change. In the Thirties, the political architects of the Soviet economy had over-built a heavy industrial base, and then as if programmed by some invisible bureaucratic hand, had rebuilt it again and again.

Straitjacketed by its central plan, the socialist world was unable to enter the “second industrial revolution” that began to unfold in countries outside the Soviet bloc after 1945. By the beginning of the 1980s the Japanese already had 13 times the number of large computers per capita as the Soviets and nearly 60 times the number of industrial robots (the U.S. had three times the computer power of the Japanese themselves). “We were among the last to understand that in the age of information sciences the most valuable asset is knowledge, springing from human imagination and creativity,” complained Soviet President Gorbachev in 1989. “We will be paying for our mistake for many years to come.”[23] While capitalist nations (including recent “third world” economies like South Korea) were soaring into the technological future, Russia and its satellites, caught in the contradictions of an archaic mode of production, were stagnating into a decade of zero growth, becoming economic anachronisms or what one analyst described as “a gigantic Soviet socialist rust belt.”[24] In the 1980s the Soviet Union had become a military super-power, but this achievement bankrupted its already impoverished society in the process.

Nothing illustrated this bankruptcy with more poignancy than the opening of a McDonald’s fast-food outlet in Moscow about the time the East Germans were pulling down the Berlin Wall. In fact, the semiotics of the two were inseparable. During the last decades of the Cold War, the Wall had come to symbolize the borders of the socialist world, the Iron Curtain that held its populations captive against the irrepressible fact of the superiority of the capitalist societies in the West. When the Wall was breached, the terror was over, and with it the only authority ever really commanded by the socialist world.

The appearance of the Moscow McDonald’s revealed the prosaic truth that lay behind the creation of the Wall and the bloody epoch that it had come to symbolize. Its Soviet customers gathered in lines whose length exceeded those waiting outside Lenin’s tomb, the altar of the revolution itself. Here, the capitalist genius for catering to the ordinary desires of ordinary people was spectacularly displayed, along with socialism’s relentless unconcern for the needs of common humanity. McDonald’s executives even found it necessary to purchase and manage their own special farm in Russia, because Soviet potatoes -- the very staple of the people’s diet -- were too poor in quality and unreliable in supply. On the other hand, the wages of the Soviet customers were so depressed that a hamburger and fries was equivalent in rubles to half a day’s pay. And yet this most ordinary of pleasures -- the bottom of the food chain in the capitalist West -- was still such a luxury for Soviet consumers that to them it was worth a four hour wait and a four hour wage.

Of all the symbols of the epoch-making year, this was perhaps the most resonant for leftists of our generation. Impervious to the way the unobstructed market democratizes wealth, the New Left had focused its social scorn precisely on those plebeian achievements of consumer capitalism, that brought services and goods efficiently and cheaply to ordinary people. Perhaps the main theoretical contribution of our generation of New Left Marxists was an elaborate literature of cultural criticism made up of sneering commentaries on the “commodity fetishism” of bourgeois cultures and the “one-dimensional” humanity that commerce produced. The function of such critiques was to make its authors superior to the ordinary liberations of societies governed by the principles of consumer sovereignty and market economy. For New Leftists, the leviathans of post-industrial alienation and oppression were precisely these “consumption-oriented” industries, like McDonald’s, that offered inexpensive services and goods to the working masses -- some, like the “Sizzler” restaurants, in the form of “all you can eat” menus that embraced a variety of meats, vegetables, fruits and pastries virtually unknown in the Soviet bloc.

These mundane symbols of consumer capitalism revealed the real secret of the era that was now ending, the reason why the Iron Curtain and its Berlin Walls were necessary, why the Cold War itself was an inevitable by-product of socialist rule: In 1989, for two hour’s labor at the minimum wage, an American worker could obtain, at a corner “Sizzler,” a feast more opulent, more nutritionally rich and gastronomically diverse than anything available to almost all the citizens of the socialist world (including the elite) at almost any price.

This guy's prediction was pretty good, and it is stirring writing:

"THE WRITING ON THE WALL"

By Bernard Levin

London Times, Aug 1977

Why do I believe that Brezhnev and his colleagues have seen the writing on the wall, and know that the message it conveys is exactly the same, word for word, as the original slogan that gave us the metaphor? Why do I believe that a new Russian Revolution is inevitable, and that it may come much sooner than anyone would now dare to hope?

It is because I do not believe it possible that the thirst for freedom and decency in the countries of the Soviet Empire can remain much longer unslaked, and that any attempt either to quench it by total repression or to satisfy it by real reforms, will be cataclysmically destructive of the eroded foundations of the entire State system. If it is to be repression, the economic consequences will be appalling, and even more appalling will be the resistance it will provoke. And if it is to be reform, there will be no stopping the tide once the first sluice has been opened. Memories of the Czech tragedy of 1968 will still be fresh … the most significant element of the Prague Spring was the way in which, once Mr Dubcek had shown that he supported the Czech desire for liberation, no attempt by him and his equally brave colleagues to go slowly proved availing—the scent of freedom in the nostrils of his people was too strong.

But, it will be objected, Czechoslovakia was an occupied and enslaved land; what the Czechs wanted was what the Dutch and the Belgians and the French wanted in 1943—liberation from their hated conquerors. How can that be said to apply to the Soviet Union herself?

In the first place, it applies to a considerable extent in exactly the same way. Perhaps the most powerful of all the dissident movements has been the one fuelled by nationalist feeling: Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Uzbeks, Estonians, and other national minorities there are struggling, their national pride all the stronger for decades of repression, for what they see as their birthright (though they should not expect the United Nations subcommittee on colonialism to sympathise). Released from its iron bottle, the force of this feeling could be devastating—indeed, could not be otherwise, which is why the Soviet authorities have for so long feared it most and treated it most cruelly. But although it is expressed only through the mouths of a few exceptionally brave individuals, the feeling lies dormant in millions, like an underground reservoir of oil, only waiting for the bore to come through from the surface to erupt in a roaring fountain.

But even apart from the latent pressure of nationalism there are latent pressures, similarly given form and a voice only by an exceptionally courageous few, which must similarly gush forth if the rock is ever struck. Is it seriously to be believed that the only Christians in Russia are the ones we know about? Will anyone maintain that the only seekers after elementary human rights there are the ones whose names are familiar here? Can anyone think that the only people who would like to get out of that vast prison are the ones who ask for permission to do so? What do you suppose Christianity is, what do you imagine freedom means, what do you think emigration represents, that it can be confined to a few? It is simply not credible that forces which have moved men and women in countless millions throughout the ages exist only in sketchy form in the Soviet Union , in the hearts of the few who speak openly of them. The charge is there, packed tight, tamped down and waiting. The fuse is laid. All that remains is the match.

Nor, as it happens, is it particularly difficult to see who will strike it and why. I do not know his name or what he looks like, but I know he is there. For do you seriously suppose—now we extend the same questions into another area—that Mr Dubcek and President Svoboda and Mr Pelikan and Mr Goldstuecker and Professsor Sik and the rest of the Czech liberationists who led the doomed revolt came up one night like mushrooms, or arrived in a rocket from Outer Space? They came up through the system, through the system installed and maintained in Czechoslovakia , and most carefully monitored, by the Soviet authorities. But no Soviet tracker-dog could pick up the scent of the contraband they carried, for they carried it in their souls, where no dog’s nose is sensitive enough to detect it.

And if you tell me that no such figures exist in the Soviet Union, even more completely unknown outside (or for that matter inside) than the Czech heroes were, I shall tell you in return that it simply cannot be so. The odds against such an extraordinary aberration of the human spirit are so preposterously high that the chances can be ignored with impunity. They are there, all right, at this very moment, obeying orders, doing their duty, taking the official line against dissidents, not only in public but in private. They do not conspire, they are not in touch with Western intelligence agencies, they commit no sabotage. They are in every respect model Soviet functionaries. Or rather, in every respect but one: they have admitted the truth about their country to themselves, and have vowed, also to themselves, to do something about it.

That is how it will be done. There will be no gunfire in the streets, no barricades, no general strikes, no hanging of oppressors from lamp-posts, no sacking and burning of government offices, no seizure of radio stations or mass defections among the military. But one day soon, some new faces will appear in the Politburo—I am sure they have already appeared in municipal and even regional administrative authorities—and gradually, very gradually, other, similarly new, faces will join them. Until one day they will look at each other and realise that there is no longer any need for concealment of the truth in their hearts. And the match will be lit.

There is nothing romantic or fantastic about this prognosis; it is the most sober extrapolation from known facts and tested evidence. That, or something like it, will happen. When it will happen is neither possible nor useful to guess; but I am sure it will be within the lifetime of people much older than I. And when it does happen—let us suppose, for neatness’ sake, on July 14, 1989—you must, in all civility, allow me to be the first to repeat Charles James Fox’s words on their two hundredth anniversary: How much the greatest event it is that ever happened in the world! And how much the best!
© Times Newspapers Ltd, 1977

Verbal diarrhea, mental constipation: who has time for this?

No account of the Soviet collapse that leaves out the words "rock music" and the name Levi Strauss will ever be comprehensive.

I like this article, especially once it gets past the prologue.

A lot of Western wank about the USSR assumes that the only reason the USSR existed was to oppose the West, to be its foe, and so on. This narrative requires the West to be the cause of USSR's fall. Because of this, there are increasingly elaborate efforts to credit Reagan or some other Westerner with the end of USSR.

In reality, USSR had its own story. Sure, sometimes this story intersected with that of the US, but ultimately the USSR disbanded because it was the right thing domestically and the logical next step in its own story, not because of whatever foreigners did overseas in Washington.

would've been nice if these things had happened. hard to take seriously a writer who says in his opening paragraph that they actually did:

`and with it one-party dictatorship...'

seen any free and fair Russian presidential elections lately?

`...the state-owned economy...'

ever heard of Rosneft or Yukos?

`...and the Kremlin's control over its domestic...'

who runs Chechnya now?

`...and Eastern European empires.'

ok i'll give you that.

Czechs found out in the late 60s. They initially sought to reform communism, but greater freedm led to demise of communism. But at least there was the USSR to crush the freedom in Czechoslovakia.
But when the same dynamics took place in the USSR, the center of world communism, there was no other state to intervene and crush it.

Communist power relied on near-total state control, domination, and ownership of everything. Once that privilege was gone, the whole system became unstable. A communist state, no matter how poor or desperate--like North Korea or Cuba--can survive if the state has the will to maintain total control. But the loss of that control is like removing a key piece from a structure of wooden blocks. Loss of one piece makes the entire structure unstable. Gorbachev struck the Achilles heel of Soviet communism.

When the Tsarist system fell, the old order was utterly destroyed. Old elites were exiled or executed. A true revolution took place. The new boss was certainly not the old boss in 'new boss outfit'.
But did that happen with the fall of Soviet communism? Sure, people like Gorbachev did lose power, but most of the people who became the New Elite had been part of the Old Communist Elite.

So, it wasn't so much that the system collapsed but the system WAS collapsed so that communist elites could finally live on the hog without any restraints whatsoever.
Though men like Gorbachev and other idealists embraced changes in order to create a more human order, many other members of the Soviet elite supported the changes so they would gain the freedom to rake in most of the wealt and live like the superrich in the capitalist West.

For decades, Soviet elites had been hamstrung by the communist system. Though there were lots of corruption and thievery, communist bosses couldn't enjoy the Fabulous High Life of Western super-capitalists.
Already by the mid 80s, many Soviet leaders were only communists in name and wanna-be-capitalists in heart.
They were indeed materialist-gangsters, and they envied the good life in the West. They'd exploited the communist system to the hilt to lead extravagant lifestyles. However, communist system obligated them to manage and oversee the massive socialist-welfare system, which meant they couldn't totally grab all the loot and neglect the people of the nation.

The younger and up-and-coming members of the Soviet system--who didn't have personal memories of WWII and had grown up looking enviously toward the West--wanted the good life. Communism was boring and dull, dull, dull to them.

So, the impetus for reform came from two sides: the naive idealists and the honest-to-goodness gangsters. Naive idealists really thought communism could be reformed(or transformed into a healthy democracy) while the gangsters looked forward to the demise of communism so they could 'buy up' most of Soviet wealth; no longer burdened by the moral obligation of communism and brotherhood-of-man, they would be able to focus their energies on the mafia-brotherhood of pure gain.

And indeed, in this sense, there was no revolution, at least at the top. The sort of people who did best for themselves AFTER the fall of communism were the very people who had been the leaders of communism. The Old Elite simply repackaged themselves as the New Elite, and in the bargain, grabbed the entire loot of the nation. Similarly, the fall of GOP power in 2008 and rise of Democrats didn't put a dent in the real elites of America--the Wall Street banksters, who only grabbed more loot since.

The French Revolution brought down the Old Elite. So did the Russian and Chinese revolutions. But the Russian revolution of 1991 did nothing of the kind. Though some political figures lost power, the people who benefited MOST from the new order were the very people who had been best connected and had the most clout under the Soviet Order.
If anything, they did better after communism than under communism. Under communism, they enjoyed privilege as members of the communist elite. After communism, they became mega-billionaires and came to literally own much of the wealth of the nation. The very people who had served in upper echelons of the communist party and secret services became the tycoons of Russia.
And under the guise of capitalism or 'free markets', they could brazenly act as gangsters without pretension and grab most of the loot.

So, the collapse of Soviet communism was essentially a case of the Soviet elites abandoning the statist-socialist obligation to the people--a drain on state coffers--in favor of expropriating most of the national wealth for themselves. They had been closet-gangsters under communism but they could be openly brazen gangsters without limits after communism. Under communism, one had to steal in the name of the people, and in the process, at least pretend to be doing some good for the people. After communism, no such pretension or conceit was necessary. You could just rake it all in through all sorts of nefarious means.

Now, I'm not knocking capitalism and free markets, which I believe in, but pointing out that what came after communism wasn't capitalism but naked gangsterism wherein the members of the old communist elite could use their muscle and connections to grab most of the loot (and same thing happened in all the other former Soviet republics: ex-communist elites dropped their pretensions and grabbed most of the loot as neo-'capitalist' gangsters).

So, in this sense, there may actually be more continuity from Soviet Communism to Yeltsin-Putinism. Instead of the fall of the old elite and rise of a new elite, it was basically a case of the old elite abandoning the noblesse oblige of communism so that they could make some REAL money and enjoy wild parties with the superrich elites of the West.

The author spends five pages getting to what is already known and ignores what is already in front of us. The USSR by the 1980s was suffering economic, military, and moral collapse. Reagan in 1982 was the first Western head of state to put it plainly, and in public before all the world: the USSR was an evil institution. Reagan's moral clarity paved the way for the collapse of the USSR. Give the man his due instead of not even acknowledging this most famous speech.

"From that chamber, and from that mansion, I fled aghast. The storm was still abroad in all its wrath as I found myself crossing the old causeway. Suddenly there shot along the path a wild light, and I turned to see whence a gleam so unusual could have issued ; for the vast house and its shadows were alone behind me. The radiance was that of the full, setting, and blood-red moon, which now shone vividly through that once barely-discernible fissure, of which I have before spoken as extending from the roof of the building, in a zigzag direction, to the base. While I gazed, this fissure rapidly widened - there came a fierce breath of the whirlwind - the entire orb of the satellite burst at once upon my sight - my brain reeled as I saw the mighty walls rushing asunder - there was a long tumultuous shouting sound like the voice of a thousand waters - and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the 'House of Usher .'"

Last paragraph of Edgar Allen Poe's famous story.

"In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions; where a small change at one place in a nonlinear system can result in large differences to a later state. For example, the presence or absence of a butterfly flapping its wings could lead to creation or absence of a hurricane."

from Wikipedia.

People knew or understood the Soviet Union differently. Whatever Americans knew, therefore, was just standard issue feed of the U.S. propaganda machine. If I use an analogy, people who know Iran from the U.S. point of view, or from Jewish controlled media sources, they have an adulterated view of Iran today. The same was true during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and all Communist states.

The Soviet Union fell because it was inefficient in production, and the open global markets were controlled by the Western democracies. When Gorbachev declared the "Perestroika," the opening of Soviet society, it was like opening a Pandora's Box. Russians wanted freedom, but they didn't know the difference between freedom and anarchy. Then the hardliners tried to sustain the old system with a military coup, but the army units fell apart, and the coup collapsed. Boris Yeltsin was well-known, and he grabbed the opportunity, stood on top of the tank, and challenged the coup plotters. When things settled, he eventually prevailed over the marginalized Michael Gorbachev in the following shake up of the elite and military establishment.

The Soviet Union collapsed mainly because the Communist party valued loyalty over production. Party members and supporters loafed at work, and left work early to stand in line for hours to buy the scarce necessities for life. With limiting economic development and production internally (except military production), and with supporting communists revolutionaries - like Cuba, $ 2 million a day, the Soviet Union stayed poor internally. In short, the Soviet Union had become an anachronism that collapsed under its own weight of inefficiency, and of wasting of its resources to promote Communism around the globe. Gorbachev's opening was just just like blowing the wall of a dam. All the backed up dissatisfaction of the Russians drained like a flood and wiped out the regime. The rest is history.

But the history of the Soviet Union opened the eyes of Chinese leaders. That is why China kept strict control of its little social and political opening, and focused on development - not on democracy that might have led to anarchy - like it did on the Soviet Union. That is why China is a success story of a controlled conversion from Communism to controlled semi-Capitalism.

The moral of the Soviet story? Democracy sprung up in Russia too fast, and the Russians didn't know what to do with it! Think of this: If North Korean leader Kim Jong-il tell his people that the country should have a democracy, his regime will collapse within 72 hours! That is what happened in the Soviet Union! Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Thanks for giving me the useful information. I think I need it. Thanks
friv | friv games | friv 4

Mr, Leon

Nice article but some of the things mentioned cannot be credited.

1. Numbers for GDP came from where and does anyone truts their numbers. The whole system was built around lies from top to bottom. Numbers they have on file cannot be a reral source to quote with accuracy.

2. The price of oil and the lack of hard currency to sustain the lies came about, with internal stealing and plundering of the System by Officials. Less money to go around so steal more before it runs out. Supply and demand factor.

3. I watched this thing unfold while I was living in West Germany at the time.

4. The UDSSR was basically a barter system with chits for labour.

5. The chit never was worth the real value being quoted by officials.

6. Inflation was running rampid ( but not acording to their records it showed growth) and the big boys could not control or print enough chits to get it back in control.

7. Corrruption from within was the major catalist ( SEE OUR US GOVT NOW).

8. The old school folks from CIA and such had the wrong numbers and though they were better economicaly than us, some liberals think that now. Our Universities and Schools are full of these type of people now. It wil be the eventual downfall of the US if nort corrected. How long can a government sustain built around lies about the whole system.

9. The Soviets had more than one set of books; those that had real numbers and the open numbers for western consumption. NOTE: our Congress is doing the same thing not telling the American people how bad it is. There are more than one set of books that the US Government uses. The ones not open to the publich is the real book; just as it was in the Soviet Union.

10. The Soviet Union fell due to greed and cronysim, within the party itself and over time it caught up with them. The Party of elitist did not live like the citizens but had their on logistics, support system for Party members and western Diplomats; Does this sound like our esteemed members of Congress, Senat who cannot start to realize the plight of the citizens because they live in a private support system. Once they become elist in which ever Government the unrest starts from within, can be at the top and at the bottom. It is the greed factor when others in the Party see others getting more perks than themselves and this leads to more lying and cheating within the system by those who feel they are worth more. When one is given bonous in what ever fashion to make the system look good it eventually catches up. The whole Soviet System functioned that way and it spread over the years from top to bottom.

11. I lived in West Germany during this time and for ten years afterwards. I met a lot of former Soviet citizens and bascally it was. " If you were a party member you got the Perks, Automobile, Telephone, extra rations, better Medical Care, Vacations, Jobs, Better housing on and on ; it continued and the internal plundering grew. This is what drove the demise of the former Soviet Union; it collasped upon it self because they could no longer sustain the lies and stealing by Government officials throught the system.

12. People in Government who live better than the tax payers will eventually fuel a collapse; it is a matter of how long they, the man in the street belive in the lies and continue to trust.. It can and will run out! That I think is a real lesson for Western Governments if they really look at it from my stated points of view.

John Whitehurst

It was quite obvious to most Austrian Economists that communism or socialism couldn't actually survive in its pure form. It is impossible to predict the date, but Ludwig Von Mises saw it's impending collapse, but few listened to him. Just like today. The only way a socialist system can work is with mass murder in public places every day. It's just like former soviet economist Yuri N. Maltsev, turned Austrian said, as soon as they ran out of bullets, no one would work, and the system collapsed. The Austrian Economists also see the coming collapse of the US system, because of bad Fed and Monetary policy. The dollar and the Euro will collapse at about the same time, but the question is will people listen this time? It sure doesn't seem like it. Visit Mises.org for more info. Please.

Judging from comments so far it look like most of people have very fizzy ideas about this topic. To look at bigger picture I suggest read the book "And Reality be Damned...Undoing America: What media didn't tell you about the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism in Europe". It will give you a different perspective.
http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/AndRealityBeDamned.html

The only reason no one saw the collapse coming was that they were possessed of the same sort of group think that led so many to believe Iraq had WMD's on sketchy information and in the face of a mountain of publicly available evidence to the contrary. Their status and their mindset depended on a strong evil empire, so they were blind to the glaringly obvious signs all was not well behind the Iron Curtain. I predicted in 1987 that the USSR and the Eastern bloc would fall, with most states of that group becoming democratic, or at least making steps in that direction. I even suggested the eventual break-up of the Soviet Union into its constituent republics. Just as in 2003, so-called experts believed what they wanted to believe, period. Reaction to the events in Iran in 2009 and in North Africa and the Middle East show that they still have not learned their lesson.

How about the collapse of the USA which is up to its eye balls in a national debt $14 trillion , and that debt is growing. Russia sits on the world's largest natural gas reserves and the second largest oil reserves. On its door step are two giant customers CHINA and India.. So get real America your time might soon be up.

Hey Dude . Is Glasnost the same or similar to Glastonbury in UK .

Glastonbury is far more exciting dude.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007311/Glastonbury-2011-Fans-getting-older-gran-proves-shes-stick-mud.html

The way Mr. Leon described the Soviet Union, internally, as it came apart . . . why could that not happen to/in the United States?

I Think I'm Smarter Than You

5 pages of nonsense. What a cheap way to sell magazines. That whole lackluster article could have been written in a single sentence.

People revolt because they're unhappy with their government.

Which is something we ALL know. The best part is that he gives all of the credit to every revolution to writers and intellectuals. Talk about patting yourself on the back...

Murray Rothbard called the Soviet Union Bangledash with nuclear missiles. The ruble was a centrally-planned currency. Just like all central planning in the Soviet Union, it was doomed to failure.

The monetary unit provides a system for economic reckoning. This needs to occur so that the market can determine how to allocate resources in a world of scarcity. The market provides a means to determine the division of labor, how much to pay for resources, how many of an item to make, the priority at the various levels of production, time factor, economy of scale, ect.

The ruble was not traded on the open market and was only used as a means of distributing food for the workers living in the workers' paradise.

The Austrian economists like Ludwig Von Mises predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union 50 years before it happened and they not only predicted it, they correctly diagnosed the causes of its eventual demise with a high degree of accuracy.

They predicted the housing collapse back in 1983. Ron Paul said he was not sure what the exact manner of the manifestations of the collapse and how they would present themselves, but that the distortions created by intervention would be disasterous as it relates to housing and finance. Within another 10 years he knew exactly was was going to happen.

So, there were people who saw it coming clear as day, just not the Keynesian thinkers and central-planners controlling the US monetary system.

Murray Rothbard called the Soviet Union Bangledash with nuclear missiles. The ruble was a centrally-planned currency. Just like all central planning in the Soviet Union, it was doomed to failure.

The monetary unit provides a system for economic reckoning. This needs to occur so that the market can determine how to allocate resources in a world of scarcity. The market provides a means to determine the division of labor, how much to pay for resources, how many of an item to make, the priority at the various levels of production, time factor, economy of scale, ect.

The ruble was not traded on the open market and was only used as a means of distributing food for the workers living in the workers' paradise.

The Austrian economists like Ludwig Von Mises predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union 50 years before it happened and they not only predicted it, they correctly diagnosed the causes of its eventual demise with a high degree of accuracy.

They predicted the housing collapse back in 1983. Ron Paul said he was not sure what the exact manner of the manifestations of the collapse and how they would present themselves, but that the distortions created by intervention would be disasterous as it relates to housing and finance. Within another 10 years he knew exactly was was going to happen.

So, there were people who saw it coming clear as day, just not the Keynesian thinkers and central-planners controlling the US monetary system.

Mises called the creation of the Soviet Man with his state ideology a "revolt against reason" that could only be enforced through violence. The system had no legitimacy and its inherent contradictions finally led to its demise.

Strange that the very early prediction of the collapse of the Soviet regime by historian Emmanuel Todd is not mentioned by Mr. Aron. In any case, he and other readers might be interested in this blog post which explains (in verse form, so its even more fun to read!) Todd's revolutionary new theory: http://www.ibtimes.com/blog/focus-on-religion/revolutionary-new-theory-communism-amongst-other-things_43.htm .

I thought it was generally agreed that the fax machine brought about the collapse. Faxes cannot be easily intercepted by security services.
That is why they are accepted as legal documents.
The KGB lost the power to control the flow of information.
Game over.

Excellent article. It puts into balance the forces that caused the disillusionment within soviet society. And it wasn't just the man on the street who was disillusioned, it was party members also.

Corruption was pervasive. We're not talking the oligargic corruption we see today, we are talking about getting a car repaired or obtaining tires. They just weren't available. The only to get them was through bribery of someone who would steal them and do the work. It became so bad that even party officials had to do it to survive. The soviet system just wasn't capable of handling the small, but necessary details of supply and demand.

There another reason for the breakdown. By the late 1980s the Soviet Union was becoming less and less a closed society. Increased travel by Soviet citizens to the west and vice versa brought an awareness that western nations were living a better life. It wasn't just material goods, it was the open political and information discourse that existed in the west that whetted their appetite for change.

There were people in the trenches who felt the shift, although they might not have predicted the speed. Sadly, in the final stages of Intelligence preparation, political appointees warp intelligence. There are things that Presidents don't want to hear, because of their political bias. Then you have to look for the money, and it's there by the billions in the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech. They needed the "Main Enemy" to keep the billions flowing.

The article asks:

"How, that is, between 1985 and 1989, in the absence of sharply worsening economic, political, demographic, and other structural conditions, did the state and its economic system suddenly begin to be seen as shameful, illegitimate, and intolerable by enough men and women to become doomed? "

I note the commenter above me as I write this mentioned the introduction of the fax machine. Pay attention to him. He knows what he's talking about. The 3 critical forces that answer the author's question are:

1. The introduction of the fax machine.

2. The introduction of satellite television.

3. The babushka network carrying the word that the government was lying about Afghanistan casualties, and that there were a lot more mothers receiving their sons in coffins than government figures would indicate.

For the better part of two centuries, the Russian/Soviet people have lived in fear of European invasion. The attacks by Napolean, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Hitler caused death and destruction in Russia on a scale most Americans cannot comprehend. Just remember how quickly Americans were willing to give up their freedoms after a single terrorist attack that caused the death of a few thousand. Now try to imagine the fear a society has at the death of millions. It is understandable that while Russians may not have liked their government, they did understand that only an iron rule allowed them to control Eastern Europe and thus provide a buffer against future attacks.

By the 1980's, it was obvious that Europe had thrown off for good the military dictator model of government that so threatened the very existence of the Russian people in the past. At the same time, by the 80's a large number of Russians now lived who had been born after the last invasion in 1945 and had no memory of it. This reduction in fear is a crucial factor in the willingness of the Russian people in loosening control over Eastern Europe and taking back some of their freedoms that had been surrendered to the government.

A similar process will take place in the United States in about 30 years. By then there will be a large number of Americans born after 9/11/01 who will demand back the freedoms that were surrendered to the government because of the terrorist threat.

It has always been my impression that the economic argument was U.S. propaganda, but the reality was that Gorbachev simply chose the wrong vector to open up. He opened free speech while maintaining economic control. It was a mistake, and should have been foreseen as a mistake, as standard political practice since the height of Rome has held. China did it "right" -- open up economic freedoms in a controlled way while maintaining complete control over the political discourse.

Anyway... not surprising.

At least two Western experts on communism foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They called it the "withering away" of the state. Stalin killed off the capitalist class; the bureaucracy took over under Kruschev and lasted until Gorbachev. Once the "state" had no class left to suppress it collapsed.

After the collapse, western capital, led by the Chicago boys, rushed into the vacuum and tried to buy up Russia. That attempt ended in bankruptcy under the drunkard Yeltsin. Putin has installed a kind of mixed economy partly state owned, partly private.

...that I was going to be challenged with a new theory, but nope, pretty much what I already knew, what most intelligent and informed people already know. Who but a few right-wing dimwits still thinks the cause was Reagan, or the Pope, or the failure of socialist economics?

I almost agree with reporter. But if we take a look former communist countries now, the situation in that countries are worse than Soviet time. There is big corruption, suppression, and economic disadvantages. Most of these countries exportation is only natural resources and they estimates that they are faster developing countries. So, even now we can observe that 70-80% of people of those countries prefer USSR than current government. They say, "during USSR period at least there were somebody listen us and help to solve problems". But now Government does not solve their problems instead day by day create new problems under "democracy" slogan. Probably, after Arab uprising soon we will have a chance to observe CIS revolutions like we observed in Ukraine, Georgia and Kirghistan......

Great discussion, i just read all the comments and will bookmark the site !
Damir Yoga

Aron's analysis states that the Gorbachov changes just somehow began only with himself and those around him. And that it was centered on a new-found *morality;* an understanding that the system was corrupt and *we cannot live like this anymore.* As though the Russian leadership, or people were realizing a new honesty & ethics.

But maybe not. Corruption still reigns supreme, but it was the previous Soviet leadership under Andropov, that saw the regime could not economically support itself, because of corruption and sloth. So things did not begin with Gorby, he was promoted by those who tried to make a reformed Communism, not to free Russia & the satellites from Communism. Andropov was a Dictator without morality, who master-minded the invasion of Czechoslovakia. All that crap about seeking an honest morality is laughable BS, they were trying to keep power for themselves and their Communist Empire.

But it's a moment of extreme danger to reform a Dictator-ship, and they tripped up. The process reacted with real life, got out-of-hand and became a real, elemental change.

A problem in discussing the breakdown of the USSR, is that every expert has their sole area of specialization & touts that only. Mr. Aron has his pet reasons, an economic historian would say he has left out all the financials.

Helene Carrere-D'Encausse believes the break-down of the USSR was due to the refusal of the subject nations to put up with their inclusion in the Empire any longer.

And so on, until one has twelve fundamental reasons why the USSR could go on no longer.

None of it brings anyone any closer to an ultimate answer, it seems.

history is the greatest teacher and so the Soviet Union's fall is very relevant to the state of affairs going on in many countries aroudn the world.

This is how most collapses happen. Everything seems ok, slowly problems creep up but politicians and news casts don't say much about them, and then 1 day all is not well and collapse happens.

There's slow economic death happening in many countries. Western countries are declining at alarming rates and the peoples seem to be too busy watching a movie download, talking or texting, or watching the nightly news to care too much. Or even take notice. It's wake up time people.

The demise of the Soviet Union cannot be understood without giving proper credit (and thanks) to Gorbachev. If a leader of the ilk and attitude of Brezhnev had been in power throughout the 80's and 90's, the demise of the USSR would not have come as rapidly, nor as peaceably. Gorbachev struggled to change a sclerotic system peopled by corrupt government officials who had much to lose in a pending era of glasnost and perestroika. If the U.S. government under President H. W. Bush had been less triumphal and more supportive when Gorbachev was still in power and trying to reform the Soviet Union, there would have been less likelihood of the development of the kleptocracy in Russia and the concomitant people's misery that we saw under the rule of Yeltsin, Gorbachev's successor.

We didn't see the end of the Soviet Union coming, and we had no idea how to deal with it as it unfolded. President Reagan was tremendously fortunate to have a Gorbachev to contend with instead of a Brezhnev; it's frightening to consider what catastrophe might have befallen the whole world if two hardliners had been in power during the contentious 1980's when both superpowers were nuclear armed to the teeth.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW LUCKY YOU ARE!

BACK IN THE US
BACK IN THE US
BACK IN THE USSR!

Russian people really are the toughest people in the world for living like that as long as they did.

This is a very useful topic to know about the collapse of USSR and discussions going after the article is very interesting to read,

Alternative Energy

I'd say Gorbachev himself knew the end of the USSR was nigh. If the Soviet Union had been in any other hands it could have ended very badly...for all of us. He saw the writing on the wall and took steps early on to make sure it ended with a whisper and not a big nuclear bang karmaloop code. Reagan gets all the credit but it was Gorby who turned out to be the real hero.

Everything that Ronald Reagan single-handedly dismantling the USSR was BOGUS? I am SHOCKED! He did say, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and it happened, just like that. You say this was coincidence?

You mean there was more to the story? Say it ain't so...

I have a contrarian view regarding the Cold War; specifically, that we didn't actually 'win' the Cold War—the Soviet Union was just the nation that lost first. Today, we're well on our way to becoming the second casualty of the Cold War.

We are in the process of losing our own institutions and values. Our own political and economic system seems to be collapsing from the same centrifugal forces that forced the USSR to her knees; economic mismanagement; political corruption; military profligacy; a deterioration of faith in our civil institutions; disorientation and disagreement about our values karmaloop code. Whether our collapse is partial or total, or whether it happens in ten years or a hundred, the end result will be similar.

Nominally, the Cold War was fought between two sovereign states, and their associated proxies; but functionally, the battle was and has always been against ourselves—an existential struggle to retain / preserve / rediscover the identity of our nation as it was laid down by our founders.

If the U.S. government under President H. W. Bush had been less triumphal and more supportive when Gorbachev was still in power and trying to reform the Soviet Union, there would have been less likelihood of the development of the kleptocracy in Russia and the concomitant people's misery that we saw under the rule of Yeltsin, Gorbachev's successor. Seo

But U.S. policies have now driven local nationalism, xenophobia and Islamism to combined fever pitch. As Washington demands that Pakistan redeem failed American policies in Afghanistan, Islamabad can no longer manage its domestic crisis.Seo Paslaugos

If the article is intended to say that the Soviet Union failed because it's last dictator was a humanitarian and an idealist who did not choose to continue to rule through brutal repression, I agree. Gorbachev has not been given the acclaim as a liberator that he deserves. I have always thought so.

I remeber the BBC doing a program on "where's Russia?" Which was pritty amazing in the sense that most russians still use the dollar and it is slowly moving away from it. The power of oil and gas has made all the difference to them. I know that in the resession that they really adapted and that the mistrust still rolls down the line of each generation but they are apting. I even saw some of them blogging on english blogs. They found jobs online from link text which was an advantage because it was in the US dollar so they actually made more than their counterparts.

I remeber the BBC doing a program on "where's Russia?" Which was pritty amazing in the sense that most russians still use the dollar and it is slowly moving away from it. The power of oil and gas has made all the difference to them. I know that in the resession that they really adapted and that the mistrust still rolls down the line of each generation but they are apting. I even saw some of them blogging on english blogs. They found jobs online from myblogjob which was an advantage because it was in the US dollar so they actually made more than their counterparts.

Stirring words from the American Enterprise Institute. I am sure that in your excitement you forgot about the inevitable revolution in Palestine. The palestinians are another example of an oppressed people who have reason to say "enough!" They will sweep away their Israeli oppressors and wash away the moral corruption that is each day injected into their community by the Israelis. You see, moral revolution is for all people. Even for those who oppose the backers of the American Enterprise Institute.

I'd say Gorbachev himself knew the end of the USSR was nigh. If the Soviet Union had been in any other hands it could have ended very badly...for all of us.eBooks Resell Rights He saw the writing on the wall and took steps early on to make sure it ended with a whisper and not a big nuclear bang. Reagan gets all the credit but it was Gorby who turned out to be the real hero.

I was around 10 years old at that time and I can vaguely remember the changing times in Europe. It wasn't only Russia, there was also Czechoslovakia which broke apart peacefully and Yugoslavia, which ended in a bloody war. And what happened in Yugoslavia could just as easily happen also in the Soviet Union - but on a much larger scale. Instead of a bloodbath in the Balkans there could've been a war in Europe as well as Asia.
Gorbachev deserves a lot of respect for envisioning what will happen after the Berlin wall fell down (a major invitation maker for changes) and leading its country (and the world) to a peaceful solution.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was as predictable as any event in history. This is possible only when we are aware of the historic link between modern nations and their historic counterpart. Every modern nation has their historic fore-bearers which in Russia's case is Scythia. A study of Scythia history and it's connection to modern Russia would indicate Russia's triumph over Napoleon and Nazi Germany as well as it's abrupt transformation in the present era. This transformation occurred when the ruling Scythian dynasty were replaced in the third century BC by Sarmatians. Those of us who are unaware of the connection between the past and the future may have been surprised by Russia's transformation but it was in your history book all these years. TOMORROW'S HEADLINES ARE IN YOUR HISTORY BOOK. America's future tragedy and triumph are all there to be seen and understood by all who care to look.

I am about to go on a trip to Russia and I read the article and the reviews. It is always interesting to me to learn what people think and how they arrive to their conclusions. I have to agree with one of the comments above, when he says. “The last place to search for that understanding is the American Enterprise Institute”. Really, what do we know what was really happening over there?

Maybe it was the death of John Lennon, like another person suggested, and not the economics issues that the article suggests. It was really interesting to read, and I am looking forward to see what Russia looks like soon. What they think about their health system, about their government, I want to see what the people are up to, how they look at you and what do they say about the collapsed of the USSR.

Two years ago I found myself in an older part of Prague, and what most captured my attention was the intent look that everyone had, several people, especially older ones that we talked to were sad about the separation of Checkoslovakia, I wonder if we will find the same in Russia. Why do they think the USSR collapsed, maybe I come back and report back to you.

You can tell by the mode of argument that Aron is an essayist, not a historian or scientist. He forms a thesis, writes a few paragraphs to dismiss alternatives, and then rambles down a track cobbled with the bits of evidence that support the thesis, ignoring all others.

Not that he doesn't make some good points or cite some astute comments and observations. But many others have offered other astute observations pointing to other tensions and fault zones that contributed to the dissolution of the USSR.

If the goal was understanding, not marketing, the title would tell us not that everything we think we know was WRONG, but incomplete.

Leon Aron is right: the Soviet Union collapsed because of its growing moral fervor—a desire for peace and democracy. But he is wrong about the timing and the origin. The essays that he cites are all from the late 1980s, whereas the morally inspired reforms began with Gorbachev in 1985 and had their origins in previous contacts between some Soviet party members and foreign liberals. The morally reformist essays were all published after glasnost began, when the crucial reforms were already underway, so he should have looked for the real origins several years earlier.

Before Gorbachev’s began there were, to be sure, a few hundred dissidents—whom I call “Barking Dogs” in my new book, The Russian Quest for Peace and Democracy (Lexington, 2010). These people tried to overcome public torpor by making a lot of noise; because they had no power, they could not “bite.”

There were also about a million quietly critical members of the CPSU, whom I call “Termites,” because they were silently burrowing within the rotten system, preparing for its collapse. The sources of their moral ideals (which would become “new political thinking”) were mainly foreign, for most Termites had worked or traveled abroad and they were actively seeking the ideas of democratic peace researchers and political theorists, beginning with Eurocommunists even in Brezhnev’s day.

Prague was an especially important place. Many Party members picked up their Termite views while working there at the journal Problems of Peace and Socialism (World Marxist Review). Gorbachev, the consummate Termite, never lived in Prague, but he had a Czech roommate in college, Zdenek Mlynar, who would become a leader in the Prague Spring. Later Gorbachev would try to create a “Moscow Spring” along similar reformist lines. Unfortunately, this plan would fail because, unlike the Czechs, the Russians did not become enthusiastic supporters. Gorbachev would always be regarded as the new Czar, not as a populist leader such as a Gandhi, a Lech Walesa, or a Martin Luther King. He couldn’t “switch support on from below,” as he wanted to do.

Although the Termites and the Barking Dogs shared the same political ideals and should have been allies, they actually despised each other because of disagreeing about how to change society: from above or below? The Barking Dogs believed that only a grassroots rebellion could bring peace and democracy, whereas the Termites considered that impossible and were waiting for a top leader to initiate reforms. Gorbachev became their man.

The main source of his innovations, such as the foreign and security policies called “New Political Thinking,” came from foreign peace researchers and such political theorists as Joseph Nye and Egon Bahr. It was a rare privilege for any Soviet person to have regular contact with foreigners, for the regime knew that they would bring ideas home with them. The Termites were almost all people who had traveled or worked abroad, or who participated in transnational civil society organizations such as Pugwash, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Dartmouth Conferences, or even the dialogues in Moscow to which Westerners such as myself were invited. In such meetings before Gorbachev came to power, I was astonished that high level Soviet officials—unlike our own Western politicians—listened carefully to us peace activists. Though they would give predictable, canned responses to our interventions while at the table, during coffee breaks they would approach us with obvious enthusiasm and urge us to keep talking about human rights and freedom, for that is exactly what needed to be said! Once when I neglected to bring the topic up, the secretary of the Party’s official peace movement mildly scolded me for omitting my criticisms. These were the pre-Gorbachev Termites. An estimated one million of the 20 million CPSU members belonged to that category, who became Gorbachev’s political base and whom he appointed to major posts.

The most important point that my book proves is that transnational civil society was the main source of Gorbachev’s reforms. I devote several chapters to showing how Soviet scientists—including weapons designers!—worked with Western scientists in developing technical means of verifying disarmament; how Pugwash can claim credit for the ABM Treaty; how Westerners such as Bernard Lown influenced the Soviets to take unilateral initiatives such as a moratorium on nuclear testing—the list goes on. The Western influences were overwhelming—all transferred to Gorbachev by Termites such as Georgi Arbatov, Yevgeny Velikhov, and Georgy Shakhnazarov.

Although the Barking Dogs and Termites shared the same goals they continued to oppose each other until about 1990. The Barking Dogs especially hated Gorbachev, and the remaining dissidents continue to do so to this day. At first this hardly mattered because they had no power anyway, but I think the rivalry between them and the Termites was actually the main cause of Gorbachev’s downfall.

As he permitted glasnost and began democratizing legislative bodies, dissidents became popular and it became safe for people to become Barking Dogs. Hence that group gained in numbers and influence, now calling themselves “radical democrats” and calling their grassroots populist movement “Democratic Russia.” Led by Sakharov and Yeltsin, they demanded faster change than Gorbachev intended, for he understood that they were outnumbered by unrepentant, reactionary Communist functionaries. The hardline Communists would be out of work if he did what these new “radical democrats” demanded: remove the article from the constitution guaranteeing that the Party would determine the country’s policies. Actually, Gorbachev had a longer-term plan than the “radical democrats.” He proposed a “New Union Treaty,” which would make the Party into only one of several different political parties and would leave the old bureaucrats without any special power. But until that constitutional reform was in place, he had to placate the right wing of the Party.

Still, by placating them, he was losing the support of the Termites, who, like the radical democrats, were disappointed with the pace of change. Besides, Gorbachev was confronted with new nationalistic movements and the necessity of making irreversible economic reforms in a mounting crisis.

Thus, in a series of changes that have been termed his “turn to the right,” Gorbachev replaced several Termite officials with the most reactionary members of the Party, while assuring his old team that this was a short-term tactic, not a change in his basic plan. They did not accept his explanation. In late 1990 and early 1991 the Termites (and indeed the whole Soviet intelligentsia) deserted him in droves, going over to join the radical democrats. Still, the New Union Treaty was almost ready to be adopted, and at that point he would be in a position to win them back.

The rightists, however, seeing their own primacy about to vanish, staged a coup in August 1991—which was successfully blocked by Yeltsin and the other “radical democrats.” Yet, within three months Yeltsin made his own coup from the left by leading Russia and two other republics out of the Soviet Union. Triumphant, he moved into Gorbachev’s old office in the Kremlin.

Gorbachev had tried to accomplish exactly what both the Termites and the Barking Dogs wanted. Had they recognized and trusted each other and him, today Moscow would still be the capital of the Soviet Union—which would be one of the most peace-loving democracies in the world.

Aron should have looked deeper for the sources of the moral fervor that ended in the Soviet collapse.

The end of the USSR was happening simultaneously with other historical important events in Europe. Mostly other "divorces" of state units. For the people in former Yugoslavia it meant the end of their social and multicultural federative republic. Unfortunately it happened through a bloody war. My boyfriend is from one of the former republics, so I have a detailed imagination about this war, which happened not so long ago in the heart of europe.

Czechoslovakia ended in a much more peaceful manner. The Germans on the other side had a change in their favor. Although I have been a child at this time, my father who worked for the east germany (DDR), as a soldier and now as a ghostwriter has told me what this changes meant for the people in Germany. Whole families came together again, brothers, fathers, mothers who have not seen each other for an eternity were united again. For me it is somehow surreal, but when I see the videos of the berlin wall falling and beeing crashed by people on both sides, it makes me proud and happy.

Sometimes I think about how wonderful it would be, if we all could simply crash down those invisible walls between the people on this world. I am sure, one day we will.

You really think they forgot all about Afghanistan??? Maybe they figured the best way to make us go crazy is to let us think we won...now we have rushed so far out on our superman limb with our red, white, and blue cape and infallibility cloak that we may not be able get back without it breaking... lets see we will never forgert 9/11 or is it Vietnam... so what is it they will never forget?? Then Obama says other countries should not be a slave of history.. we can hope anyway(to Chile??) arrogance knows no limits...

IMO good, clean leaders are the key reasons why states eventually fail or survive. Even in what some see as an authoritarian government such as Singapore, it has continued to grown and thrive (just look at the Singapore property market) despite the more rigid political system. Of course, in the age of social media and the Internet, political liberalization has begun even there. That is a trend that the whole world cannot escape.

The article says that the initial reason for glasnost was the pervasive corruption in the Soviet Union.

One of the first things Gorbachev did after he came to power was to conduct a purge of the Communist Party. It wasn't a Stalinist blood-purge, but party members suspected of corruption were expelled from the party, and hence from high positions in the state and economy.

Brezhnev conducted no purges in his decades in office. Party member who formed corrupt cliques were not punished and became wealthy.

Gorbachev's purge didn't really work. He encountered significant resistance from the Party, and the corruption didn't end. Glasnost may have been the second step of his effort to eliminate corruption: if the Party resists, get rid of the Party.

The USSR seemed unstoppable until Ronald Reagan stepped into office. He wasn't scared to take on the Soviet Union and voice his opinion out in public for everyone in the planet to hear. This was the first President to do so and paved ways for other National leaders to hear his call. I kind of wonder what would have happened to the USSR if Reagen was never elected President. Reagen had plans for the Soviet Union and he quickly put those into work once his shed plans after elected went into affect. Also, I've always wondered how much of the economic troubles in the Soviet Union were actually true or just propaganda created by the US to stir sentiment against communism.

The collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980's was a great blow to the hopes of revolutionaries. Why did it collapse? The primary causes were political and economic and they were the result of the culture of war.

Economic factors were linked to political and psychological factors. As the Soviet economist Latsis said at the time, "the gloomy background of the worsening market situation... has a depressing effect on people." Their gloom deepened as a result of policy failures such as the explosion of the Chernobyl atomic power plant and the war in Afghanistan (see US military analysis of Afghan war).

Another factor was the lack of honest information, the secrecy and propaganda that is central to the culture of war. As contradictions mounted the Soviet people became more and more cynical about the propaganda of government-controlled media. It was common to hear the Russian people say that you could find truth anywhere except in Pravda and the news anywhere except in Izvestia. This was exacerbated by the propaganda warfare carried out by the West in Radio Free Europe and by dissidents in self-published Samizdat.

All of these factors accumulated on top of a profound alienation of the Soviet people that had grown up not in recliner chairs over the years as the country remained in the grips of the culture of war. In the Stalin years, not only was the economy devoted to the arms race, but information was controlled in the form of propaganda and dissidents were sent to labor camps. People did not feel free to discuss this, and most people did not participate in governance. Although women were more equal in the work force than in the West, at the top the Communist Party was all men. Photos of the ruling Politburo showed old men covered with war medals like so many old military generals.

Labor camps were largely disbanded by the time of the Brezhnev years, but the alienation remained. And by the time of Gorbachev, it was too late. The economic collapse and the loss of the war in Afghanistan came on top of generations of alienation. Few seemed to care when the government collapsed.

What has been learned? Perhaps the best analysis is that of Joe Slovo, writing from the standpoint of the South African Communist Party which played a leading role in the revolutionary victory over apartheid. In his famous 1989 article, Slovo argues that socialism itself has not failed, but that it must develop a real democracy, including for "all citizens the basic rights and freedoms of organisation, speech, thought, press, movement, residence, conscience and religion; full trade union rights for all workers including the right to strike, and one person one vote in free and democratic elections." To this list one needs to add the free flow of honest information. These are all basic principles of a culture of peace and are incompatible with a culture of war.

The first revolts I guess by the Kazakhs started that domino effect causing massive revolts in the Caucases, the Baltics region, Ukraine. Demanding greater autonomy didnt help either. facebook homepage

"In the years leading up to 1991, virtually no Western expert, scholar, official, or politician foresaw the impending collapse of the Soviet Union"

"The West won't contain communism, it will transcend communism. It won't bother to dismiss or denounce it, it will dismiss it as some bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."

- Ronald Reagan 1981

"In January 1977, four years before he was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan told a visitor that he had been thinking about the Cold War and he had a solution: "We win and they lose."

- Lee Edwards

"The Soviet economy is heading toward calamity ... something fairly drastic has got to give, and fairly soon. It's a matter of simple arithmetic."

"It's hard to imagine how the world's last empire can survive into the 21st Century except under highly favorable conditions of of economics and demographics -- conditions that do not and will not exist."

"“If present trends continue, we’re going to win the Cold War”

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000028820/DOC_0000028820.pdf

- Herbert Meyer, Vice Chairman, National Intelligence Council, memo to the Director of the CIA, 30 November, 1983

“Herb, right now you’ve got the smallest fan club in Washington. Relax. It’s me and the president.”

- Bill Casey to Herbert Meyer, addressing reaction to the above linked memo.

The main problem with Aron's article is that it repeats the main mistake of American Sovietologists. Namely, ignoring the Soviet nationality question. There is not one mention of the nationalities problem under Gorbachev in Aron;s article. It was the alts, Georgians and Ukrainians who speeded up the USSR's collapse. The August 1991 putsch by hardliners aimed to forestall the transformation of the USSR into a confederation (i.e. the nationalities question).
Aron possibly ignores this question because Russia comes out poorly. the Russian SFSR was the only Soviet republic of 15 to NOT declare independence from the USSR. Russia's annual "independence day" is therefore celebrated in June in commemoration of the June 1990 declaration of SOVEREIGNTY. Each Soviet republic declared sovereignty in 1990 but then 14 went on to also declare independence.
A second reason is that the Russian opposition under Yeltsin was not national. There was no national popular front created in the Russian SFSR and the democratic movement was confined t Moscow and Leningrad.

USSR could exist today. We had to make a few simple things:
- Change militaristic economy to make more consumer goods.
- Stop sponsoring communist regimes around the world.
- Destroy minimal signs of social inequality - privilege to the top of the Communist Party. Renounce all political parties in general.
- The most important thing - announce a new goal: we build real socialism, equitable welfare state. We no longer build a utopian communism. We do not encourage and kindle the world revolution. We do not want to undermine the political system in other states (in the U.S. for example).
- And the last thing we had to wait for the mass appearance of personal computers and the Internet. They would realize the benefits of a planned economy to 100%. It is not as bad as people think.

Sorry for my poor English.

Bewildering bewilderment

Leon Aron is quite right that the traditionally listed factors in the mysterious – to him and to many others – collapse of the Soviet Union were not so grave as to bring about this historic result. Yes, the giant could have withstood the colossal economic, social, political pressures, both internal and external, for several decades – after all, it did not go down in a world-shattering explosion, as a true revolution would have been expected in order to deserve that proud title. The moles that had been persistently gnawing at the System were legions: dissidents, ideological heretics, non-conformist writers and scientists, shirkers and thieves at work, etc. Amazingly, however, Sovietological gurus have, to the best of my knowledge, never turned their attention to the real instigator and motive force of Perestroika – the managerial cohort of the country. It was they who started practical preparations for it in the mid-1970s, had laid the groundwork by the mid-1980s and so smoothly accomplished it in the early 1990s.
The reasons for this gross oversight is probably the Sovietologist inclination to adopt the Bolshevik system’s self-characterization as monolithic – hence no part of it can possibly even think of harming the System, let alone discarding it! A brief look at the evolution of the Bolshevik managerial cohort is enough to conclude that Perestroika must have been the inevitable outcome. The new ruling class (known as ‘nomenclatura’ in Bolshevik parlance) came into being in the 1920s under Stalin’s auspices, and they were his loyal henchmen in every sense. But 1937 brought a very significant change in their position, as they belatedly realized their utter unprotectedness from his unbridled repressions. Therefore gaining protection for themselves became their first demand after the tyrant’s death, and they achieved this, led by Khrushchev. But the new leader tried to impose his authority on them by frequent replacements and reforms. That is why the sacked him in 1964 and endorsed Brezhnev, who gave them job stability for two decades and in fact restored the ancient feudal principle of ‘your vassal’s vassal is not your vassal’. The 1970s put a new idea on their agenda – having ensured their lives and livelihoods, they now started thinking about their proprietary situation, and found themselves at a serious disadvantage before their humbler compatriots, because the latter, although generally destitute, lived in modest apartments of their own and slept in their own beds, whereas the ‘nomenclatura’ enjoyed much richer lives in accommodation that was provided to them by the state – as long as they held the requisite job. As the managerial cohort started travelling to the West, they could compare their conditions with those enjoyed by their Western counterparts, and naturally wanted the same, including ownership of enterprises.
Since that demand could obviously not be met without abolishing the Bolshevik state’s monopoly on the entire economy, the ‘nomenclatura’ simply abolished the USSR as the nominal monopolistic proprietor, disbanded their political organization, and its former members participated individually in the privatization rush. The rest is history, and there is nothing so very special in this ‘mysterious’ Russian Perestroika.
A somewhat deeper analysis can be found at

There was additional factor (and the main) that destroy the Soviet Union – nations will for independence. In Soviet Union was 15 nations divided in ‘’republics’’.
Baltic States was occupied by soviets only 1940 . And then was re-occupied by Germany in 1941 and soviets again in 1945. Culturally this nations belong to Europe. And in 80ths in Baltic started very big movement for freedom. I suppose that this movement in Baltic destroy the Soviet Union. The other nations follow and it was the end ...

Two important arms of the Soviet Union, Politburo and KGB were solely concentrating on the Cold War and in effect USA. Ronald Regan talked of Star Wars and such and Russians were infiltrating the CIA by the minute. This game took prominence over the real issues: Discontent among several pieces of land called the Soviet Union. They were waiting to tear away and in the end split into 15 countries.

Communism was formulated for the people. Everyone is equal is its mantra.
Bottom line: The comrades in high places flew into a fly zapper called one-upmanship with the US and overlooked the trouble inside their house. And their house was divIded. Period.