Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev

As far as I know the Krustev Thaw as very genuine in increased freedom of keeping in mind that almost all of the political prisoners, while Kruschev was not entirely successful with the economy (the virgin lands campaign) it still grew nevertheless.

What really ruined the Soviet Union was Brehnev

Brehnev reinisuited most of the Stalinist policies after leading a coup against the revisionists in 1964 as a reaction mainly aganist the cuban missile crisis.

Gorbechev was in my opinion the best hope for the U.S.S.R and was the closest thing to true socialism that the Soviet Union ever had, though the problems multiplied very quickly the USSR was still not doomed in 1991  the gang of eight was the final coffin .


 

Anton wrote: http://pics.livejournal.com/ksonin/pic/000266sp/

yep that proves my point the soviets barely progressed at all between 1965 and 1985.

As a broader point, making salary depend on performance doesn't motivate people to do their best. There's plenty of evidence around (Tom Lupton's work on 'Systematic Soldiering') for instance that workers (at least in economically advanced countries) set themselves 'satisficing' income targets and produce to meet them. That you could earn more by producing more doesn't affect you very much if you think you're earning enough already.

So what do you think makes people work more? And an off-topic question -- I have realized that both world wars had any strong effect neither on Russia/USSR nor UK or USA. Wouldn't one expect war to decrease GDP per capita in Russia and UK and increase it in USA?


Edited by Anton - 10 Apr 2012 at 20:58

gcle2003 wrote: There's no brief answer, but try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Herzberg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_experiments as starting points.

I've been lost for two hours.

As a matter of interest is there any organisation like the OAU or OAS for central Asia?

Darius of Parsa wrote: In truth it is not the men in the government that led the union to dissipate, but a matter of economics and financial problems Moscow had to face while dealing with the Americans. Resources had to be pooled to Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia in order to deal with the strains of being surrounded by pro-American states. The Union itself is not a out of this world idea at all. All the members of the Union are poor, generally landlocked, agricultural societies. In order to play any role on a larger scale those countries must work together, from which they still do.

Apart from Turkey, USSR was not surrounded by pro-american states at all. Do not confuse USSR and modern Russia.  Economical problems mainly arisen from 1) the fact that Soviet economical system could not work for generations 2) dependence of USSR on oil prices 3) Arms race and 4) long war in Afghanistan. And there was another problem, which many westerners seem to not realize -- USSR gave lots of economical benefits to the satellite states for the sake of political loyalty. I think it was also quite costly. Say,  in Afghanistan USSR built hundreds of objects including power stations, oil refineries, air port and so on. Here is the list if you read Russian:
http://bloggreenwood.com/comments/A14677_0_1_0_C/

Paradigm of Humanity wrote: Yes it was. Turkey was holding straits. Denmark was holding access to North Sea from Baltic Sea. Japan and Taiwan were doing also very similar. USSR effectively surrounded and if not completely at least practically landlocked.

USSR bordered with Warsaw pact countries on the west and Iran, Afghanistan, China, Mongolia on the south. Northern and Pacific fleets were obviously free to go anywhere and I do not understand how could Baltic and Black Sea fleets be locked if they both performed operations in Mediterranean and North Seas.


Edited by Anton - 11 Apr 2012 at 22:35

Anton wrote: Darius of Parsa wrote: In truth it is not the men in the government that led the union to dissipate, but a matter of economics and financial problems Moscow had to face while dealing with the Americans. Resources had to be pooled to Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia in order to deal with the strains of being surrounded by pro-American states. The Union itself is not a out of this world idea at all. All the members of the Union are poor, generally landlocked, agricultural societies. In order to play any role on a larger scale those countries must work together, from which they still do. Apart from Turkey, USSR was not surrounded by pro-american states at all. Do not confuse USSR and modern Russia.  Economical problems mainly arisen from 1) the fact that Soviet economical system could not work for generations 2) dependence of USSR on oil prices 3) Arms race and 4) long war in Afghanistan. And there was another problem, which many westerners seem to not realize -- USSR gave lots of economical benefits to the satellite states for the sake of political loyalty. I think it was also quite costly. Say,  in Afghanistan USSR built hundreds of objects including power stations, oil refineries, air port and so on. Here is the list if you read Russian: http://bloggreenwood.com/comments/A14677_0_1_0_C/

Let us get some things straight here. Russia has always been a poor country, yet it has for the most part, always been a player, at least on a regional level. Russia is a prime example of how a country can be poor, yet be powerful.

It has always had economic problems due to its geography and size. Transportation and the movement of goods has always been an issue. Russia's rivers do not provide adequate highways to move goods to city centres, and run opposite of what would be beneficial.

And as I said before in my post I agreed, a large amount of resources were pooled to other regions. However this is not new, the Russian Empire did the exact same thing, leading to economic failures. This is why Russia today has a different approach, be influential economically and politically, but do not preside directly over other states. However a reformation of some sort of Union is in the works currently.

The Union was surrounded by pro-American states on all sides.

- Norway and Finland certainly have hostile relations with Russia and did not want a recreation of the Russo-Finnish war.

- Denmark had close relations with the United States, Britain, and West Germany economically, much more so than Eastern European economies. Denmark also is a maritime nation, and any maritime nation with brains chose the side with the largest navy, ie the United States. Denmark therefore blocked Russian access to the Atlantic.

- West Germany, not much to say here, a country created by the United States to cage in Eastern Europe

- Yugoslavia may have not been pro-American, but it was definitely hostile to the Soviet Union, and that was enough for the Americans.

- Turkey has always been hostile to Russia, a natural and longterm enemy of Russia proved to be a useful ally of the United States, blocking Russian naval access to the Mediterranean, and keeping the Caucasus sealed to block any incursion southwards. It also assisted in diminishing Russian influence in the Middle East such as in Syria.  

- Iran was hostile to the Union and assisted the Americans on many counts, helping seal the Caucasus, blocking any advance to reach the water front of the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean.

- China was certainly pro-American after the Sino-Soviet was in full swing by the beginning of the 1970s.

- Japan blocked, and still blocks, and Russian Pacific Fleet from venturing out of the Sea of Okhotsk.

Mountains, and other barriers blocked any effort to expand outwards, such as the Himalayas between Iran and China.



Edited by Darius of Parsa - 12 Apr 2012 at 00:27

I feel Gorbechev was the reason for the fall of communism in Soviet he undid what was done by other communist leader like Lenin, Stalin and others.  His peristrokia and glasnost caused for the tilting of balance of power in favour of United States.

Darius of Parsa wrote: Yet if you want to see some real spending you can just look at what projects the Americans preformed in West Germany, South Korea, and Japan. Each country if left alone, would have been a backwater.

Sure, I wouldn't deny that. But the list I was referring to is only one example. Do not forget how much money and resources USSR spent in Eastern Europe.

For instance, Montreux convention allowed Soviet military fleet to cross the straits without asking permission from Turkey in peacetime. Similarly, there are Danish and Swedish laws allowing military ships to cross the straits in peacetime without asking Danish and Swedish permission.


Edited by Anton - 13 Apr 2012 at 01:56

GDP

This is an abbreviation for Gross Domestic Product, which is the total value of all goods, services, agricultural produce and minerals extracted in a country or area, usually in one year. Often the GDP divided by the population is used as a measure of relative prosperity.

Edited by Buckskins - 13 Apr 2012 at 15:58

Paradigm of Humanity wrote: We are speaking from strategic point of view. What you are saying is completely different. Only thing had strategic value from Soviet navy were SSBNs.

@Buckskins- It is ironic that you mention the "golden age of American capitalism" in the post war period. The good economic times were a direct result of an abandonment of previous capitalist ideas, and the embracement of big government programs and high taxes. In other words, what many on the political right today would describe, in outraged exclamation, as - socialism!