Why the USSR Fell?

[Zonolia]

So, I was reading and thinking "Why did the Soviet Union fall?"
And I got this...

First off the Soviet Union was actually a 'Agrarian Communism' as in it was made to fit the Agrarian Russia of the 20's when the Union first rose. For this to work I am ASSUMING that since back then info could not be efficiently transported from West Russia to Moscow they figured one long-lasting leader would be good so the peoples of the West wouldn't get left out....however I was also thinking as the years progressed the idea didn't so by the coup attempts in the 80's-90's and implementation of Democracy and Capitalism the Union fell because by the time it was easy to reach the West they should of evolved it into a more Democratic system for the people of the West could have a say. How this DID NOT happen and thus the people figured no freedom=rise up...also to mention the US forcing the USSR's hand in the expensive Cold War didn't help. Also I believe they ran out of money because of them being the Agrarian Communism they were and we all know Agrarian nations must evolve of die of no money.

So post what ya think, argue...whatever I'm out till later, see ya.

[Rambhutan]

Corruption, taking part in an arms race they couldn't afford, inefficiency caused by a planned economy, and poor leadership.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Poor economic planning and investment decisions along with excessive brutality in its internal policy.

[Blazedtown]

Because communism cannot work long term. I don't care if communists disowned it, its stood for communism, just like the Crusaders were raping, murdering and looting bastards, but that doesn't mean they weren't fighting for god.

[Aeronos]

Errrr, okay. Having taken both history and economics as far as I could, I will say that the biggest cause was stagnation, followed by corruption. In the mid-1940s, Eastern Europe submitted to the Warsaw Pact seeing communism as the fastest path to prosperity for such war-torn nations. Unfortunately the reality was a lot more glum, with the USSR lagging behind the West on standards of living, even despite the Krushchev Thaw. Once Brezhnev got into power and reversed the liberalization, the USSR effectively slumped. Military expenditure was funded at the expense of standards of living, and the rise of corrupt bureaucrats likewise hampered it further.
Obviously, once Gorbachev rose to power and allowed glasnost, the Eastern bloc was suffering hard, which allowed nationalist ideologies to flourish. (this is a veeery truncated version of events).

In short, without markets to co-ordinate resources, the state has to do it all, and is generally a lot less efficient (Economic Calculation Problem). People often remark that industrial workers would get components late, and either get much too much (wasted) or much too little (underconsumed; waste), and successful and efficient industries went behind the economy (on the black market), as they tended to be privately run because the state was too bad at co-ordinating production, and private enterprise was outlawed in the USSR. And when you allow certain elements of society to collectively guide the economy, they will take advantage and steal as much as they can, as the ruling classes did, which only exacerbated the stagnation.

And that's not even talking about the excessive surveillance, brutality, militancy and oppression which was routine in the Soviet regime... But yeah, very short version. I don't want to write an essay right now thank you

[Arumdaum]

Because communism cannot work long term. I don't care if communists disowned it, its stood for communism, just like the Crusaders were raping, murdering and looting bastards, but that doesn't mean they weren't fighting for god.

You can say they fought for "communism", but it doesn't mean that the country communist.

The USSR wasn't communist anyways. They only called the country "socialist" as well, evident from the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Communism is a stateless and classless society in which there is common ownership, free access to articles of consumption, along with the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate. The USSR didn't have any of that.

[Aglorea]

In the later years you've got a buildup of the military, which is generally a bad idea when that's your primary economic focus. You had the whole economy going to shit thing where they were in a pretty bad spot. Gorbachev comes along, gives greater political freedoms to everyone along with a general policy of openness. With less centralized control, the separate republics decide they want to be alone and it all breaks up.

That's the short of it, anyway. Very simplified.

[Alyakia]

Don't forget glasnost and the like. I know everyone will. But try not to.

Well, except the guy above, but, welp.

[Blazedtown]

Because communism cannot work long term. I don't care if communists disowned it, its stood for communism, just like the Crusaders were raping, murdering and looting bastards, but that doesn't mean they weren't fighting for god.

You can say they fought for "communism", but it doesn't mean that the country communist.

The USSR wasn't communist anyways. They only called the country "socialist" as well, evident from the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Communism is a stateless and classless society in which there is common ownership, free access to articles of consumption, along with the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate. The USSR didn't have any of that.

And that's impossible, so the USSR will have to do. Fine, if you're going to be anal about this, any kind of socialism does not work in the long term. I don't care if socialists disowned it, just like the crusaders who committed countless atrocities were still Christian. Better?

[Aglorea]

I (extremely) briefly touched on the concept, though I didn't use the term. I really don't think you can accurately discuss this topic without mentioning all that. Very key to it.

EDIT: That was to Alyakia.

[Rambhutan]

Don't forget glasnost and the like. I know everyone will. But try not to.

Well, except the guy above, but, welp.

That wasn't the cause of the fall more a recognition that it was inevitable.

[Aglorea]

And that's impossible, so the USSR will have to do. Fine, if you're going to be anal about this, any kind of socialism does not work in the long term. I don't care if socialists disowned it, just like the crusaders who committed countless atrocities were still Christian. Better?

That's not much better simply because, in and of itself, your argument doesn't really hold. The idea that "just because they were Communist!" or "just because they were Socialist!" led to the fall of the Soviet Union is silly. There was much more to it than a simple pick of ideology.

[Arumdaum]

You can say they fought for "communism", but it doesn't mean that the country communist.

The USSR wasn't communist anyways. They only called the country "socialist" as well, evident from the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Communism is a stateless and classless society in which there is common ownership, free access to articles of consumption, along with the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate. The USSR didn't have any of that.

And that's impossible, so the USSR will have to do. Fine, if you're going to be anal about this, any kind of socialism does not work in the long term. I don't care if socialists disowned it, just like the crusaders who committed countless atrocities were still Christian. Better?

Alright, you can say it's impossible, so you're going to have something completely unlike it to represent it? And how does it not work in the long term?

And Pinochet was a devout supporter of the free market. So....? It's not like he represents all supporters of the free market.

[Aeronos]

Don't forget glasnost and the like. I know everyone will. But try not to.

Well, except the guy above, but, welp.

Girl! Girl! Hngnghgn! *points at signature*

Females can study economics and history (whilst actually careering in Computer Science w/ Math...) too... There's nothing about having a vagina which says "She shall be woeful in topics concerning logic"

[Arumdaum]

Don't forget glasnost and the like. I know everyone will. But try not to.

Well, except the guy above, but, welp.

Girl! Girl! Hngnghgn! *points at signature*

Females can study economics and history (whilst actually careering in Computer Science w/ Math...) too... There's nothing about having a vagina which says "She shall be woeful in topics concerning logic"

I think it's mostly because of the lack of females on the internet.

[Aglorea]

Girl! Girl! Hngnghgn! *points at signature*

Females can study economics and history (whilst actually careering in Computer Science w/ Math...) too... There's nothing about having a vagina which says "She shall be woeful in topics concerning logic"

A girl that studies economics and history? I'm in love.

All kidding aside, I do mostly agree with your statements from your post above.

[Blazedtown]

And that's impossible, so the USSR will have to do. Fine, if you're going to be anal about this, any kind of socialism does not work in the long term. I don't care if socialists disowned it, just like the crusaders who committed countless atrocities were still Christian. Better?

Alright, you can say it's impossible, so you're going to have something completely unlike it to represent it? And how does it not work in the long term?

And Pinochet was a devout supporter of the free market. So....? It's not like he represents all supporters of the free market.

It doesn't work because for it to work,people would have to stop being people. Socialist economics are based on the idea that people aren't bastards. This fallacy is the root cause of the failure of communist and socialist ideology. Once people stop being greedy, self centered, and irrational, communism and socialism will work.

Pinochet was a murdering bastard, yes, but his economics were sound. He tried to do too much too fast. He should have slowed down his reforms. It was the same thing as 90s Eastern Europe. They privatized things too quickly. Had they slowed it down, it would have given time for the markets to redevelop, and stabilize. All of this being said, he was sick fuck.

[Globexanter]

Corruption, I believe, is one of the major factors.

[Moral Libertarians]

Because central planning doesn't work.

[Arumdaum]

Alright, you can say it's impossible, so you're going to have something completely unlike it to represent it? And how does it not work in the long term?

And Pinochet was a devout supporter of the free market. So....? It's not like he represents all supporters of the free market.

It doesn't work because for it to work,people would have to stop being people. Socialist economics are based on the idea that people aren't bastards. This fallacy is the root cause of the failure of communist and socialist ideology. Once people stop being greedy, self centered, and irrational, communism and socialism will work.

Pinochet was a murdering bastard, yes, but his economics were sound. He tried to do too much too fast. He should have slowed down his reforms. It was the same thing as 90s Eastern Europe. They privatized things too quickly. Had they slowed it down, it would have given time for the markets to redevelop, and stabilize. All of this being said, he was sick fuck.

People don't have to be self-centered irrational greedy bastards. And certainly not all of us are. And I'm pretty sure the majority isn't.

And in your logic, it doesn't matter, as you don't care if free-marketers disowned him, as he still stood for the free market.

[Arumdaum]

Because central planning doesn't work.

And the overspending on the military didn't have to do with it?

[Tatec]

Your asking why a corrupt regime with an extreme focus on military spending over infrastructural development fell?

[Globexanter]

Your asking why a corrupt regime with an extreme focus on military spending over infrastructural development fell?

Well, a lot of people whom have not looked into this still fail to understand how the USSR fell. I suppose it's not hard to understand, but a lot of people just don't (No idea why, it's pretty simple).

[Blazedtown]

It doesn't work because for it to work,people would have to stop being people. Socialist economics are based on the idea that people aren't bastards. This fallacy is the root cause of the failure of communist and socialist ideology. Once people stop being greedy, self centered, and irrational, communism and socialism will work.

Pinochet was a murdering bastard, yes, but his economics were sound. He tried to do too much too fast. He should have slowed down his reforms. It was the same thing as 90s Eastern Europe. They privatized things too quickly. Had they slowed it down, it would have given time for the markets to redevelop, and stabilize. All of this being said, he was sick fuck.

People don't have to be self-centered irrational greedy bastards. And certainly not all of us are. And I'm pretty sure the majority isn't.

And in your logic, it doesn't matter, as you don't care if free-marketers disowned him, as he still stood for the free market.

I never said he didn't stand for it. I said he tried to do too much to quickly.

[Neo Arcad]

Because Socialism has inherent flaws that can only be temporarily fixed, through vigorous application of dictatorial oligarchy?