They saw images of idealized upper middle class life on western television smuggled in and figured since the state lies about everything they must be keeping that quality of life from the public our of incompetence/greed. If only we all wore blue jeans and brought in capitalism we would be living like the people in Happy Days.
>>525220 Two things: Big Spending and the Big Lie.
The Soviets literally spent themselves to death on the whole, with an economy that consistently showed no growth for 10+ years and a budget that was fixed for 4% growth every year. An aging politburo that was completely adverse to change also failed to develop new ideas to tackle new problems that arose throughout the nation's history. They ended up trying to solve 1980's problems with 1950's methods.
The Big Lie was the attempt to conceal everything the Soviets have done and discourage any discussion of events such as the failed Virgin Lands project, the Prague Spring and Hungarian Uprising, attempting to keep total control over Eastern Europe, the KGB and Stasi's information gathering methods and much, much more that they'd rather the public not know.
Gorbachev's Glasnost and Perestroika was designed to solve the Big Lie by allowing public criticism and some information to be allowed for public knowledge. but this backfired when public criticism turned into mobs demanding immediate secession in areas such as the Balkans and the Caucasus.
>>525220 1) It was a paranoid state that nobody wanted, and the rest of the world wanted it to fuck off. 2) It literally held Eastern Europe at gun point and Sovietized them. "Muh buffer states" 3) Military / Communist Party / KGB fought each other for power and it stagnated in the 80's. 4) Gulags
>>525388 >1) It was a paranoid state that nobody wanted, and the rest of the world wanted it to fuck off. The democratic plebiscite held under Gorbachev before Yeltsin forced a dissolution showed that support for keeping the union was high everywhere except the Baltic states, which demanded immediate secession (justifiably so) but were on the whole only a marginal part of the Union. Dissolving the USSR was not a popular choice, and the extremely fast transition to a market economy was incredibly unpopular and is to blame for these countries being so poor now.
>>525450 the setup for the Soviet Republics would fill volumes on its own. but to tl:dr it for you
>republics are set up along major ethnic lines, uzbeks get a state, Kazaks get a state, etc. >forced population transfers happen to move those lines >after evictions, the lines are drawn so that no one republic has any real advantage over the other. The Fergana Valley was split between 4 of the republics so that none of them could benefit from the farmland. >the aim of this was to keep the other republics so hopelessly dependent on Russia to meet sufficiency that they can't break away. >they did break away and now the standard of living dropped to shit because of that hopeless dependence now severed.
>>525509 Market reforms in USSR were supported by political reforms, and that leaded to dissolution. National movements rised in most of republics, elite of RSFSR and other republics realised that they can became rulers instead of being 2nd role if they just broke soviet regime
>>525220 An USSR do not had an religious faith cult as moral direction to ideals, and too much resources was assigned to army defense but foods and clothes factories and fullness of shops onto the USSR was not enough in compare with Europe of 1970. Well, in case Cold War USSR-USA never happen, and a lamer Gorbachev still work only as a peasant, USSR can live long. imho.
>>525800 And now you're just stating the obvious as if it is an insult. I'm not even the kind of commie with any sympathy for the Soviet Union after the failure of the real revolution, exemplified by Kronstadt. But fuck me, your argument is not historical nor a high level of discourse.
Go read Robert Conquest, an anti-soviet right wing UK labourite.
>>525813 I say Jack, I say, have you ever considered, have you ever considered that flouridation isn't dangerous? I say, Jack, I say, there's nothing wrong with the company of women, I've had some company myself in my day, I say.
I've always been curious as to how much the Soviet command economy was responsible for it's economic stagnation in the 70's and eventual fall, but I'm not too knowledgeable on those last decades of the SU. I've even seen some sources claim Soviet-type planning was just as effective as market economies.
>>528350 Starting in 1970 fordism, east and west, reached a productivity crisis. The answer the west chose was primitive reaccumulation by smashing workers rights.
As previously mentioned on /his/ this was impossible for the soviet nomenklatura because welfare wasn't provided by the state in abstract, but at each and every factory. Attempting to reaccumulate soviet workers rights would have resulted in factory occupations if done within the soviet model. Instead, from the mid 1970s, many nomenklatura looked to the full privatisation of soviet capitalism.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.