I'm still finding it funny that there are folks that genuinely believe the faux-analysis of: 1. Gas prices doubled from 2009-2012 2. Unemployment is still high 3. National debt has increased Without considering: 1. Gas prices also doubled between 2005-2008 2. Unemployment almost doubled between 2005-2008 3. Nature of the debt matters: income tax cuts (Bush), payroll tax cuts (Obama), and national investment (Obama) good; wars (Bush) bad
The thing is that you have to consider why the Soviet Union implemented the reforms in the first place. The thing about the Soviet system is that it was a lot more popular among the Russians and even the ethnic minorities that were the ultimate short-term cause of the Soviet Union's destruction than people think it was. A lot of fantasists and technological nuts ( cough cough THOMAS FRIEDMAN cough cough) like to think that the Soviet Union would have just collapsed under its own weight but I doubt it. It was a stable system, after all, and needed a jolt to undo that stability. The idea that Reagan caused the Soviet Union to collapse by simply military outspending them to death is an incredibly simple and childish way of describing what actually happened, but it's not completely wrong. What Reagan ( and to a lesser degree, the Afghan War) did was that they forced the Soviet Union to realize that either they kept the old ways ( which they realistically could have done and still survived, and although it's speculative, I do believe that the Soviet Union would still be alive today if it had), which means that they fall further and further behind the US technologically. Or they implement reforms and somehow try to catch up with the US. Perhaps they could have survived even then, but Gorbachev was so stupid in how he tried to implement anything that they never had a chance.
@Kojirou I don't think the USSR could last, by the '80s they could barely feed themselves, much of their grain was given as aid from the West.
Point of thread. Let gwayneco say "Hussein" again in public. It has the same value for him as looking at the "best ass" thread in the hangout does for the rest of us...but it is waaaaaaaay less entertaining for the rest of us.
I think you completely misunderstand Gorbachev's intent and thereby the meaning of the collapse. He was chosen to be GS because he was a very intelligent and competent and energetic man. The oligarchy understood their position in the world and that they needed a guy to make changes before the USSR completely stalled out. I'd say that was the limit of the the West's influence on the changes in the USSR. They call Gorbachev the Last Bolshevik and sometimes the Last Menshevik, because he was a true believer ideoligically in communism -- the sort of Marxist-Leninist vision, not Stalinism. He thought they could make the system work. He thought the controls on free speech had to go, he had to get rid of the totalitarianism, institute some democracy, and repair the enonomics of socialism. Meanwhile, he had long-suppressed regionalism putting pressure on the unitary government. That was too tall an order, but it was an ideological one about making a better society, not so much about preserving power. With the liberalization of speech, keeping the pace slow enough to keep reform from turning into revolution became impossible. He weakened central control too much with his political liberalization that he lost control of the whole thing. The old guard turned on him when they saw their own power threatened, but they moved too late and got beat by Yeltsin. The Chinese learned from Gorbachev's mistake of taking on too much at once. So, they've kept the political authoritarianism in place so that they can control their economic reform. When they do eventually democratize, they'll be able to do it better because their economy is in order.
Speaking of "key" endorsements... Rick Perry endorses Mitt Romney This speaks volumes. A man of Rick Perry's intelligence, honor, and legacy is a true feather in the cap for Mitt.
