From Reform to Ruin in the USSR

Can't recommend 'Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union' by Vladislav M Zubok enough. An absolute page-turner that makes this super clear.

This is a problem with discontent nations. If you offer freedom before redressing grievances, they will choose to leave.

The post mentions parallels to the Qing Dynasty, but I want to elaborate on that a little more: whenever an authoritarian system which derives its authority from something other than nationalism (Imperial authority for the Qing, Communist ideology and the Party for the USSR) tries to modernize and liberalize, the danger is that this awakens slumbering nationalism which tears the system apart faster than it can safely adapt.

This is exactly what happened to the Qing: the Chinese population never really liked the Qing, but when it was a mostly hands-off distant authority, they lived with it. But when the Qing attempted to become a modern country with high state capacity, this woke up slumbering Han nationalism which proceeded to tear down the dynasty.

And that's what happened in the USSR too: early Soviet leaders correctly guessed that Russian nationalism had to be suppressed in the Soviet system, or else with the majority of the population and territory, Russia would end up dominating the rest of the country. And to their credit, they mostly made good on this: Russia didn't have too much of an outsized impact on or benefit from the Soviet economy, and representation from other states in the political elite was pretty good. But as soon as Gorbachev opened things up, Russian nationalism asserted itself and wanted to throw off the "unfair treatment", and the USSR immediately fell apart.

There are contemporary examples today, too: I argue this same pattern is what has been happening in Burma. When the junta had total control, they were able to force the patchwork of ethnic groups to mostly get along; as soon as a little democracy got introduced, the Buddhist majority started genociding everyone else.

If you want to open up an autocracy, you have to pay very close attention to whatever forces it has long been suppressing.

A huge part of China's success stems from the fact that Nixon opened up U.S. markets to China, along with U.S. investment capital. It was a key strategic decision made by the United States to counter Soviet influence in Asia. China's reforms were merely an adaptation to the new opportunities that arose from this shift.

Another important factor was China's significantly larger population compared to the Soviet Union, combined with notably lower labor costs. All these factors eventually propelled the country to great prosperity. Without them, I think China today wouldn't look much different from any other East Asian country.

The Soviets simply didn't have such opportunities. Leaving aside the fact that Western countries never offered them a similar deal, Soviet labor simply couldn't match the industrial productivity enabled by the cheap workforce of East Asian countries.

The USSR had vast land and abundant natural resources, but its population density was relatively low. Additionally, it already possessed advanced technologies and a well-developed industrial base. From the U.S. perspective, such a country looked more like a potential (and actual) competitor rather than just another member of the Western economic system.

I'm not a big fan of a planned economy. And I believe that the lack of social freedoms and democratic institutions, typical of Western countries, was a major factor in the Soviet collapse. But regardless of the decisions and reforms Soviet authorities could have made after World War II, I think the country was doomed either way.

The Soviet Union simply didn't have a large enough population to effectively develop such an enormous landmass. After WWII, significant male losses and the effects of the second demographic transition led to continuous population decline. The only reasonable course of action would have been to relinquish part of its global influence and territory, which it eventually did — but perhaps too late. However, the authorities of any country rarely want to give up power, and the Soviets were no exception.

As for turning points, I don't think it was the NEP. More likely, the Communist (October) Revolution itself was the crucial historical moment. The Russian Empire was a relatively promising state, evolving in the right direction. It was gradually building democratic institutions and transitioning to a liberal economy. Its industrial development was progressing similarly to other European countries — perhaps with some lag, but still moving forward.

Perhaps the real turning point in Russian history was when radicals, driven by controversial economic and social ideas, inherited a wealthy country and used its potential for large-scale social experiments.

Yeah, Lenin's complete takeover of the socialist/communist movement was not a given. Kerensky was much more of a moderate (and IIRC was running the Provisional Government from about July 1917 till about September, up until that point the Bolsheviks were in the minority). Had he succeeded and Lenin been unsuccessful in taking over the revolution it seems possible that Russia now might look more like a northern European democracy. Lenin wasn't the brightest and he wasn't the best orator, but he did have the work ethic - he essentially outworked his rivals and took advantage of every opportunity to make them look weak.

But Putin has complete power of Russia similar to Xi has in China and has had for a couple of decades at least.

The collapse of the Soviet Union as it was was inevitable. Gorbachev recognized it and tried to do something about it. Given the gargantuan challenge, Gorbachev's odds of success were not great to begin with. At least he was wise enough to shepherd its demise peacefully. In any case, the world without the Soviet Union is undoubtedly a better place.

> a well-intentioned reformer with great power that was used in a reckless manner

The road to hell...

Eastern Europe has almost twice the population of Russia.

Would anyone here care to assert that more people would be better off today if the Wall had not fallen?

That seems a pretty standard aftermath to any revolution, with few exceptions. No matter how well intentioned the revolutionaries are, it is the most ruthless who end up seizing power.

In pop history the influence of Chernobyl is wildly exaggerated.

In the complex set of events that lead to the collapse, Chernobyl is only a footnote.

USSR had a lot of issues, and surprisingly, the same issues are plaguing the USA today:

  1. Geriatric leadership of 80+ y.o. dudes clinging to power
  2. Loose fiscal policy and huge deficit. Soviets were subsidizing communist regimes around the world and spending everything on military build-up and arms race
  3. Bloated and inefficient bureacracy that became its own class (Nomenklatura)
  4. Inefficient economy
  5. Military humiliation (Afghanistan) and industrial catastrophe (Chernobyl) that costs a lot in $ and regime reputation