|
|
Post by kowalskil on Jul 3, 2014 10:34:21 GMT -7
Gorbachev is of the same age as I am. Several days ago I read a post (on a Russian forum) in which he was accused of being responsible for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In my opinion the country disintegrated spontaneously, after the truth about dark sides of Stalinism became known. Yes, Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Communist Party, did contribute to the fall, by promoting the policy of "glasnost," that is by allowing truth to be known. But reforms introduced by the President of the Soviet Union, Yeltsyn, were equally important. The same can be said about Gorbachev's predecessor Khrushchev, about Solzhenitsyn, Shalamow and Pasternak, whose books were allowed to be published, and about authors of many other documents.
Karl Marx would say that focusing on characters of exceptional individuals, such as Lenin, Stalin and Gorbachev, is not sufficient. He would most probably try to identify mistkes made by those who managed the country's economy, focusing on nationalization of means of production, collectivisation of agriculture, and on dealing with national aspirations.
Ludwik Kowalski
P.S. Quoting the Russian author:
Судить Горбачёва необходимо! Это враг, диверсант который работал на западную разведку!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Jul 3, 2014 10:56:07 GMT -7
Gorbachov had several options available to him. While he admittedly did want to save the Soviet Union as a cohesive whole and modernize its stagnant economy, things got out of hand in a hurry. Nationalism, which hitherto had not been allowed to exist in public, got out of hand and everyone started literally hating everyone else. The economic program that was supposed to save the country created unimaginable poverty for what was supposed to be a developed and industrialized country. And then, by the end, he dismissed virtually the entire ideology that the country was built on. He either broke, or allowed to be broken, the entire political, economical, and social aspects of the country... and nothing was left.
He saw change was needed, he wanted to make changes, but, unfortunately, the changes he made only made things so much worse... or better, depending on your point of view. Some people love him. Others (including me) hate him.
P.S.: The translation of the author's quote in Russian: "It's necessary to put Gorbachov on trial! He's an enemy, a diversant who worked for the aims of the West!"
|
|
|
|
Post by kowalskil on Jul 4, 2014 14:20:05 GMT -7
Gorbachov had several options available to him. While he admittedly did want to save the Soviet Union as a cohesive whole and modernize its stagnant economy, things got out of hand in a hurry. Nationalism, which hitherto had not been allowed to exist in public, got out of hand and everyone started literally hating everyone else. The economic program that was supposed to save the country created unimaginable poverty for what was supposed to be a developed and industrialized country. And then, by the end, he dismissed virtually the entire ideology that the country was built on. He either broke, or allowed to be broken, the entire political, economical, and social aspects of the country... and nothing was left. He saw change was needed, he wanted to make changes, but, unfortunately, the changes he made only made things so much worse... or better, depending on your point of view. Some people love him. Others (including me) hate him. P.S.: The translation of the author's quote in Russian: "It's necessary to put Gorbachov on trial! He's an enemy, a diversant who worked for the aims of the West!" Thank you for the comment, Eric. Yes, unfortunately for the country, things got out of hand suddenly. It was not a transition prepared by knowledgeable economists and sociologists. Such translation would be practically impossible in a country based on the proclaimed ideology of proletarian dictatorship. Ludwik Kowalski ============ |
|
