Origins of German Neo-Austerianism | 82 comments (82 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: I don't buy it (none / 1)

My impression was that Gorbachev, Shevardnadze and others had come to the conclusion that the command control centralized state had become massively sub-optimal and undertook a process of restructuring and openness in an attempt to transform the nature of the Soviet Union into one that would provide a better version of socialism. But the process got out of their control. Given the centralized nature of the state it was an orderly process until they had dismantled enough of the state that opponents could challenge them. Gorbachev and Shevardnadze underestimated the malignancy of the worms in the cans they opened and over estimated their ability to continue to control events. But had they not started glasnost and perestroika and tried to create a less oppressive state the dissolution of the Soviet Union might not have even happened yet.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri May 10th, 2013 at 10:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (none / 0)

until they had dismantled enough of the state that opponents could challenge them

Which opponents and challenges do you have in mind? When were they visible?

by das monde on Sat May 11th, 2013 at 03:14:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (none / 0)

Operating from memory based largely on LA Times coverage at the time - up to a quarter century ago - there was no shortage of hard line elites who liked things the way they were and they had the support of lots of Soviet citizens who became increasingly nostalgic for Stalin, the old Russian preference for order above all else. The ones who were problematic for Gorbachev were those in authority - mayors of large cities and leaders of states and regions, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, etc. along with some military leaders and internal security officials. Wiki reminds me of the collapse of world oil prices which left the Soviets short of foreign currency and led to shortages. Then there was the ongoing problem in Poland which led to the election in August of '89, almost coincident with the putsch in Moscow.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat May 11th, 2013 at 11:53:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (none / 1)

No shortage of hard line elites?! Their attention was highly dysfunctional then. Nostalgia for Stalin and order? Without Gorbachev bringing that up, who would have bothered highly?

Gorbachev was very active in replacing top functionaries, also in the republics. Funny, but his policies exactly provoked national tensions that were dormant for decades. No one else but himself installed those few "problematic" city majors, region leaders - and then gave all initiative to them in the last year, while showing no adequate concern for the fate of the USSR. In the East Europe, stubbornness of DDR and Romania leaders bothered him more than Poland.

The August putsch was in 1991. The Soviets needed quick foreign currency only for Chernobyl.

by das monde on Sat May 11th, 2013 at 12:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (none / 0)

No one else but himself installed those few "problematic" city majors, region leaders - and then gave all initiative to them in the last year, while showing no adequate concern for the fate of the USSR.

A pretty good description of a top down reform that got out of hand due to serious miscalculations by Gorbachev. You seem to have lived through it first hand. What is your take on what Gorbachev intended and why his choice of new 'reformers' was so disastrous for the USSR? And, what different path might have made the transition and left the bulk of the USSR intact?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat May 11th, 2013 at 05:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (none / 0)

By now my view is very simple. No one saw it coming, yet plausible explanations were settled very quickly. The suspected crushing forces are not convincing though, while failure of the support systems is obvious. Like in Chile, the whole plan was well prepared (including Chicago Brick economic receipes), and executed to expectations.

by das monde on Sun May 12th, 2013 at 02:40:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (none / 0)

i don't believe IMF involvement came until Yeltsin gained power, though under Gorbachev privately owned cooperatives were legalized for what we would call medium and small businesses and state enterprises, such as Aeroflot were encouraged to spin off subsidiaries who were encouraged to seek foreign investors.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon May 13th, 2013 at 11:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (4.00 / 3)

That's incorrect. The IMF had been active for decades as a creditor to various Warsaw Pact countries.

When energy prices crashed in the 1980s, as a consequence of the development of the North Sea oil and gas deposits, they became unable to finance the imports of higher quality Western consumer goods to which the population had become accustomed during the period of high energy prices in the '70s. It went predictably downhill from there.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon May 13th, 2013 at 02:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (4.00 / 2)

'The IMF had been active for decades' on account of western banks lending into the Warsaw Pact countries, a substantial part of which was vendor finance. But it was not until October 5, 1991, when President Mikhail Gorbachev and Managing Director Michel Camdessus entered into an agreement: Special Association Between the U.S.S.R. and the Fund - Terms and Conditions. But this agreement became null and void upon Gorbachev's resignation and the dissolution of the USSR. Seeing his plans for a federation of socialist states fail Gorbachev resigned on December 25, 1991. Yeltsin had already announced in October that Russia would proceed along the lines recommended by the IMF.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon May 13th, 2013 at 04:56:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (none / 0)

The USSR putsch in Moscow was in August of 1991, two years after the Central Europe events in 1989:

May 1989: Removal of Hungary's border fence with Austria
June 1989: Elections in Poland
August 1989: Hungary removes border restrictions with Austria. Tadeusz Mazowiecki of Solidarity is elected Prime Minister of Poland
November 1989: Opening of Berlin wall
December 1989: Overthrow of the Ceaucescu regime

by Bernard (bernard) on Sat May 11th, 2013 at 01:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (none / 1)

Before all these events in 1989 the USSR elite had given clear signals not only that they will not interfere, but in fact they actively encouraged satellites' independent policy. I remember some of the reported friction between Gorbatchev on the one hand, and the most rigid leaders on the other, specifically with Honeker and Zhivkov. All the work Gorbatchev and his circle had done made the subsequent changes in 1989 possible.

Btw, as a matter of fact Chaushescu was not exactly "overthrown", but after a mock court murdered by his own security services live on TV; not as savage as the execution of Ghadaffi, but still pretty shocking back then to happen in an European country.

by Ivo on Sat May 11th, 2013 at 05:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it (4.00 / 2)

No, the Ceauşescu execution wasn't live (in fact, the shooting itself wasn't filmed, leading to some conspiracy theories), and it was done by soldiers not Securitate members, but sure it was a show trial. What do you mean not overthrown? Whoever does the execution, he lost power by force.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sat May 11th, 2013 at 07:03:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Origins of German Neo-Austerianism | 82 comments (82 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Muslim Hatred Expressed In US Congress

Ireland and the 6 Nations Rugby Championship

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

A Cordon Sanitaire

The importance of being England

The cost of doing business

British Anglicanism, Disinformation and Harry

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

Recent Diaries

Muslim Hatred Expressed In US Congress

Ukrainians Are NATO Mercenaries

Ireland and the 6 Nations Rugby Championship

Februari 2023

CIA's Research in Behavioral Modification

A Cordon Sanitaire

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - February 2023

We Are All From Mars Now

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

The cost of doing business

The importance of being England

US War Powers, Regime Change and Third Option

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 2

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 1

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

War In Ukraine A Failed Process by NATO

No Peace In Sight

Another Execution

The Protocol and the Founding Principles of the EU

Judeo-Fascism Arises - Kahane

Occasional Series