this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
37 points (95.1% liked)

Communism

10016 readers
66 users here now

Discussion Community for fellow Marxist-Leninists and other Marxists.

Rules for /c/communism

Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.

  1. No non-marxists

This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.

There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism.

If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.

  1. No oppressive language

Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.

Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.

We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.

TERF is not a slur.

  1. No low quality or off-topic posts

Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.

This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.

This includes memes and circlejerking.

This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.

We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.

  1. No basic questions about marxism

Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.

Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.

  1. No sectarianism

Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.

Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.

If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.

The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.

Check out ProleWiki for a communist wikipedia.

Communism study guide

bottombanner

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml
AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml
37
Why was it so easy to dismantle the Soviet Union? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 week ago by NothingButBits@lemmygrad.ml to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As the title says. This is something that has always confused me, but why was it so easy to dismantle the Soviet Union? The blame is usually put in Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but the Union wasn't governed by just a single man. The whole CPSU was responsible for the government's actions. How was it, that these opportunists managed to get in there and just tear the country apart?

Also, how was it impossible to restore the previous order? So Yeltsin, a liberal sell out, is in power and nothing can be done to remove him and restore socialism? Why were the protests to bring back socialism not enough?

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] myszka@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

I think the means of productions just hadn't reached the level of development required for the transition to new relations of production. Namely, there wasn't automation that would eliminate routine alienated work and also make production decentralised. On the other hand, centralised alienated production started to get very fragmented (yes, centralised but fragmented), leading to the centralised form of property Soviet socialism was based on becoming no longer suitable for its fragmented content. So even though people protested, their economic needs unknowingly drove them to capitalism. It was a collective unconscious necessity.

It is a good example of an internal dialectical contradiction where something is two polar things at the same time.

[–] cornishon@lemmygrad.ml 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Chinese scholars argue that at the base of it was Historical Nihilism (slandering Stalin, Lenin, and the Party and distortion of history) leading to the undermining of CPSU's political legitimacy and loss public trust in socialism. There are many articles about this topic, like this one: https://interpret.csis.org/translations/the-symptoms-damages-and-lessons-of-historical-nihilism-in-the-communist-party-of-the-soviet-union/

There's even a long documentary produced by CPC on the topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8R-uen6FfFw02bDeh625OKEJ0i5ZS_u8

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There already was an immense amount of pressure from outside and inside. The Baltic republics had turned extremely anticommunist, they had failed in Afghanistan and were getting hit by the blowback from that, and Gorbachev's policies had given a ton of power to oligarchs who made it difficult for the government to change course. Doesn't help that Yeltsin bombed parliament when they tried to stop the USSR from dissolving, too, of course, but at that point you're looking at the conclusion of something that had been coming for years.

[–] NothingButBits@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sorry, but which oligarchs? The SU shouldn't have any oligarchs.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 1 week ago

Yeah, so what you're missing is the liberalization period. The SU under Kruschev and his faction decided to steer the country towards liberal reforms which allowed for private accumulation of capital. It also adopted a strategy of trying to become friendly with the West in a failed attempt to co-dominate the world with them.

In essence, the SU didn't go quickly, it took decades.

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Just because they shouldn't doesn't mean they didn't. The Law on Cooperatives, which came about in 1988, allowed for private ownership of businesses in the services, manufacturing, and foreign-trade sectors. The reforms created by Perestrokia set the conditions that allowed for oligarchs to come into power. Take Boris Berezovsky, for example. From Wikipedia:

In 1989, Berezovsky took advantage of the opportunities presented by perestroika to found LogoVAZ (Russian: ЛогоВАЗ) with Badri Patarkatsishvili and senior managers from Russian automobile manufacturer AvtoVAZ. LogoVAZ developed software for AvtoVAZ, sold Soviet-made cars and serviced foreign cars.[39] The dealership profited from hyperinflation by taking cars on consignment and paying the producer at a later date when the money lost much of its value.[40]

There obviously is a lot more historical development that led to this point in USSR history, but Perestrokia really set the stage for capital accumulation, it would seem. Early on in these reforms it seems that many of the oligarchs were also members of the Soviet state; again, see Wikipidia.

The majority of oligarchs were promoted (at least initially) by the Soviet apparatchiks, with strong connections to Soviet power-structures and access to the funds of the Communist Party.[4][12][13] Boris Berezovsky himself was Head of the Department of System Design at another Academy of Sciences research centre. His private company was established by the Institute as a joint venture.[14] Mikhail Khodorkovsky started his business importing computers under auspices of the Komsomol-authorised Center for Scientific and Technical Creativity of the Youth in 1986, briefly serving as a deputy secretary of the Komsomol for a district in Moscow in 1987. His move into banking two years later was funded with the support of Komsomol alumni working in Moscow city government. Later, he served in the Russian government as an adviser to the prime minister and a deputy minister of fuel and power while still running his business.[15] Vladimir Vinogradov was the chief economist of Promstroybank, one of the six banks existing in the Soviet Union,[16] previously serving as the secretary of Atommash plant Komsomol organisation.[15]

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Lessons from the collapse of the USSR: What China learned

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7854832

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Easy? It took 77 years of constant pressure to dismantle the USSR. They were under attack both militarily and economically from the first moment. The only time the pressure let up an iota was when the liberals created fascism and convinced the Soviets to fix their mistake and then there was significantly increased pressure from the fascists themselves.

There was nothing easy about it.

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

My armchair points:

  1. It was the first socialist state in history, first attempts at anything are rarely successful.

  2. The USSR had to inherit the absolute mess the Russian Empire left over with a lot of anti-Russian sentiment left over in the peripheral republics. Over time their Anti-Russianism morphed into anti-communism.

  3. WW2 killed much of the ideologically disciplined vanguard and forced the USSR to lower the standards of who was recruited in.

  4. Western propaganda and sabotage. An obvious point but a point nonetheless. The US dwarfed the USSR's soft power influence with USSR having little to compete with the likes of Hollywood and whatnot.

  5. Economically competing with rest of the world while isolated and alone is an extremely tall task no matter the merits of your education and workforce.

[–] starkillerfish@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago

I wrote a comment on that recently

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9435144/7150002

[–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

It took almost 70 fucking years to end something the west claimed won't survive a decade. What do you mean by 'easy'?