What caused the collapse of the Soviet Union?

[stormthebeaches]

I've been reading up on my cold war history and I was wondering, what was it that finally brought down the Soviet Union?

1. How big a role did economics play? I would like some numbers.

2. Did internal political reasons play a part? I'm thinking about policy makers in Moscow and the nationalist movements in Eastern Europe?

3. Did the Soviet-Afghan war accelerate the Soviet Union's collapse? I've heard that the war was a huge blow to Soviet moral and lead to reformists taking control.

4. How big was Ronald Regan's role in bringing down the Soviet Union? I suspect that it was very small but I would like some numbers here.

5. Could the Soviet Union have survived and what policies could it have realistically taken to ensure its survival?

[K. A. Pital]

How big a role did economics play? I would like some numbers.

Which numbers? Suffice to say, and to mention, a few general facts:
1) the growth has been more extensive than intensive in the USSR since the 1970s
2) the industrial practices and models of organization of the USSR were similar to those of the 1930's Fordism - a robust industrial practice, but not modernized, hence lagging productivity
3) the attempt at reform in 1985 resulted in several economy-crippling laws, one of which in 1987 opened runaway inflation
4) the USSR had become a net grain importer in 1962 and onwards, the reasons for this were the Soviet Union's desire to match the calorie diet of the West in meat. The USSR used it's own grains to create food for people, but bulk feed grain for cattle was imported from the West en masse, creating a large meat industry; by 1980s the Soviet Union citizen's ration was reaching 3300+ calories per day (depending on the Republic), and he was exceptionally well supplied with meats, milk and fish for one. However, that came at a heavy price.
5) the USSR had a debt before the Western nations; coupled with the inflation of the late 1980s, that debt threatened to become runaway;
6) in the mid-1980, oil prices fell; however, that was but one factor in the economic crisis.
7) World War II had a heavy impact on the USSR; it skewed the balance of industry in the USSR even more in favour of heavy industry; the later development of light industry lagged behind and was often neglected. This led to shortages and deficits negatively impacted the people's opinion.

Some industries had declined since the late 1970s, despite the overall industrial growth maintaining itself until 1989 (after that the rapid inflation made the growth question rather moot).

If you want some certain, particular numbers, feel free to ask me.

Certainly though the economic position of the USSR was not the sole, and quite probably not the main reason for it's downfall; there are states with extremely bad supply situation which did not collapse. Modern Russia is one of them, as are say North Korea, many African regimes, Latin American countries, and a plethora of other nations.

Personally I tend to take R.E. Allen's opinion that it was wrong decisions of the Soviet planners more than anything (including industrial disparity between light and heavy industry, as well as bad decisions in the late 1980s) which brought such troubles, and the collapse. This opinion is well substantiated in his book Farm to Factory.

There are people who hold other opinions, of course, and as I'm biased I figure I should refer to them at least. For one, there is the Russian libertarian economist Gaidar, head of the post-Soviet economic reform and privatization program in Russia, who wrote "Death of the Empire", which is a libertarian critique of the late Soviet economy and posits the reasons for collapse being primarily economic. This is probably the best arguments pro the "economic" and anti-Soviet side of the debate.

Did internal political reasons play a part? I'm thinking about policy makers in Moscow and the nationalist movements in Eastern Europe?

Certainly yes. I would advise you reading a few threads from this forum, like this one, and maybe others in the archive thread.

Gorbachov's actions vis-a-vis other Union republics did little to stem nationalism and even extreme nationalism, and often exacerbated the issue (for example, the replacement of Kazakh SSR leadership with ethnic Russians, which led to riots). Etc.

Did the Soviet-Afghan war accelerate the Soviet Union's collapse? I've heard that the war was a huge blow to Soviet moral and lead to reformists taking control.

The Soviet-Afghan war was a major waste of money. It was also frowned upon by the Soviet leadership. Brezhnew often raved at Ustinov, for example, asking "When willl this fucking war end? ...you said the war would not last long! Our children are dying there!"

It wasn't a blow to "Soviet morale", because the war was hardly much known to the general society. The war in Afghanistan was a local conflict which left a heavy impression on the leadership and the Army, but the ordinary citizen didn't know much.

How big was Ronald Regan's role in bringing down the Soviet Union? I suspect that it was very small but I would like some numbers here.

Ronald Reagan had no "role" in bringing down the Soviet Union. Any American leader would draw the USSR into an arms race - such are the fortunes of superpower competition. The arms race was unfortunate for the USSR, because it exacerbated the problem of industry being oriented to Heavy Industry (Goods type A) and Light Industry (consumer goods, Goods type B) being neglected.

Could the Soviet Union have survived and what policies could it have realistically taken to ensure its survival?

What policies could've Brezhnew take
What if the USSR survived?

General overview:
USSR 1980s - photos
USSR 1980s - photos
Life in the USSR

Economic materials:
Soviet Industrialization

[stormthebeaches]

So basically your saying that the biggest factor for the Soviet's collapse was bad decision making on the behalf of the Soviet leadership?

What about the belief that the Soviet Union was overextended and ruling over people that did not want to be ruled by Moscow? I've heard that the economic problems in the Union led to an increase in nationalistic movements. Any truth to that?

[TC Pilot]

Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Reagan. Nothing more, nothing less. Much like Brutus who killed the last king of Rome, beneath the facade of a bumbling incompetent buffoon lay the quick, cunning mind that could bring an empire tumbling down.

So basically your saying that the biggest factor for the Soviet's collapse was bad decision making on the behalf of the Soviet leadership?

Essentially, that's correct.

What about the belief that the Soviet Union was overextended and ruling over people that did not want to be ruled by Moscow? I've heard that the economic problems in the Union led to an increase in nationalistic movements. Any truth to that?

There is. It's not surprising that in times of economic problems, localities would want to have control over their resources rather than bow to the wishes of some distant bureaucrats.

If you want a quick overview of the Soviet collapse, Stephen Kotkin's Armageddon Averted is quite good

[K. A. Pital]

If you want a quick overview of the Soviet collapse, Stephen Kotkin's Armageddon Averted is quite good

Seconded. I'd also recommend, by the same Stephen Kotkin:
1) Magnetic Mountain
2) Steeltown, USSR
3) Modern times: the Soviet Union in the inter-war civilizational context

Not all of these works deal with the collapse par se, but they are essential for understanding the latest Soviet Union and the troubles that befell it. Especially the latter two (Steeltown, USSR and Modern times: the Soviet Union in the inter-war civilizational context).

[stormthebeaches]

Those threads you linked seem to imply that the bad decisions on the behalf of the Soviet leadership were long term and had been building up for decades. What about short term decisions? What could say, Mikhail Gorbachev have done to prevent the Soviet Union's collapse? Not attempt to reform the SU? Reform it in a different manner? Send in the tanks to crush the uprisings in Eastern Europe? What could he have done.

[ray245]

Stephen Cohen's Soviet fates and lost alternatives is pretty decent as well.

[K. A. Pital]

Those threads you linked seem to imply that the bad decisions on the behalf of the Soviet leadership were long term and had been building up for decades.

Often so. Also, don't forget about World War II and the colossal impact that had on heavy industry/light industry proportion.

What about short term decisions? What could say, Mikhail Gorbachev have done to prevent the Soviet Union's collapse? Not attempt to reform the SU? Reform it in a different manner? Send in the tanks to crush the uprisings in Eastern Europe? What could he have done.

1) Do not attempt liberalization simultaneously reform - either one or the other. Either relatively liberalize the politics and keep an "open debate on socialist economy" (Cuba, special period) or reform the economy by decree, but do not liberalize (China)

2) Different manner of reform would certainly help. Andropov had good clues - increasing productivity, intensive capital growth, "mobilizing" the economy for a more efficient and more massive production; abandon the practice of "pet quotas" by giving the central planning commitees in Moscow more oversight over industries.

3) Send the tanks into Eastern Europe - NO. That's just stupid. Those satellite nations were forcibly turned to Soviet satellites, and are best to let go, since they are a major financial drain on the superpower anyhow. Else, there can be bloody wars more financially costly than Afghanistan.

[stormthebeaches]

Do you think that Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms, mainly Perestroika and Glasnost led to the nationalist uprisings in Eastern Europe? Or would those movements have happened anyway?

[TC Pilot]

Any goodwill the peoples of Eastern Europe felt for the Soviet Union had long since been spent. One of the primary things keeping those governments propped up was the specter of Soviet tanks rolling in.

Glasnost, however, did contribute to the nationalist movements within the Union. The surge of revelations about the less-than-savory aspects of Soviet rule severely discredited the communist legacy.

[ray245]

1) Do not attempt liberalization simultaneously reform - either one or the other. Either relatively liberalize the politics and keep an "open debate on socialist economy" (Cuba, special period) or reform the economy by decree, but do not liberalize (China)

Care to explain in detail? I always have some trouble understanding that.

[K. A. Pital]

1) Do not attempt liberalization simultaneously reform - either one or the other. Either relatively liberalize the politics and keep an "open debate on socialist economy" (Cuba, special period) or reform the economy by decree, but do not liberalize (China)

Care to explain in detail? I always have some trouble understanding that.

My bad. That should read "Do not attempt liberalization simultaneously with (i.e. at the same time as) reform".

[Guardsman Bass]

1) Do not attempt liberalization simultaneously reform - either one or the other. Either relatively liberalize the politics and keep an "open debate on socialist economy" (Cuba, special period) or reform the economy by decree, but do not liberalize (China)

Care to explain in detail? I always have some trouble understanding that.

My bad. That should read "Do not attempt liberalization simultaneously with (i.e. at the same time as) reform".

You mean like the Chinese model, where you experiment with some types of liberalization and markets while keeping a heavy role for state investment and even state-owned companies? I'm curious as to how that would be undertaken in the Soviet Union. Could you start small, with relatively small scale private business?

[K. A. Pital]

Could you start small, with relatively small scale private business?

Actually, yes. The USSR had some degree of private business allowed. Most notably in argiculture, and also cooperatives (cooperatives that were to be fully worker-owned). Those existed for a rather long time. However, allowing cooperatives to do things outside their legal scope (which at first included construction of garages, gardens, garden houses, and habitable buildings, small-scale production of hand-made items, usually, and/or car, machine etc. repairs), was only something tried in the latter days of the USSR.

[ray245]

1) Do not attempt liberalization simultaneously reform - either one or the other. Either relatively liberalize the politics and keep an "open debate on socialist economy" (Cuba, special period) or reform the economy by decree, but do not liberalize (China)

Care to explain in detail? I always have some trouble understanding that.

My bad. That should read "Do not attempt liberalization simultaneously with (i.e. at the same time as) reform".

Then when can a nation begin the process of liberalization if they started on economic reform first or vice versa?

[KrauserKrauser]

Using Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the other Asian up and comers as a template probably at least a generation. Korea was basically a military dictatorship for decades while it recovered from the war. After the economy was back on its feet the liberalization started and the country is now nominally democratic.

Better the economic conditions, the less the growing pains should be.

[Guardsman Bass]

Could you start small, with relatively small scale private business?

Actually, yes. The USSR had some degree of private business allowed. Most notably in argiculture, and also cooperatives (cooperatives that were to be fully worker-owned). Those existed for a rather long time. However, allowing cooperatives to do things outside their legal scope (which at first included construction of garages, gardens, garden houses, and habitable buildings, small-scale production of hand-made items, usually, and/or car, machine etc. repairs), was only something tried in the latter days of the USSR.

That also sounds like a way to gradually introduce a more market-oriented private property system over time without leading to some of the rampant corruption and asset stripping that actually happened in 1990s Russia.

[Surlethe]

Isn't that essentially how China has done it? Starting small-scale, with "economic development zones", and gradually privatizing the markets?

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, the special economic zones which introduced private industry (usually light), territorially limited, would work far better than what was eventually attempted.

[Coyote]

China was kind of a special case, I think, in that they knew that sooner or later they'd be getting Hong Kong back, and so they had to prepare for the sudden inclusion of about, what, a million people who were thoroughly used to free market systems and would react poorly to a reversal of fortunes. They had time to formulate a plan and think about how they were going to integrate this red-headed stepchild province back into the way of things.

[Pelranius]

China was kind of a special case, I think, in that they knew that sooner or later they'd be getting Hong Kong back, and so they had to prepare for the sudden inclusion of about, what, a million people who were thoroughly used to free market systems and would react poorly to a reversal of fortunes. They had time to formulate a plan and think about how they were going to integrate this red-headed stepchild province back into the way of things.

Well, actually about five million people in the 1980s.

Another problem for Deng was that he had to find someway to grow China faster than the Soviet Union, or at least narrow the gap.

[Thanas]

Could you start small, with relatively small scale private business?

Actually, yes. The USSR had some degree of private business allowed. Most notably in argiculture, and also cooperatives (cooperatives that were to be fully worker-owned). Those existed for a rather long time. However, allowing cooperatives to do things outside their legal scope (which at first included construction of garages, gardens, garden houses, and habitable buildings, small-scale production of hand-made items, usually, and/or car, machine etc. repairs), was only something tried in the latter days of the USSR.

This is soemthing similar to what was allowed in the GDR, btw - my uncle twice removed owned a private machinery factory. The reason he was allowed to keep it was because they produced high-quality, very expensive parts and steel products, which meant the GDR found it easier to let them operate it instead of coming in, taking control and risking a disruption in the production process.

[PeZook]

Poland allowed small businesses to operate as well: usually assembled in cooperatives or associations. You has things from small craftsmen to auto mechanics operating, all private-owned (in practice, if not in theory). My uncle had a small enterprise producing ball bearings and fixing cars.

[Surlethe]

I guess you never got any economies of scale in privately-owned firms, though? Do any individual private firms in China now have any significant market power or economies of scale?

[K. A. Pital]

I guess you never got any economies of scale in privately-owned firms, though?

None. Such small capital cannot achieve any economy of scale. All large capital was nationalized; only state companies had economies of scale.