|
Gorbachev inherited 65 years of Soviet communism: a super fragile system, based on very tight, top-down command & control. On the surface these command & control societies appear more orderly than democratic societies, but they are very bad at dealing with complexity and at adapting to big changes. Gorbachev made the "mistake" of perturbing the system too much through his attempts at reform. Also, economically, I don't think the Soviet Union was in such great shape as you say. A space shuttle is not the same as having an economy that creates surplus wealth in real terms. The war in Afghanistan and having to compete with a West bouncing back from 1970s stagflation were other factors not under Gorbachev's control. The same will at some point happen to e.g. North Korea or Cuba. It has happened to some of these Arabic regimes: when the top echelons are removed or the repressive nature is relaxed, the entire order collapses, leaving a big void and a population which has less than before. In some cases, much less... (Hopefully, North Korea and Cuba will receive lots of support from their neighbours, so it won't be too bad.) It may also happen with our financial system, the continuation of which comes with ever escalating costs, top-down intervention, bluff, guarantees and outright financial repression. Like Gorbachev, some politician or bank would accidentally upset the balance and would get the blame. E.g. "he raised the rates too fast". Or "too slow", depending on what actually happens. But in reality you should blame the historical fragility of the system itself. (I like the term Soviet monetarism.) |