[pavpanchekha]

To summarize: the post is phrased in terms of an existing controversy about whether Gorbachev was "powerless" in the face of the bureaucracy (and how much he feared a coup), but concludes he wasn't. Instead, the author thinks Gorbachev was quite powerful, but focused on the wrong things, specifically on political reform instead of economic reform. Critical economic reforms like price reform was abandoned, and at the same time state enterprise reform caused fiscal problems that left the center weak. At the same time, political reform ended up empowering regions ("republics" meaning nationalities), which ended up wrestling fiscal control of the center. Eventually (this part is uncontroversial) the RSFSR ended up with more power than the center and dissolved the USSR.

[ajcp]

Can't recommend 'Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union' by Vladislav M Zubok enough. An absolute page-turner that makes this super clear.

[Yeul]

Gorbatsjov listened to American advisors. The Chinese were watching and never made the same mistakes.

Opening up the economy so that Western piggus can take over everything and corrupt the nation with their DMARKS and Dollars? What were they thinking...

[pqtyw]

It wasn't a "nation" though. It was an empire that could only be held together by force and oppression.

[rahen]

But isn't China the same? Tibet and Xinjiang are both nations with their own language and culture. I guess it wouldn’t be long until they became independent again if it weren’t for force and oppression.

[pqtyw]

Not really. The entire Tibet Autonomous Region has less than 4 million people living in it. Xinjiang is 26 million which is of course a lot but still insignificant compared to China's total population (and almost half the people living there are ethnically Chinese anyway).

Those regions might be politically important to China but demographically and economically (besides any potential natural resources) they hardly matter.

Han make up 91% of the population of China, in the USSR Russians were barely above 50%.

I mean China is a nation state that engages in some imperialism. The USSR was an empire first and foremost.

[D_Alex]

>nations with their own language and culture

There are few countries where there is a single language and culture. Just looking at Western Europe, there is Basques in Spain, Bretons in France, Welsh/Scottish in the UK, Frisians in Netherlands, Lombards in Italy, Walloons in Belgium etc etc.

>it weren’t for force and oppression.

Nah. That's USAID propaganda.

[TwoPhonesOneKid]

It's important to note that in the marxist/sociological tradition (doesn't really matter how actually marxist they are these days), "nation" refers to basically ethnicity. China itself claims to host 56 nations. In this context "nationalism" is considered a threat to the state and to the people. Don't confuse thus with pro-state patriotism, of course, which is alive and thriving.

The soviet union was the same way. Even member states mostly represented multiple nations, which often crossed member state borders.

Here's the relevant work from Stalin: "Marxism and the National Question": https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...

I'm pretty skeptical myself that nationalism was the thing that tore the soviet union apart. The most ethnically diverse areas (notably, georgia and central asia) generally benefitted the most from attachment to the soviet union. Surely here in the US we are less bound together by shared culture than the soviets ever were. If the soviets were an empire of nations, we are a prison-ship of them.

[danmaz74]

It was Eltsin who listened to American advisors, not Gorbachev.

[esafak]

This is a problem with discontent nations. If you offer freedom before redressing grievances, they will choose to leave.

[EdwardDiego]

How many of their grievances are freedom related though?.

Could be economic freedom, religious, intellectual, social etc.

Also, I'd argue giving your citizens freedom of movement is critical if you're going to implement necessary but drastic economic reforms, it gives the bourgeois, who often end up leading revolutions in despotic states, an option to exit stage left instead of putting on camo and moving to the jungle with a bunch o guns.

Education not controlled by politicians is dangerous to authoritarian regimes.

The current rhetoric from JD Vance about tertiary education is part of the usual script of tinpot despots, sadly.

[kamaal]

>>How many of their grievances are freedom related though?

If people think they are better off economically as a region they will leave. This might look like a economic problem, but its actually a political problem. It literally deals with the fact that who gets to collect and keep taxes, and later plan how to spend that money.

>>Education not controlled by politicians is dangerous to authoritarian regimes.

Its always a mistake to assume that people don't know if conditions elsewhere are better, or there own conditions are worse.

Just because people put up with bad governments, it doesn't mean they will not rebel later. Really it all depends on the situation, and time.

[_DeadFred_]

I wonder how this plays out in the future in the US as differences in tax collected versus returned tax dollars continue.

[Analemma_]

The post mentions parallels to the Qing Dynasty, but I want to elaborate on that a little more: whenever an authoritarian system which derives its authority from something other than nationalism (Imperial authority for the Qing, Communist ideology and the Party for the USSR) tries to modernize and liberalize, the danger is that this awakens slumbering nationalism which tears the system apart faster than it can safely adapt.

This is exactly what happened to the Qing: the Chinese population never really liked the Qing, but when it was a mostly hands-off distant authority, they lived with it. But when the Qing attempted to become a modern country with high state capacity, this woke up slumbering Han nationalism which proceeded to tear down the dynasty.

And that's what happened in the USSR too: early Soviet leaders correctly guessed that Russian nationalism had to be suppressed in the Soviet system, or else with the majority of the population and territory, Russia would end up dominating the rest of the country. And to their credit, they mostly made good on this: Russia didn't have too much of an outsized impact on or benefit from the Soviet economy, and representation from other states in the political elite was pretty good. But as soon as Gorbachev opened things up, Russian nationalism asserted itself and wanted to throw off the "unfair treatment", and the USSR immediately fell apart.

There are contemporary examples today, too: I argue this same pattern is what has been happening in Burma. When the junta had total control, they were able to force the patchwork of ethnic groups to mostly get along; as soon as a little democracy got introduced, the Buddhist majority started genociding everyone else.

If you want to open up an autocracy, you have to pay very close attention to whatever forces it has long been suppressing.

[soco]

I wonder, did that nationalism need so little time to get such a powerful force? I mean, Gorbachev was not that long in office, so maybe it was there all along just barely kept in check.

[tetromino_]

The nationalism was always there. At first, it was strongly suppressed. Stalin in 1941 found it expedient to suppress it less (to try to motivate the population to fight Nazi invaders). Brezhnev in the 1970s found it expedient to suppress it even less (to try to motivate the population to not succumb to Western cultural influences). Then Gorbachev pulled out the control rods even further and it exploded.

[pqtyw]

Same reason the Warsaw pact and communism in all East/Central European countries collapsed at the same time. It could only survive as long as there was a credible threat of Soviet invasion.

Same applied to almost all of the national "republics". Most people were only willing along with it due to fear and hopelessness (since any type of civil disobedience would be violently suppressed).

[flyinghamster]

I see a parallel with the breakup of Yugoslavia as well. In spite of his authoritarianism, Tito was a popular, legitimate war hero, and Yugoslavia had notably more personal freedom than the typical communist regime. But there wasn't anyone who could truly replace him; once he was gone, the old nationalist tensions that had always bubbled under the surface boiled over, and everything flew apart.

[_DeadFred_]

Is this the same dynamic that keep a sizable Christian population in the middle east during Ottoman times but their population's decimation in recent times?