Hello Aki,
Even though your comments are directed to Chris, if I may tender a few
observations. Again, opinion polls in the early 1990s showed people were
very opposed to the changes as actually delivered. They continued to
support socialism or a type of social democracy. No doubt, they wanted
change from the inertia and corruption of the 1980s, but by the early 1990s
many took a fatalistic attitude that they could not change anything. Or, by
1993 when the nature of change became clear, opposition was put down by
force as when the parliament was shelled. It became abundantly clear what
limits were placed on prospects for change. Enough public services were
kept in place to keep people alive (although they mortality rates returned
to 19th century levels) to prevent outright rebellion, and the West provided
just enough loans to cover the losses from capital flight to keep the
remnants of Soviet government functioning.
Moreover, I think you confuse the nature of today's Russian economy. Much
of it is still state run. The large enterprises, whether private or public,
mostly just saw an appropriation of their profits by an oligarchic class.
They did not get market competition as Primakov just related in his recent
criticism of the 1990s reforms. Capitalists hate the market in practice...
Best wishes from Riga,
Jeff
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:16:34 +0200
From: aki_orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
Dear Chris,
Many thanks for your kind reply.
However, I ask you to consider the following question:
The abolition of the State monopoly over all means of production
and the introduction of private ownership of the means of production
is a fundamental change in society. History is replete with examples
of massive resistence to such changes. Why did this change occur
in the USSR with hardly any resistence from the population, and even
with their support.
Could such a change succeed without the consent of most people ?
Why did they consent ?
Why didn't the majority of the population of the USSR oppose the abolition
of the State monopoly over the means of production and the re-introduction
of private ownership of these means ?
My answer is - the majority of the people in the USSR rejected State
monopoly
over the means of production. They had to choose between two evils and
their
actual behaviour indicates that they prefered private ownership to
State ownership
of the means of production.
Dont you agree ?
sincerely,
Aki
hris Doss wrote:
>The source is the common knowledge in the city where I
>live (Moscow). The large minority in favor of breaking
>up the USSR was composed of the liberal intelligentsia
>and nationalists in the various republics. The large
>minority in favor of ditching the Soviet system was
>also those two classes, plus disgruntled Soviet
>citizens in various places. (As Jeff just said. PS
>Jeff I realize that with respect to pensioners I was
>thinking of the _MOSCOW_ legislation, forgetting that
>Moscow has a magic bubble around it named Yurii
>Luzhkov and is not representative of Russia.)
>
>If I recollect correctly, Leningrad became Petersburg
>again based on about 51% of the vote, a suspiciously
>close number. Anyway the signifier "Lenin" barely
>meant anything in 1991 -- it was way too overused. He
>was omnipresent.
>
>--- aki_orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
