
Gorbachev: Perestroika Lost - ph0rque
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/opinion/14gorbachev.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
======
hristov
Great article by a brilliant man. I like the fact that while he admits his
mistakes and points out problems with Putin he does not shy away from pointing
out some problems that are completely ignored in the western reporting on
Russia -- that the so called "shock therapy" that was urged and urged by
western economists and bankers was a total disaster and that the second
election of Yeltsin and the first election of Putin were fraudulent.

~~~
idlewords
Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. It worked extremely well in the
Eastern Bloc satellites that tried it, and the general trend was that the more
drastic the privatization, the faster the recovery and ultimate rise to
European living standards.

In the former Soviet Union, though, 'shock therapy' turned into simple
looting. The country was too big and the political system too rotten to
actually carry out any program of reform.

~~~
hristov
Wow, I wonder what those "eastern block satelites" where it "worked extremely
well" are.

I was born in an eastern block country and still follow the news there, and
let me tell you it did not work very well there. In fact it was very similar
to a miniature version of what happened in Russia (except for the oil and gas
money).

Your last sentence is the typical way the Chicago boys excuse themselves after
their repeated failures -- just by using racism. "Our theories are sound but
the locals are too rotten for our high minded theories" ...

~~~
idlewords
Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic.

~~~
Zev
Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the
case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism
went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence. Hell, in Czechoslovakia,
the workers actually put in unpaid overtime to make up for the work that they
missed while they were protesting to gain freedom.

// edit: Don't include Romania, actually. ATB pointed out, rightfully, that
the Romanian revolution was among the more violent of the revolutions in 1989.

If you look at the Balkans (countries that used to make up Yugoslavia (sans
Slovenia), Bulgaria, Albania, etc), the economic story is slightly different.
In Bulgaria, for example, the economy only got back up to pre-1989 levels in
mid-2004. The economies here were much more tied to the Soviet Union's and its
collapse hit them much harder. Or, they just devolved into a series of ethnic
battles, which doesn't go over well with the economy.

~~~
ATB
"Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the
case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism
went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence"

The Romanian revolution was extremely violent: over 1,000 people died and over
3,000 were wounded, and the former dictator and his wife were found guilty in
a hasty show trial and executed on the spot. Their former allies then former a
post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole
several elections. Romania continues to have one of the highest corruption
rates in Eastern Europe.

But yes, aside from that, it went "remarkably well."

This isn't random conspiratorial nonsense, it's well-documented and NPOVed
five ways from Sunday:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aft...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aftermath)

~~~
Zev
Point. Its late for me and I got slightly jumbled up. You're absolutely right
that Romania was the most violent of the revolutions and that I shouldn't have
included them in the lacking violence part. I've edited the original post to
mention this.

Even still, it could have been much worse; the revolution could have failed.
And it lead to a stable government that successfully transitioned between
parties afterwards. And the Romanian economy is doing fairly well. I'd call
that a pretty remarkable success, given how spectacular the failures in
Eastern Europe are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 _Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the
country for most of the 90s and stole several elections._

I haven't really read much about this, Romanian elections being fraudulent.
Don't suppose you could recommend a few good news articles or other data
(books or papers, perhaps) on the subject (Romania after 1989, not just
elections specifically)? The Wikipedia article doesn't have any citation for
it either.

~~~
ATB
Henry F. Carey; East European Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1995, "Irregularities or
Rigging: The 1992 Romanian Parliamentary Elections"

~~~
Zev
And something more recent to show that the trend has continued? Romania has
elections every 4 years, I believe. That paper was published after one round
of elections. There's been a few rounds since.

------
megaduck
It's interesting that he called out Medvedev as a voice of reason. Outside of
Russia, Medvedev is often seen as a simple puppet of Putin. I'm reminded of a
joke I heard a few years ago:

One day, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev went out to a restaurant for a
fancy dinner. Putin, naturally, ordered first.

"I'll have the steak."

The waiter replied, "Very good, sir. Now, what about the vegetable?"

To which Putin answered, "He'll have the steak too."

~~~
klipt
There's a similar joke about Margaret Thatcher:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4agXi15LfS0#t=2m03s> (via Spitting Image)

Which came first?

------
andyjdavis
Does anyone else marvel at Mikhail Gorbachev's writing appearing the in the
New York Times? That, if nothing else, is a sign of how far we've come from
the cold war days.

~~~
jackfoxy
No, I don't marvel at all.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews>

I think any major English language periodical would publish his editorial,
which generates more high-brow interest in the English speaking world than in
his own country. He has absolutely no influence in Russia today, or for quite
some time.

I once had a Ukrainian immigrant barber, who maintained Gorbachev's Russian
was very pedestrian, but he had a great English interpretor who could
translate on the spot into prosaic English. He (the barber) was very
opinionated, and I have never seen anyone make this claim in print.

~~~
steamboiler
Why would a great interpreter translate something pedestrian to something
_prosaic_? (factual; dull; unimaginative <http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/prosaic>)

~~~
dfranke
I think "prosodic" is the word he meant.

------
bh23ha
I think everyone will agree the core thesis that a "primitive" economy based
on natural resources will not make Russia a great country in the future is
true.

The implication that it is fear that's keeping a more modern, complex and
innovative economy from a evolving is more nuanced.

I think dictatorships like Singapore are not necessary bad for a strong and
diverse economy. I think a true democracy is better, but not by much pure in
economic terms. I think it's much better for your humanity.

What really plagues Russia is chaos, corruption and lawlessness. That's what's
keeping the small and mid sized business down, they are the ones that could
diversify the economy.

~~~
andyjdavis
Being a dictatorship is not inherently bad for the economy. But as you say
democracy tends to be better for your humanity, so to speak.

Being a dictatorship magnifies the impact of the quality of the
leadership/rulers. In most western democracies our governments are relatively
weak. Their ability to help or hinder the economy is somewhat limited as they
generally don't directly control the organizations that make up the economy.
On the other hand in a country where the government wields absolute power the
government's impact is enormous.

Historically most governments around in the world haven't been great so the
countries that have done consistently well are those whose governments have
limited influence over the economy ie democracies.

Its not that democracy helps your economy. It just dilutes the governments
ability to fvck it up.

~~~
camccann
I don't think anyone would disagree that, in theory, the ideal government is a
wise, benevolent dictator. The primary problem, in practice, is finding such a
dictator (the secondary problem, of course, being how to get rid of him when
he turns out to be insufficiently wise and/or benevolent after all).

Democracy is actually a pretty terrible way to run things; as Churchill said,
it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been
tried so far.

------
Zev
_The party’s top bureaucracy organized the attempted coup in August 1991,
which scuttled the reforms._

This bit made me laugh for some reason. Using "scuttle" makes it seems like a
rather whimsical take on one of the more important events of the 1990's. If
anyone doesn't know what he's referring to, its the KGB and other branches of
the Soviet government taking himself (Gorbachev) hostage and throwing a coup.
In turn, Boris Yeltsin led protests to restore Gorbachev to power.

Due to his actions, Yeltsin gained popular support and was, in effect, the
leader of the Soviet Union as the president of Russia; Gorbachev had resigned
a few days after the coup. And the Soviet Union was nearing its end as well;
it ceased to exist just over four months later.

~~~
pvg
Don't confuse "scuttle" with "scuttlebutt". There's nothing whimsical about
the usage of "scuttle". Pretty standard fare.

Main Entry: 3scuttle Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): scut·tled;
scut·tling \ˈskət-liŋ, ˈskə-təl-iŋ\ Date: 1642

1 : to cut a hole through the bottom, deck, or side of (a ship); specifically
: to sink or attempt to sink by making holes through the bottom 2 : destroy,
wreck; also : scrap 2

------
dfranke
I'm 24, which means I'm just young enough to only know about Gorbachev's
premiership through history textbooks. This is not the first time I've seen
him back in the headlines, but it's still an incredibly weird feeling every
time that I do. It's like hearing from a ghost.

------
jbellis
Wow, Gorbachev has always avoided directly criticizing Putin until now, afaik.
I wonder if there's a nice hot cup of thallium in his future now.

~~~
coffeemug
I actually thought the article was _very_ reserved at criticizing Putin. The
point is basically that Putin destroyed all progress toward democracy, but the
article never assigns blame to him exactly. It tends to refer to an abstract
entity ("Russia") rather than a specific person (Putin).

~~~
varjag
Which is not without justification, as Putin is very much a product and
reflection of modern Russian society.

------
eplanit
I hope this history is not lost on my fellow Americans: "The Soviet system,
created on the precepts of socialism amid great efforts and sacrifices, had
made our country a major power with a strong industrial base. The Soviet Union
was strong in emergencies, but in more normal circumstances, our system
condemned us to inferiority."

We're at a similar brink, though via dissimilar circumstances. While we
properly are looking for ways to repair and improve, I hope that there is a
strong resurgence of both Democratic and Capitalist principles. The
alternative, as some are leaning towards, has a well-documented trajectory. It
would condemn us to inferiority.

~~~
sophacles
Yes obviously spiraling military costs (aka security costs) had nothing to do
with it. We should focus on stopping all infrastructure improvements, and all
services and instead funnel that money to the Homeland Security and DoD. They
only spend a few trillion a year.

~~~
eplanit
I quoted his own words. He's the first to say that Communism failed.

So, to you, Capitalism is nothing other than military spending??? Read some
history.

~~~
sophacles
How do you get that from my statement? I never claimed capitalism is just
military spending. Nor did I claim that communism did not fail. I was however
reacting to your implication that some social programs are full on communism.

It is pretty accepted that one of the major reasons for Soviet collapse was
massive military spending (unsustainable...). You are suggesting that the way
the US is moving recently will make us collapse just like the Soviets. You
fail to mention the periodic and massive increase in military spending, which
is not recent. This spending now constitutes a very very large portion of the
US budget. I worry far more about the constant growth of that spending than
about some new programs that cost and order of magnitude less.

------
ost
A man who ruined a one whole world still "has so many ideas".

~~~
wynand
Could you elaborate on that? I think a lot of people here probably don't share
your reservations and it would help to say what they are.

~~~
ost
The second part is a citation of a 15-year old popular joke on Gorbachev,
about his incompetence combined with wishful thinking combined with
unwillingness to admit his own mistakes.

A world I was referring to is a so called Second World, that was a Soviet
block. Being second here does not mean to be somewhere between the first and
the third, it means standing on par with (self-proclaimed) First World. And
Soviet Union really was a developed, technologically and culturally advanced
world. Now we see degradation everywhere, we are on a clear path to the Third
World, and we need this modernization. Well, Russia has undergone some
successful modernizations in the past, all of them were quite painful. Last
one was led by Stalin so you can get an idea of what I mean by "painful", and
failed modernizations were even worse. So, it is arguable that Gorbachev made
more evil for his people than Stalin did.

~~~
ajuc
I'm always wery surprised, that for some people USSR and company was as good
as "the West". I mean - ok, you were sending rockets to space, but at that
time people in eastern block were many times less wealthy than people in the
west, were less free, couldn't even choose the gov.

It was not sustainable, without Gorbachev it would have ended the same, only
later and probably more violent.

When you build your civilization on power and military strength and keep
people on your side without their consensus, it isn't surprising that you have
to spend on military a lot. And when you add inefficient economy to the mix,
it's obvious it will fail.

~~~
ost
_people in eastern block were many times less wealthy than people in the west_

Less wealthy, yes, but not many times less wealthy, provided that all basic
(and many not so basic) living needs were covered virtually for free,
including guaranteed employment, free medicine, free education and so on.
Also, it's easy to be wealthy with a 14-digit national debt.

 _...were less free, couldn't even choose the gov_

That's propaganda. Soviet Union was a pretty democratic state at all levels,
and anyyone could choose to go with a party career if he liked to.

 _It was not sustainable, without Gorbachev it would have ended the same, only
later and probably more violent._

How do you know?

~~~
ajuc
Hm, in Poland before 1989 we had to vote "right", also we always had 98%-99%
participation in elections. "Slightly" suspicious, isn't it? Now it's sth like
30-60%.

About going with party career - yes, to have good job people even had to be in
the party. What I mean by "less free" is - there was one real party, you had
to accept party line to be politician, people couldn't choose other party.
People couldn't go out of country without permission, and it was strictly
controlled, who are allowed to travel where. Simply put it was totalitarian
state.

About the fall of the USSR: because in 1989 and later transferrable rubels
were worth almost nothing, there were big inflation, satelitte countries were
freeing themselves, and atomic war wasn't an option to anybody sane. It had to
end that way.

