| Skybird |
11-11-09 10:37 AM |
Gorbatchev was tried to be toppled from within the party's regime. Opposition to his policies was strong - but he kept loyal to the path he had chosen. He may have seen the economy of his country being in very bad shape, but nevertheless, somebody else than him coming to power would have meant that the regime eventually could have hold out for much longer time. How it is possible you see in North Korea - compared to North Korea, the late USSR still was almost an idyll - but still the NK regime lives on, and even can rebuff and outsmart the almighty Americans. The tools to control the crowd the forces to keep foreign enemies out - still existed in the USSR 89. Would have the USSR collapsed nevertheless, sooner or later? Probably yes. Will NK one day collapse? Probably yes. The point is that this does not take plac ein the present, and did not necessarily take place due to western policies in 1989.
So, Gorbatchev really was a lucky event in that he rebelled against the regime, somehow, and broke it open, although it still could have held out much longer by the use of force and old, long tradition. And if the situation for the poeple would have detoriated - who would have cared, for they had no voice? Gorbatchev opened a window of opportunity in history, although somewhat unintentionally, and that simply is his outstanding merit.
As a matter of fact, under Yeltzin, when there was "democracy and capitalism" entering russia and opened the free hunt for Russian assets, the economic situation for many people detoriated much beyond what was the normal status in the USSR, and foreign interests worked hand in hand with regional corruption and russian Mafia to exploit the material values as best as possible - at the cost of the russian people, for the profit of foreign enterprise. Remembering those years, which brought the oligarchic structure to raise that later Putin so unforgivingly started to shatter again in that he signalled very clearly that they would become his personal enemies if they try to ursupate the control over the state, gives Russians little reason to be so very much in favour of American understanding of free market forces in action, "freedom" and democracy. With these, they were worse off than before - thanks to foreign predatory behavior. Now that there is a small hesitent general raise in material status for many russians, one has to note that this started with Putin taking over from weak yeltzin and estavblishing stronger control over the state policies. No, he is not democratic, and yes, he accepts a certain level of corruption in the econoym as long as it still serves the state's interest and does not try to take over control from the state. So what?
In other words: Putinism works much better for Russia than what the West had to bring to it in the early 90s in the name of "freedom and democracy". It was maximum foreign exploitation, dressed in candy-sweet catchphrases.
|
