Should've USSR survive after Communism?

I'm interested in your vote and opinion whether USSR could and should live after communism collapsed there and everywhere (except China, making them 2#).

Soviets vote 70% to preserve the USSR but it did collapse nevertheless. So does people's vote count? Why are modern people against referendums? Is referendum the highest form of democracy?









https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991

Nah, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would have become "just" the Union of Republics and, actually, some of them not really deserving to be called Republics.
GG no Re.

Skrivet av Skanderbeg, 22.12.2016 at 08:59

Is referendum the highest form of democracy?

Yes

until the people actually influence a decision and Brexit happens

Seriously though, referendums are quite democratic, and should be held from time to time, but not for everything - sometimes it's better to let the specialists decide.

In regards to the USSR: it seems rather unlikely to stay united after the fall of communism. Straying away from communism meant a loosening/withdrawal of Russian influence on outside nations, as seen in Afghanistan. Those nations will most likely react in an extreme manner to decades of communism, and become their own self-governing democratic nations, which they are today.

Skrivet av The Tactician, 22.12.2016 at 23:08

Skrivet av Skanderbeg, 22.12.2016 at 08:59

Is referendum the highest form of democracy?

Yes

until the people actually influence a decision and Brexit happens

Seriously though, referendums are quite democratic, and should be held from time to time, but not for everything - sometimes it's better to let the specialists decide.

In regards to the USSR: it seems rather unlikely to stay united after the fall of communism. Straying away from communism meant a loosening/withdrawal of Russian influence on outside nations, as seen in Afghanistan. Those nations will most likely react in an extreme manner to decades of communism, and become their own self-governing democratic nations, which they are today.

I think i made very good question, because if you look back 20 years, countries are only falling apart: USSR on 15 states, Yugoslavia on 7, Czechoslovakia on 2, now Scotland had referendum, Catalonia soon, Veneto ponder secession, Kurds control northern Syria and Iraq, South Sudan seceded from Sudan.

Can we see this trend continue? Is it good thing to happen? Will we end up with 5000 countries from current 200?

Also what if those 'nations' drifting away from Russian influence after communism, are using internal administrative borders for republic borders? Is that correct and legal? For example, USSR created Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Turkmenistan in 1936, taking 4 million km/2 land from Russian SFSR in order to create them. Russian SFSR also gave 50,000 km/2 to Soviet Belarus in the 30's to enlarge their territory to round number of 100,000 km/2 and triple their population to 5 million people.
That's one of the problem for us, everyone say 'USSR was Russia' and 'Russians ruled everyone in USSR' but we only saw land taken away from us and our products given to non-Russians to develop their parts of the USSR (infrastructure, schools, hospitals, factories, farms). Not to mention how many resources were extracted from Siberia and went for Ukraine, Baltic and Soviet Asia. So if those nations are created as administrative regions, for convenience of and easier control of the country, is it ok for them to secede, even when they never existed before?

1922


1936


If Russia try to take back its territories, is that aggression? Or if Russia or Kazakhstan or any other north asian people, try to restore USSR, will that be considered aggression and war or normal restoration of a recognized country?

I personally don't care for land, that's mud and dirt, i care for people (my people, all 1500 north asian ethnic groups, hate the rest ), but it really feels injustice to suddenly one day wake up and realize your country not only collapsed, but system changed (from communism to capitalism), and territory/population halved.
It really hurts when you add all injustices together from the recent history, Nazi Germany killed 25 million Soviets, but in occupied France only 300,000, why they killed my people more? Poland and Romania collapsed in the 1989, but why they didn't lose territory, why me?

Citera:

If Russia try to take back its territories, is that aggression?

You made thread only for this, didn't you ?

Skrivet av Skanderbeg, 23.12.2016 at 08:04

I think i made very good question, because if you look back 20 years, countries are only falling apart: USSR on 15 states, Yugoslavia on 7, Czechoslovakia on 2, now Scotland had referendum, Catalonia soon, Veneto ponder secession, Kurds control northern Syria and Iraq, South Sudan seceded from Sudan.

Can we see this trend continue? Is it good thing to happen? Will we end up with 5000 countries from current 200?

Also what if those 'nations' drifting away from Russian influence after communism, are using internal administrative borders for republic borders? Is that correct and legal? For example, USSR created Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Turkmenistan in 1936, taking 4 million km/2 land from Russian SFSR in order to create them. Russian SFSR also gave 50,000 km/2 to Soviet Belarus in the 30's to enlarge their territory to round number of 100,000 km/2 and triple their population to 5 million people.
That's one of the problem for us, everyone say 'USSR was Russia' and 'Russians ruled everyone in USSR' but we only saw land taken away from us and our products given to non-Russians to develop their parts of the USSR (infrastructure, schools, hospitals, factories, farms). Not to mention how many resources were extracted from Siberia and went for Ukraine, Baltic and Soviet Asia. So if those nations are created as administrative regions, for convenience of and easier control of the country, is it ok for them to secede, even when they never existed before?


If Russia try to take back its territories, is that aggression? Or if Russia or Kazakhstan or any other north asian people, try to restore USSR, will that be considered aggression and war or normal restoration of a recognized country?

I personally don't care for land, that's mud and dirt, i care for people (my people, all 1500 north asian ethnic groups, hate the rest ), but it really feels injustice to suddenly one day wake up and realize your country not only collapsed, but system changed (from communism to capitalism), and territory/population halved.
It really hurts when you add all injustices together from the recent history, Nazi Germany killed 25 million Soviets, but in occupied France only 300,000, why they killed my people more? Poland and Romania collapsed in the 1989, but why they didn't lose territory, why me?

Your question is a good one indeed, I was being humorous about my own claim. I'm not too well informed on how exactly the USSR was split up, but as you describe it it seems that the USSR voluntarily split up itself (perhaps being unfavorable to Russians, but not enough reason to take land/population back). As for a country trying to recreate the USSR, from a legislative/constitutional standpoint I don't see why not if that's what the people want (which they probably won't at this point); just elect a Communist party and vote on referendums and such, but again, that's highly unlikely. Hypothetically, if Russia changes name to USSR and leadership to Communism, nothing's wrong with that. However, if Russia changes name and leadership, and then tries to expand its territory in the name of Communism and restoring the USSR, then something's wrong - the once united nation is divided beyond return, unless the people want to return of course. Funny, sounds a bit like the Arab nations.

It's a paradox though. Since Communism is always looking forward (as opposed to fascism/conservatism), then it would not look back to recreate a past state. It would be uncommunistic to... become communist. However, if it creates a new and unique communist state that resembles the USSR with extreme changes and rapid collectivization/industrialization, it would then be back to communism without having to go back... to communism. lol.

edit: also, this separatist movement has more to do with protectionism (leaving the eu, brexit) or difference in ideology (california-trump) or culture (catalonia-spain, or quebec and canada historically, etc), than it having to do with countries failing

Did the USSR have to collapse? No, but it fell on its own.

You say that there is a trend of separatism, however, I view it as the establishment of borders and cultural identities. The USSR, and even Russia today, was composed of multiple ethnicity and used internal and mandatory migration to separate and integrate regions into the fold.

As for your original question on referendums. Is it the highest form of democracy? Certainly does seem like so, but people in general are not as knowledgeable as people in the field of politics and what not to know what is actually the best choice, whether it be strategically, economically, politically, or socially. People weigh in emotions against logic, but it does honestly depend of the perspective and objective of a nation and its people.

Skrivet av Skanderbeg, 23.12.2016 at 08:04

If Russia try to take back its territories, is that aggression?

Yes. Recognising revanchism as a just and valid reason for territorial claims opens up myriads of new problems that should really stay closed.

Finland, for starters, has stated after the collapse of the USSR that it is ready to discuss the return of its lost Karelian territories from Russia. That question is closed, and I personally would really like to see it stay closed.

-----------------------------------------------------

To return to the original question, no. It was not necessary for the USSR to collapse, but it did, with its various benefits and drawbacks.

For example, I personally find the new US dominance over Eastern Europe to be highly objectionable, but am pretty satisfied with the independence of the Baltic Republics.

Skrivet av The Tactician, 23.12.2016 at 11:30

Snip

How do you think people will react if referendums are held in Kazakhstan, Russia and others and majority vote to create new USSR? Will (non-soviets) condemn and not recognize referendum as they didn't recognize Crimean?

If that happens, i would vote for USSR without Baltic, Ukraine and Armenia, because Baltic and Ukraine are nazis and Armenia deserve its own country because they have 3000 old history, culture and 2000 old religion. They were not originally Russian territories. I would rather have a middle eastern migrant in my backyard than ukrainian that's for sure.

But more realistic reality will be that all ex-soviets will migrate to Russia in the future, just like half of Mexico migrated to America. Because of the size of industry and jobs available in Russia, while other ex-soviet economies are ruined after USSR.

Skrivet av Skanderbeg, 24.12.2016 at 16:12

Skrivet av The Tactician, 23.12.2016 at 11:30

Snip

How do you think people will react if referendums are held in Kazakhstan, Russia and others and majority vote to create new USSR? Will (non-soviets) condemn and not recognize referendum as they didn't recognize Crimean?

If that happens, i would vote for USSR without Baltic, Ukraine and Armenia, because Baltic and Ukraine are nazis and Armenia deserve its own country because they have 3000 old history, culture and 2000 old religion. They were not originally Russian territories. I would rather have a middle eastern migrant in my backyard than ukrainian that's for sure.

But more realistic reality will be that all ex-soviets will migrate to Russia in the future, just like half of Mexico migrated to America. Because of the size of industry and jobs available in Russia, while other ex-soviet economies are ruined after USSR.

Obviously there will be significant opposition from US and western states, but from a legislative standpoint: they can't do anything about it. The attempted political pressure can be disregarded by a new and united theoretically self-sufficient communist state. However, this does not necessarily mean that the USSR should have not fallen all along; while it was possible to preserve the union, state leaders preferred otherwise, most notably Gorbachev and Yeltsin.