Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The fall of the Soviet Union
An essay on the collapse of the soviet union ussr
An essay on the collapse of the soviet union ussr
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The fall of the Soviet Union
Russia's Economic Woes
In a dramatic and memorable end to the reign of the Soviet Union, the so-called worker's paradise, on December 25th, 1991, the Soviet flag was mournfully lowered from the Kremlin walls for the last time. Finally the reforms and decentralization of the Soviet state that had started in 1980's had met its climax with the destruction of the state itself. The last president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, declared on national TV the formal end of the Union and handed over full powers of the Russian Federation to Russian president Boris Yeltsin. Within a day, the Supreme Soviet also disbanded itself and Soviet institutions gradually faded out or became transformed into democratic institutions. From this political downfall arose the new democratic Russian Federation, followed by the first democratic governmental institutions since 1917.
In order to expedite the transition from a communist to a capitalist society, Yeltsin implemented his policy of "shock-therapy" with the intent of making the market economy work almost overnight by suddenly releasing state control of prices and currency controls. This sudden lack of government control backfired and caused massive turmoil in terms of unemployment and hyperinflation as the Central Bank just kept on printing rubles without discretion. Despite these general economic downturns, winners did emerge from the system. Among the winners was the new class of entrepreneurs and black marketers that had thrived when Gorbachev instituted perestroika in the 80s. Most of these people, known as the Oligarchs, obtained massive influences within the government and eventually practically dictated policy. These liberal policies, however, meant that the elderly and others on...
... middle of paper ...
...people are no better today under capitalism that they were twenty years ago under communism.
Works Cited
Brown, Archie. "Reform, Coup and Collapse: The End of the Soviet State." BBC. 12
October 2001. Available at: Accessed: 1 December 2006
"Crumble, bumble." The Economist. 31 August 2000. Available at:
Accessed at: 2 December 2006.
Rao, Sujata. "Capital Flight Hitting Record Highs." Moscow Times. 16 October 1998.
Available at: Accessed: 2 December 2006.
Stiglitz , Joseph. "The Ruin of Russia." 9 April 2003. Available at:
Accessed: 1 December 2006.
"Told You So." The Economist. 23 June 2005.Available at:
Accesses: 1 December 2006.
Treisman, Daniel. "Blaming Russia First." Foreign Affairs. Novermber 2000. Available
at: Accessed on: 3 December 2006.
"Watch your back." The Economist. 20 May 2004. Available at:
Accessed at: 2 December 2006.
this was the seen to be “freedom” for them as they began to get what
Mau, Vladimir. " The road to 'perestrokia': economics in the USSR and the problem of
The richest of humanity see the most of improvements, and the poorest of humanity see the least of these improvements. Through capitalism the world has changed tremendously in a short amount of time. A host of new technology has been innovated, especially in the last 100 years. Humanity as a whole is much better off than it was before. As an example, most of us are able to take an airplane to travel from one country to another in one day or have fairly easy access to advanced health care. In a word, like Bill Gates said in his article “How to Fix Capitalism”, “Capitalism has improved the lives of billions of people- something that’s easy to forget”(Gates). But, it is not getting better fast enough, and it is not getting better for everyone. A multitude of people live on less than a dollar a day and it can be extremely hard for a person in such a situation to drag themselves out of poverty without help from others. Capitalism has the ability to harness self-interest in a helpful and sustainable way but only on beh...
The overall collapse of the Communist regime came rather quickly, but there were underlying causes of the collapse that were apparent during the preceding decades. On the surface, the 1970s looked good for the Soviet Union. A lot of certain aspects were still going the Soviet Unions way. However, in 1975, the Soviet Union’s power peaked. In 1975, the Soviet Union’s power began to dwindle and there were six underlying causes of the collapse that can be dated back to that year. In this essay I will discuss these six causes and how they helped bring about the actual collapse of the Soviet regime.
In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power with a vision of reform, perestroika and glasnost, which means to restructure the economy. Gorbachev would like to privatize farms, make industries more efficient, and trim down imports. In order to get people’s support of perestroika and glasnost, Gorbachev conceded some individual rights and freedoms. For instance, mass media like newspaper was allowed to criticize the missteps and wrongdoings of the Stalinist era. In addition, Yakovlev, Gorbachev’s confidante and Secretariat of the Soviet Communist Party, restored creative works such as such as books and movies and returned more than 400,000 religious buildings and places of worship to publics. Public affairs, press, politics, education, and free speech were glasnost. Without surprise, glasnost and perestroika gradually became people’s favor and overthrew the socialism. As a result, owing to loosening controls over the people and making reforms to the political and economic elites, liberated minority groups, under-represented and mistreated for ages, began requiring self-determination and the Soviet government emerged weak and vulnerable to the publics. Furthermore, one of the reform, the permission of private ownership, exacerbates the economy of the Soviet Union because the nation subsidized unprofitable private enterprises and the paucity of state oversight
Historically, Russia’s relationship with the West has been shaky at best. From the Crimean War in the 1850’s to alienation following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution all the way up to the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been “under attack.” This has forced them to adopt a mentality that is based in self sufficiency and autarky. As Western nations attempt to strengthen democracy in Russia in the 21st century, Russia has responded negatively to these perceived “intrusions.” Therefore it is important to ask what role the West should play in Russia’s development and what is hindering this from happening? In her book Russia: Lost in Transition, Lilia Shevtsova outlines two different ways the West can approach development with Russia: let them figure it out themselves or patiently create an international environment that the Russians feel comfortable in. Shevtsova clearly favors the latter. The West’s involvement is hindered however by double standards, ideological differences, and negative perceptions of the West’s motives by the Russian people. These must first be analyzed before showing how a cautious, assertive approach is the best way for the West to assist in Russian development.
“His plans were in 5 year intervals in which the government took control over all businesses and industries, focused mainly on factory output/transportation and to implement quota systems” (Greatneck). “The Soviet Union needed to become a top tier area in the global market, but their insufficient funds were what stopped from becoming types of governments such as communist, socialist and capitalist” (StudentPulse). Banks ceased to bail out industrial enterprises. The civilian administrative system, which was already creaking under wartime strains, started to collapse.
Gorbachev's attempt at democratising the totalitarian Soviet system backfired on him as the Soviet republics began to revolt against Moscow's control. This was not a case of economic and political crisis producing liberalisation and democratisation. Rather, it was liberalisation and democratisation that brought the regime to crisis point.
The purpose of this investigation is to assess how significant Mikhail Gorbachev’s Glasnost, and Perestroika polices contribute to the collapse of the USSR. In order to understand how significant of a factor Gorbachev policies were to the collapse of the USSR, we will investigate from how significant were the reforms emplaced by Gorbachev, to how the USSR was doing economically from the time Gorbachev came into power. The main sources for this investigation range from an Excerpt from The cold war: The United States and the Soviet union by Ronald Powaski who states facts about both the economic and political issues of the time. Excerpts from “New political thinking” from perestroika by Gorbachev which states how he believes new political ideas are for the good for the USSR. Finally in The Dissolution of the Soviet Union by Myra Immell who goes over many of the factors of the USSR’s collapse.
Capitalism has widely been regarded as one of the most advanced intellectual achievements of the past few centuries. However, a system which is largely credited for alleviating “human misery” is actually perpetuating it (Goldberg, 6). Capitalism inherently fuels inequality leading to poverty among the powerless. Jonah Goldberg in his article, Capitalism Has Lifted Billions Out of Poverty, attributed the economic theory to ending poverty, but failed to recognize that capitalism’s lofty goals are merely fulfilled on paper. Equal opportunity must exist for capitalism to end human misery, however the stratification of society ensures that no individual has equal access to the keys of capitalist success.
The Soviet Union, which was once a world superpower in the 19th century saw itself in chaos going into the 20th century. These chaoses were marked by the new ideas brought in by the new leaders who had emerged eventually into power. Almost every aspect of the Soviet Union was crumbling at this period both politically and socially, as well as the economy. There were underlying reasons for the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eventually Eastern Europe. The economy is the most significant aspect of every government. The soviet economy was highly centralized with a “command economy” (p.1. fsmitha.com), which had been broken down due to its complexity and centrally controlled with corruption involved in it. A strong government needs a strong economy to maintain its power and influence, but in this case the economic planning of the Soviet Union was just not working, which had an influence in other communist nations in Eastern Europe as they declined to collapse.
69 years after Joseph Stalin facilitated the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922, Mikhail Gorbachev played a part in its collapse, resigning from office the day before it officially fell on Christmas Day. Both leaders had an enormous effect on Soviet Russia and the welfare of its state and citizens. Stalin was a communist, who continued and supported the single party state founded by his predecessor Vladimir Lenin. Gorbachev, even though he was originally a member of the Communist Party, worked against the Marxist ideals implemented by Stalin and Lenin and worked to reform Russia to a more open society. Despite the obvious differences in ideologies and varying levels of success in office, both leaders left
The cold war was failed by the Soviet Union for many reasons, including the sudden collapse of communism (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) This sudden collapse of communism was brought on ultimately by internal factors. The soviet unions president Gorbachev’s reforms: glasnost (openness) and perestroika (political reconstructering) ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev’s basics for glasnost were the promotion of principles of freedom to criticize; the loosening of controls on media and publishing; and the freedom of worship. His essentials of perestroika were, a new legislature; creation of an executive presidency; ending of the ‘leading role’ of the communist party; allowing state enterprises to sell part of their product on the open market; lastly, allowing foreign companies to own Soviet enterprises (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) Gorbachev believed his reforms would benefit his country, but the Soviet Union was ultimately held together by the soviet tradition he was trying to change. The Soviet Union was none the less held together by “…powerful central institutions, pressure for ideological conformity, and the threat of force.
Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords, while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite.
If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident that command economies tend to oppress their citizens. Therefore, socialism, which allows for basic needs to be met and personal freedoms to be upheld, is the best economic system for all of a country’s citizens. Market economies, as a whole, inherently and inevitably lead to poverty and a large class disparity. In a capitalist society, the ones who supply labor, the ones who work the hardest, are the ones who are paid the least. The owners, who are already rich, receive most of the profit and accumulate large masses of wealth.