Why did the USSR collapse whilst other communist nations like Cuba and China still remain intact?

[msb314]

Always wondered why this was so?

The USSR was formidable back in the mid-20th century and have a very strong economy, population, miltary etc. along with a huge landmass and infrastructure.

Through the 1960's and 70's - Soviet influence was in fact expanding to many other countries such as Afghanista, Hungary, Vietman etc.

So how and why did everything fall apart by the late 1980's?

Why didn't USSR succeed whereas China is still the only communist (officially atleast) major country in the world?

 

[GenericBrand]

From what I gathered China was more adaptive in its approach to the economy and introduced various economic reforms that were more in tow with free-market principles while the Soviets were more resistant.

Another key factor was the arms race between USSR and the USA, and a significant chunk of the Soviet GDP when into Defense, Military etc while the rest of the population was starving. The USSR had an economy that couldn't support such spending and allow them to look after their population and also really poor production capabilities as they were failing at providing basic food to its people. Not to mention the ill-fated Afghan invasion drained significant amount of resources.

Its worth noting the Communist Party in China is communist in only its name, after Mao they modernized themselves and fashioned themselves in a more capitalist style economy.

 

[GenericBrand]

The USSR probably could have survived if they had better leadership and adapted by putting their economic needs before political and introducing much needed reforms like China did.

 

[enkidu_]

Interestingly that released yesterday on the NYTimes :

(...)
A key question you pose is how much of China’s success can be ascribed to this political system. What’s the answer?

There are several important elements. One is the party successfully sets long-term political goals, such as the modernization of industry or technology, or infrastructure planning. As Deng Xiaoping made clear in the 1980s, it can concentrate resources in priority areas. I see this as a strength in the initial phase of development, from say the 1980s to the mid-2000s.

Another crucial element is experimentation. This is something we ignore in the West — how unexpectedly flexible China’s deeply bureaucratic system can be. This flexibility has been demonstrated in the ability to set up pilot projects in special economic zones, in local tests — such as for housing reform or bankruptcy in state enterprises. Very difficult measures were regularly tested in pilot projects for several years before national laws were enacted.

You show how this flexibility arose from the Communist Party’s revolutionary experience.

This is very important. Because we have to ask ourselves, how did a socialist bureaucratic system get this kind of adaptability that you didn’t see in Eastern Europe? It’s due to the specific historical experiences of this party [in the 1930s and 1940s before coming to power]. It controlled very spread-out and not contiguous districts. So when it tried something like land reform it was done experimentally and in a decentralized fashion. This was fundamentally different from the Soviet Union.
(...)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/world/asia/china-politics-xi-jinping.html?_r=0

 

[IAJ]

Gorbatsjov had probably the best answer to this

 

[JaDed]

Chinese were more hardworking and more in number as well.Plus except a couple of neighboring countries they didn't really go out of their comfort zone to be a world power like USSR tried withtheir atrocious economic policies but hey atleast literacy rate is high.

 

[Slog]

Lol at Chinese being considered as a communist nation

Karl Marx would be turning in his grave

 

[Musakhel]

what is the actual difference between socialism and communism?

 

[Adil_94]

The USSRs biggest problem was trying to achieve economic and political reform at the same time. The Chinese liberalised their economy without giving political concessions. With the liberalisation of the political culture a lot of the crimes of the Soviet past were exposed combined with inadequate economic reforms a crumbling economy that was failing and slowly the USSR withered away. It couldnt compete with the U.S on all front anymore it had a huge spending overbalance with military expenditure being at the expense of basic necessities and commercial goods.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=142623]Musakhel[/MENTION] Socialism allows for some private enterprise. Communism at least the Soviet model doesnt allow for any private enterprise all means of production are owned by the state.

 

[Musakhel]

[MENTION=142623]Musakhel[/MENTION] Socialism allows for some private enterprise. Communism at least the Soviet model doesnt allow for any private enterprise all means of production are owned by the state.

Thanks, looking at the different world economies they all are a mix of socialism and capitalism some more neoliberal than others.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=142623]Musakhel[/MENTION] Scandinavian states have their social democracy model which has provisions for a large welfare state but also capitalism too. No country is truly laissez faire or free market capitalism anymore since the Great Depression. Neo-liberals have tried their best to erode the welfare state though.

 

[Yossarian]

Because China is a nation whereas the USSR was a union of many different nations. The name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should give you a clue.There's not much in common between, say, the peoples of the likes of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in central Asia, and the likes of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in northern Europe.

Even Russia itself (official name Russian Federation), whilst being a single country, is so large and so diverse that in terms of it's regions, republics and ethnicities, it is more akin to being a collection of many different nations than being a single nation.

 

[Musakhel]

[MENTION=142623]Musakhel[/MENTION] Scandinavian states have their social democracy model which has provisions for a large welfare state but also capitalism too. No country is truly laissez faire or free market capitalism anymore since the Great Depression. Neo-liberals have tried their best to erode the welfare state though.

Do neo-liberals agree with state schools and healthcare or do they leave it entirely to the private sector?

 

[Buffet]

China and USSR are not comparable. Follow the money trail (revenue generation and non-productive expenses).

Cuba is also not comparable due to huge difference in size.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=142623]Musakhel[/MENTION] Generally neo-liberals are in favour of state education although some radical neo liberals and libertarians dont want state intervention in education and want to keep it as minimalist as possible. Neo-liberals generally do favour a privatised healthcare system but in the U.K for example the N.H.S is a national institution and its a tough task for the current govt to do away with it. which is what they want.

 

[Varun]

Another reason is that the USSR had little soft-power beyond its borders, if at all. While America was spreading its culture far and wide with the likes of Hollywood and McDonald's, few could relate to the ways of the Soviets - and this impacted global trends such as migration and cross-culturalism, and even diplomacy.