Were the events of 1989/1991 good to the mankind?

[buritobr]

The events of 1989/1991 are the fall of the communist bloc.

I vote no.
It was good only for the central/eastern European countries close to western Europe: east Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary.

The poverty increased in many former soviet republics. Besides, they are not enjoying liberal democracies. One kind of autocratism was replaced by another.

The quality of life in the developed capitalist countries was higher than the quality of life in the communist bloc. However, the existence of the communist bloc was good for the working class of the developed capitalist countries. The competition against the communist bloc made the capitalist become more suitable for the working class. Life in the communist bloc was boring, the consumption goods were not as good as they were in the developed capitalist world, but the population in the communist bloc had the basic: house, food, education, health, employment, pensions. The communism increased the bargain power of the parties in the capitalist world which wanted to increase the social safety net.

The world did not become safer after 1989/1991. A nationalist Russia is more dangerous than a communist Russia. Besides, soon after the fall of communist, many former soviet weapons were sold to terrorists.

For most of the inhabitants of the Earth, life is better in 2017 than it was in 1989. Due to technological changes. Life was better in 1989 than it was in 1961. Life was better in 1961 than it was in 1933.

The country in which most people left poverty was China, a country that gradually adopted capitalism, but kept the Communist Party in the power.

[dead0man]

Of course it's better

My dad grew up for 40 years in a Eastern bloc Communist country and he used to tell me: ''In Communism you weren't allowed to vote but there were no problems but in America you always vote and there's always problems.''

yeah, my dad told some whoppers too

[Mr. Morden]

Star Trek V was pretty miserable, while Star Trek VI was pretty good.  So overall, the events of 1989 and 1991 were kind of a wash.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1989: Yes
1991: Lean no

[darklordoftech]

Yes. The USSR and its satellite states were tyrannies and they were used as bogeymen by evangelicals, hawks, and opponents of safety nets.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. The USSR and its satellite states were tyrannies and they were used as bogeymen by evangelicals, hawks, and opponents of safety nets.

Social safety nets have been weakened in almost every Western country since the fall of the USSR.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    The peaceable demise of an authoritarian state in favor of self-determination is as close to an unqualified good thing as can exist in the realm of politics, so yes.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes. The USSR and its satellite states were tyrannies and they were used as bogeymen by evangelicals, hawks, and opponents of safety nets.

Social safety nets have been weakened in almost every Western country since the fall of the USSR.

That's highly debatable, and correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation.

[darklordoftech]

Yes. The USSR and its satellite states were tyrannies and they were used as bogeymen by evangelicals, hawks, and opponents of safety nets.

Social safety nets have been weakened in almost every Western country since the fall of the USSR.

Thanks to the memory of the USSR.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think 1989 was great, but the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union was regrettable in the former cAse and disastrously mishandled in the latter case.

[Leftbehind]

Yes. The USSR and its satellite states were tyrannies and they were used as bogeymen by evangelicals, hawks, and opponents of safety nets.

Social safety nets have been weakened in almost every Western country since the fall of the USSR.

Thanks to the memory of the USSR.

So they voted to weaken safety nets that they'd grew up with, brought about by parties that were invariably hostile to USSR, because of the memory of the USSR? Er, no.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. The USSR and its satellite states were tyrannies and they were used as bogeymen by evangelicals, hawks, and opponents of safety nets.

Social safety nets have been weakened in almost every Western country since the fall of the USSR.

Thanks to the memory of the USSR.

So they voted to weaken safety nets that they'd grew up with, brought about by parties that were invariably hostile to USSR, because of the memory of the USSR? Er, no.

Not too mention that these safety nets were often put in place when the USSR was at its strongest...

[darklordoftech]

Yes. The USSR and its satellite states were tyrannies and they were used as bogeymen by evangelicals, hawks, and opponents of safety nets.

Social safety nets have been weakened in almost every Western country since the fall of the USSR.

Thanks to the memory of the USSR.

So they voted to weaken safety nets that they'd grew up with, brought about by parties that were invariably hostile to USSR, because of the memory of the USSR? Er, no.

Welfare was created as part of the New Deal, before the Cold War.

[The_Doctor]

Obviously. Junking the Evil Empire was one of the greatest achievements of mankind.

[OSR stands with Israel]

My dad grew up for 40 years in a Eastern bloc Communist country and he used to tell me: ''In Communism you weren't allowed to vote but there were no problems but in America you always vote and there's always problems.''

No problems hahahaha

[OSR stands with Israel]

Russia under Putin is still way way better then the Soviet Union .

[vanguard96]

Absolutely yes. Even with strongmen from the Soviet era still in power in many former Eurasian SSRs

I'm hoping that totalitarian socialist regimes in Cuba, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Venezuela, and elsewhere as well the world would have a great deal of freedom.

[publicunofficial]

Russia under Putin is still way way better then the Soviet Union .

Go look up life expectancy for the Soviet Union, then for modern Russia.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lol.

[GGover]

I would probably rather live in Soviet Russia than modern Russia.

Modern Russia is just a complete mess.

[vanguard96]

I would probably rather live in Soviet Russia than modern Russia.

Modern Russia is just a complete mess.

Said before you were sent to Siberia

[This is Eharding, guys]

Generally agreed with the OP's assesment of things, except that "A nationalist Russia is more dangerous than a communist Russia." The decline of Communist insurgencies in Latin America and Africa was a great thing for the world. I do think Russia was better off adopting capitalism than sticking with the Soviet system (Russia's life expectancy has been higher now than at any point during the Soviet system for a couple years, the real estate situation has gotten much better). I think, on net, the events of 1989-1991 were somewhat good for the world. But, absolutely the events of 1989-1991 could have been handled a lot better.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My dad grew up for 40 years in a Eastern bloc Communist country and he used to tell me: ''In Communism you weren't allowed to vote but there were no problems but in America you always vote and there's always problems.''

No problems hahahaha

"Death solves all problems, no man, no problem!" - Stalin

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would probably rather live in Soviet Russia than modern Russia.

Modern Russia is just a complete mess.

Russia is a mess today, because of the USSR.


People in this thread seem to be decoupling the "collapse of the USSR" from the USSR itself, which ignores the fact that the collapse was caused by the way the USSR had developed and the way it was led and especially its economic situation.

The USSR collapsed because it was a entity established at the point of a machine gun, by thugs, murderers and ideological quacks. Everything from its manner of economic development to its repressive government were contributing factors to its eventual demise.

The only reason why things were somewhat more glued together before the collapse, was the force of inertia created by it being a totalitarian regime, and as along as the government could impose its will, things would remain glued together. The problem is that the USSR's ability to enforce its will on its people was eroded by its economic weaknesses, foreign policy adventurism and incompetence.

The mess that was left behind following the Soviet Union's collapse is a product of the Soviet Union's existence in the first place.

Russia had always been a reactionary power, a highly religious country and a country that has largely focused inward but desired means by which to interact with the world. These three considerations dictated every decision made under the Tsars for hundreds of years. The fact that Russia has reverted to being a reactionary power (propping up right wing political movements), a highly religious country and one focused inward but always desiring access beyond (Crimea), illustrates more than anything the failure of communism to rewrite the destiny of a culture or to erase innate nationalistic tendencies. Russia looks more like it did in 1900 than it did in 1985.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Putin is also better then nearly all the Soviet leaders(Gorby's the exception ).