why soviet COMMUINISM collapse?

Question

what are the MAIN factors that contribute to the decline of soviet communism in the early 1990s!

Answer 1

communism failed because it was theft - it stole everything off everyone - therefore it had to be repressive, terrorist - that gets very expensive - the resistance to the oppression and theft is endless, and therefore must sooner or later bankrupt the state - the costs of trials, lawyers, prisons, secret police, torture facilities, etc etc

plunderers get plundered

the bigger the gap between plunderers and plundered, the greater the pressure to break down the gap, and the greater the expense of maintaining the gap

it is like building a dam in the middle of a lake to have different levels - the higher the dam, the greater the cost, the greater the difficulties of maintaining it against the pressure of water, the greater the costs of failures in the dam

communism was the most extreme injustice or theft - taking virtually everything off everyone - it required the terrorism of killing 60 million russians [kulaks, people who resisted having their land taken off them]

it is the same principle in the west, and in the whole globe

1% get 90% of world income - US$70 trillion a year - ie, stealing US$70,000 a year off each and every family - with consequent huge costs of defense which are exhausting the plunderers' plunder, and the defense must fail sooner or later -

eg, the sicilians, very poor, very tough, hard, the toughest, hardest, meanest fighters in the world [made that way by grinding poverty, having to fight among themselves for the scraps left them after being robbed by europe] - obviously they are going to be most highly attracted to the greatest wealth [plunder], and they are tougher and meaner, because poorer, so they conquer their way from bottom of america to top - now bigger than the five biggest corporations, and above the law, uncatchable, because they can buy and terrorise the law

so in general, every extreme poverty is sending endless people against the greatest plunder - so defense is high, danger is high, violence is high, and defeat is certain, sooner or later, as the defense costs eat the plunder

[the first world is in debt to the third world - it has plundered the third world of slaves and resources for centuries - its wealth belongs to african slaves and indian weavers [who britain killed when it stole the cotton industry off india], etc]

britain stole worldwide, and then settled down to spending its plunder trying to stop the world plundering the plunder

ditto every empire - the spanish, the roman, the dutch, etc etc

it works for the chief plunderers - they make money from stealing, then from selling the arms to try to stop the plunder being stolen back

the people are too unreal to notice the reality

they pay for the defense, pay with their lives, both killed soldiers, and all the soldiers who waste their lives in the militaries on all sides, when they neednt have done so, if their country had not plundered, stolen, been unjust

there is US$75,000 a year for every family in the world [world income US$75 trillion [2006], one billion families] - and up to 999/1000ths of this is stolen by the 1% who are overpaid

a huge dam, enormously expensive, and doomed to fail one day and drown us all

and all the time there is plenty for all - enough for everyone to satisfy all needs, all major desires, millions of minor desires - this injustice, violence, suffering, waste, racing towards nuclear winter [soon], is just so 1% of people can satisfy a few very marginal desires [solid gold taps, slightly bigger sparkly rocks attached to fingers]

and the 99% who are underpaid, and therefore would be paid more with justice [nonplunder, nontheft] enforced, are too docile, too dippy, too drippy, too drongo, to dominate the 1%

even though the extreme violence is racing towards nuclear winter soon, ie the murder of 6-7 billion humans

homer simpson is much brighter - he had doh! moments when he realised that he was stupid - no one in the world today is having a doh! moment

when will humans draw the line? - what does it take? - the chances of the police holding an antiterrorist exercise in the same tube stations on the same day [7/7, london] by coincidence are squillions to one [against, of course]

pure state terrorism!

9/11 - pure state terrorism!

99% can wrest sanity and safety and peace from the hands of 1% - especially since some [most?] of the 1% are sane enough to prefer survival of the human species and the planet life to unlimited plunder with its very very slight increase in pleasure, and its unlimited expense of lives and plunder

everyone already agrees that it will cause at least 100-fold happiness!

proof: everyone will agree that a govt taking 90% of income permanently off 90% of people and giving it to 1% will destroy 99% of happiness, peace, safety, quietness, pleasure, democracy, freedom, fraternity [friendliness]

and that [taking 90% off 90%] is only 91000% theft - highest hourly pay 910 times lowest

we in the world have 100,000,000,000% theft - highest hourly pay a billion times lowest

it is already obvious to everyone that if you have a society where there is plenty for everyone, you can muck up the happiness of everyone by giant theft - taking 99% off 99% and giving it to 1%

ie, communism, fascism, dictatorship, tyranny, banditry, robbery, modern america, modern planet earth, evil

bandits have stolen your money, there are 99 of you to every one of them - go get it - and save the world, save the planet, save the human species, and end war, and multiply happiness 100-fold, or more

spread the word by word of mouth - the ptb [powers that be] cant sabotage word of mouth - every adult in the world will hear the message in just 31 times the time to tell two people [which may take a few months at the beginning, before the herdinstinct kicks in, when people realise the idea is in the air, and they want to join the herd]

when you have a 99+% majority, the ptb will not have enough muscle [police, army] to terrorise, intimidate, and the changes will go ahead without violent conflict - a bloodless revolution of sanity that enormously benefits everyone without exception

there is no force involved or needed because everyone benefits

we do not need to change anyone's beliefs, because everyone already agrees - we only need to clarify people's confused ideas and fill in the information gaps

there are 4 billion people to reach, but 4 billion to do the reaching, among whom there are millions of communication skills

some people who hear this plan say: it wont work because of people's greed - if the 99% were greedy they would be going for this plan, which gives them money and happiness too - gives every family another US$70,000 a year -

if it doesnt work, it will be because the 99% suffer from the vice of undergreed, lack of selfrespect enough to save themselves and families from horrors and terrors culminating in extinction, and the present destruction of 99+% of their birthright happiness, because the 99% suffer from utterly mysterious inability to have a doh! moment

see my other answers here at yahoo

you may be first to learn the lesson of history: you cannot enjoy unless all enjoy - the amount of energy that people have to oppose theft is greater [far greater, infinitely greater] than the greatest theft can afford - hence the fall of every plundering society

Answer 2

Neglecting the people (ie. leaving them to starve) while all of the countries' time and resources were being used to create weaponry and propaganda. You can only make people mad to a certain point, until enough of them get the balls to fight back and invite change. Once enough people are starving in extreme poverty, all your propaganda becomes worthless, people will instinctively take personal survival over the survival of the beloved 'motherland.' That and the relatively unchecked power of a single leader is basically why soviet communism failed.

The idea that you can create a utopia where everybody makes the same amount of money, nobody is poor, etc. is a lie and impossible. No communist country has been able to survive without some implementation of capitalism. There has to be some deviation, rich and poor, otherwise nothing will have any value and nobody will be motivated to create improvements. Humans instinctively NEED competition and will create it whenever possible.

Answer 3

Communism fails because people never work hard because there is no incentive.

The Soviet Union failed because Reagan started spending a lot on defense. The Soviets tried to do the same on;y bankrupting the country and causing communism to fail

Answer 4

They tried to maintain up with the U. S. while it got here to protection tension spending and their financial gadget could cope with it. Their 2 selections have been to objective and save up and danger financial give way, or understand they could no longer save up and permit the U. S. to be the lone and overwhelming great ability interior the international. they chosen #a million and it deliver approximately their give way. the element that's faulty with their financial gadget is the shown fact that each little thing grow to be owned and operated by ability of the government and that that they had no ability to make any money. Like interior the U. S. we've inner maximum companies which could make our protection tension kit and for any volume of money we spend the government gets 10% returned in taxes, the money given to them would be spent to purchase the components needed that's a fashion they make greater money and develop the size of the financial gadget, and this additionally stimulates the financial gadget. The soviets lost money on each transaction via fact they used the money to fund the undertaking, they owned the producing facility so that they had no ability to make any money with the production. the shown fact that they've been additionally a communist usa harm them besides. Democratic countries did no longer prefer to purchase something from them if that they had a call. The Soviets only thank you to make any money grow to be to invade and take greater land yet they understood that doing which could start up a conflict. So the containment coverage of the U. S. choked them to death.

Answer 5

People want to work for themselves.
Same reason that China allowed limited capitalism to start in the 90's.
And the Soviets spent so much money on their military and internal spy network that they collapsed with no money.
I fear for my kids in the US. We are half way there.

Answer 6

Ronald Reagan

Answer 7

"Poverty anywhere is a threat to Prosperity Everywhere "

This is the motto of ILO ... may be that's true ... oh ... wait .... is it true ...? One of my friend who returned from Nigeria said according to one study Nigerians are the second most happy people in the World ... If you see the economics ... they are one of the most exploited countries in the world ... nd if you ask who are the happiest people in the world that study said its the people of Bangladesh ... So probably its time to redifine the words poverty and prosperity to include few more aspects just other than economics and political freedom ... contents like love, happiness and most importantly Contentment also be included into the criteria ... nd the Policies of Communists or Capitalists or Scientists or Religionists or Atheists or the mixed ones ... all should be evaluated based on a fresh criteria nd then we may be able to make a conclusion ... what's best for the world ... in Toto ....

luv and SAI RAM,
jk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/athmavidya/

Answer 8

It failed to compete in a global world. Reagan pushed the level of prestige beyond what their government was able to provide them.
Levis better cars computers MTV the American way of life. Communism was supposed to provide and it gave cr#p.
The government spent to much on the military, And the push to expand USSRs control of Afghanistan

Answer 9

the soviets tried to keep up with the west in military spending and killed thier economy doing so. capitalism allowed countries like the u.s to have a lot of money to spend while communism did not. that is why you see so many former communist countries becoming democratic republics (with capitalism)

Answer 10

They didn't collapse they just mutated and changed their name from the soviet union to the new Russian Federation....but make no mistake they are still communist to the bone!

Putin is the new centralized dictator of the country...

Answer 11

Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was still a dictatorship. They failed to properly educate and inspire the masses, the workin class. Also, a cold war of buying the most weapons technology is futile against capitalists.