Skip to main content

What was peak Soviet? Part II

 




My last post offered my reasons for believing that "peak Soviet" was on or about 1959.

This offers an angle to a question: how do empires fall?

How did that empire get from 1959 to 1991? 

What did NOT happen was a simple diagonal line decline. What did happen was a decline that was slow ... then still slow ... then again slow ... but then very fast. 

Several things happened in the decade 1959 - '69 that indicated the empire had reached a limit, but most of these developments did not seem at all like omens of impending collapse. 

There was the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Khrushchev did get something for his trouble: the US did through back channels agree to withdraw missiles from Turkey. But the whole thing looked like Nikita K. had pushed too hard and had been forced to back down: never a good look for an Emperor. 

The year 1963 saw a very bad harvest in the grain-bearing parts of the country, resulting in breadlines, and in the face-losing decision to expend some of the country's hard currency to buy wheat from the west.    

In 1964, in part due to Cuba, in greater part due to the grain issue, Khrushchev was kicked out of his positions and replaced by Brezhnev. This was relatively peaceful, but it still had the look of a coup in an under-developed country, not normal processes of political rivalry and succession.

In 1965, the government announced what it called the Kosygin reforms. These essentially unraveled the preceding economic reform efforts -- Khrushchev had to some extent decentralized the process of economic planning, mitigating the top-heavy quality of Stalinistic central planning.  Brezhnev and Kosygn reversed this. Top-heaviness it would be!

You may get the idea. None of these was by itself all that big a deal -- none seemed a portent of disaster and demise.  Even the Apollo flights, (which gave us the lovely image I have used above) though they tended to relegate the memories of the glorious Sputnik launches to the history books, could not have seemed all that horrible. But that IS how empires meet their demise. Not in a gradual process, really, certainly not in a linear one, but by stagnation, then a slow build-up of troubles, then ... all at once ... apocalypse. 



Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryOctober 11, 2023 at 7:32 AM

    Christopher, I don't know enough to question your conclusion that "that IS how empires meet their demise." But you're generalizing from a sample of one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherOctober 11, 2023 at 8:16 AM

      This may be the precis for my next book. The full book will have the other examples.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more