one could argue that the notion of a Russian Empire (which the USSR is a derivative of) collapsed because they radically changed their form of government and economic structure to communism, which under their leadership had little chance of being viable or beneficial to the public.

So basically you are saying that the Russian Empire would be alive and kicking to this day if they only had sticked to the serfdom?

One could also argue that all the radical communist changes happened only after the collapse of the Russian Empire (the revolution), which in turn happened because they didn't adapt to the 20th century, keeping into their traditional absolutist monarchy instead. The revolution didn't happen in UK or US for example, because they adapted their system and introduced reforms.

Edited 12/11/2015 11:29:24

I think Jai's argument is that change does not always equal good or success. The Soviet Union introduced very radical changes compared to other countries with their version of Communism. They represented the new, while NATO and the West represented people who were essentially defending Capitalism which is a VERY old system of doing things.

In this example the countries representing the old "Won" (Only in the sense that if your opponent passes out in the middle of a boxing match it's still technically a win).

The Soviet Union represented a radical system of new ideas that was implemented in a bad way, and thus they eventually collapsed in on themselves. A more moderated, less radical approach might of prevented all that.

I think Stalin was the guy who ruined it all really. I mean yes the Russian Revolution was violent and perhaps if they followed more the teachings of the 19th century great Russian writer and thinker Leo Tolstoi about Non Violence (people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King were inspired by his works), thinks would have gone differently. Russia had a real potential.

The Russian Revolution was violent and extreme because the situation itself during that period was extreme and violent (world war + a still middle aged system based on serfdom, absolute monarchy and religion colluding with the State).
Nevertheless, despite violence (war between White Russians and the Red Army as an example), things could have gone better, particularly without Stalin in charge, just thinking of WW2, if the USSR did not stupidly made a pact with Nazi Germany, Germany would have been defeated instantly in a two front war (like WW1), and communism's reputation would have gone certainly way better, with political victories even in Western Europe (particularly thinking about France and Italy).

An interesting and foresighted quote of Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835 about Russia and America:

"There are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world’s attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant. All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing…. The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America’s conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia’s with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude. Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret desire of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."

Edited 12/11/2015 14:59:33

Edited 12/11/2015 15:33:15

@Eklipse - You're absolutely right, in the sense that change is not always good. That is not at all what I tried to say. I was merely arguing that while this claim by Jai

All empires have collapsed from change that was either radical and of quick order or by infinitesimal compromise with the opposition to the normal political order

might be true, it does not implicate that "empires" must always stick to their historical values or system to survive, in contrary to how Jai represented it. Instead, it means that the world is changing all the time whether we want it or not, and the empires that prevail are those who understand the need to adapt. The Kingdom of Denmark keeps going strong and happy, even when their jurisdiction and values are quite far from the Viking era.

As for the Soviet Union, it didn't just appear from nowhere and it certainly wasn't just a "introduction of radical changes". It was the direct result of the failures in the Tsarist system - failures to adapt to the growing social movement. Countries who acknowledged that the world was changing introduced democracy, constitution and social benefits, and they continue their existence today.

The collapse of USSR, in turn, didn't happen just because the basic idea was too radical - it happened because the system was too obsessed with it's own ideals to understand that the world in 1990 wasn't the same as it was in 1917.

To sum it up: if we look at history we see empires destroyed by radical change. We can make two contradictory analysis:

1) Change is what destroys empires, so we must avoid changing too much in order to survive (as Jai argumented), or
2) Change is inevitable, so we must try to do it in a controlled manner in order to survive.

In my opinion, the history arguments clearly on the latter.

Edited 12/11/2015 16:06:19