What it felt like to live through the collapse of communism and democracy.What it felt like to live through the collapse of communism and democracy.What it felt like to live through the collapse of communism and democracy.
- Won 1 BAFTA Award
- 1 win total
Browse episodes
Photos
Storyline
Featured review
Misleading Narratives and chronology of Events; Footage compilation A+
First off let me say I'm a big fan of Adam Curtis. His previous docuseries about public relations was very interesting and enlightening. Unfortunately, his text providing descriptions of events throughout this series are somewhat misleading and simplify the issues.
He constantly criticizes leaders for campaigning to reform then once in power continuing the corruption. There was no blueprint to take a 100% Collective, state-owned economy and transition it to a free market. It's not as simple as applying reforms. The reforms could have potentially made a very bad situation worse. Nobody knows. One can theorize that's it. I'm not excusing the corruption but there wasn't a clear delineated path to reform the economy. And the term shock therapy is not necessarily accurate either. All the way up until 1995 the majority of the main industries, what Lennon called the commanding Heights of the economy, we're in the hands of the red directors. That doesn't equal shock therapy to me. And lastly, the 1996 election was very similar to the 1932 election in the Weimar Republic. The two largest opposing political parties the Communists and nationalists both advocated for the abolition of democracy and a return to State Control. With the huge Industries controlling much of the natural resources of Russia still in the hands of the public sector all the way up until a year before the election the motivation at the time for selling them to the Russian oligarchs was to entrench and solidify the free market before the election so that if the opposition one the presidential election they could not start deconstructing the privatization process that Gorbachev started in the late '80s. Was it fair? No. But what was the alternative? Sell the industries for market value to foreign multinational corporations. And that definitely wouldn't fly putting all of Russia's natural resources in the hands of foreigners and foreign companies. So the idea was to get the major industries into the private sector and keep them in Russian hands. The economists advocated this at the time it wasn't related to Russia's budget deficits and national debt. It was a strategic preemptive move to oust the red directors and remove any chance of communists/nationalists (if they won 1996 presidential election) being able to touch natural resources/giant industries of Russia again. Idk where he came up with their sale financed russias government. It's objectively not true. Giant industries sold to oligarchs- Nov/Dec 1995. Elections of 1996 were in June. IMF loan was in March 1996...4.3 billion. And the IMF loan wasn't taken out of the country immediately. If anything it was given to ensure Yeltsin would be able to win reelection. He obviously had to commit to reforms before getting the loan. The IMF and the Western countries saw the writing on the wall with the two opposition parties.
My point in writing all that is the situation wasn't as simple as corruption in lieu of implementing the proper unnecessary reforms. World renowned economists were assisting in the public to private transition and a lot of what they suggested was implemented. The situation was a lot more nuanced than the documentary led the viewer to believe.
He constantly criticizes leaders for campaigning to reform then once in power continuing the corruption. There was no blueprint to take a 100% Collective, state-owned economy and transition it to a free market. It's not as simple as applying reforms. The reforms could have potentially made a very bad situation worse. Nobody knows. One can theorize that's it. I'm not excusing the corruption but there wasn't a clear delineated path to reform the economy. And the term shock therapy is not necessarily accurate either. All the way up until 1995 the majority of the main industries, what Lennon called the commanding Heights of the economy, we're in the hands of the red directors. That doesn't equal shock therapy to me. And lastly, the 1996 election was very similar to the 1932 election in the Weimar Republic. The two largest opposing political parties the Communists and nationalists both advocated for the abolition of democracy and a return to State Control. With the huge Industries controlling much of the natural resources of Russia still in the hands of the public sector all the way up until a year before the election the motivation at the time for selling them to the Russian oligarchs was to entrench and solidify the free market before the election so that if the opposition one the presidential election they could not start deconstructing the privatization process that Gorbachev started in the late '80s. Was it fair? No. But what was the alternative? Sell the industries for market value to foreign multinational corporations. And that definitely wouldn't fly putting all of Russia's natural resources in the hands of foreigners and foreign companies. So the idea was to get the major industries into the private sector and keep them in Russian hands. The economists advocated this at the time it wasn't related to Russia's budget deficits and national debt. It was a strategic preemptive move to oust the red directors and remove any chance of communists/nationalists (if they won 1996 presidential election) being able to touch natural resources/giant industries of Russia again. Idk where he came up with their sale financed russias government. It's objectively not true. Giant industries sold to oligarchs- Nov/Dec 1995. Elections of 1996 were in June. IMF loan was in March 1996...4.3 billion. And the IMF loan wasn't taken out of the country immediately. If anything it was given to ensure Yeltsin would be able to win reelection. He obviously had to commit to reforms before getting the loan. The IMF and the Western countries saw the writing on the wall with the two opposition parties.
My point in writing all that is the situation wasn't as simple as corruption in lieu of implementing the proper unnecessary reforms. World renowned economists were assisting in the public to private transition and a lot of what they suggested was implemented. The situation was a lot more nuanced than the documentary led the viewer to believe.
helpful•2124
- dpmillerllc
- Oct 19, 2022
- How many seasons does Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Russia 1985-1999: Traumazone
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone (2022) officially released in India in English?
Answer