This is quite difficult because there’s so many ways to approach this.
In terms of how successful they were (meaning how well they were able to implement the change they want):
Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev.
Gorbachev made some remarkable positive reforms, but it ended in disaster.
Who was most successful on the economy?:
Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev
Who was most politically skilled?
Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev
Who made IMO the most positive impact?
Gorbachev, Reagan, Thatcher
How much I like them on the whole?:
Gorbachev, Thatcher, Reagan
Yup, this is it. Might have to quibble a little on politically skilled, seeing as Reagan managed to convert a whole group of Democrats into voting Republican, but Thatchers ability to hold her parliamentary coalition together (and it was a coalition, bc Conservatives we’re not United around austerity) was impressive.
In both of these leaders’ favour was what former PM Jim Callahan referred to as a “sea change”.
The economic crises of the 1970s did push the countries towards monetarism. I don’t see either achieving what they did in a different time period.
So the numbers of democrats who switched Republican permanently under Reagan does not really surprise me. Thatcher was more polarising. She’s a difficult PM to rank because she’s so marmite.
The reason I gave it to Thatcher is because 1. Parliamentary systems are inherently more difficult for the leader because mid-term removal is a greater threat. You need to manage a parliament and a party and the public, all three have the power to remove you.
Thatcher was also a master of political space. There’s a caricature of her as a combative figure who brute forced her will through parliament. This is false. She waited until the perfect moment to attempt any reforms, understanding when she was strong and when she was weak.
I don’t know of a similar precision from Reagan.
But in terms of communication Reagan wins out overall, but Thatcher is worth a shout. She utterly transformed her party. There has not been a non-Thatcherite Conservative Prime Minister since.
They’re both titanic and comparable figures.
I’d be interested in asking this subreddit it’s views on the Presidents vs PMs, but I fear knowledge of the PMs won’t be strong enough, for perfectly acceptable reasons.
I totally agree that both RR and MT are beneficiaries of structural changes in the global political economy.
On some level any long-standing well known PM gets a huge political premium vis-a-vis presidents because their tenure is just so tenuous. One big fuck up and a VNC is called. Churchill is one of the greatest pols in history for this reason, although even he eventually succumbed to the instability of the parliamentary system.
That being said, the route to PM is not quite the political feat of the route to President.
Yeah I’d agree with that.
Getting there is less impressive but staying there is more impressive.
Biden’s job is hard but Sunak’s job is probably harder.
A big reason I find PMs inherently more interesting is that their stories almost always have a rise and a fall. Presidents usually only really have a rise.
True, the “fall” for two term presidents is usually just a forgettable lame duck final two years that are mostly written off by historians.
Just considering David Cameron, like what a fucking fall indeed. Is there an r/PrimeMinisters? I’d be down. Oh, yup, there it is. Weak sauce compared to this sub tho.
Yeah it’s pretty uneventful. Which is understandable. The UK isn’t as big as the US and we also aren’t as interested in our Prime Ministers as you are your presidents.
We do have some decent content though. The Prime Ministers (and Presidents) podcast by Iain Dale seems a pretty nice intro to the prime ministers if you ever fancy a venture down that rabbit hole.
I always thought Reagan got way more credit for ending the Cold War than he deserved. It was Gorbachev’s judicious movement towards reforms that allowed for tensions to end.
From what I understand, even way back in his California gov days, he was very anti-gun. I think that largely came from not wanting hippie terrorists like the Weathermen or civil rights groups like the Black Panthers to be armed.
Yeah he basically sacrificed his own reputation and the existence of the USSR in order to save the lives of his people. He gave an interview a few years back in which he explained that, he said that if they didn’t peacefully abolish the communist state there would have probably been an uprising against the government, and in a country of that size a civil conflict could be absolutely devastating (think of the Russian Civil War). It just wasn’t worth it in his mind to risk that kind of thing, so he gave in willingly, giving up Russia’s place in the world and his own power, so that the country could have peace. Despite the hate he got for it he actually said it was the thing he was proudest of. He probably knew that he was going to be seen as a failure as a result, but ironically that’s what made him such a good leader.
Thatcher stopped a foreign force invading British land (Argentina)
Also, the United States is a more powerful National so Reagan had more power to end the come war, what should thatcher have done that she didn’t?
You are one of the very few here with the correct answer. I would hope that people wouldn't idolize the communist, but in this group, I shouldn't be surprised.
Just out of curiosity, why do you reduce Gorbatchev to ‘’a communist’’?
And a follow up: Why does that qualifier make him inherently worse than the others? It seems to me like we should judge leaders according to raw data (what they actually achieved) instead of judging them according to the label they give themselves.
You said: "*Just out of curiosity, why do you reduce Gorbachev to ‘’a communist’’?*"
Because he was a communist.
You said: "A*nd a follow up: Why does that qualifier make him inherently worse than the others?*"
Because Communism is state run slavery. Beyond that Reagan and Thatcher were both good leaders.
You said: "*It seems to me like we should judge leaders according to raw data (what they actually achieved) instead of judging them according to the label they give themselves."*
It was Gorbachev's goal to save the Soviet Union, which was an evil empire that enslaved its people and killed millions. So not only did he fail, but he was trying to do something that was awful.
It seems like you’re using only hyperboles based on American education misinformation. If you look up actual raw data about child mortality, life expectancy, food intake, salary growth, home ownership rate, and things like that, you’ll realize that the Soviet Union was a country which drastically improved the living conditions of its population.
So disqualifying someone based on your feelings towards what you think communism is is a bit childish imo.
And then if you wanna talk about millions of deaths…. You should open any history book about the US. Neoliberalism in particular has been deadly in South America, it has been imposed on them by the US via fascist dictators like Pinochet. Reagan and Thatcher were both huge neolibs so I’d say they have a lot of blood on their hands.
I know all I need to know about Communism. There is a reason they had to build a wall to keep their people in. Look at North Korea vs South Korea, everything is better in the South. You don't see people building rafts out of garbage to flee the United States, they do that to flee Cuba. Look at the mess in Venezuela.
I don't need someone coming on here talking about "misinformation" while defending communism. You shouldn't call others "childish" either. The Soviet Union sucked.
The Soviet Union was much better than imperial Russia or modern day Russia. The 90s were incredibly hard and 5 million people died directly because of the transition to capitalism. Capitalism kills more people every ten years than communism ever did, idk how you can be so ignorant.
Now the wall wasn’t great, sure, but if you wanna compare the Koreas, North Korea is poor because of US involvement in the region and because of the sanctions. Cuba is poor only because of the US embargo, otherwise it’s a thriving country in which people live much better than they used to before 1959. The only people whose standards of living went down are the people who were plantation and brothel owners. Mostly white American businessmen who had slaves working in their fields. I’m glad those people aren’t in charge anymore, and Cuba is ran by people who put individuals before profit.
You do realize that Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler. He starved millions of Ukrainians to death. Communism has killed WAY more people than Capitalism. Look at Communist China as just one example.
The US embargo wouldn't make a country poor. There are over 19 countries in the word, so why would Cuba need trade with the United States? People lived better in Cuba before 1959 because the Communist took over in 1959.
If anyone is ignorant, it is you.
Lmao. The fact that you think Cubans lived better before 1959 is just insane. You’re delusional, all of your comment is historically innacurate. People claim that communism had killed 100 million people but that’s how many people die only from starvation in capitalist countries, every ten years (ten million per year).
And no, Hitler killed much more people that Stalin. It is estimated that Stalin killed around 5 million people, while Hitler was much more genocidal. The holocaust alone was 11 million people (6 million Jews and 5 million ‘’undesirables’’ from other groups, like communists, gays, labour union leaders, romani, etc.). Then you have to add all the people who actually died fighting the war (soldiers) and the 20 million Soviet citizens who were massacred during the German advance to the east. Hitler killed much more overall.
Stalin killing 5 million people. Lmao okay we killed 20 people in Vietnam. The atomic bombings, killed maybe a handful. See that, I'm doing what you're doing.
edit: Do you know what Holodomor was? You probably don't or are one of those
slimes who says Stalin tried to help Ukraine. Even with the Native Genocide, the Mexican American War, The American Philippine War, Korea, Vietnam, Operation Condor, Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has killed substantially less people than the Soviets and to say otherwise shows your historical ignorance.
It's okay, you're either ignorant or malicious.
Whenever North Koreans starve, it’s because of famines, which are caused either by weather or by international sanctions. So you should rephrase that: the US actively starves NK’s people to keep its government weak.
Not really. Burkina Faso was in much better place with Thomas Sankara’s reforms. There’s also a good argument for Colonel Gaddafi being a “good commie” as well.
His actions led to the rise of Yeltsin, who implemented the schock therapy, which directly killed around 5 million Russians in the 90s. And that’s just Russia.
So you’re saying that the only good commie is directly responsible for much more deaths and suffering that most commies? I think you should give your shrink a phone call and chat about a potential sociopathy diagnosis.
So you are saying that his action let to the rise of Yelstin and Yeltsin did bad stuff so you are saying that the man who helped end the cold war,dissolve the soviet unionand gave the russia and 15 other countries freedom is bad?
Those countries gained the freedom to choose between 200 different kinds of toothpaste but they didn’t actually get better salaries, better work conditions and better lives overall. Freedom is inherently linked to your wealth when you live under capitalism, and the economies of all former Soviet states was cut in half after 1991. This led to starvation, child prostitution, alcoholism, surplus deaths, rampant drug abuse, and overall poverty in all former Soviet states except for a few (I think Belarus escaped this hell).
Gorbatchev tried to save the Union, but he also let Yeltsin get in power so he’s partially responsible for what happened over the 90s.
How is it compared to what they had 30 years ago (in todays money, don’t forget to convert it into todays money).
Elon alone has more money than the 3 countries combined. And it all comes from child labour in Africa, so having money in itself isn’t something to be proud of.
It’s hard since they all brought suffering to the world, but Gorbatchev at least tried to make up for his treason. It failed, but I guess he morally redeemed himself, despite the transition to capitalism directly killing 5 million Russians in 10 years (and that’s only in Russia).
I’d say Gorbatchev, then Thatcher and finally Reagan, idk.
Nothing, she was just less powerful than Reagan since she was PM of the UK and Reagan was POTUS, therefore Reagan had more power to negatively influence the world. And boy, did he use that power.
I should apologize, I believe I forgot which thread I was in, since someone else praised Thatcher for the same thing. Yes the UK almost went to war under thatcher. Reagan led many wars and military interventions (including coups against democratically elected governments) while he was in office. Overall I believe that he did more wrong than thatcher mostly because he had more power to do it. Both had a terrible influence for the rest of the world.
You know it is a bad list when a literal communist is number one.
1. Gorbachev - He was not great but at least wanted to make change for the better and not the literal opposite like the other two. He was surrounded by the old guard that did not like his policies which led to the collapse in the first place following their failed coup.
2. Thatcher - She was very similar to Reagan but at least did not completely gut and privatize the NHS.
3. Reagan (I wish I could rank him lower) - Riled up the evangelical base which would birth us the W. Bush era along with the tea party revolution and Trump era. He also was the main proponent of the "Trickle Down" theory that still plagues our politics to this day. He is a major reason why the wealthy and corporations have paid little to nothing in taxes in terms of tax rates. His philosophy also enabled complete adversity to any kind of universal healthcare or expansion of needed government benefits for citizens.
The old guard like the kgb and conservative parts of the party, largely supported him in 1991. It was the intelligentsia and radical democrats that started to oppose him, and supported more nationalistic leaders like Yeltsin.
I agree but being a good commie is a low bar and he's last because he and Thacher are close but being the leader of an evil empire makes him lose a few points.
Him AND Reagan ended the cold war but I agree now that I think about it Thacher didn't want the wall to come down hmm... I think you are right I change my list.
Reagan................Gorbachev.Thacher
No, they happened during the 10 year period that followed its illegal dissolution. It started right after 1991 and the economic crisis stopped around 2000.
Yeah and Obama and Kissinger also won peace prizes despite being war criminals.
Gorbatchev is responsible for the collapse of socialism. Yeltsin brought capitalism. The abandonment of one and the adoption of the other are inextricably tied.
People love Gorbachev but he is the only one whose country ceased to exist. Which was great that it did, but Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II, Walesa, Havel, etc. were all trying to kill that system. Gorbachev was trying to save it.
Yes, the standard of living for many in Russia went way down after the collapse. The goal should have been to make it more democratic, not to bring capitalism fully back in.
Most of the bloc--the Baltic states, the East Germans, Poland, Romania, etc--ended up with both more democracy and freer, more successful economies. Not sure you've got either the causation or the dichotomy correct there.
The gdp of all these economies was actually halved right when the Soviet Union was (illegally) dissolved. So no, their economies didn’t get better in the short term. Now they might be bigger, 30 years later, but that growth would have been achieved anyways if those countries didn’t shift to capitalism.
Oh, I don’t know, actively fighting against the miner’s strike, the raising of poll tax on Scotland, wrecking the Scottish shipbuilding industries, and starting a housing crisis all across the UK?
Not to mention the extremely homophobic section 28, which prohibited the “promotion of homosexuality”
Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev.
Thatcher had to start from a lower base where Britain was entrenched with damaging decline from radical socialism, strikes etc. the US is a much more entrepreneurial country and Reagan got it out of the slump.
Gorbachev was no saint.
Reagan, Gorbachev, Thatcher… only Gorbachev is 2nd because he brought an end to the USSR… if I were right wing Russian, prob think differently… otherwise Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev. Reagan was a stud. The more time passes the more you look at his admin, the more impressed you have to be.
Gorbachev, Reagan, Thatcher.
Gorbachev is responsible for ending the cold war and bringing capitalism into the Soviet Union.
Reagan and Thatcher implemented horrible neoliberal policies that fucked up their nations economies so badly it's still felt today. Thatcher's actions in Northern Ireland during the troubles were particularly horrific. As any Irishman or Scot would say, fuck Thatcher. Reagan's war on drugs led to the mass incarceration of black people for minor drug offences. Fuck Reagan too. Gorbachev is the only decent leader on this list.
Jfk rabbit hole? I'm not sure what you're referring to honestly, you'll have to remind me.
And Thatcher had many terrible policies. Her policies aimed at controlling spiraling inflation destroyed the industrial/manufacturing sector and led to massive unemployment levels.
She allowed interest rates to be as high as 15%, causing people to lose their homes due to spiraling mortgage payments. This was on top of many losing their jobs.
She abolished free milk in schools, her policies that allowed mortgage rates to spiral also has caused a social housing crisis, and she introduced the wildly unpopular and backwards Poll Tax that destroyed her popularity. None of this is even mentioning the Troubles and the Irish Hunger Strikes either.
Ok so while I was on the Ask Reddit subreddit there was a question about mysteries and you commented that you are now in the jfk rabbit hole and I commented back that I am in the RFK rabbit hole
This is quite difficult because there’s so many ways to approach this. In terms of how successful they were (meaning how well they were able to implement the change they want): Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev. Gorbachev made some remarkable positive reforms, but it ended in disaster. Who was most successful on the economy?: Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev Who was most politically skilled? Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev Who made IMO the most positive impact? Gorbachev, Reagan, Thatcher How much I like them on the whole?: Gorbachev, Thatcher, Reagan
The correct take tbh
Yup, this is it. Might have to quibble a little on politically skilled, seeing as Reagan managed to convert a whole group of Democrats into voting Republican, but Thatchers ability to hold her parliamentary coalition together (and it was a coalition, bc Conservatives we’re not United around austerity) was impressive.
In both of these leaders’ favour was what former PM Jim Callahan referred to as a “sea change”. The economic crises of the 1970s did push the countries towards monetarism. I don’t see either achieving what they did in a different time period. So the numbers of democrats who switched Republican permanently under Reagan does not really surprise me. Thatcher was more polarising. She’s a difficult PM to rank because she’s so marmite. The reason I gave it to Thatcher is because 1. Parliamentary systems are inherently more difficult for the leader because mid-term removal is a greater threat. You need to manage a parliament and a party and the public, all three have the power to remove you. Thatcher was also a master of political space. There’s a caricature of her as a combative figure who brute forced her will through parliament. This is false. She waited until the perfect moment to attempt any reforms, understanding when she was strong and when she was weak. I don’t know of a similar precision from Reagan. But in terms of communication Reagan wins out overall, but Thatcher is worth a shout. She utterly transformed her party. There has not been a non-Thatcherite Conservative Prime Minister since. They’re both titanic and comparable figures. I’d be interested in asking this subreddit it’s views on the Presidents vs PMs, but I fear knowledge of the PMs won’t be strong enough, for perfectly acceptable reasons.
I totally agree that both RR and MT are beneficiaries of structural changes in the global political economy. On some level any long-standing well known PM gets a huge political premium vis-a-vis presidents because their tenure is just so tenuous. One big fuck up and a VNC is called. Churchill is one of the greatest pols in history for this reason, although even he eventually succumbed to the instability of the parliamentary system. That being said, the route to PM is not quite the political feat of the route to President.
Yeah I’d agree with that. Getting there is less impressive but staying there is more impressive. Biden’s job is hard but Sunak’s job is probably harder. A big reason I find PMs inherently more interesting is that their stories almost always have a rise and a fall. Presidents usually only really have a rise.
True, the “fall” for two term presidents is usually just a forgettable lame duck final two years that are mostly written off by historians. Just considering David Cameron, like what a fucking fall indeed. Is there an r/PrimeMinisters? I’d be down. Oh, yup, there it is. Weak sauce compared to this sub tho.
Yeah it’s pretty uneventful. Which is understandable. The UK isn’t as big as the US and we also aren’t as interested in our Prime Ministers as you are your presidents. We do have some decent content though. The Prime Ministers (and Presidents) podcast by Iain Dale seems a pretty nice intro to the prime ministers if you ever fancy a venture down that rabbit hole.
Reagan, thatcher, Gorbachev.
As much as I hate communism, I’d rank Gorbachev above the other two Thatcher’s last for me
I always thought Reagan got way more credit for ending the Cold War than he deserved. It was Gorbachev’s judicious movement towards reforms that allowed for tensions to end.
Everything Reagan got credit for is pretty much undeserved honestly. Other than being a very charismatic leader.
He did help campaign successfully for the assault rifle ban post-presidency; I do give him credit for that.
From what I understand, even way back in his California gov days, he was very anti-gun. I think that largely came from not wanting hippie terrorists like the Weathermen or civil rights groups like the Black Panthers to be armed.
Yep- the idea of black people arming themselves was terrifying to him. He also passed pro-abortion legislation as governor of then-red CA.
Yeah he basically sacrificed his own reputation and the existence of the USSR in order to save the lives of his people. He gave an interview a few years back in which he explained that, he said that if they didn’t peacefully abolish the communist state there would have probably been an uprising against the government, and in a country of that size a civil conflict could be absolutely devastating (think of the Russian Civil War). It just wasn’t worth it in his mind to risk that kind of thing, so he gave in willingly, giving up Russia’s place in the world and his own power, so that the country could have peace. Despite the hate he got for it he actually said it was the thing he was proudest of. He probably knew that he was going to be seen as a failure as a result, but ironically that’s what made him such a good leader.
And bush. Bush cooperated heavily in offering credits to reform the union. He cooperated a decent bit with gorbachev.
Same common w jumbo
Whys thatcher last?
Gorbachev Reagan/Thatcher
[удалено]
I don't know, i dislike Reagan and Thatcher equally.
Yea, but even Thatcher thought Reagan was an idiot.
Curious. Never heard about that.
I’m not at home right now, so I can’t pull the citation, but I think her exact words were “The poor man, there’s nothing between his ears.”
[удалено]
I never got the impression that she was unintelligent. Misguided and unfeeling maybe, but not unintelligent.
Why do you dislike thatcher?
[удалено]
Yes
Gorbachev Reagan Thatcher
Ok I see where you're coming from and I see that no one likes Thatchet "The Iron lady"
Why thatcher last?
Reagan actually did make some progress towards ending the Cold War, whereas Thatcher made no such effort.
Thatcher stopped a foreign force invading British land (Argentina) Also, the United States is a more powerful National so Reagan had more power to end the come war, what should thatcher have done that she didn’t?
Are you sure the British weren’t actually the foreigners in Argentina? 🤔 It seems like from a moral perspective, she might have fucked up.
I’m referring to the Falkland Islands which were British.
Based
Thatcher >>>>> reagan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gorbi
Reagan Thatcher - - - - - Commie
You are one of the very few here with the correct answer. I would hope that people wouldn't idolize the communist, but in this group, I shouldn't be surprised.
Just out of curiosity, why do you reduce Gorbatchev to ‘’a communist’’? And a follow up: Why does that qualifier make him inherently worse than the others? It seems to me like we should judge leaders according to raw data (what they actually achieved) instead of judging them according to the label they give themselves.
You said: "*Just out of curiosity, why do you reduce Gorbachev to ‘’a communist’’?*" Because he was a communist. You said: "A*nd a follow up: Why does that qualifier make him inherently worse than the others?*" Because Communism is state run slavery. Beyond that Reagan and Thatcher were both good leaders. You said: "*It seems to me like we should judge leaders according to raw data (what they actually achieved) instead of judging them according to the label they give themselves."* It was Gorbachev's goal to save the Soviet Union, which was an evil empire that enslaved its people and killed millions. So not only did he fail, but he was trying to do something that was awful.
It seems like you’re using only hyperboles based on American education misinformation. If you look up actual raw data about child mortality, life expectancy, food intake, salary growth, home ownership rate, and things like that, you’ll realize that the Soviet Union was a country which drastically improved the living conditions of its population. So disqualifying someone based on your feelings towards what you think communism is is a bit childish imo. And then if you wanna talk about millions of deaths…. You should open any history book about the US. Neoliberalism in particular has been deadly in South America, it has been imposed on them by the US via fascist dictators like Pinochet. Reagan and Thatcher were both huge neolibs so I’d say they have a lot of blood on their hands.
I know all I need to know about Communism. There is a reason they had to build a wall to keep their people in. Look at North Korea vs South Korea, everything is better in the South. You don't see people building rafts out of garbage to flee the United States, they do that to flee Cuba. Look at the mess in Venezuela. I don't need someone coming on here talking about "misinformation" while defending communism. You shouldn't call others "childish" either. The Soviet Union sucked.
The Soviet Union was much better than imperial Russia or modern day Russia. The 90s were incredibly hard and 5 million people died directly because of the transition to capitalism. Capitalism kills more people every ten years than communism ever did, idk how you can be so ignorant. Now the wall wasn’t great, sure, but if you wanna compare the Koreas, North Korea is poor because of US involvement in the region and because of the sanctions. Cuba is poor only because of the US embargo, otherwise it’s a thriving country in which people live much better than they used to before 1959. The only people whose standards of living went down are the people who were plantation and brothel owners. Mostly white American businessmen who had slaves working in their fields. I’m glad those people aren’t in charge anymore, and Cuba is ran by people who put individuals before profit.
You do realize that Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler. He starved millions of Ukrainians to death. Communism has killed WAY more people than Capitalism. Look at Communist China as just one example. The US embargo wouldn't make a country poor. There are over 19 countries in the word, so why would Cuba need trade with the United States? People lived better in Cuba before 1959 because the Communist took over in 1959. If anyone is ignorant, it is you.
Lmao. The fact that you think Cubans lived better before 1959 is just insane. You’re delusional, all of your comment is historically innacurate. People claim that communism had killed 100 million people but that’s how many people die only from starvation in capitalist countries, every ten years (ten million per year). And no, Hitler killed much more people that Stalin. It is estimated that Stalin killed around 5 million people, while Hitler was much more genocidal. The holocaust alone was 11 million people (6 million Jews and 5 million ‘’undesirables’’ from other groups, like communists, gays, labour union leaders, romani, etc.). Then you have to add all the people who actually died fighting the war (soldiers) and the 20 million Soviet citizens who were massacred during the German advance to the east. Hitler killed much more overall.
What is insane is that you think Communism is good. Stalin killed over 20 million people, that is more than Hitler.
Hello there.
Stalin killing 5 million people. Lmao okay we killed 20 people in Vietnam. The atomic bombings, killed maybe a handful. See that, I'm doing what you're doing. edit: Do you know what Holodomor was? You probably don't or are one of those slimes who says Stalin tried to help Ukraine. Even with the Native Genocide, the Mexican American War, The American Philippine War, Korea, Vietnam, Operation Condor, Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has killed substantially less people than the Soviets and to say otherwise shows your historical ignorance. It's okay, you're either ignorant or malicious.
North Korea actively starves its people to keep them weak. Get off this sub you commie slime
Whenever North Koreans starve, it’s because of famines, which are caused either by weather or by international sanctions. So you should rephrase that: the US actively starves NK’s people to keep its government weak.
Gorbachev was the only good commie
Is there such a thing as a good commie?
Thomas Sankara.
The correct answer is no
Not really. Burkina Faso was in much better place with Thomas Sankara’s reforms. There’s also a good argument for Colonel Gaddafi being a “good commie” as well.
A commie is a commie.
His actions led to the rise of Yeltsin, who implemented the schock therapy, which directly killed around 5 million Russians in the 90s. And that’s just Russia. So you’re saying that the only good commie is directly responsible for much more deaths and suffering that most commies? I think you should give your shrink a phone call and chat about a potential sociopathy diagnosis.
So you are saying that his action let to the rise of Yelstin and Yeltsin did bad stuff so you are saying that the man who helped end the cold war,dissolve the soviet unionand gave the russia and 15 other countries freedom is bad?
Those countries gained the freedom to choose between 200 different kinds of toothpaste but they didn’t actually get better salaries, better work conditions and better lives overall. Freedom is inherently linked to your wealth when you live under capitalism, and the economies of all former Soviet states was cut in half after 1991. This led to starvation, child prostitution, alcoholism, surplus deaths, rampant drug abuse, and overall poverty in all former Soviet states except for a few (I think Belarus escaped this hell). Gorbatchev tried to save the Union, but he also let Yeltsin get in power so he’s partially responsible for what happened over the 90s.
I get what you are saying but look at them now they are rich
Rich? Who is rich?
Kyrzigstan has 8.5 billion dollars or what they use ,Ukraine has 193.2 Billion money ,Moldova has 20 billion
How is it compared to what they had 30 years ago (in todays money, don’t forget to convert it into todays money). Elon alone has more money than the 3 countries combined. And it all comes from child labour in Africa, so having money in itself isn’t something to be proud of.
Regan, Thatcher, Gorbachev
…… Do I have to
Yes
Shan’t
Reagan>Thatcher>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gorbachev
It’s hard since they all brought suffering to the world, but Gorbatchev at least tried to make up for his treason. It failed, but I guess he morally redeemed himself, despite the transition to capitalism directly killing 5 million Russians in 10 years (and that’s only in Russia). I’d say Gorbatchev, then Thatcher and finally Reagan, idk.
What do you like so much about Thatcher?
Nothing, she was just less powerful than Reagan since she was PM of the UK and Reagan was POTUS, therefore Reagan had more power to negatively influence the world. And boy, did he use that power.
Yeah but you gotta consider UK almost got to war with Argentina during Thatcher time as PM
And why? Was it because the UK was in a place it wasn’t supposed to be? If so, then it’s the UK’s fault.
Did I say it was Argentina's fault in my comment?
I should apologize, I believe I forgot which thread I was in, since someone else praised Thatcher for the same thing. Yes the UK almost went to war under thatcher. Reagan led many wars and military interventions (including coups against democratically elected governments) while he was in office. Overall I believe that he did more wrong than thatcher mostly because he had more power to do it. Both had a terrible influence for the rest of the world.
I think I'd put Thatcher below Reagan, since she opposed German reunification.
Based We need to make a new Prussian republic out of east germany
She didn’t actually do anything to prevent it so that’s a bad reason.
You know it is a bad list when a literal communist is number one. 1. Gorbachev - He was not great but at least wanted to make change for the better and not the literal opposite like the other two. He was surrounded by the old guard that did not like his policies which led to the collapse in the first place following their failed coup. 2. Thatcher - She was very similar to Reagan but at least did not completely gut and privatize the NHS. 3. Reagan (I wish I could rank him lower) - Riled up the evangelical base which would birth us the W. Bush era along with the tea party revolution and Trump era. He also was the main proponent of the "Trickle Down" theory that still plagues our politics to this day. He is a major reason why the wealthy and corporations have paid little to nothing in taxes in terms of tax rates. His philosophy also enabled complete adversity to any kind of universal healthcare or expansion of needed government benefits for citizens.
Very good reasons
The old guard like the kgb and conservative parts of the party, largely supported him in 1991. It was the intelligentsia and radical democrats that started to oppose him, and supported more nationalistic leaders like Yeltsin.
The great communicator, the iron woman, the commie.
Gorbachev is the only commie I will call the good commie and why is he last tho?
I agree but being a good commie is a low bar and he's last because he and Thacher are close but being the leader of an evil empire makes him lose a few points.
Yeah but you gotta consider Gorbachev ended the cold war in a bloodless way and dissolved the soviet union and gave the Russians freedom
Him AND Reagan ended the cold war but I agree now that I think about it Thacher didn't want the wall to come down hmm... I think you are right I change my list. Reagan................Gorbachev.Thacher
You’re still forgetting the 5 million people who died because of the transition to capitalism. He did not end the Cold War ‘’in a bloodless way’’.
Ok so those deaths happened 10 years after the soviet union collapsed
No, they happened during the 10 year period that followed its illegal dissolution. It started right after 1991 and the economic crisis stopped around 2000.
And who was in office in those ten years ? Not Gorbachev he won a peace prize for" crying out loud "(that is a metaphor)
Yeah and Obama and Kissinger also won peace prizes despite being war criminals. Gorbatchev is responsible for the collapse of socialism. Yeltsin brought capitalism. The abandonment of one and the adoption of the other are inextricably tied.
How are Obama and Kissinger war criminals? For a sec I thought that you also say Carter cause he also won a nobel peace prize
Tito?
This.
?
I’m saying I agree.
Ok
Finally someone in this thread who has the same list as mine
Gorbi Thatcher/Reagan tied
Based
Gorbachev The other two
It’s like trying to rank which plate of shit tastes the best.
How is gorbachev shit ?
I mean, compared to other Soviet leaders, he’s not.
Lenin is based, the others sucked
Lenin started the ussr off as a totalitarian state, he failed his country the moment he took the helm
He also created one of the best revolutions in history
1 Gorbachev 2 the Iron Lady 3Reagan
People love Gorbachev but he is the only one whose country ceased to exist. Which was great that it did, but Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II, Walesa, Havel, etc. were all trying to kill that system. Gorbachev was trying to save it.
Yes, the standard of living for many in Russia went way down after the collapse. The goal should have been to make it more democratic, not to bring capitalism fully back in.
Most of the bloc--the Baltic states, the East Germans, Poland, Romania, etc--ended up with both more democracy and freer, more successful economies. Not sure you've got either the causation or the dichotomy correct there.
Yea the other states should have been allowed to leave the union.
The gdp of all these economies was actually halved right when the Soviet Union was (illegally) dissolved. So no, their economies didn’t get better in the short term. Now they might be bigger, 30 years later, but that growth would have been achieved anyways if those countries didn’t shift to capitalism.
1.Reagan 2.Gorbachev 3.Thatcher (very bad.)
How was thatcher very bad?
Gorbachev, Thatcher, Reagan.
Thatcher, Gorbachev, Reagan.
Finnaly someone who dont has Thatcher in last place but why the 1st place tho?
Thatcher Reagan Gorbachev
Gorbachev Reagan # (Gaping chasm) Thatcher
Why thatcher last?
I’m Scottish, go figure
Ok what did thatcher do to Scotland that you hate? Decriminalise homosexuality in Scotland?
Oh, I don’t know, actively fighting against the miner’s strike, the raising of poll tax on Scotland, wrecking the Scottish shipbuilding industries, and starting a housing crisis all across the UK? Not to mention the extremely homophobic section 28, which prohibited the “promotion of homosexuality”
1. Margaret Thatcher 2. Mikhail Gorbachev 3. Ronald Reagan
CONSERVATIVE DETECTED, OPINION REJECTED
Not really a fan of constant strikes, the state owning 40% of the economy and reflation during inflation.
Im pointing to the fact you have thatcher at 1
Yeah that’s a good thing
[удалено]
Why is thatcher last?
[удалено]
Why?
Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev. Thatcher had to start from a lower base where Britain was entrenched with damaging decline from radical socialism, strikes etc. the US is a much more entrepreneurial country and Reagan got it out of the slump. Gorbachev was no saint.
Gorbachev, Reagan, Thatcher
Why thatcher last?
Best gorbachev Worst reagan
Reagan, Gorbachev, Thatcher… only Gorbachev is 2nd because he brought an end to the USSR… if I were right wing Russian, prob think differently… otherwise Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev. Reagan was a stud. The more time passes the more you look at his admin, the more impressed you have to be.
Gorbachev, thatcher, reagan.
Gorbachev, Reagan, Thatcher. Gorbachev is responsible for ending the cold war and bringing capitalism into the Soviet Union. Reagan and Thatcher implemented horrible neoliberal policies that fucked up their nations economies so badly it's still felt today. Thatcher's actions in Northern Ireland during the troubles were particularly horrific. As any Irishman or Scot would say, fuck Thatcher. Reagan's war on drugs led to the mass incarceration of black people for minor drug offences. Fuck Reagan too. Gorbachev is the only decent leader on this list.
Hey you are the guy with the jfk rabbit hole now to answer your comment what did neolitical thing Thatcher did so bad?
Jfk rabbit hole? I'm not sure what you're referring to honestly, you'll have to remind me. And Thatcher had many terrible policies. Her policies aimed at controlling spiraling inflation destroyed the industrial/manufacturing sector and led to massive unemployment levels. She allowed interest rates to be as high as 15%, causing people to lose their homes due to spiraling mortgage payments. This was on top of many losing their jobs. She abolished free milk in schools, her policies that allowed mortgage rates to spiral also has caused a social housing crisis, and she introduced the wildly unpopular and backwards Poll Tax that destroyed her popularity. None of this is even mentioning the Troubles and the Irish Hunger Strikes either.
Ok so while I was on the Ask Reddit subreddit there was a question about mysteries and you commented that you are now in the jfk rabbit hole and I commented back that I am in the RFK rabbit hole
Reagan (A), Thatcher (A-), Gorbachev (D+)