BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lenin and Stalin the real destroyers of the USSR for destroying Socialism’s Appeal

By a certain point, Lenin knew that something had gone seriously wrong and wrote about the dangers of Communist chauvinism and increasing bureaucratic solutions to problems 1, and yet he allowed this to persist. Lenin recognised that the difference between the original vision and the reality was vast, i.e. self-governing communes in a Communist paradise devoid of selfishness and greed where goods were plentiful versus the reality of a big brother-like supervision and repression of thought and activity, corruption and a centrist administrative system where queuing for goods had become a way of life. This failure of socialism in practice rather than simply on paper led to the end of populist support for the regime and a loss of the Party members’ original passions and aspirations. However, instead of abandoning power, Lenin carried clinging onto power and exacerbated problems by increasing power of the Centre, instead of allowing socialism to develop at a later stage under different circumstances in which it might have worked. Stalin brought further problems by increasing significantly the represssion of his own people – killing millions (estimates vary from a modest 3 million to a huge 60 million) of his own people through ‘purges’, gulags, and forcibly confiscating harvests for export, causing the Ukrainian famine to occur, not to mention deporting other millions of ethnic minorities within the USSR. Is it any wonder that for many, the demise of socialism in the USSR did not occur at the end of 1991, but several decades before, effectively leading to the inevitability of its eventual formal demise? 1 Hosking, Geoffrey. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
Regional Nationalism and Independence Movements

These original flaws in the system were largely responsible for its own downfall – in particular the nationalities issue – the decision to maintain the Empire without granting real power to the nationalities whilst simultaneously repressing them left most of the nationalities feeling bitter when glasnost revealed the truth about how they had been treated in the past and democratisation gave them the power to chose representatives who would really represent people’s interests (the nationalist movement) whilst at the same time being given by Gorbachev an appetite for power – a fatal combination. The wealthier regions wanted a separation from the USSR because of the feeling they were being milked from the centre and many other regions wanted to become independent because they did not want to be part of an economic disaster area which became apparent when the Donbass miners who had no commitment to nationalism thought their future would be safer if the Ukraine wasn’t part of the USSR 1. The nationalist movement emerged when freedom of speech, media and association along with democratisation and the loss of fear of repression allowed people to voice pride in their nation and resentment at past repressions as well as the ongoing special treatment of Russians in the Regions, who had access to better housing and other special privileges the locals did not. Certain Republics felt nationalism more strongly than others, most notably the Baltic States who felt a strong cultural attachment to the West and felt they were being unfairly occupied. Gorbachev’s mistake here was to downplay the importance of nationalism and not treat the Baltic States as a special case 2. After all, most of the population of the USSR wished to preserve the Union – 76% voted to preserve the Union in March 1991 (except the Baltic States, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia who did not conduct the referendum) 3. After the failed coup, most states declared their independence, even if they did so with reluctance, as there was a general feeling there was no alternative. Gorbachev tried to persuade the Republics not to become fully independent. However, in early December, the Ukraine held a referendum where the population voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, even after Gorbachev stated “there can be no Union without Ukraine”, on 8th December, Yeltsin met with the Ukrainian and Bielorussian leader and declared a formal end to the USSR and the establishment of the Confederation of Independent States which they invited the other states to join. There was nothing left Gorbachev could do, democratisation had brought about the means for independence and Gorbachev didn’t feel he could argue with people’s wishes carried out through democratic means and, on 25th December he resigned with regret. 1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 2 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996 3 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996
August 1991 Coup Counter Productive, Bringing About What It Sought To Prevent - The End of the Soviet Union

By August 1991 Gorbachev’s popularity was at an all-time low both in the Party and outside it. Despite being advised by some of his staff to sign the Treaty agreement granting the republics real autonomy before going on holiday and some suspicious circumstances he should have been more questioning about, he planned on signing the agreement when he returned. This was a big mistake and allowed the conservatives to stage a coup. The Emergency Committee made no reference whatsoever to Marxism-Leninism or the class struggle in their speech, meaning it was a coup in the hope of returning the Soviet Union to ‘normal’ i.e. an Empire controlled from Moscow and putting the final nails in the coffin of socialism in the USSR 1. The failed coup triggered the very thing it sought to prevent – the break-up of the Soviet Union 2. 1 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 2 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
War with Afghanistan Drained USSR of Patriotic Morale

The war in Afghanistan was a key contributing factor to the breakup of the USSR. Reuveny and Prakash argue that the Soviet-Afghan war contributed to undermining the Soviet Union in many ways. First, it discredited the Red Army, and impacted negatively upon the image of the Red Army as a strong, almost invincible force, which gave nationalist movements in the Republics hope that they might succeed in attaining independence after all. Second, it impacted upon leadership perception on the usefulness of utilising the military to keep the union intact and as a force for foreign intervention. Third, it created new forms of political participation, which had begun to impact upon media reporting even before glasnost, and began the first calls for glasnost, as it created a number of war veterans, who went on to form organisations which weakened the total authority of the CPSU 1. 1 Reuveny, Rafael, and Prakash, Aseem, ‘The Afghanistan War and the Breakdown of the Soviet Union’, Review of International Studies (1999), 25:693-708
Failure of the ‘Command-Administrative’ Economic System

The economy of the Soviet Union had been stagnant for decades – and would continue to stagnate until it was reformed. Gorbachev’s attempts to reform the economy failed because corruption, bureaucracy and ‘the system’ were so entrenched that little could be done. When factory manager’s were left to source and buy their own materials and make a profit, everything went wrong, and yet nothing really changed: Gorbachev’s reforms were not successful because the economic system was so entrenched into a stagnant system that was not dynamic and broke down essentially due to its’ inability to respond effectively to reforms.
Yeltsin Factor

Boris Yeltsin emerged as the true hero and strong leader for the fearlessness to condemn the coup – in a press conference afterwards Yeltsin ordered Gorbachev around undermining his position, then used his institutional powers derived from democratization to appoint Egor Gaidar, an economist dedicated to laissez-faire economics, as his Finance Minister and suspension of the CPSU pending an investigation into the coup. Gorbachev half heartedly argued against this but it was no use – he was seen as a weaker leader along with discontent over his policies, whilst Yeltsin’s radicalism was keeping pace with developments and his popularity at an all-time high, Gorbachev’s position was also much less weaker without the Communist Party. Also, the Soviet Union really could not exist without the Communist Party arguably as they had political and economic monopoly on society and the Communist Party went from controlling these aspects of society to ceasing to exist, the Soviet Union could not function and the economy spiralled out of control.
The System Needed to Change in Order to Survive in the Longer Term; That Mikhail Gorbachev’s Reforms Failed Showed that the USSR Could Not be Saved

By the Gorbachev era, all hopes of fulfilling the original Marxist-Leninist dream were gone and most did not feel passionately about communism, even within the Party. There was a general acknowledgement that the USSR could not continue in the same way as before – Andropov, Gorbachev’s predecessor also realised this and set about changing society through repressive measures such as harsh labour discipline enforced by cutting payments from workers for work deemed poor quality and restrictions on the sale of alcohol and prohibition of alcohol on official occasions was felt overly repressive and for many – Gorbachev was seen as a positive, energetic leader who would overcome the USSR’s problems in a less repressive manner. With economic stagnation and an economy dependent on the exportation of natural resources to survive 1, an unsuccessful war (Afghanistan) and an ageing Party Membership to combat, Gorbachev was the candidate for those who wanted change or at least realised change could no longer be postponed 2. Autocracies survive due to repressing their people to the extent that they are not given the freedoms required to change their government, rather than because the people want them to stay in power. Mikhail Gorbachev’s conscience and sense of responsibility for his population dictated that the system could no longer be propped up like this, and that the people needed and deserved the freedoms and basic human rights they had been denied for decades. That the system could not encorporate such freedoms meant that the system morally should not be allowed to perpetuate itself, and thus the Soviet Union fell apart because it was unrepresentative and did not support the population’s human rights means the fall of the USSR should be applauded, not mourned for its’ population. 1 Volkogonov, D.A. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire: political leaders from Lenin to Gorbachev, edited and translated by M. Shukman, London: HarperCollins 1998 2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
Perestroika put the final nails in the USSR’s economy

One of the first main policies Gorbachev adopted was Perestroika – reform of the economy. Hoarding and reciprocal favours (blat) had been a means of survival in the Soviet Union, thieving to ‘moonlight’ was also common and this cost the regime a lot. The ‘command-administrative’ system had become obsolete in the Post-Industrial era and was curtailing economic development 1. To solve this, Gorbachev wanted to give enterprise managers control over contracts and introduce aspects of the market economy, to make it managers’ responsibility to gain contracts and to make sure the enterprise makes a profit. However, in practice the way the enterprises operated remained unchanged except in terms – ministries rephrased their commands as contracts 2. Private enterprise was also permitted, which seemed to contradict Gorbachev’s claim to be committed to Marxist-Leninist thought which was vehemently opposed to capitalism which Marxist’s argue exploit the proleteriat – so to actually create a class of capitalists who (according to Marxist doctrine) would exploit the workers who were supposed to be living in socialist – i.e. ‘classless society’ seemed contradictory to the very ideological concept the regime’s power was based upon. A small amount of private enterprise emerged, but the profiteering was very much resented by the general population – goods and services were sold for four or five times their subsidized price due to shortages. Another aspect of Perestroika was entry into the market economy – many of the social benefits given by the enterprises had to be done away with, as they could not make a profit and afford to maintain the benefits, resulting in a stagnant economy occuring simultaneously with a collapsing social welfare system. Gorbachev's reforms did not work and only succeeded in hastening the economic collapse that was inevitable. 1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
Space exploration gives us no direct benefit

There have been no direct benefits from space travel; the only 'good things' to come from it are indirect, and not the end aims. NASA weren't aiming for velcro, but the moon. We got velcro, the moon gave us nothing except some pretty pictures of the planet below. Scientists and inventors could give us the same by-products for a lot less cost if the associated space exploration was removed from the equation. All the by-products of the space race could have been developed by commercial companies aiming to make a profit by developing good products and selling them, at a fraction of the cost: the Post-it note is possibly as useful as velcro, but was developed by 3M at a fraction of the cost. Furthermore, a lot of the 'advances' space exploration bring us is irrelevant to daily life: why bother spending money developing a pen that works in zero-gravity when a) a pencil will do and b) the vast majority of the world's 6 billion people will never experience zero gravity?
It is in man's nature to explore his environment.

Indeed it is our nature to explore our environment - but that environment is not zero-gravity, extremes (and not the bearable extremes we experience on earth) of temperatures and terrain. Indeed, there is still a substantial area of our own planet we have yet to fully explore. Why rush off to space when we've not seen all of our own planet yet? If people had just stayed in their own locations they would find ways to become highly advanced in regards to those locations. lIkely, it wold get to the point that if they tried exploration they would be able to benefit most anyone that happened upon their civilization, and vice versa. Think about it as you would from ancient events in Eurasia. The the chinese were only able to help Europe so well because they were isolated from them for so long, even though it did really only lead to much conflict and war, but that was only because of the Europeans greed.
Money is better used to help human lives in their own country

Imagine you own a house that you have ruined over the years and never bothered to fix any of the integral parts of it, like the hole in the roof, the foundation, running water, garden, and it has become unsanitary, you need 1 Million dollars to fix it up. Instead you plan to abandon this house since you don't like the neighbourhood anyways, and you want to buy yourself a new one. You're really picky and won't settle for anything less then a perfect new home, no matter the cost. You hire a Realestate agent, his fee to search for your dream home is $1 Billion Dollars, and the potential new home you're looking in that perfect neighbourhood will cost you more then 100 Trillion dollars. You're conviced to go with the latter option, cause you're under the immpression that some really interesting girls live there, but you're agent has yet to confirm anything of this information. His search still continues.... We know that us humans exist but we don't know if "space creaters" exist so why bother. If there are things out there they don't hurt us. We people in your country we are like family and you have to help family.
space exploration is a waste of money

If we have to use the money for something i would strongly approve that we use it for space exploration. Lets say the world is on its edge and we have to get off of the earth then we could take rocket ships and we could live on the moon. If we continue space exploration we could probably find a planet that has water or oxygen. The movie wall-e was a great example. the grown ups and children had to go into space and live in a giant space ship because the world ended. that is most likely to happen to us if the earth just becomes a dump.
The Earth itself is not fully explored yet

Potential organisms to be found in space (such as on Mars) offer exactly the same value to the scientific community, and perhaps more, as the conditions would be far more extreme than those found on the Earth. Also, though it is true that much of earth, including the ocean and Antarctica, are unexplored, it's not as though we're exploring space instead of our own planet. The effort being made to explore the ocean is just a great as that of Space Travel. Besides, learning about the ocean floor, while that is important, is no more important than space. What is there that we absolutely have to know about the sea floor? Basically, I think that the only reason that we are so interested in exploring our own planet is because it is "our" planet, and we are under the absurd impression that we must know our own environment before branching out into others, when truthfully, doing both at the same time is an ideal opportunity that we seem to be taking for granted.
It is in man's nature to explore his environment.

Without the urge to ‘see what’s out there’ the continents would still be populated by the indigenous races. North Americans would all be Native Americans, Africans would all be black, and Australia would have only Aborigines and kangaroos. Let’s take this argument to its extremities: Suppose no one had ever wondered if there was another little village somewhere in the world. Then every group of civilised people would have to grow in their own shell of ignorance. The printing press would have remained in Germany unless some other nation happened to stumble on the same process. The same would apply to…well, the list is just too long and life is too short.
NASA is very Hazardous

NASA, yes, is hazardous. In space flight missions at least 18 people have died, and millions of dollars have been spent on rovers that have, yes, been unsuccessful. So that means we should give up? Of course not. if at first you don't succeed, try try again, right. And NASA has succeeded. And while its very true that being an astronaut is a risky, hazardous job, more people die from car crashes in one city in one month than people have died expanding exploration for the last forty years! And so what if failed mars missions stretch back for forty years. Poverty stretches back to beginning of history. If you want to hold of on exploration until we end poverty then I hope you don't care if we ever explore again. Additionally, all of the hazards of Space exploration are made public knowledge, if you take the time to look, and the Astronauts, which are really the only ones threatened, are fully aware of what they're signing on for. Their willingness to risk their own lives only serves to emphasize the imprtance of continued exploration in the Universe.
The Earth itself is not fully explored yet

Space exploration has always been a gimmick. The USA was doing it only to look better than the USSR and vice versa; it has never really been about the science. There are far more valuable scientific endeavours to fund, such as the exploration of our own planet. The seabed, especially around volcanic regions, is relatively unexplored, as is Antarctica. One recent news story about a ‘lost tribe’ also highlighted the fact that we are not in contact with all indigenous peoples across the planet. The scientific knowledge obtainable from our own planet, particularly organisms that inhabit locations with extreme conditions, offers far more value than that of space.
Many discoveries have been made as a result of Space Exploration

Although these discoveries have been made, do you really think that velcro and non-stick pans are more important than feeding the starving, solving the current economic crisis or dealing with the environmental issues? Though these inventions may be useful, we can survive without them. A normal pan still cooks your meals, buttons and zips can do up your jumpers or clothes. These items are simply a luxury we cannot afford and we do not need them. The thousands of starving people cannot survive without food so why spend money on products which we do not need.
NASA is very Hazardous

Go and search space shuttle disasters on Google you will find tons of information on how NASA failed on some of its missions risking the lives of there astronauts. Nasa scientists have lost contact with the latest unmanned spacecraft sent to Mars, the $165m Mars Polar Lander. In September, the $125m Mars Climate Orbiter mission also failed, after an embarrassing mix-up over metric and imperial measurements. The history of failed missions to Mars stretches back 40 years, so are they a waste of taxpayers' money, which would be better spent on more earthly needs? Is the cost of space adventure unjustified while poverty exists in many parts of the world?
A commercial space industry is taking over

the corporations will move in whenever they see opportunity for solid profit, but it is always science, and often government funded research, that finds those opportunities in the first place. for example you mention satellites which are an integral part of the global communications industry, which in itself would not exist without first having the invention of telephone wires, radio waves, etc., all which have led up to space satellites. as for the prospects of space tourism again that is simply a result of the fact that governments have funded space research for all these years and finally it is getting to a point where it's cheap enough and safe enough to send paying citizens up there. corporations will not do anything that doesn't guarantee profit so will they investigate whether there is water on the moon? whether it is possible in the future to colonize it? no. it's too much of a risk so the government has to pay for it.
Many discoveries have been made as a result of Space Exploration

Many discoveries and products have been developed from the knowledge gained from space exploration. For example, NASA created Velcro which is now used in many clothing items, bags and so forth. Non-stick pans and surfaces were also created as a result of space exploration. Now we can cook without worrying whether or not our cakes will stick to the sides of our pans. Overall, space exploration has provided us with new knowledge and as a result of this, many new and intriguing inventions have been made. It's sickening to see all of these people going on and on about "saving the starving and impoverished". Well then sell your computer. Stop commenting on here, go dedicate your life to helping the "starving and needy". And how many tons of rice and grain do we need to keep dropping on these countries before they get their act together and FEED THEMSELVES. I know it sounds heartless, but it's their fault. I don't care if they don't have money. Man lived for thousands of years off of the land and many (dumb) animals still manage to pull it off. Why do we have to send some christian missionaries over to dig them a well? Why can't they dig their own well? Why can't they plant their own grain? Why can't they hunt their own game or raise their own livestock? Why can't they move OUT of the areas of drought? Why is it OUR problem? You feel guilty because you live better? We shouldn't help people that will not help themselves. And something is going to happen and we will ALL be dead or starving on this planet because we refused to move on and advance the survival of our species; all pissed away on supporting some people that would probably just as soon let us starve if we were the ones without food and they were the rich ones.