The second part is a citation of a 15-year old popular joke on Gorbachev, about his incompetence combined with wishful thinking combined with unwillingness to admit his own mistakes.
A world I was referring to is a so called Second World, that was a Soviet block. Being second here does not mean to be somewhere between the first and the third, it means standing on par with (self-proclaimed) First World. And Soviet Union really was a developed, technologically and culturally advanced world. Now we see degradation everywhere, we are on a clear path to the Third World, and we need this modernization. Well, Russia has undergone some successful modernizations in the past, all of them were quite painful. Last one was led by Stalin so you can get an idea of what I mean by "painful", and failed modernizations were even worse. So, it is arguable that Gorbachev made more evil for his people than Stalin did.
I'm always wery surprised, that for some people USSR and company was as good as "the West". I mean - ok, you were sending rockets to space, but at that time people in eastern block were many times less wealthy than people in the west, were less free, couldn't even choose the gov.
It was not sustainable, without Gorbachev it would have ended the same, only later and probably more violent.
When you build your civilization on power and military strength and keep people on your side without their consensus, it isn't surprising that you have to spend on military a lot. And when you add inefficient economy to the mix, it's obvious it will fail.
people in eastern block were many times less wealthy than people in the west
Less wealthy, yes, but not many times less wealthy, provided that all basic (and many not so basic) living needs were covered virtually for free, including guaranteed employment, free medicine, free education and so on. Also, it's easy to be wealthy with a 14-digit national debt.
...were less free, couldn't even choose the gov
That's propaganda. Soviet Union was a pretty democratic state at all levels, and anyyone could choose to go with a party career if he liked to.
It was not sustainable, without Gorbachev it would have ended the same, only later and probably more violent.
Hm, in Poland before 1989 we had to vote "right", also we always had 98%-99% participation in elections. "Slightly" suspicious, isn't it? Now it's sth like 30-60%.
About going with party career - yes, to have good job people even had to be in the party. What I mean by "less free" is - there was one real party, you had to accept party line to be politician, people couldn't choose other party. People couldn't go out of country without permission, and it was strictly controlled, who are allowed to travel where. Simply put it was totalitarian state.
About the fall of the USSR: because in 1989 and later transferrable rubels were worth almost nothing, there were big inflation, satelitte countries were freeing themselves, and atomic war wasn't an option to anybody sane. It had to end that way.
A world I was referring to is a so called Second World, that was a Soviet block. Being second here does not mean to be somewhere between the first and the third, it means standing on par with (self-proclaimed) First World. And Soviet Union really was a developed, technologically and culturally advanced world. Now we see degradation everywhere, we are on a clear path to the Third World, and we need this modernization. Well, Russia has undergone some successful modernizations in the past, all of them were quite painful. Last one was led by Stalin so you can get an idea of what I mean by "painful", and failed modernizations were even worse. So, it is arguable that Gorbachev made more evil for his people than Stalin did.