It's amazing that a bunch of bureaucrats who never owned businesses tried to set prices based on years of data when price is determined by supply and demand and changing every second.
Price is only decided by supply and demand in a market-economy, which is not really an apt description for the USSR's economy. What is important however, and is mentioned a couple of times in the video, is external factors. Namely, the economies of other countries, where, for most of them, supply and demand did dictate prices. One major mistake of the USSR was trying to exist on it's own while still attempting to operate a planned economy. Planned economies can not compete with market economies, that is almost always the case. But that is not the point of planned economies, the point is to maximize welfare of all citizens.
@@kiern1285 You're contradicting yourself. You declare that competition with a market is a loosing battle, yet call it a mistake to live on it's own and not compete. Education is degrading more rapidly in capitalist countries than anticipated.
@@МихаилРозов-ю9п the thing is that it's impossible to "live in your own and try not to compete" when the other 80% of the world is capitalist. You are shooting yourself in the foot that way. The Soviet Union should have strived from the beginning to spread it's ideology more and focus on nurturing communism in the 3rd world.
Many congratulations for your video. A huge factor contributing to the fall of the Soviet economy along with the points you raised was the Chernobyl disaster which cost hundrends of billion of dollars.
and the 8 year long war in Afghanistan plus maintaining a very large military presence near western Europe and China simultaneously as well as a massive amounts of resources directed towards the military industrial complex plus extremely harsh trade and technology sanctions by the west and a lopsided economy directed mainly towards heavy industry only.
IDK if it was the cost as much as the loss of faith. Remember that the govt was abolished. It didn't *actually* collapse, so we don't really know if it was possible to find a way out. They just gave up because everyone believed it would be better and the west would help once they abandoned their ideological position, which didn't actually happen.
USSR 1929 Economic Environment: 1. Recovery growth in 1921-1928; 1913 figures exceeded (national income grew by 19%, industry, by 32%, agriculture, by 33%, fixed assets by 36%). 2. Sanctions: The country had not yet been recognized by many countries. They refused to accept gold as payment. The country was suffering from a credit blockade. Anti-dumping sanctions and embargoes: USA (1930), France (1930), England (1933). 3. External public debt and reserves: Debt more than $350M to U.S. private companies. Total reserves comprised $150M, including 138 tons' worth of gold reserves. 4. Modern industries and technologies: No competencies or technologies in contemporary economy sectors, including machine tool construction, non-ferrous metallurgy, chemical industry, aviation industry, automobile industry, agricultural machinery production, tractor industry. 5. Life expectancy: 43 years. Low-level healthcare and education systems. Population: 154M people. - - - USSR 1929-1955 results: 1. The largest economy in Europe and the second largest economy worldwide. The economy grew 14 times, by 13.8% annually on the average (the war years excluded). The country was the world leader in terms of economic growth in the 20th century). 2. External public debt: None. Gold reserves: 2,050 tons (ranking 2nd in the world). 3. World's leader in mechanical engineering in industrial production (100% technical and economic independence has been achieved); 1st in the world in terms of agricultural mechanization; 1st in Europe in terms of the absolute size of industrial production; 1st in Europe and 2nd in the world in terms of labor productivity in industry. 4. New world-class industries: nuclear, space, rocket, aircraft, professional equipment, radio, electronics, electrical equipment, chemical, machine tool construction, etc. The Russian economy has the youngest engineering and manufacturing system in the world. 5. Personnel: world-class engineering/technological/scientific school, education and healthcare are high-quality and affordable. 6. Life expectancy increased by 26 years. Population grew by 46M people, reaching 200M. Real income grew over 4 times. People's deposits in savings banks increased more than 5-fold.
@@hoodvaavdooh maybe. But a leader raised & trained from birth for the position would likely be a better choice than a woke drama teacher that ignores ethics violations. 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Central planners can usually do OK at heavy industrial investment that is catch up growth where they can copy capitalist existing business models. But by the 1970s heavy industrial investment wasn't driving economic growth. Small scale innovation in services, technology, and consumer goods was. Central planners could not keep up with what the capitalist economies could do in these areas.
In the USSR there were private production companies - artels. from 1920-1950 they produced precisely private sector goods, planning was reserved only for resource, energy and heavy engineering industries. artels brought up to 13% of taxes to the budget
Thanks for making this! It's so hard to find good impartial resources on the Soviet Economy, most videos I've seen are heavily biased one way or the other -- but this was a good facts-based video that acknowledged both the flaws and successes of the Soviet system.
As someone who comes from ex Soviet Union state. Was taught a lot in school about it. Researched extensively Soviet Economy. And speaks Russian with one of my parents. I can tell you guys. The info here is very shallow, and provided from perspective of some kid reading in internet about soviet unions economy and not a historian specialising in this topic. You really can feel it. Being an expert on topic makes a huge difference. Your knowledge is just much more wast. You orientate more in the topic. You can argue better. And this is not that. This is complicated topic, and you can’t form your opinion based on 10 minute RUclips video. Also there are much better videos in net about this topic. Sorry, Dover. This is not a diss or personal attack. I’m sure you have many very good videos.
@@captn_maverick well do you have any recommendations for better English language materials covering the topic? Western economics is highly focused on capitalist systems, so we basically learn nothing about the soviet economy in school. Vague statements about a lack of consumer goods are about as deep as most English language sources go.
@@TheNodrokovi think this video has a good description on soviet economic from communist view. ruclips.net/video/nGm0u3UHDZM/видео.htmlsi=jPbk36dnnqVWpIvr
@@TheNodrokovruclips.net/video/2zjL2EXo07I/видео.htmlsi=aERM4u6QAYktok9d in my opinion most accurate among the others "explain everything in 20 minute videos"
Soviet Union had no economy. It was always oil and natural gas. The machinery that they used to extract both was licensed from the West. The infamous Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhhorod pipeline was financed by the West and constructed with Western-built equipment. The proceeds from oil and natural gas sales were used to purchase grain from the United States to avoid a full-blown famine. Yes, quite a success story 👏
@timonurcikan8196 "The biggest housing construction ever " also existed mostly on paper. More than a million people or 12% still lived in communal apartments in Moscow in 1993.
The soviet economy grew because Soviet Russia moved from a pre-industrial, agricultural based economy to an industrialized economy. It came from a low, low base. But it was highly distorted and inefficient. This analysis is very superficial.
Agreed. It was simply impossible equation. In addition, he is dismissing the brutality and oppression of the system. It is generally not efficient to have your smartest people killed or deported to Siberia. The truth is the Eastern block countries yearned for liberty, so it was just a matter of time when the brutal regime would come crashing down. Liberty eventually wins.
@@siddude it actually were far more efficient than any other capitalist economy. Don't confuse "socialist era" under Stalin, and later stage state capitalism (named by Soviet economists) of post Stalin's era, where not communists were in charge, rather "those who left". It was inefficient "by design". It was actually so efficient that central government were able to destroy the country despite all efforts of people to save it
yeah, most people forget that russia before the revolution was a backwards agrarian society with virtually no industrialization to speak of, there is a lot of emphasis in public on how ussr had to rebuild after the war but the fact is they were not as much rebuilding (as there was little to begin with as opposed to west european countries and the usa) as they were building anew, new roads and buildings, factories etc. ofc the gdp would show growth when you are literally spending vast amounts of resources to build the country anew, we can see the same thing in china during the past decades. issue is while you could say the gdp was growing, it should have grown much faster than it did but it didnt because of how insanely dogshit inefficient the whole process was.
@@AuroraCityProject you missing that all that rebuild was finished in first 10-15 years. Since then Soviet economy actually developed. Also you forgetting that before war USSR managed to built industrial economy able to withhold burden of biggest military conflict ever known. It also was done in couple decades based on rudimentary industrial complex built before revolution. I'm not sure you both correct at all. Also, USSR solved homelessness problem after devastating war. It wasn't (and still isn't) perfect, but there were no homeless people. At least, if you will to have a shelter you will be guaranteed with it. And it demanded a Huge effort and economic base
its called the catch up principle. they started from a really low point so even a minor inprovement looks like major growth. imagine a business with profit of $100 this year and the following year they make $200 that is a 100% growth that is the USSR imagine another example with a profit of $1000 the following year they make $1500 year that is only a 50% growth but it is more than double the profit
According to the Soviets, the Soviets were doing great. If you have any complaints comrade, be sure to contact your local Gulag commander at your earliest convenience.
It was an extractive ecomomy based on raw materials and forced industrialization. It grew fast from a low base. Later, due to lack of innovation, corruption and lack of competition, it went bust
Western Oil money also helped for a lot of decades, that regular injection of foreign currency helped paper over the misallocation of resources from state control.
Under Hoover? 1,000,000 Model T Fords at $380 apiece. $.38 billion. Under Stalin? 1,000 tanks at $1,000,000 each: a billion, two and a half times as productive!
Source for GDP growth. All of this video is based on premise that GDP grew ca 5% per annum on average. Where does this figure come from. Especially, since Soviet economy had set, not market set prices, how is the actual value of value added calculated. If it is based on artificially set prices then everything in the video falls apart.
As someone who comes from ex Soviet Union state. Was taught a lot in school about it. Researched extensively Soviet Economy. And speaks Russian with one of my parents. I can tell you guys. The info here is very shallow, and provided from perspective of some kid reading in internet about soviet unions economy and not a historian specialising in this topic. You really can feel it. Being an expert on topic makes a huge difference. Your knowledge is just much more wast. You orientate more in the topic. You can argue better. And this is not that. This is complicated topic, and you can’t form your opinion based on 10 minute RUclips video. Also there are much better videos in net about this topic. Sorry, Dover. This is not a diss or personal attack. I’m sure you have many very good videos.
Great video, thought you presented such a complex topic with great flow. Kept it short and sweet while hitting some important marks. Keep it up. Assumed this was a bigger channel haha
If they didn't have to spend a massive amount of their wealth to found the army the USSR would be alive and kicking. The USA wanted anything that was different form capitalism to fail cos they were scared that socialism would succeed in the US too.
@@holocene6 Still the same old Russian colonial empire just pretending to be a single nation. Still the same old police state with the same old secret police just with a new name.
So how do you explain the US system able to outspend the soviets and not implode? The Soviet system was going to implode either way, the military spending may have played a part in speeding up the process, however they nailed their own coffin with the Chernobyl nuclear disaster highlighting the inherent problem, that the government and society was afraid of telling the truth and face its own flaws.
@@ip4pwn1 the USA was an economic superpower way before WW2. Russia had an feudal economic system until the Soviet revolution. You can't compare the two.
The growth especially if you're talking about heavy industries which was where their concentration was, it was done through forced labor. As far as consumption goes there really was virtually no consumer goods on a steady basis. Food was a slightly different story with some varying degrees of failure. As it wasn't exactly plentiful.
So why Russia is the world's largest wheat exporter. The Soviets couldn't import because of economic sanctions from the United States and western countries so they had to grow their own coffee, tea, grapes, cotton and fruit. Meanwhile America enslaved Central America To get fruit at cheap prices
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa they also stole a shitload of factories from russian occupied germany. Also im central american and I can tell you, people from outside central america really over-dramatize the banana companies, they were extremely capitalist, but what we had before was worse. Imagine 60 continuous years of civil wars with no progress being made, no healthcare, no roads, barely any schools, and people being paid even worse than under the chiquita. For all the shit people give them, they brought us a level of progress we hadnt experienced since the fall of the federal republic of central america. Am I pissed? Yes im pissed, cause people use that arguement every fucking time and its getting annoying having to hear it again and again and again.
I personally think a communist economy would only be good to boost developing nations or war-torn nations with crippling economies, because it allows the state to pretty much run everything and stabilize the nation. But a communist economy wouldn't work in the long term because the base principles of Communism conflicts with human desires, which will hinder growth and development.
The thing is that unless you’re starting from the bottom command economies fail due to them being unable to have enough information to determine correctly which resources should go where because at best it’s like predicting the weather which is extremely hard to predict
The 70s also saw bad harvests and one of the largest military arms build ups seen. They got into an arms and technology race with the United States that they could not sustain (the reason for Gorbachev to pursue detente with the US). Plus the oil markets crashed in the mid 80's. That was the death blow to the Soviet economy as they experienced peak oil (given their level of technology, ability to extract it. The Soviet economy (and Russia today) was fueled by and dependent on oil.
The Soviets also had nearly 25% less people to feed after the mass starvation that occurred in Ukraine during the twenties and thirties. No wonder their agricultural output. Went down and industrial went up. They were also building up for war with Europe.
25% of the population in 1933 would make it 45 million people, almost double the losses in WW2. It's funny how the country almost collapsed post WW2, and yet when suffering double the losses it kept going like nothing happened. And of course, industrialization just happened, it's not like you need specialists and blue collar workers to do that. Nor do you need schools staffed with qualified teachers to do that as well. Brainwashed westoids are the funny
If they were capitalist, they wouldn't have those resources Just ask Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kygystan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Serbia, Boznia and Herizovina, Montenegro, Kosovi, and *so many more* what good did shock therapy do for them? Because following their transition back into capitalism, their standards of living *plumited* , education *plumited* , life expectancy *plummeted* , industrialization *plumited* Today, most ex-soviet countries are nothing more than cheap labor pools and raw resource extraction operations in service of the handful of developed capitalist nations In fact, *most* capitalist nations look much more like Guatemala, Ecuador, Jamaica, Senegal, Cameroon, Botswana, and Somalia *This* is an accurate depiction of what capitalism really looks like for the vast majority of humanity, and developed nations like the United States, France, and Australia are the reason why most of the world's nations will *always* be considered "developing" countries
Unfortunately this legacy is still around. People in post soviet countries don't understand where money comes from. They can't make a relation between effective production and monthly payments. After a while when their employer goes bankrupt they cry "what would I do"
The soviets had a strong economy, so much so a decade didn't go by for the first 50 years without a famine. They needed massive grain shipments from the West decade after decade. Unbelievable that system hasn't been put to bed , government me harder, the plea of the fool.
If you are going to make stuff up, at least make sure it's consistent. The last famine happened in 1946-1947 which was caused by WW2. Not sure where the 50 years come from.
@@gustavo042 when? During WW2? The total amount of food produced between 1941 and 1945 in the USSR was 590 million tons while the number of food delivered under the lend-lease agreement and registered in Soviet harbors from the Russian Federal archives, which is 3.86 million tons. But sure, a measely 0.7% of food shipped kept the entire country from starving to death. Keep coping buddy.
Basically communism/socialism for USSR/Russia was like taking steroids, it boost their economy by mass industrialization and rapid militarization guided by central planning but the same central planning was very inefficient to the point it quicky stagnating in 1980s
In Stalin era, average annual economic growth was almost 14%, for more than 20 years, which is amongst the best long term growth in the world. The stagnation came with Khrushchev and his deregulation and decentralization, and with Gorbachev and his pro-western "reforms". USSR fell because a small but decisive part of society, including Gorbachev, got hooked on the "american dream". However they didnt realize that american prosperity was paid by switching to neoliberalism in 80s, by Reagan´s voodoo economics, by debt and stock market casino. Usa was actually in very similar situation as before the Great Depression in late 80s. But the gamble worked out, because they acquired East markets and supercheap resources. Americans together with starting local speculators privatised and exported whole factories of goods and machinery, sometimes not even paid. USSR should have continued the way of self sufficiency, long term planning and sustainibility, stability and social services for workers. Even in the West many people agree now that is the correct way. Collectivisation was necessary for industrialisation, and that was necessary to defeat Germany. Otherwise Russia would become a subhuman german colony, similar to what Britain had in India.
Centralization of resources was already killing the Soviet Union as bureaucracy kept expanding. Khrushchev was somewhat helpful in that regard, but he also spent the USSR's gold reserves to buy outside resources to keep up growth. The USSR then got lucky in the 70s as oil prices kept shooting up, until they didn't. From there it was only a matter of time due to their own fundamental internal issues and Reagan wearing them down on all fronts while the American and Allied economics experienced an end to stagflation and a resurgence of spendable growth. Typical deluded description of American economic realities in the 1980s though, well done!
@@hoodvaavdoohIndia is 5th biggest economy and 3rd biggest purchasing India followed socialism like soviet union until it's collapse thank god soviet union collapsed socialism won't work it's just ideology for poor and uneducated people
This excuse usually heard from a stalin apologist or far right fascist group in russia today,but then ask yourself,taiwan,singapore,south korea or even hong kong manage to achieve high standard living without resorting to organized mass murder.
My main issues is the overt generalisation of issues and poor understanding of mechanisms. Also not understanding The background behind these historical events.
All the USSR had to export was oil and weapons. They had to import more food than they could grow. By the way, the Russian Empire were actually net exporters of grain and dairy, something the Soviets never came close to realizing. The U.S. bailed them out of famines multiple times, also providing them with alot of food during WWII.
@@RememberingWW2 private innovation is mostly a myth Touchscreens, the Microprocessor, and the Internet were all government programs. Your cellphone would not exist if it weren't for government investment Most innovation is slow, expensive, and a collective effort; on the shoulders of *hundreds of thousands* of people who dedicate their entire lives to things they will likely never live to see If you want innovation under capitalism, perhaps some planned-obselecne, shrinkflation, and manipulative marketing might take your fancy
Doverhill you forget to mention a crucial point, that is the initial Capital... As far as I know, the Russian Empire money were heading to the west during Tzar Civil War, so the URSS started almost as a poor country..., so we should be speaking of it as a Miracle Economy like it or not... Then the causes of decadence you mention in the late stage were apparently right, but we should analize if they were not related to the lower starting point, that didn´t allow them to catch up with the western technology?? Greetings from Buenos Aires 🙂
Saying USSR started with no capital so we should see it as more of a miracle economy is ... Well I won't say that it's false but it's incomplete. Many things: The USSR refuted all Tzarist Russia's debts. Meanwhile, they still had $ to fund revolutions (which all failed) all over Europe. Also many foreign owned concerns were nationalized or often profits not allowed to leave USSR ie couldn't pay dividends to foreign investors (bf the NEP took effect). And oh, then there's the natural resource wealth. The USSR was incredibly rich in mineral resources - much more so than the rest of Europe and Asia combined. So while, tzarist Russia did spend massively and left the new govt "cash poor", the USSR had ready access to cash from riches of Mother Russia herself. And, later, when Stalin needed even more money, he instituted forced collectivization which required the sale of agriculture at low prices to the govt so as to make a harder push on industrial infrastructure investment. Collectivized exports were raised so high that millions of Ukrainians starved. eg, Read about the Holodomor in which 5m-7m Ukrainians starved to death. the NEP was instituted (early 1920s) and many western nations and capitalists were all too happy to do business with the ussr and did do so to the great benefit of both. Read Antony Sutton's trilogy "Western Technology and Soviet Economic development" specifically volume one 1917-1930. And, in 1936, the USSR ended up with Spain's gold reserve (500+ tons) initially for "safekeeping" but republican Spain "spent" all of it (per the USSR) on munitions to fight nationalist forces in the civil war. So, if you want a country that started with nothing, look at Franco's Spain. Their entire gold reserve was in the USSR when Franco took power. So I don't agree they started with nothing or if they did they were positioned to make up for it and did so quickly via natural resource wealth and property theft (being blunt here). Anyway, that's my response ;) greetings from Central Texas.
@@Tyler_Kent Hi, how are you? You are right about the big potential in natural resources, we should add this point to the comments. But..., even with that they started with "zero" capital, as far as I see it is a fact, and take into consideration that they could have failed to exploit natural resources effectively, so that ability maked part of their "miracle". I´m not a communist but we should recognize the things they made with big effort, because that brings us a better understanding of human/social possibilieties... Thanks you, greetings 🙂
@@danielschiavo5371 I understand where you're coming from that's why I made sure to say your statement isn't false but is incomplete. In the US especially, there's been a huge effort to cover up just how huge of a role western finance played in the "miracle" of the Soviet economy. As Lenin said, "if you tell a group of capitalists you're going to execute them, they'll all fight over who can sell you the rope." He also called western capitalists "the deaf mute blind men" bc they put making money over all else even to their country's detriment. He knew the west wouldn't be able to resist $ making opportunities in ussr which is why he opened it up so quickly to the west with the NEP. It really is fascinating history. I'll let Lenin have the last words as quoted from page 8 in "Red Carpet" by Joseph Finder (1984): "the capitalists of the world, in pursuit of the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the indicated higher reality and thus will turn into deaf mute blind men. They will extend credits which will strengthen for us the communist party in their countries and giving us the materials and technology we lack. they will restore our industry, indispensable for our future victorious attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will labor for their own suicide." The west played a huge part in the miracle. To me, that renders moot how much cash they started with. But, like you say, they did start with very little cash. I push back hard on the miracle part and feel the real story is just how much the west funded the whole thing as Russia offfeed a lot in the way of natural resources and provided a "boogey man" for western citizens to fear and thus approve nonstop military spending.
@@Tyler_Kent you are right about the paradox of western making bussiness with them, but as far as I know that was not a total technological interchange, the only enterprises that produced in the USRR were the italian joint ventures (FIAT, etc). The interest point to me is that there was a country who proposed a totally different system (whatever one), started with virtually nothing (they had no money and they had no industries) and become a Super Power 🤯, it is something very remarkable, and speaks to us about different possibilieties for humankind, and in someway in the personal sphere what a man can do whith determination. Thanks for your history insights, they enrich my point of view about it 🙂
@@danielschiavo5371 Absolutely. Your comment actually made me pull a couple books off my shelf and I've been re-reading "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution." It's a wild history for sure. Sutton claims there were millions transferred to Moscow from western elites. I realize this is revisionist history so you can choose to ignore it. Sutton's citations are all bulletproof and even the mainstream academics can't refute that. where they do push back is they claim sutton reaches 'exaggerated conclusions' based on those irrefutable facts🤷♂. It's all very very interesting and really does help to understand our world today and those who run it. Citroen was also in the USSR with a plant from bf the revolution and operated privately until nationalized in 1921. In 1929, Ford adn USSR contracted for Ford sales and the construction GAZ plant in Nizhny Novgorad in partnership with Ford. That plant would go on to manufacture trucks which delivered weapons to the Vietcong via the Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War. best of luck to you in your research and belated congrats on the World Cup.
Both China and Vietnam saw growth after rejecting the Stalinesque central governed economy, and allowing for capitalism. That is the antithesis of the Soviet economy outside Lenin’s NEP.
if you rate the quality and productivity of a countries economy in the number of corpses it produces then yes the Soviet economy was second only to China .
If the only purpose of an economy is to turn out vast quantities of cheap weapons - then sure, it was successful. But seeing as the USSR had to use force and terror just to stop their population fleeing to the west, we may conclude that its citizens did not consider it a success.
Soviets: Our economy is the second biggest in the world! We have an annual GDP growth of 6% ! Everyone else: Ok, let us check the numbers, let us trade, float your currency, send tourists out, let our tourists in... Soviets: Hell nawwwwwwwwwwwwww...
😂 it never did. GDP is a poor metric by itself, but even without taking it into consideration: one can not use GDP in connection with USSR economy since there were no prices (in an economic sense). And there was at least one more major factor - "pripiski".
Society union failed because everything was based on death and lies. My parents lives thought that regime. 1. Gulags provided human power for most big project, e.g., Belomor Canal. People used dead bodies to strengthen the foundation and has to dig in ice covered ground without shovels. But gulags had so many people that nobody cared. 2. Insane amount of resources. Russia and other republics had all the resources a country might need. 3. Propaganda that was telling people that working 24/7 is helping to build communism. 4. Quite a few skilled engineers, foreign engineers, and tons of stuff that was stolen from US or Germany. At some point NKVD and KGB killed a lot of smart people. Gulags were not as populated as during Stalin's time. Socialist programs started failing. Society products like cars/computers were not required in the west. Insane levels of corruption crippled the system. And the regime had 0 incentive to work/design new things so efficiency was at ground level. Then there was a borrowing spree in the 80s, economy collapses and we get modern russian with ex-kgb president and millions of angry poor people.
I think the least working hours and the actual works on some sectors on Soviet Union was superior rather than US and Britain. Second even the economy was falling, the socialist revisionists who leaded by some powerful members of the party lead that. Stalin's Soviet Union even with short term policies proven to be successful, but the long one possibly doesn't much implemented nor doesn't continued leaving Soviet Union on it's fate during Stalin's health deteriorating after the war. Collectivization was required since even the grain confiscated is on decline, Stalin's Soviet Union is in the neutral stage and weakened diplomatic relations with much of the world thanks to Lenin's revolutionary ideas. Vladimir Putin actually decreased poor people in Russia during his early years, however Putin changed his stance during 2008 possibly on Iraq war. He weakened US and European companies control on oil and gas, making oligarchs to support himself and his beliefs.
@@wesleywagumba2806 I have, at least, 2 generations of my family living under Soviet regime and myself living on its death corpse. I don't need to research stuff like, for example, soviet civilian cars are based of Fiat. However, Soviet engineers didn't manage to build a decent engine or carburator so those models were shit. Ice cream factories were imported from USA during great depression. Gulag system is documented well and widely available everywhere on the internet. Unlike many of people in these comments I actually visited and lived in industrial cities that have railways going nowhere, factories that produce nothing, schools that have no one to teach. Soviet industrialist were great at building useless stuff and this is why it all failed. My mom recalls how you had a hop with 1000 pairs of 10.5 size for women but there wasn't a single pair of any other shoe available in the whole city. Then next month you would get 1000 of 7 shoe size. That is your efficiency. Due whatever research that you want but if you haven't lived there, trust me, it's difficult to understand how wasteful and useful it was.
Yes, they try so to justify the Gulag, the crimes, the famine and all misery brought by the bolsheviks. They know that these are bad orible things, but acceptable to achieve the greatness of russia.
He is obviously not a native speaker. Anyway, don’t disrupt the truth because you caught him misspeaking. This video is obviously well-researched and objective. You’re just pissed off it isn’t anti-marxist propaganda like you are used to.
its called the catch up principle. they started from a really low point so even a minor inprovement looks like major growth. imagine a business with profit of $100 this year and the following year they make $200 that is a 100% growth that is the USSR imagine another example with a profit of $1000 the following year they make $1500 year that is only a 50% growth but it is more than double the profit
There was very little success in the Soviet Union. Yes, at first win the Soviets began implementing their central planning. It sounded great, and people were enthused. But the country soon found out that things were not working as promised and subsequently things got worse. Just like all central planning, socialism, or communism or fascism. Let capitalism reign supreme.
you have to compare soviet economy to Russian economy. Chinese don't compare with American economy or Japanese economy, they look at current world markets and compare their economy to yesterday and to tomorrow's economy. Soviet economy didn't come up with more efficient capital assets. they kept investing but the capital assets just depreciated at the same rate. But that's not due to central planning; today's Russian economy is the same.
Stalinist terror was a key ingredient that motivated the population. Once the Stalinist terror and fear gradually ebbed the Soviet system found to a halt and eventually collapsed.
I know some people who visited Poland and the USSR in the 70's and 80's. They said there were no good consumer goods to be found anywhere. At a department store in Moscow, the cookware, clothes, toys, and pens were terrible in quality. He purchased a "good quality" camera, and on return to UK, found that it didn't work. He showed it to experts, who said it was garbage. He also noted that whatever photos he saw in Moscow were very poor in quality. How is it possible, that a nation with abundant resources, workers, and skilled educated people, could not make a good camera, car, bicycle, printing machine, generator, or even a good pair of shoes? Something tells me that a man who can't get rich and affluent off of his talent will not bother to work hard. Unless the commissar is in town.
It turns out that a centrally planned economy is far inferior to the forces of supply and demand in a free market. One example I heard: Whenever it started raining, every driver would pull over to put the windshield wipers on their cars. They kept their wipers locked in their cars because there was no system in place to buy replacement wiper blades. The only way to get new wipers was to steal them from another car or to bribe someone working at a car factory who had access to wiper blades. All because the central planners didn't think of the fact that wiper blades wear out and need replaced, and therefore didn't tell factories to make extras to be sold at state stores. If the central planners didn't order someone to make something, it didn't get made. And when it was ordered to get made, it likely didn't get made by someone who had the ability or motivation to actually make a quality product; but someone solely motivated to be able to report that they produced the quota number of that product.
You say it was a success at the start? I doubt it as Western expertise at building plants and Lend Lease supplies were being counted as domestic production. The only thing it succeeded in was human misery.
The reason why it grew initially was because of industrialization not because of communism or socialism. The only reason today why China is so wearily is because the only way a purely socialist or communist government can grow is through trade. And China isn’t even fully communist or socialist. It has bouts of capitalism as well. Make no mistake the USSR sucked and so did its depiction of economic growth
See, the problem with GDP is the same problem we have today. The paper number versus reality is a stark difference and the Soviets had the same problem. We're going to it now. People will say the economy is doing great. Look at the GDP. Look at the numbers and then I tell them look around. People are unhealthy people are dying. People are socially excluded. And most importantly, people are not having money to spend. That is not the sign of a healthy economy.When I can drive up Main street and count twelve stores closed.
Spending money you don't have without being productive, is always great, for a while. I could quit work, max out all my credit and have a blast for a couple of years- then I'd be in big trouble. The hang over from lockdowns is a little taste of what happened in the USSR.
Let's be real, the Soviet Union never truly rivaled the United States economy. They temporarily got ahead in rockets but that was because of the German scientist more than anything they did.
These aren’t the same thing. Economic success and “rockets”? The USSR failed due to two significant b factors. They felt (rightly) as if they were surrounded by ideological enemies determined to destroy them and their socialist economic system. (This feeling is true to this day … Putin just isn’t a socialist anymore … but still gains political power by continuing the old Soviet mythos of being surrounded by enemies). This obliged the USSR to spend ridiculous amounts of money on their military and new military technology in order to retain the capability of a credible defense against any new technology the worlds capitalists might invent in order to threaten and destroy their socialist system and take over their resources and economy for themselves. Military and military technology spending over decades crippled them. Second, beginning in the 1960s Kruschev and subsequent Soviet leaders decided to introduce bourgeois consumerism and fashion and trend conscious consumer goods to parts of their “white collar” workers in their urban centers in an effort to promote a Soviet alternative to the West’s bourgeois consumer culture the citizens of the USSR were becoming increasingly aware of and interested in. This effect of “westernizing” might have been easier to manage and not allow to overwhelm socialist values with greedy selfish capitalist western bourgeois values that typically come along with consumer culture, except for the overwhelming amount of their economy the USSR was wasting on arms races and militarism. The two effects together after two decades (including ever-more leakage of western culture into the USSR vis the increasingly sophisticated media to an increasingly sophisticated bourgeoisie who were growing in number at the same time. Of course, the US and the other western capitalist nations were relentlessly propagandizing the Soviet people about the “freedom” they were supposed to be enjoying along with all the consumer bourgeois products and lifestyle. These expectations spread to all levels. By the 1980s this became unsustainable.
@@B_Estes_Undegöetzit's worth mentioning that even after all these lies and what was essentially the marketing of capitalism itself to the Soviet masses, Most Soviets voted to *not* break up the USSR when Boris Yeltin held a referendum The dissolution of the USSR was a forced and undemocratic handover of the state onto a few, despotic oligarchs that emerged
@@ru8e42 buddy, I grew up eating USSR food. Everything was 100% grown and shipped as fresh as possible. There were no additives, corn syrups, etc. As a result I never knew kids with autism or diabetes. Hell, I didn't know what autism was until I came to the US. By comparison, the US food is gutter trash, filled with God knows what ingredients, sugars and carcirogens. Call a propagandist all you want, but unlike you I have first hand experience of living in both countries.
It's amazing that a bunch of bureaucrats who never owned businesses tried to set prices based on years of data when price is determined by supply and demand and changing every second.
Which is why our foreign policy towards them was so tragic.
Price is only decided by supply and demand in a market-economy, which is not really an apt description for the USSR's economy. What is important however, and is mentioned a couple of times in the video, is external factors. Namely, the economies of other countries, where, for most of them, supply and demand did dictate prices. One major mistake of the USSR was trying to exist on it's own while still attempting to operate a planned economy. Planned economies can not compete with market economies, that is almost always the case. But that is not the point of planned economies, the point is to maximize welfare of all citizens.
@@kiern1285 You're contradicting yourself. You declare that competition with a market is a loosing battle, yet call it a mistake to live on it's own and not compete. Education is degrading more rapidly in capitalist countries than anticipated.
@@МихаилРозов-ю9п the thing is that it's impossible to "live in your own and try not to compete" when the other 80% of the world is capitalist. You are shooting yourself in the foot that way. The Soviet Union should have strived from the beginning to spread it's ideology more and focus on nurturing communism in the 3rd world.
why is this same policy
now being implemented
in many western countries?
i.e. bloated govt directing investment into real estate and other bubbles
Excellent video, informative and well presented
Many congratulations for your video. A huge factor contributing to the fall of the Soviet economy along with the points you raised was the Chernobyl disaster which cost hundrends of billion of dollars.
and the 8 year long war in Afghanistan
plus maintaining a very large military presence near western Europe and China simultaneously
as well as a massive amounts of resources directed towards the military industrial complex
plus extremely harsh trade and technology sanctions by the west
and a lopsided economy directed mainly towards heavy industry only.
And i presume your spurce is your backside, right?
IDK if it was the cost as much as the loss of faith. Remember that the govt was abolished. It didn't *actually* collapse, so we don't really know if it was possible to find a way out. They just gave up because everyone believed it would be better and the west would help once they abandoned their ideological position, which didn't actually happen.
USSR 1929 Economic Environment:
1. Recovery growth in 1921-1928; 1913 figures exceeded (national income grew by 19%, industry, by 32%, agriculture, by 33%, fixed assets by 36%).
2. Sanctions: The country had not yet been recognized by many countries. They refused to accept gold as payment. The country was suffering from a credit blockade. Anti-dumping sanctions and embargoes: USA (1930), France (1930), England (1933).
3. External public debt and reserves: Debt more than $350M to U.S. private companies. Total reserves comprised $150M, including 138 tons' worth of gold reserves.
4. Modern industries and technologies: No competencies or technologies in contemporary economy sectors, including machine tool construction, non-ferrous metallurgy, chemical industry, aviation industry, automobile industry, agricultural machinery production, tractor industry.
5. Life expectancy: 43 years. Low-level healthcare and education systems. Population: 154M people.
- - -
USSR 1929-1955 results:
1. The largest economy in Europe and the second largest economy worldwide. The economy grew 14 times, by 13.8% annually on the average (the war years excluded). The country was the world leader in terms of economic growth in the 20th century).
2. External public debt: None. Gold reserves: 2,050 tons (ranking 2nd in the world).
3. World's leader in mechanical engineering in industrial production (100% technical and economic independence has been achieved);
1st in the world in terms of agricultural mechanization;
1st in Europe in terms of the absolute size of industrial production;
1st in Europe and 2nd in the world in terms of labor productivity in industry.
4. New world-class industries: nuclear, space, rocket, aircraft, professional equipment, radio, electronics, electrical equipment, chemical, machine tool construction, etc. The Russian economy has the youngest engineering and manufacturing system in the world.
5. Personnel: world-class engineering/technological/scientific school, education and healthcare are high-quality and affordable.
6. Life expectancy increased by 26 years. Population grew by 46M people, reaching 200M.
Real income grew over 4 times. People's deposits in savings banks increased more than 5-fold.
Let's not forget the 1st place in propaganda. They are still number one.
@@adriancernea6034, those who made you think like that are in first place in propaganda
@@ralymbetov are you from Kiev?
Didn't think so...
@@adriancernea6034 1st place in propaganda has Britain. Imagine convincing people the royal family somehow deserves their hereditary rights
@@hoodvaavdooh maybe. But a leader raised & trained from birth for the position would likely be a better choice than a woke drama teacher that ignores ethics violations. 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Central planners can usually do OK at heavy industrial investment that is catch up growth where they can copy capitalist existing business models.
But by the 1970s heavy industrial investment wasn't driving economic growth. Small scale innovation in services, technology, and consumer goods was. Central planners could not keep up with what the capitalist economies could do in these areas.
In the USSR there were private production companies - artels. from 1920-1950 they produced precisely private sector goods, planning was reserved only for resource, energy and heavy engineering industries.
artels brought up to 13% of taxes to the budget
Thanks for making this! It's so hard to find good impartial resources on the Soviet Economy, most videos I've seen are heavily biased one way or the other -- but this was a good facts-based video that acknowledged both the flaws and successes of the Soviet system.
As someone who comes from ex Soviet Union state. Was taught a lot in school about it. Researched extensively Soviet Economy. And speaks Russian with one of my parents. I can tell you guys. The info here is very shallow, and provided from perspective of some kid reading in internet about soviet unions economy and not a historian specialising in this topic. You really can feel it. Being an expert on topic makes a huge difference. Your knowledge is just much more wast. You orientate more in the topic. You can argue better. And this is not that. This is complicated topic, and you can’t form your opinion based on 10 minute RUclips video. Also there are much better videos in net about this topic. Sorry, Dover. This is not a diss or personal attack. I’m sure you have many very good videos.
@@captn_maverick well do you have any recommendations for better English language materials covering the topic? Western economics is highly focused on capitalist systems, so we basically learn nothing about the soviet economy in school. Vague statements about a lack of consumer goods are about as deep as most English language sources go.
@@captn_maverickI would also love to hear about a better source. It's really hard to find videos that explain it in more detail
@@TheNodrokovi think this video has a good description on soviet economic from communist view. ruclips.net/video/nGm0u3UHDZM/видео.htmlsi=jPbk36dnnqVWpIvr
@@TheNodrokovruclips.net/video/2zjL2EXo07I/видео.htmlsi=aERM4u6QAYktok9d in my opinion most accurate among the others "explain everything in 20 minute videos"
'Why did it succeed and then fail?' For the same reason as why capitalism first succeeded and is now failing. It's the law of life.
Capitalism is failing because of greed.
Workers with the highest standard of living & longest life span in memory demanding it's overthrow.
The Soviet Union finished third in a two country race.
Soviet Union had no economy. It was always oil and natural gas. The machinery that they used to extract both was licensed from the West. The infamous Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhhorod pipeline was financed by the West and constructed with Western-built equipment. The proceeds from oil and natural gas sales were used to purchase grain from the United States to avoid a full-blown famine. Yes, quite a success story 👏
2nd biggest GDP in the world ☝️
So Saudi Arabia and UAE There is only sand
@@timonurcikan8196On paper 📃
@@davidkuperman2390 their economy was also depressed cuz they had the biggest housing construction ever
@timonurcikan8196 "The biggest housing construction ever " also existed mostly on paper. More than a million people or 12% still lived in communal apartments in Moscow in 1993.
The soviet economy grew because Soviet Russia moved from a pre-industrial, agricultural based economy to an industrialized economy. It came from a low, low base. But it was highly distorted and inefficient. This analysis is very superficial.
Agreed. It was simply impossible equation. In addition, he is dismissing the brutality and oppression of the system. It is generally not efficient to have your smartest people killed or deported to Siberia. The truth is the Eastern block countries yearned for liberty, so it was just a matter of time when the brutal regime would come crashing down. Liberty eventually wins.
@@siddude it actually were far more efficient than any other capitalist economy.
Don't confuse "socialist era" under Stalin, and later stage state capitalism (named by Soviet economists) of post Stalin's era, where not communists were in charge, rather "those who left". It was inefficient "by design".
It was actually so efficient that central government were able to destroy the country despite all efforts of people to save it
yeah, most people forget that russia before the revolution was a backwards agrarian society with virtually no industrialization to speak of, there is a lot of emphasis in public on how ussr had to rebuild after the war but the fact is they were not as much rebuilding (as there was little to begin with as opposed to west european countries and the usa) as they were building anew, new roads and buildings, factories etc. ofc the gdp would show growth when you are literally spending vast amounts of resources to build the country anew, we can see the same thing in china during the past decades. issue is while you could say the gdp was growing, it should have grown much faster than it did but it didnt because of how insanely dogshit inefficient the whole process was.
@@AuroraCityProject you missing that all that rebuild was finished in first 10-15 years. Since then Soviet economy actually developed. Also you forgetting that before war USSR managed to built industrial economy able to withhold burden of biggest military conflict ever known.
It also was done in couple decades based on rudimentary industrial complex built before revolution.
I'm not sure you both correct at all. Also, USSR solved homelessness problem after devastating war. It wasn't (and still isn't) perfect, but there were no homeless people. At least, if you will to have a shelter you will be guaranteed with it. And it demanded a Huge effort and economic base
its called the catch up principle. they started from a really low point so even a minor inprovement looks like major growth.
imagine a business with profit of $100 this year and the following year they make $200 that is a 100% growth that is the USSR
imagine another example with a profit of $1000 the following year they make $1500 year that is only a 50% growth but it is more than double the profit
Sources please.
According to the Soviets, the Soviets were doing great. If you have any complaints comrade, be sure to contact your local Gulag commander at your earliest convenience.
Soviet Union was too focused on issues with the west and had little diversity in its economy.
It was an extractive ecomomy based on raw materials and forced industrialization. It grew fast from a low base. Later, due to lack of innovation, corruption and lack of competition, it went bust
Bruh you deserve more subs ❤
Western Oil money also helped for a lot of decades, that regular injection of foreign currency helped paper over the misallocation of resources from state control.
only for one and a half
Under Hoover? 1,000,000 Model T Fords at $380 apiece. $.38 billion.
Under Stalin? 1,000 tanks at $1,000,000 each: a billion, two and a half times as productive!
Are you serious. Want to Equalize tanks like the M1 Abrams with cars like the f150.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa lol
I’d love to see some sources too.
Sources of what though?
Source? I made it up!
Nah, it's a good video. It would just be nice to have sources cited tho.
Source for GDP growth. All of this video is based on premise that GDP grew ca 5% per annum on average. Where does this figure come from. Especially, since Soviet economy had set, not market set prices, how is the actual value of value added calculated. If it is based on artificially set prices then everything in the video falls apart.
Thanks! I didn't know much of this history.
Interesting video!
I'd love to see the sources for the video
his mind.
Good documentary, very informative and insightful 👍🇺🇲
As someone who comes from ex Soviet Union state. Was taught a lot in school about it. Researched extensively Soviet Economy. And speaks Russian with one of my parents. I can tell you guys. The info here is very shallow, and provided from perspective of some kid reading in internet about soviet unions economy and not a historian specialising in this topic. You really can feel it. Being an expert on topic makes a huge difference. Your knowledge is just much more wast. You orientate more in the topic. You can argue better. And this is not that. This is complicated topic, and you can’t form your opinion based on 10 minute RUclips video. Also there are much better videos in net about this topic. Sorry, Dover. This is not a diss or personal attack. I’m sure you have many very good videos.
Great video, thought you presented such a complex topic with great flow. Kept it short and sweet while hitting some important marks. Keep it up. Assumed this was a bigger channel haha
Very refreshing to see a video with straight facts and without ideological involvment.
Well done
@garethfairclough8715 What ideological biases did you spot?
If they didn't have to spend a massive amount of their wealth to found the army the USSR would be alive and kicking. The USA wanted anything that was different form capitalism to fail cos they were scared that socialism would succeed in the US too.
The Soviet Union was an imperialist project under a red banner
@@holocene6 Still the same old Russian colonial empire just pretending to be a single nation. Still the same old police state with the same old secret police just with a new name.
So how do you explain the US system able to outspend the soviets and not implode? The Soviet system was going to implode either way, the military spending may have played a part in speeding up the process, however they nailed their own coffin with the Chernobyl nuclear disaster highlighting the inherent problem, that the government and society was afraid of telling the truth and face its own flaws.
@@ip4pwn1 the USA was an economic superpower way before WW2. Russia had an feudal economic system until the Soviet revolution. You can't compare the two.
@@holocene6 Underrated opinion.
What those guys said. Great video!
The growth especially if you're talking about heavy industries which was where their concentration was, it was done through forced labor.
As far as consumption goes there really was virtually no consumer goods on a steady basis. Food was a slightly different story with some varying degrees of failure.
As it wasn't exactly plentiful.
Great job thanks 👍
Soviet Economy was never self sufficient particularly in Agricultural sector.
So why Russia is the world's largest wheat exporter.
The Soviets couldn't import because of economic sanctions from the United States and western countries so they had to grow their own coffee, tea, grapes, cotton and fruit. Meanwhile America enslaved Central America To get fruit at cheap prices
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa they also stole a shitload of factories from russian occupied germany.
Also im central american and I can tell you, people from outside central america really over-dramatize the banana companies, they were extremely capitalist, but what we had before was worse. Imagine 60 continuous years of civil wars with no progress being made, no healthcare, no roads, barely any schools, and people being paid even worse than under the chiquita. For all the shit people give them, they brought us a level of progress we hadnt experienced since the fall of the federal republic of central america. Am I pissed? Yes im pissed, cause people use that arguement every fucking time and its getting annoying having to hear it again and again and again.
@@neroatlas9121usa is the problem . Their Cia created those drug cartels to counter socialism in Latin America
I personally think a communist economy would only be good to boost developing nations or war-torn nations with crippling economies, because it allows the state to pretty much run everything and stabilize the nation. But a communist economy wouldn't work in the long term because the base principles of Communism conflicts with human desires, which will hinder growth and development.
The thing is that unless you’re starting from the bottom command economies fail due to them being unable to have enough information to determine correctly which resources should go where because at best it’s like predicting the weather which is extremely hard to predict
Now all countries have mixed economies. Because capitalism always ends in an economic crisis and must be helped by socialists every 10 years
The 70s also saw bad harvests and one of the largest military arms build ups seen. They got into an arms and technology race with the United States that they could not sustain (the reason for Gorbachev to pursue detente with the US). Plus the oil markets crashed in the mid 80's. That was the death blow to the Soviet economy as they experienced peak oil (given their level of technology, ability to extract it. The Soviet economy (and Russia today) was fueled by and dependent on oil.
Such a resource rich country, would have developed and grown irrespective of political system.
Yet it was the poorest European nation under tsarist rule
@@CyberdarkHellKaiser like the poorest? A bit wide of a claim, no?
Ok but theres plenty of countries that struggle with the same pretext
@@CyberdarkHellKaiserpoorest?! Where did you get that nonsense lol
*one of the poorest, mb
The Soviets also had nearly 25% less people to feed after the mass starvation that occurred in Ukraine during the twenties and thirties. No wonder their agricultural output. Went down and industrial went up. They were also building up for war with Europe.
Is only 5% of population. Also is not just Ukraina but Russia and Kazakhstan. Why is it only Ukraine that is being counted by the west?
25% of the population in 1933 would make it 45 million people, almost double the losses in WW2. It's funny how the country almost collapsed post WW2, and yet when suffering double the losses it kept going like nothing happened. And of course, industrialization just happened, it's not like you need specialists and blue collar workers to do that. Nor do you need schools staffed with qualified teachers to do that as well.
Brainwashed westoids are the funny
The government should just leave people be to do what they want and make their own economy
Soviet Union and and their satellites were extremely good at wasting resources
Western countries are great at stealing resources from developing countries .
Niger and Indonesian gold mines are 100% owned by America and France .
If they were capitalist, they wouldn't have those resources
Just ask Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kygystan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Serbia, Boznia and Herizovina, Montenegro, Kosovi, and *so many more*
what good did shock therapy do for them?
Because following their transition back into capitalism, their standards of living *plumited* , education *plumited* , life expectancy *plummeted* , industrialization *plumited*
Today, most ex-soviet countries are nothing more than cheap labor pools and raw resource extraction operations in service of the handful of developed capitalist nations
In fact, *most* capitalist nations look much more like Guatemala, Ecuador, Jamaica, Senegal, Cameroon, Botswana, and Somalia
*This* is an accurate depiction of what capitalism really looks like for the vast majority of humanity, and developed nations like the United States, France, and Australia are the reason why most of the world's nations will *always* be considered "developing" countries
Canada is pretty good these days at wasting every cent then taxing us for more.
Hi can i know the application you use for your video editing
The best explanation i ever got was from a woker "they pertend ro pay us and we pretend to work"
Just like all women in office
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa😂
Yes
Similar things are said by other people
who lived in remembered life in USSR
@@carkawalakhatulistiwanah women are paid
Unfortunately this legacy is still around. People in post soviet countries don't understand where money comes from. They can't make a relation between effective production and monthly payments. After a while when their employer goes bankrupt they cry "what would I do"
Informative
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, how much wealth did the United States share?
The soviets had a strong economy, so much so a decade didn't go by for the first 50 years without a famine. They needed massive grain shipments from the West decade after decade. Unbelievable that system hasn't been put to bed , government me harder, the plea of the fool.
If you are going to make stuff up, at least make sure it's consistent. The last famine happened in 1946-1947 which was caused by WW2. Not sure where the 50 years come from.
@@ArmaDino22 from the reactionary brainrot
Famines occured in both Russia and China long before communism. Check your facts
@@ArmaDino22The Soviet Union was completely dependent on the US for food.
@@gustavo042 when? During WW2?
The total amount of food produced between 1941 and 1945 in the USSR was 590 million tons while the number of food delivered under the lend-lease agreement and registered in Soviet harbors from the Russian Federal archives, which is 3.86 million tons.
But sure, a measely 0.7% of food shipped kept the entire country from starving to death.
Keep coping buddy.
Basically communism/socialism for USSR/Russia was like taking steroids, it boost their economy by mass industrialization and rapid militarization guided by central planning but the same central planning was very inefficient to the point it quicky stagnating in 1980s
The Soviet economy was dependent on the US
Citing the Soviet Union's own GDP numbers about its economy is like letting a failing student grade their own term papers.
It also has massive demographic issues by the 1970s
But, what if we invested in MORE heavy industry and machinery production? It worked before, maybe we're just not doing it enough.
China overproduction😂 Made to many electric car. And unlike the Soviet Union, China can export
A insight on Soviet economics not published by a channel called "Gagglingonleninsdicovic" wow😮
In Stalin era, average annual economic growth was almost 14%, for more than 20 years, which is amongst the best long term growth in the world. The stagnation came with Khrushchev and his deregulation and decentralization, and with Gorbachev and his pro-western "reforms".
USSR fell because a small but decisive part of society, including Gorbachev, got hooked on the "american dream".
However they didnt realize that american prosperity was paid by switching to neoliberalism in 80s, by Reagan´s voodoo economics, by debt and stock market casino.
Usa was actually in very similar situation as before the Great Depression in late 80s. But the gamble worked out, because they acquired East markets and supercheap resources. Americans together with starting local speculators privatised and exported whole factories of goods and machinery, sometimes not even paid.
USSR should have continued the way of self sufficiency, long term planning and sustainibility, stability and social services for workers. Even in the West many people agree now that is the correct way.
Collectivisation was necessary for industrialisation, and that was necessary to defeat Germany. Otherwise Russia would become a subhuman german colony, similar to what Britain had in India.
Centralization of resources was already killing the Soviet Union as bureaucracy kept expanding. Khrushchev was somewhat helpful in that regard, but he also spent the USSR's gold reserves to buy outside resources to keep up growth. The USSR then got lucky in the 70s as oil prices kept shooting up, until they didn't. From there it was only a matter of time due to their own fundamental internal issues and Reagan wearing them down on all fronts while the American and Allied economics experienced an end to stagflation and a resurgence of spendable growth.
Typical deluded description of American economic realities in the 1980s though, well done!
Funny because India is better off today than Russia is.
@@RememberingWW2
nope
@@hoodvaavdoohIndia is 5th biggest economy and 3rd biggest purchasing India followed socialism like soviet union until it's collapse thank god soviet union collapsed socialism won't work it's just ideology for poor and uneducated people
This excuse usually heard from a stalin apologist or far right fascist group in russia today,but then ask yourself,taiwan,singapore,south korea or even hong kong manage to achieve high standard living without resorting to organized mass murder.
My main issues is the overt generalisation of issues and poor understanding of mechanisms. Also not understanding The background behind these historical events.
A phrase from Cuba: if socialism was put in place in the Sahara Desert, in a short period of time there would be no sand.
Ah yes, Cuba: embargoed by the US since 1960 in an effort to bring the end of socialist rule. Still hasn't happened yet.
All the USSR had to export was oil and weapons. They had to import more food than they could grow. By the way, the Russian Empire were actually net exporters of grain and dairy, something the Soviets never came close to realizing. The U.S. bailed them out of famines multiple times, also providing them with alot of food during WWII.
Failure to automate the planning system aka OGAS and failure to connect all factories caused the failure of the planned economy.
How do you create the Technologies to automate something if you don't have a private sector to innovate and create them in the first place?
@@RememberingWW2 Not all innovations come from the private sector. In fact GPS and the internet were invented through government funding.
@@RememberingWW2 private innovation is mostly a myth
Touchscreens, the Microprocessor, and the Internet were all government programs. Your cellphone would not exist if it weren't for government investment
Most innovation is slow, expensive, and a collective effort; on the shoulders of *hundreds of thousands* of people who dedicate their entire lives to things they will likely never live to see
If you want innovation under capitalism, perhaps some planned-obselecne, shrinkflation, and manipulative marketing might take your fancy
Doverhill you forget to mention a crucial point, that is the initial Capital...
As far as I know, the Russian Empire money were heading to the west during Tzar Civil War, so the URSS started almost as a poor country..., so we should be speaking of it as a Miracle Economy like it or not...
Then the causes of decadence you mention in the late stage were apparently right, but we should analize if they were not related to the lower starting point, that didn´t allow them to catch up with the western technology??
Greetings from Buenos Aires 🙂
Saying USSR started with no capital so we should see it as more of a miracle economy is ... Well I won't say that it's false but it's incomplete. Many things: The USSR refuted all Tzarist Russia's debts. Meanwhile, they still had $ to fund revolutions (which all failed) all over Europe. Also many foreign owned concerns were nationalized or often profits not allowed to leave USSR ie couldn't pay dividends to foreign investors (bf the NEP took effect). And oh, then there's the natural resource wealth.
The USSR was incredibly rich in mineral resources - much more so than the rest of Europe and Asia combined.
So while, tzarist Russia did spend massively and left the new govt "cash poor", the USSR had ready access to cash from riches of Mother Russia herself. And, later, when Stalin needed even more money, he instituted forced collectivization which required the sale of agriculture at low prices to the govt so as to make a harder push on industrial infrastructure investment.
Collectivized exports were raised so high that millions of Ukrainians starved. eg, Read about the Holodomor in which 5m-7m Ukrainians starved to death.
the NEP was instituted (early 1920s) and many western nations and capitalists were all too happy to do business with the ussr and did do so to the great benefit of both. Read Antony Sutton's trilogy "Western Technology and Soviet Economic development" specifically volume one 1917-1930.
And, in 1936, the USSR ended up with Spain's gold reserve (500+ tons) initially for "safekeeping" but republican Spain "spent" all of it (per the USSR) on munitions to fight nationalist forces in the civil war. So, if you want a country that started with nothing, look at Franco's Spain. Their entire gold reserve was in the USSR when Franco took power.
So I don't agree they started with nothing or if they did they were positioned to make up for it and did so quickly via natural resource wealth and property theft (being blunt here). Anyway, that's my response ;) greetings from Central Texas.
@@Tyler_Kent Hi, how are you?
You are right about the big potential in natural resources, we should add this point to the comments.
But..., even with that they started with "zero" capital, as far as I see it is a fact, and take into consideration that they could have failed to exploit natural resources effectively, so that ability maked part of their "miracle".
I´m not a communist but we should recognize the things they made with big effort, because that brings us a better understanding of human/social possibilieties...
Thanks you, greetings 🙂
@@danielschiavo5371 I understand where you're coming from that's why I made sure to say your statement isn't false but is incomplete.
In the US especially, there's been a huge effort to cover up just how huge of a role western finance played in the "miracle" of the Soviet economy. As Lenin said, "if you tell a group of capitalists you're going to execute them, they'll all fight over who can sell you the rope." He also called western capitalists "the deaf mute blind men" bc they put making money over all else even to their country's detriment. He knew the west wouldn't be able to resist $ making opportunities in ussr which is why he opened it up so quickly to the west with the NEP.
It really is fascinating history. I'll let Lenin have the last words as quoted from page 8 in "Red Carpet" by Joseph Finder (1984): "the capitalists of the world, in pursuit of the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the indicated higher reality and thus will turn into deaf mute blind men. They will extend credits which will strengthen for us the communist party in their countries and giving us the materials and technology we lack. they will restore our industry, indispensable for our future victorious attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will labor for their own suicide."
The west played a huge part in the miracle. To me, that renders moot how much cash they started with. But, like you say, they did start with very little cash. I push back hard on the miracle part and feel the real story is just how much the west funded the whole thing as Russia offfeed a lot in the way of natural resources and provided a "boogey man" for western citizens to fear and thus approve nonstop military spending.
@@Tyler_Kent you are right about the paradox of western making bussiness with them, but as far as I know that was not a total technological interchange, the only enterprises that produced in the USRR were the italian joint ventures (FIAT, etc).
The interest point to me is that there was a country who proposed a totally different system (whatever one), started with virtually nothing (they had no money and they had no industries) and become a Super Power 🤯, it is something very remarkable, and speaks to us about different possibilieties for humankind, and in someway in the personal sphere what a man can do whith determination.
Thanks for your history insights, they enrich my point of view about it 🙂
@@danielschiavo5371 Absolutely. Your comment actually made me pull a couple books off my shelf and I've been re-reading "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution." It's a wild history for sure. Sutton claims there were millions transferred to Moscow from western elites. I realize this is revisionist history so you can choose to ignore it. Sutton's citations are all bulletproof and even the mainstream academics can't refute that. where they do push back is they claim sutton reaches 'exaggerated conclusions' based on those irrefutable facts🤷♂. It's all very very interesting and really does help to understand our world today and those who run it.
Citroen was also in the USSR with a plant from bf the revolution and operated privately until nationalized in 1921. In 1929, Ford adn USSR contracted for Ford sales and the construction GAZ plant in Nizhny Novgorad in partnership with Ford. That plant would go on to manufacture trucks which delivered weapons to the Vietcong via the Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War.
best of luck to you in your research and belated congrats on the World Cup.
Both China and Vietnam saw growth after rejecting the Stalinesque central governed economy, and allowing for capitalism. That is the antithesis of the Soviet economy outside Lenin’s NEP.
Soviet union is lucky they have 75 trillion worth of natural resource by selling these they got much needed capital but it didnt sustain for so long
if you rate the quality and productivity of a countries economy in the number of corpses it produces then yes the Soviet economy was second only to China .
Ah the Blackbook of communism
Those poor poor Nazis killed by the USSR 😢
If the only purpose of an economy is to turn out vast quantities of cheap weapons - then sure, it was successful.
But seeing as the USSR had to use force and terror just to stop their population fleeing to the west, we may conclude that its citizens did not consider it a success.
2/3 of Russians tody would go back to the Soviet Union
@@CyberdarkHellKaiser Half of them born after the fall of the urss lmao
@@CyberdarkHellKaiserso?
Soviets: Our economy is the second biggest in the world! We have an annual GDP growth of 6% !
Everyone else: Ok, let us check the numbers, let us trade, float your currency, send tourists out, let our tourists in...
Soviets: Hell nawwwwwwwwwwwwww...
How anyone could ever think socialism could work is beyond me
END THE FED Gold IS money.
Source list?
😂 it never did. GDP is a poor metric by itself, but even without taking it into consideration: one can not use GDP in connection with USSR economy since there were no prices (in an economic sense). And there was at least one more major factor - "pripiski".
Saying socialism can never work is wild
Everyone politely acted like the ruble had value like a real country. I really didn't.
Society union failed because everything was based on death and lies. My parents lives thought that regime.
1. Gulags provided human power for most big project, e.g., Belomor Canal. People used dead bodies to strengthen the foundation and has to dig in ice covered ground without shovels. But gulags had so many people that nobody cared.
2. Insane amount of resources. Russia and other republics had all the resources a country might need.
3. Propaganda that was telling people that working 24/7 is helping to build communism.
4. Quite a few skilled engineers, foreign engineers, and tons of stuff that was stolen from US or Germany.
At some point NKVD and KGB killed a lot of smart people. Gulags were not as populated as during Stalin's time. Socialist programs started failing. Society products like cars/computers were not required in the west. Insane levels of corruption crippled the system. And the regime had 0 incentive to work/design new things so efficiency was at ground level.
Then there was a borrowing spree in the 80s, economy collapses and we get modern russian with ex-kgb president and millions of angry poor people.
Back up your sources, and do comprehensive research,as the author of this video has done. Not just anticommunist ranting.
@@wesleywagumba2806 Bro dont even bother, he is too far gone
@@konstantinkelekhsaev302 you're right
I think the least working hours and the actual works on some sectors on Soviet Union was superior rather than US and Britain. Second even the economy was falling, the socialist revisionists who leaded by some powerful members of the party lead that. Stalin's Soviet Union even with short term policies proven to be successful, but the long one possibly doesn't much implemented nor doesn't continued leaving Soviet Union on it's fate during Stalin's health deteriorating after the war. Collectivization was required since even the grain confiscated is on decline, Stalin's Soviet Union is in the neutral stage and weakened diplomatic relations with much of the world thanks to Lenin's revolutionary ideas. Vladimir Putin actually decreased poor people in Russia during his early years, however Putin changed his stance during 2008 possibly on Iraq war. He weakened US and European companies control on oil and gas, making oligarchs to support himself and his beliefs.
@@wesleywagumba2806 I have, at least, 2 generations of my family living under Soviet regime and myself living on its death corpse.
I don't need to research stuff like, for example, soviet civilian cars are based of Fiat. However, Soviet engineers didn't manage to build a decent engine or carburator so those models were shit. Ice cream factories were imported from USA during great depression. Gulag system is documented well and widely available everywhere on the internet.
Unlike many of people in these comments I actually visited and lived in industrial cities that have railways going nowhere, factories that produce nothing, schools that have no one to teach. Soviet industrialist were great at building useless stuff and this is why it all failed.
My mom recalls how you had a hop with 1000 pairs of 10.5 size for women but there wasn't a single pair of any other shoe available in the whole city. Then next month you would get 1000 of 7 shoe size. That is your efficiency. Due whatever research that you want but if you haven't lived there, trust me, it's difficult to understand how wasteful and useful it was.
I have discussed this with several people from Russia. They are of the opinion that the Russians would never have industrialized without force.
Yes, they try so to justify the Gulag, the crimes, the famine and all misery brought by the bolsheviks. They know that these are bad orible things, but acceptable to achieve the greatness of russia.
"Siberian mountains and JUNGLES" :DDD sums up the authors knowledge pretty well.
He is obviously not a native speaker.
Anyway, don’t disrupt the truth because you caught him misspeaking.
This video is obviously well-researched and objective. You’re just pissed off it isn’t anti-marxist propaganda like you are used to.
its called the catch up principle. they started from a really low point so even a minor inprovement looks like major growth.
imagine a business with profit of $100 this year and the following year they make $200 that is a 100% growth that is the USSR
imagine another example with a profit of $1000 the following year they make $1500 year that is only a 50% growth but it is more than double the profit
There was very little success in the Soviet Union. Yes, at first win the Soviets began implementing their central planning. It sounded great, and people were enthused. But the country soon found out that things were not working as promised and subsequently things got worse. Just like all central planning, socialism, or communism or fascism. Let capitalism reign supreme.
no, the premise is wrong, sovjet expanded through credit. so a fast growing economy isn't saying it was succesfull. they just payed later.
you have to compare soviet economy to Russian economy. Chinese don't compare with American economy or Japanese economy, they look at current world markets and compare their economy to yesterday and to tomorrow's economy.
Soviet economy didn't come up with more efficient capital assets. they kept investing but the capital assets just depreciated at the same rate. But that's not due to central planning; today's Russian economy is the same.
They rose because oil prices went up, and they collapsed because oil prices dropped.
In former Yugoslavia was say they cannot pay me so low how little I can work.
Yet, still, people mistake socialism and communism !
Stalinist terror was a key ingredient that motivated the population. Once the Stalinist terror and fear gradually ebbed the Soviet system found to a halt and eventually collapsed.
It doesn’t failed. They simply give up.
Food quality was not worse in USSR. CIA reports show as much.
Bro, the arms race put too much stress on the soviet economy.. period...
I know some people who visited Poland and the USSR in the 70's and 80's. They said there were no good consumer goods to be found anywhere. At a department store in Moscow, the cookware, clothes, toys, and pens were terrible in quality. He purchased a "good quality" camera, and on return to UK, found that it didn't work. He showed it to experts, who said it was garbage. He also noted that whatever photos he saw in Moscow were very poor in quality. How is it possible, that a nation with abundant resources, workers, and skilled educated people, could not make a good camera, car, bicycle, printing machine, generator, or even a good pair of shoes? Something tells me that a man who can't get rich and affluent off of his talent will not bother to work hard. Unless the commissar is in town.
It turns out that a centrally planned economy is far inferior to the forces of supply and demand in a free market.
One example I heard: Whenever it started raining, every driver would pull over to put the windshield wipers on their cars. They kept their wipers locked in their cars because there was no system in place to buy replacement wiper blades. The only way to get new wipers was to steal them from another car or to bribe someone working at a car factory who had access to wiper blades. All because the central planners didn't think of the fact that wiper blades wear out and need replaced, and therefore didn't tell factories to make extras to be sold at state stores. If the central planners didn't order someone to make something, it didn't get made. And when it was ordered to get made, it likely didn't get made by someone who had the ability or motivation to actually make a quality product; but someone solely motivated to be able to report that they produced the quota number of that product.
@@lawv804 You're right about that one. I also heard that the USSR had no garages to fix the cars!
@@MondoBeno no its not true. I from formed USSR
You need see Niger coloni france
The Soviet economy was always a disastrous joke from start to finish
He believes Soviet statistics 😂.
Bet you believe they grew all that cotton too.
China grew once it embraced capitalism in the 1980s
Sources? There are some core stuff that's correct but a lot of other heavy handed simplification, misconceptions and errors.
Who complains about the quality of food as people who are fed. It's only after your belly is full do you start complaining about how it tastes
You say it was a success at the start? I doubt it as Western expertise at building plants and Lend Lease supplies were being counted as domestic production.
The only thing it succeeded in was human misery.
the revisionists ruined it
The reason why it grew initially was because of industrialization not because of communism or socialism. The only reason today why China is so wearily is because the only way a purely socialist or communist government can grow is through trade. And China isn’t even fully communist or socialist. It has bouts of capitalism as well. Make no mistake the USSR sucked and so did its depiction of economic growth
Great video. Gotta get a different narrator.
The leaders got high on their own supply. Kim Jong-Il knew it was a facade.
See, the problem with GDP is the same problem we have today. The paper number versus reality is a stark difference and the Soviets had the same problem. We're going to it now. People will say the economy is doing great. Look at the GDP. Look at the numbers and then I tell them look around. People are unhealthy people are dying. People are socially excluded. And most importantly, people are not having money to spend. That is not the sign of a healthy economy.When I can drive up Main street and count twelve stores closed.
Spending money you don't have without being productive, is always great, for a while. I could quit work, max out all my credit and have a blast for a couple of years- then I'd be in big trouble. The hang over from lockdowns is a little taste of what happened in the USSR.
is Soviet union a high income country in per capita
people were rather poor
It succeeded because it was corrupt. It also failed because it was corrupt.
Because the “success” was fake
China did indeed embrace the Soviet way. And stayed poor. Then they embraced capitalism and are now the second largest economy in the world.
Lol, China isn't capitalist buddy. They are fascist country were the government controls all the major corporations either directly or indirectly.
And they are repeating the same mistake right now.
No. Faaake news say russian man bad
not take risk and small agriculture no reinvest
Let's be real, the Soviet Union never truly rivaled the United States economy. They temporarily got ahead in rockets but that was because of the German scientist more than anything they did.
These aren’t the same thing. Economic success and “rockets”?
The USSR failed due to two significant b factors. They felt (rightly) as if they were surrounded by ideological enemies determined to destroy them and their socialist economic system. (This feeling is true to this day … Putin just isn’t a socialist anymore … but still gains political power by continuing the old Soviet mythos of being surrounded by enemies). This obliged the USSR to spend ridiculous amounts of money on their military and new military technology in order to retain the capability of a credible defense against any new technology the worlds capitalists might invent in order to threaten and destroy their socialist system and take over their resources and economy for themselves. Military and military technology spending over decades crippled them.
Second, beginning in the 1960s Kruschev and subsequent Soviet leaders decided to introduce bourgeois consumerism and fashion and trend conscious consumer goods to parts of their “white collar” workers in their urban centers in an effort to promote a Soviet alternative to the West’s bourgeois consumer culture the citizens of the USSR were becoming increasingly aware of and interested in.
This effect of “westernizing” might have been easier to manage and not allow to overwhelm socialist values with greedy selfish capitalist western bourgeois values that typically come along with consumer culture, except for the overwhelming amount of their economy the USSR was wasting on arms races and militarism. The two effects together after two decades (including ever-more leakage of western culture into the USSR vis the increasingly sophisticated media to an increasingly sophisticated bourgeoisie who were growing in number at the same time. Of course, the US and the other western capitalist nations were relentlessly propagandizing the Soviet people about the “freedom” they were supposed to be enjoying along with all the consumer bourgeois products and lifestyle. These expectations spread to all levels.
By the 1980s this became unsustainable.
@@B_Estes_Undegöetzit's worth mentioning that even after all these lies and what was essentially the marketing of capitalism itself to the Soviet masses,
Most Soviets voted to *not* break up the USSR when Boris Yeltin held a referendum
The dissolution of the USSR was a forced and undemocratic handover of the state onto a few, despotic oligarchs that emerged
@@B_Estes_UndegöetzSocialist economies collapsed on their own
You really need to do more research because the Soviet Union continued to copy plenty of items like computers for example.
1:56 ok but what about the quality of the food then?
They had pretty good quality food. By modern standards it would be considered organic or top tier.
@@ArmaDino22 sure thing propagandist
@@ru8e42 buddy, I grew up eating USSR food. Everything was 100% grown and shipped as fresh as possible. There were no additives, corn syrups, etc.
As a result I never knew kids with autism or diabetes. Hell, I didn't know what autism was until I came to the US.
By comparison, the US food is gutter trash, filled with God knows what ingredients, sugars and carcirogens.
Call a propagandist all you want, but unlike you I have first hand experience of living in both countries.
> no food
"did not have dire consequences" MILLIONS DIED IN STARVATION AND FAMINE, DOWNVOTED!!
Salt Lake City Utah at the 8:00 mark
Wow, 2 trillion dollars