A failure on what terms? It had stagnated in growth, but it was still at full employment, full housing, full medical coverage, etc.
The primary "problem" people had with it at the time was a lack of luxury goods (that only existed in other developed countries because of accelerating third world exploitation), which was filled by a large black market that the state absolutely could have legitimized in some way without changing the underlying assumptions of the economic planners if there had been the political will to do so.
Claiming that the Soviet economy was "objectively a failure" is buying into assumptions about healthy economies that are pushed by capitalists for their own benefit.
The problem was that the USSR was isolated and forced to compete on the capitalists’ terms. Stalin shouldn’t have stopped marching West, sealing the Soviets behind the iron curtain ensured they’d be choked off eventually
I think a realistic reimagining wouldn't involve Stalin actually continuing to march west from Berlin but instead involve the Soviet Union supporting communist revolutionaries west of the iron curtain rather than abandoning them a la Greece. This would've resulted in another hot war while the ink was still drying from the last peace treaty, but hopefully this time the Germans actually take up the side of the Soviets rather than wavering like they did post-WWI. I don't know if it would've changed the outcome, if the USSR would've won the fight against global capitalism, but by sealing themselves off they ended up losing anyway. They needed the support of industrial workers outside of the Eastern bloc and they never got it because they chose to protect what they had gained rather than risk it all. Pursuing this route though ended the ascension of communism in the 20th century, leaving behind fledgling socialist projects without the industrial base to truly compete with the US and global capital. Only China is now positioning itself to take on that challenge but it took decades of building infrastructure and a Faustian bargain of market liberalization to get there
What would the war have looked like if the Soviets started advancing against the Allied occupied West Germany?
:sicko-blur:
What would world look like (then or now) if the Soviets controlled Europe all the way to France+Spain?
:sicko-beaming:
spoiler
Actually I'm as skeptical as you are about the possibility of a Soviet win had they kept going west. Turning the Eastern Front around had been done with an awful lot of Soviet blood, change the equation so that the Red Army is fighting on foreign soil and having to balance pushing west with maintaining control of Europe as they captured it and I think they would have been thrown back and every communist movement worldwide might have been crushed in the backlash.
which was filled by a large black market that the state absolutely could have legitimized in some way
They largely did legitimize it through measures to formally legalize or informally tolerate it, and that created a class of semi-criminal businessmen often operating with goods, tools, and materials stolen from official supply lines with the tacit acceptance of the authorities, at once causing shortages and also creating a misconception among those privileged enough to buy what they wanted from the second economy that markets were more efficient (since, after all, the guy with smuggled or stolen goods could get them the luxury consumer goods they wanted while the stores lacked them since supply-line theft caused problems for both production and distribution (and that's even before you get into issues with the logistics system itself which were generally covered up by black market trading of excess materials, preventing the central planning system from being able to fix distribution problems).
It also only really stagnated compared to its previous rapid growth, and that was mostly a result of shifting industrial production from building more industrial capital to focusing more on consumer goods. They were always going to slow their growth at some point, but Khrushchev and his bloc began that process prematurely, before a sufficient industrial base had been built up. Compared to the US, they were still growing faster and on track to reach parity within a few decades, they just lacked the increasing flow of wealth the US was extracting from the periphery.
The powerful economic locomotive of free market capitalism is so effective that Russia has just recently caught up with the GDP it had under the failed inefficient system of communism.
The wealth is distributed much more unequal now and there is dire poverty and homelessness in Russia but it is a small price to pay for creating a tiny class of obscenely rich oligarchs, something the incompetent communists failed completely at doing.
Economies don’t radically alter because they worked too well . The USSR was an experiment using communist ideology and ultimately it failed. Deng saw this failure and adjusted the economic system to adapt to the current global economy.
It is anti-materialist to pin the blame of the USSR on a single person, into the 1980s the government by all accounts was incredibly corrupt and engaged in 2 imperialist wars.
understanding past failures is required for future improvement :chairman-meow:
The USSR was an experiment using communist ideology and ultimately it failed.
As noted in other comments, you're going to have to point to exactly where this "failure" was. The Russian Revolution resulted in a significant short term boom in domestic productivity as well as an explosion in education, infrastructure, and resulting new technologies. One of Russia's biggest economic drivers in the modern day remains it's space program, ffs, and the bulk of that system was constructed in the 60s and 70s when the country was supposedly "in decline".
The biggest contraction in the Russian economy in the last 50 years happened in the wake of the USSR breaking up. Not before it, but because of it.
It is anti-materialist to pin the blame of the USSR on a single person, into the 1980s the government by all accounts was incredibly corrupt and engaged in 2 imperialist wars.
This is an incredibly blinkered reactionary view. Afghanistan was being covertly armed and organized against Russia prior to the invasion. Might as well suggest China is corrupt and imperialist by pointing at Uyghur Genocide as to blame Russia for Operation Cyclone.
the problem is the economic model of the USSR was objectively a failure post industrialization (~1970s onward)
A failure on what terms? It had stagnated in growth, but it was still at full employment, full housing, full medical coverage, etc.
The primary "problem" people had with it at the time was a lack of luxury goods (that only existed in other developed countries because of accelerating third world exploitation), which was filled by a large black market that the state absolutely could have legitimized in some way without changing the underlying assumptions of the economic planners if there had been the political will to do so.
Claiming that the Soviet economy was "objectively a failure" is buying into assumptions about healthy economies that are pushed by capitalists for their own benefit.
Lol, compared to post-Soviet countries it didn't even stagnated in growth.
Remember when US economists invented terms like "stagflation" to explain the absolutely collapsing economic order in the west?
Going to break up the USSR. BRB.
:stonks-down:
OH NOES! Yeltsin! Where is the Retail Grocery Store I was promised?!
The problem was that the USSR was isolated and forced to compete on the capitalists’ terms. Stalin shouldn’t have stopped marching West, sealing the Soviets behind the iron curtain ensured they’d be choked off eventually
based, but:
What would the war have looked like if the Soviets started advancing against the Allied occupied West Germany?
What would world look like (then or now) if the Soviets controlled Europe all the way to France+Spain?
Short term, I doubt the Soviets could have realistically invaded the UK after fighting the Allies for control of West Germany and France.
In this scenario, where does the first nuke land, instead of Japan?
I think a realistic reimagining wouldn't involve Stalin actually continuing to march west from Berlin but instead involve the Soviet Union supporting communist revolutionaries west of the iron curtain rather than abandoning them a la Greece. This would've resulted in another hot war while the ink was still drying from the last peace treaty, but hopefully this time the Germans actually take up the side of the Soviets rather than wavering like they did post-WWI. I don't know if it would've changed the outcome, if the USSR would've won the fight against global capitalism, but by sealing themselves off they ended up losing anyway. They needed the support of industrial workers outside of the Eastern bloc and they never got it because they chose to protect what they had gained rather than risk it all. Pursuing this route though ended the ascension of communism in the 20th century, leaving behind fledgling socialist projects without the industrial base to truly compete with the US and global capital. Only China is now positioning itself to take on that challenge but it took decades of building infrastructure and a Faustian bargain of market liberalization to get there
:sicko-blur:
:sicko-beaming:
spoiler
Actually I'm as skeptical as you are about the possibility of a Soviet win had they kept going west. Turning the Eastern Front around had been done with an awful lot of Soviet blood, change the equation so that the Red Army is fighting on foreign soil and having to balance pushing west with maintaining control of Europe as they captured it and I think they would have been thrown back and every communist movement worldwide might have been crushed in the backlash.
They largely did legitimize it through measures to formally legalize or informally tolerate it, and that created a class of semi-criminal businessmen often operating with goods, tools, and materials stolen from official supply lines with the tacit acceptance of the authorities, at once causing shortages and also creating a misconception among those privileged enough to buy what they wanted from the second economy that markets were more efficient (since, after all, the guy with smuggled or stolen goods could get them the luxury consumer goods they wanted while the stores lacked them since supply-line theft caused problems for both production and distribution (and that's even before you get into issues with the logistics system itself which were generally covered up by black market trading of excess materials, preventing the central planning system from being able to fix distribution problems).
It also only really stagnated compared to its previous rapid growth, and that was mostly a result of shifting industrial production from building more industrial capital to focusing more on consumer goods. They were always going to slow their growth at some point, but Khrushchev and his bloc began that process prematurely, before a sufficient industrial base had been built up. Compared to the US, they were still growing faster and on track to reach parity within a few decades, they just lacked the increasing flow of wealth the US was extracting from the periphery.
Whatever, what this turd did wasn't a good move.
Literally anything else would've been better than dissolving the Soviet Union
Second great purge but better
Great Purge 2: purge harder
I mean still better than what they got now
The powerful economic locomotive of free market capitalism is so effective that Russia has just recently caught up with the GDP it had under the failed inefficient system of communism.
The wealth is distributed much more unequal now and there is dire poverty and homelessness in Russia but it is a small price to pay for creating a tiny class of obscenely rich oligarchs, something the incompetent communists failed completely at doing.
To be fair though goby really did get his pizza hut
:LIB:
Economies don’t radically alter because they worked too well . The USSR was an experiment using communist ideology and ultimately it failed. Deng saw this failure and adjusted the economic system to adapt to the current global economy.
It is anti-materialist to pin the blame of the USSR on a single person, into the 1980s the government by all accounts was incredibly corrupt and engaged in 2 imperialist wars.
understanding past failures is required for future improvement :chairman-meow:
As noted in other comments, you're going to have to point to exactly where this "failure" was. The Russian Revolution resulted in a significant short term boom in domestic productivity as well as an explosion in education, infrastructure, and resulting new technologies. One of Russia's biggest economic drivers in the modern day remains it's space program, ffs, and the bulk of that system was constructed in the 60s and 70s when the country was supposedly "in decline".
The biggest contraction in the Russian economy in the last 50 years happened in the wake of the USSR breaking up. Not before it, but because of it.
This is an incredibly blinkered reactionary view. Afghanistan was being covertly armed and organized against Russia prior to the invasion. Might as well suggest China is corrupt and imperialist by pointing at Uyghur Genocide as to blame Russia for Operation Cyclone.
:pigpoop: