Weaknesses of a planned economy: why the USSR failed to implement Marx's ideas

The idea of ​​a planned economy, i.e. a centralized distribution of resources based on social needs, attracts supporters who want to avoid the crises, rising prices, and unemployment that are characteristic of market systems. This model is inspired by the works of Karl Marx, who criticized the market economy for its unfair distribution of wealth and instability.

Despite the fact that Marx did not propose practical mechanisms for implementing centralized planning, it was the Soviet Union that first attempted to implement his idea.

The Soviet model of a planned economy made it possible to mobilize resources for large industrial projects and achieve high rates of industrialization, which brought the USSR into the ranks of the world's strongest powers. However, as the economy grew more complex, planning became more difficult. By the mid-20th century, Gosplan faced the task of taking into account the needs not only for the construction of factories and infrastructure, but also for the production of a wide range of consumer goods, which turned out to be virtually impossible.

For example, mass production often led to shortages of some goods and overproduction of others. Officials decided which goods were necessary, which often led to the loss of promising innovations: Soviet inventions in the field of computers and cellular communications did not receive support, since they seemed unimportant in the centralized system. As a result, Western companies retained their leadership in the market race for technological development, flexibly adapting to demand and competition.

It is worth noting that even in countries with a market economy, there is a certain level of planning: state budgets are drawn up for years in advance, and infrastructure projects and social programs require long-term planning. However, unlike a centrally planned economy, market mechanisms allow for a flexible response to demand, adjusting output, introducing innovations, and eliminating inefficient production – all of which makes the economy more resilient to crises and competitive.

The rejection of market elements of the economy has repeatedly demonstrated its unviability. In conditions of centralized management, flexibility is lost, and the lack of competition and independent decision-making slows down the development of technologies and the introduction of innovations.

Comments

[Dilettante grandfather]

The weak point of the Soviet planned economy was the excessive number of officials, that is, the bureaucracy. This deprived the planned economy of flexibility in decision-making. Plus, after Stalin's death, power passed to Khrushchev, who was, at the very least, incapable of governing the state. He saw only what he wanted to see. The entire Soviet elite, during Khrushchev's time, was focused primarily on their own well-being. And, so to speak, on their "wants" on a national scale. As an example: Khrushchev did not see much point in developing artillery systems. Why, if there were missiles? And the main emphasis was placed on missile production. Ballistic, anti-aircraft... And he did not care that the troops should be balanced in terms of weapons. So much has already been said and written about corn that there is no point in repeating it. And this was the case in all industries.

[Electrical]

Was it in the Union that there was an excessive number of officials? And today there are none?

[Dilettante grandfather]

There are fewer of them now than there were then. Officials are everywhere, you can't do without them at all. But now there is much less bureaucracy in important matters.

[Reklastik]

But now there is much less bureaucracy in important matters.

- Has the economy become more efficient?

[VasAndr]

Quote: Reklastik

- Has the economy become more efficient?

What, don’t lovers of the market economy want to discuss the successes of modern bourgeois Russia?
The Soviet Union was destroyed, everything was destroyed, and those remaining on the fragments of the USSR are rejoicing at the successes of the plundering and destruction of Russia...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

But now there is much less bureaucracy in important matters.

exactly?

[Dilettante grandfather]

Exactly. Take the example of UAVs. The need arose - everything began to be produced quite quickly. Anti-drone guns, buggies, ground drones - all this is being introduced into production. With the planned economy of the USSR, this would have taken much longer.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Exactly. Take the example of UAVs.

you are mistaken

[Dilettante grandfather]

It is your right to think as you think.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

of course it's my right, as well as knowledge of what's really going on, by the way, the conversation was initially about the number of officials

[Wened75]

During the first five-year plans and the Great Patriotic War, they implemented it faster and in more difficult economic conditions.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Take the example of UAVs. The need arose - everything started to be produced quite quickly.

Are you serious? There are evil tongues here saying that volunteers are still collecting money for the Mavics.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

There are fewer of them now than there were then.

Eeeee... It seems like there were much fewer of them in the USSR. In the USSR there was one official per 136 people, now - per 61 people

[Stas157]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

In the USSR there was one official for every 136 people, now there is one official for every 61

And the gap in salaries was not as huge as it is now. Between a high-ranking official and a low-ranking subordinate.

[Blackmokona]

Quote: Stas157

And the gap in salaries was not as huge as it is now. Between a high-ranking official and a low-ranking subordinate.

Salaries meant nothing, what mattered was access to scarcity and all sorts of benefits

[Stas157]

Quote: BlackMokona

Salaries meant nothing, what mattered was access to scarcity and all sorts of benefits

Of course they did. Our family lived in the Soviet Union without any connections or shortages. And nothing! Most people didn't need any of that. What was sold in stores was enough. And over time, people's well-being only grew, unlike today.

[Blackmokona]

Quote: Stas157

Of course they did. Our family lived in the Soviet Union without any connections or shortages. And nothing! Most people didn't need any of that. What was sold in stores was enough. And over time, people's well-being only grew, unlike today.

If there was no shortage, then either the beggars were like church mice or there was pull. I remember one girl telling me. There were no lines in the stores, there was a shortage. And then it turned out that she went to the stores with her unemployed Mom, during working hours. That's why there were no lines. And her Daddy headed a large Moscow University. That's the whole secret.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: BlackMokona

Quote: Stas157

And the gap in salaries was not as huge as it is now. Between a high-ranking official and a low-ranking subordinate.

Salaries meant nothing, what mattered was access to scarcity and all sorts of benefits

What an observation!
What do you think was important to the officials from the Ministry of Defense? Salary?
And how do you compare the size of "access"?

[sgrabik]

And now, how has it become better? All kinds of goods are becoming practically inaccessible due to their cost for a very significant part of society, and the market economy as a whole has no fewer disadvantages than the planned one, and perhaps even more, products are often produced that sell well for export, and the domestic consumer market at the same time suffers from a shortage of certain goods and services that, to one degree or another, do not bring fabulous quick profits to producers. Isn't this stupidity, isn't this an oversight???

[Dilettante grandfather]

You forget that the officials of the USSR era should include the entire party apparatus, including local ones. Without the approval of party officials, not a single ordinary official could approve anything. The chain was much longer.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

You forget that the officials of the USSR era should also include the entire party apparatus.

Excuse me, but do you seriously think that the myriad of today's parties, United Russia, LGBT... damn the auto-substitution, LDPR, CPSU, etc., manage without an apparatus?:))) By the way, there weren't that many professional communists and Komsomol members in the USSR.

[Dilettante grandfather]

There were enough of those who sat in regional committees, district committees, and also in production. I encountered them in my time.
Today's parties also have an apparatus, I don't argue. But back then, in my opinion, there were more.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Well, how? There were never many of them at work, there were those who worked in parallel and had a party position. And now there are quite a lot of these public reception offices of all levels, both party and parliamentary, as well as various election specialists, etc.

[Wened75]

I'll give you an example: the Central Committee of the CPSU was located on the Old Square during the USSR, and more recently the Presidential Property Management Department, only it's not their only building, while the Central Committee of the CPSU has its only one.

[Edvid]

Even in the USSR there was total control by the KGB. Absolutely every organization had a department or person related to the KGB...
In addition, the planned economy in the USSR was very sluggish. Components, equipment, materials had to be ordered two years in advance (!), i.e. what was required was received only after two years... I (and not only me) was amazed by the fact. When our ship was put in for major repairs in Ceylon, we received any ordered components no later than three days later. Local engineers said that it took a long time, but in Japan, according to them, the same thing is delivered in a few hours... This was in 1980.

[Sergej1972]

And were the party apparatus workers, the released secretaries of party committees included in this category, or are we talking only about those who were on the Soviet-economic line?

[victor50]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

There are fewer of them now than there were then.

According to my observations, 4 times more (in some areas). The speed of solving issues is probably higher (not everywhere, not in all areas). But this is due to technologies that did not exist then.
I remember the USSR was accused of having a huge number of generals in the Armed Forces. It seems to me that there are many times more of them now.

[Blackmokona]

Quote: victor50

I remember the USSR was accused of having a huge number of generals in the Armed Forces. It seems to me that there are many times more of them now.

Serdyukov cut most of the generals. Shoigu may have rolled back this change, but at least they tried to cut the top staff by 90%

[Mikhail3]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

There are fewer of them now than there were then. Officials are everywhere, you can't do without them at all. But now there is much less bureaucracy in important matters.

Data: in the USSR there were 1,799 thousand officials. In Russia (which is significantly smaller than the USSR) there are 3,303 thousand. That is, a twofold increase. Grandpa, take care of your garden, okay? You are too ignorant and illiterate to talk to adults...

[Dilettante grandfather]

Data: in the USSR there were 1,799 thousand officials. In Russia (which is significantly smaller than the USSR) there were 3,303 thousand.

Data out of thin air? Source - your imagination?
Wet fantasies, please, keep them to yourself. I'm not interested in them.

[Mikhail3]

I'm telling you, go dig up some potatoes, grandpa. Ask the mole, he knows better where literate people get their data.

[Krilion]

You will probably be surprised, but in today's Russia the number of officials exceeds their number in the entire USSR, and that was as many as 15 republics... and it exceeds them many times over!!!!

[Alexander]

Are you absolutely sure about this???

[Dilettante grandfather]

Are you absolutely sure about this???

Yes. Do you have any precise data that this is not so? (Precise for me does not mean official. For me it means officially confirmed, those who are in the know will understand.

[alexoff]

Now there are more officials, and accordingly there are more problems. The question is also about the quality of officials (low) and how they are looked after (only so that they share with whoever is needed)

[Bayun]

... and if we compare the population of the Union and Rus', then we still need to multiply the modern population by 2. And if we believe the "evil tongues", then the number of state slackers today is TEN TIMES (!) greater than the Soviet level.

I suppose those who worked during the times of the Ministry of Defense Industry and the current state defense orders-OFZ-tenders can compare through the tenfold increase in the volume of "fuss and waste paper". And we don't even take into account digitalization. (Source: Network)

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

The weak point of the Soviet planned economy was the excessive number of officials, i.e. bureaucracy. This deprived the planned economy of flexibility in decision-making.

Quote from Electric

Was it in the Union that there was an excessive number of officials? And today there are none?

A.I. Fursov to help you. Under the Tsar there were few bureaucrats. Under the emperors they grew like mushrooms, with each change, from Peter I to Nicholas II, under the Soviets of course their number also increased, because the state entered all areas of society. Under the current system, with the abolition of the CPSU, a bunch of parties and parties + bureaucrats from the church have emerged. The structure of the state is becoming more complex, its management is becoming more complex, the staff is growing. Like everywhere in the world.

[Darkdimon]

Nonsense, the weak point is that they were removed. The authorized representatives of the state planning committee were removed under Khrushchev, as a result the directors did whatever they wanted, or rather it was profitable to obscure things.

[ProkletyiPirat]

it's not about the number of officials, and not about their quality, the point is in decentralized-competitive motivation-monetization of labor in the field of innovation.
For example: under Stalin, even a cleaning lady could get a huge bonus for improving computers (due to "rationalization proposals") (a real case, she came up with a way to prevent errors from overheating due to dust sticking to her by arranging the units differently), and under Khrushchev, the rationalization system was changed, then the system was changed several times, each time the number of people with financial motivation in innovative work decreased, as a result, everything fell apart and today nothing has been restored.

[Blacksmith 55]

For some reason no one mentioned poor labor discipline. It is one of the reasons for the shortcomings in the Union. The boss could drive off on his own business in a government car during working hours. The workers, seeing this, thought about it. A smoke break during working hours was normal. And how many of them were there per day? Of course, there was also an ill-conceived organization of labor, a lack of coordination between enterprises, and party interference in production. Production should be managed by specialists. I worked 8 hours a day for the second half of my working life, with two breaks, for breakfast and lunch. And so I can compare. And none of my bosses were running around somewhere, but worked.

[Stas157]

Quote: Blacksmith 55

The boss could drive away on his own business in a government car during working hours

Can't he do it now? He might not work at all now. It all depends on how high up the boss is.

[Blacksmith 55]

That's what's bad. Everyone has to work 8 hours. And the bosses may have to work even more. You know where the fish rots from. You can and probably should be strict with the workers, but fair, and this last is very important.

[NG inform]

Now, add corporate managers, advertisers and businessmen to the officials (you will get the function of Soviet officials) and you will see that their share is now several times higher.

[Dilettante grandfather]

This is where you are completely wrong. Businessmen do not deal with bureaucracy, they work. Otherwise, they will go broke.
Advertisers? How do they slow down the process of introducing something new into production?!
I will say this about managers: yes, there are many of them, but they are all doing something. Not all of them are necessary and useful, but they are doing something. And they do not influence the speed of decision-making in business. If they slow down the process, the business will go bankrupt.

[NG inform]

The function of businessmen and Soviet bureaucrats for society is the same. And businessmen are precisely the ones who deal with bureaucracy, who organize processes.
Do you really think that the function of a bureaucrat is to slow things down?

[Dilettante grandfather]

The function of businessmen and Soviet bureaucrats for society is the same. And businessmen are precisely the ones who deal with bureaucracy, who organize processes.
Do you really think that the function of a bureaucrat is to slow things down?

What is bureaucracy? Let me remind you: bureaucracy is the power of desks. What is business? Business is work.
Businessmen do NOT engage in pettifogging. Bureaucrats did nothing but that. The higher the table, the more obstacles, in the form of smaller tables, had to be overcome in the USSR. Often for the sake of a single signature. Until the smallest bureaucrat gave you permission, you could not move up to the next table. If they gave you permission, go to the next... I encountered this quite often. Now I do not observe it.

[NG inform]

Kindergarten, pants with suspenders. If you don't understand, better not to speak up.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Excellent argument, I applaud.
Nikita, let me ask you, where and when did you serve in the army, since we're already talking about "pants with suspenders"? If I'm a kindergartener.

[Electrical]

All leaders are known by their deeds! After Stalin's murder, Khrushchev immediately flew to America to prove his position!

[Sanya Terek]

...in contrast to a centrally planned economy, market mechanisms allow for flexible response to demand, adjustment of output, introduction of innovations and elimination of inefficient production...

And what prevents you from adjusting, implementing or eliminating in a centrally planned economy? With proper planning and timely adjustment of the plan, all this can be done faster and more efficiently.

[paul3390]

Now imagine the Soviet planned economy with modern computing capabilities and means of communication... If even then they managed to manage the telephone and bills extremely effectively...

[your1970]

Quote: paul3390

If back then they managed to manage the phone and bills extremely well effectively..

Very....
They started building the Dead Road - they stopped building the Dead Road.
Either the first or the second had negative efficiency.
Moreover, they abandoned construction so quickly that they abandoned locomotives and carriages there, although the country did not have enough rolling stock.
And there are tons of such examples of this type of "efficiency"...

[paul3390]

Do you argue with the fact that the Soviet government created one of the two planetary superpowers?

[your1970]

Quote: paul3390

Do you argue with the fact that the Soviet government created one of the two planetary superpowers?

naturally.
Superpowers they don't rent it out at zero - under a broom - in 30 years.
And you understand this perfectly well.

But you avoided the question - who was effective - those who started MD or those who quit?

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

one of the two planetary superpowers

And where is it, Pavel? It collapsed without a war. Did the spies betray? But they came from the Octobrists and Komsomol members... Were they bought? And why didn't our Gas Hall get to where he needed to and "betray" him? Didn't we pay him enough? They "love money", but they didn't betray, and our builders of communism, yes... they weren't up to par, right? The result is important, not the road to the temple. The road was successful, but the temple fell apart.

[Romans]

You yourself are one of the members of the CPSU, why didn't you draw the attention of the management to the problems!? After all, you worked at the University all your life???

[kalibr]

Quote: Romani

Why didn't you draw the management's attention to these problems!?

How do you know this? Find the article here - "A Life Devoted to the Text". There are photocopies of THREE articles in the regional newspaper about the problems.. And that's not all, of course. Recommendations for eliminating the shortcomings were in the dissertation - you can't do without that. And in the articles on the dissertation... What else do you need?

[Wened75]

I had the chance to work with old employees of the State Planning Committee (in the energy sector) in the 2000s; they could calculate in their heads (using cheat sheets) and on a slide rule no worse than a computer.

[P]

at the grassroots level, within a city with a population of over a million and with a zero warehouse approach in trade, it will be like now, only slightly better due to standardization and complete consumption data. And so, demand and production planning, advance payments, supply chains, taking into account seasonal factors and expected planned changes in logistics, weather, demand, etc. will not differ much methodologically, a planned economy has been working for monopolists for a long time. The higher the level (region-federal district-country-continent-planet), the forecasts will be simplified due to the effect of large numbers. In small towns and villages, improvements will be orders of magnitude due to a monopoly in logistics (we carry in one car, not several, we carry 2 curds to 1 store, not 0 and 15, 14 of which will rot in two)

[Lev_Russia]

What prevents us from correcting, implementing or eliminating in a centrally planned economy?

Lack of competition... Any stagnation is death and only movement is life... When the same product is produced for 20-30 years (cars, tape recorders, etc., as was the case in the USSR), while also being in short supply (under the Iron Curtain and sanctions), this leads to the degradation of industry in the absence of the need for its constant modernization...

[P]

monopolists have no competition now anyway

[Sergey Averchenkov]

And shall we keep silent about the weaknesses of the market economy?

[paul3390]

The weak side is obvious - the market will probably solve everything someday, of course, but before that - it will kill off half the population. Isn't the price too high?

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

will kill half the population.. Isn't the price too high?

Why exaggerate? And besides... to be honest, I don't feel sorry for the outright crap.

[victor50]

Quote: kalibr

And then... to be honest, I don't really feel sorry for the outright crap.

Wow! Will you be the one to determine? I think there are quite a few who include you in it.

[kalibr]

Quote: victor50

I think there are quite a few who include you in it.

I'm even sure that there are many more of them! Not far from my house, every morning I meet an alcoholic fraternity of 5 men who have already taken... They have families, children... They probably have their own opinions too. But it would be better if they weren't there, huh? By the way, there are five of them, and I'm alone. Where else would they discuss, I count steps for the benefit of health. And you'll say that someone needs their opinion?

[hohol95]

During the transition from the "state planning" to Gaidar's "market", did only the marginalized and lumpen disappear?
Or did other categories of citizens also get it?

[kalibr]

Quote: hohol95

During the transition from the "state planning" to Gaidar's "market", did only the marginalized and lumpen disappear?

And who got it during the transition from NEP to a planned economy? By the way, among those repressed in the 30s, 69% belonged to the peasantry!

[hohol95]

I didn't live at that time!
And you too!
But I experienced the times of Yegor Gaidar on my own skin.

[kalibr]

Quote: hohol95

But I experienced the times of Yegor Gaidar on my own skin.

Yes, there were difficulties and many of them. But there was also much that was good. Unprecedented opportunities opened up.

[kalibr]

Quote: hohol95

I didn't live at that time!
And you too!

Alexey, I remembered one thing. I didn't live under the NEP. But I lived in 1988 and held in my hands a document - a certificate from the educational department of the Central Committee of the Komsomol to the Central Committee of the CPSU that, according to reports, 100% or more of students are involved in research and development in Central Asian universities and... accordingly, this is financed! While the average for the Union is 5-7%. What should we do, the Komsomol asks, what should we do... this is a huge amount of money going nowhere, and what there is is really underfunded? On paper, in blue pencil, the answer - "The East is a delicate matter. We shouldn't pay attention to it for now!" That is, eastern "comrades" under the USSR were simply bought like women with low social responsibility, so they clung to us. And they also drove money for cotton and turned a blind eye to the padding... Is this a healthy economy, I ask you? The advantages of socialism? I inserted a link to this document in the dissertation. You can find it on the Internet to read. But what was the point of it if everything was decided on the top? None! And as soon as the money ran out, everything went to hell!

[hohol95]

Money for air instead of cotton.
Before that, under Khrushchev, there was a meat crisis in the Black Earth Region of the RSFSR thanks to the head of the Ryazan region. Nikita's great friend - Larionov!

The fact is that, starting with Khrushchev, the corruption component began to gain momentum, and during Brezhnev’s time, the “regional committee bigwigs” began to merge into one with outright criminals.
And the "Moscow elders" no longer had the intelligence and strength to fight this. They themselves were largely involved in these criminal schemes!
The fish rotted from the head.
And this is what led to the bloody tragedies of the late 80s and 90s!
Plus, there is simply a manic fear from the Central Committee of the "SDI program" and other disinformation from US services.
All this put pressure on an economy that was already in need of change.
But they were afraid... They were afraid of everything.

[kalibr]

Quote: hohol95

But they were afraid... They were afraid of everything.

Exactly!

[Sergej1972]

At the same time, in the late 50s and early 60s, under Khrushchev, a large number of Central Asian leaders were removed from their positions, including first secretaries of the Central Committees of the republican communist parties and chairmen of the Council of Ministers, for falsifications and corruption.

[Romans]

And now all the trash from Central Asia is here! In Penza, it's already starting to make your eyes water. Aren't you afraid that one day they'll think that everything is yours, and now everything is theirs?! And then what? Back to communism? Or what?

[kalibr]

Quote: Romani

Or what?

Legislatively restrict. What does communism have to do with it? Changing the system because of aliens from Asia? It's like people burning down a house to warm themselves by a fire.

[Foul skeptic]

By the way, among those repressed in the 30s, 69% belonged to the peasantry!

You already have such a percentage of peasants in your country from the entire population. ))

[kalibr]

Quote: A vile skeptic

By the way, among those repressed in the 30s, 69% belonged to the peasantry!

You already have such a percentage of peasants in your country from the entire population. ))

So, percentage-wise, they got the most.

[victor50]

Quote: kalibr

But it would be better if they all didn't exist, right?

And maybe there wouldn't be any, or there would be fewer of them, if you hadn't told them about the charms of socialism in your time, and hadn't debunked it now. Do you think that only those who drink don't like you, you're useful for any system and any government?

[kalibr]

Quote: victor50

If you hadn't told them about the delights of socialism at the time,

And how could I do that? No, I worked not out of fear, but out of conscience. And it still didn't help!

[P]

You're funny. Why did you suddenly decide that the market will destroy 5 wonderful consumers and probably less expensive workers in terms of payroll later than you, who are counting your steps?)))))))))))

[kalibr]

Quote: Pandemic

You're funny. Why did you suddenly decide that the market will destroy 5 wonderful consumers and probably less expensive workers in terms of payroll later than you, who are counting your steps?)))))))))))

When did they release you from the mental hospital?

[VasAndr]

Quote: kalibr

Why exaggerate? And besides... to be honest, I don't feel sorry for the outright crap.

Yes, sir, you are a Russophobe...

[kalibr]

Quote: VasAndr

Yes, sir, you are a Russophobe...

A fool-phobe would be more accurate!

[VasAndr]

What, you don't love yourself either? That's your right. But the Russophobe in you prevails.

[kalibr]

Quote: VasAndr

But the Russophobe in you prevails.

You are a wonderful blockhead, Andrey! I hate fools, both English and German, and Japanese... and Russians too, why should I make an exception for them? But if you open my textbook for universities on public opinion management technologies, you will read that even our drunk man, sitting in a puddle and screaming obscenities, must be... perceived patiently, worked with. Because he, too, is a citizen of Russia, can vote and be elected. So I am even more lenient towards Russian fools. After all, they are all around me... I have to be patient and even communicate with them!

[VasAndr]

Over the years, it became completely clear to me: entering the path of anti-Sovietism, you will certainly come to outright Russophobia. A person who consistently takes anti-Soviet positions inevitably understands that these views are not shared by the people, and then he is forced to state that the people are not the same. It’s impossible to create anything with these people, it’s a mistake of nature. Further, pure racism: this people need to be uprooted, and only then will mankind be able to move by leaps and bounds to happiness.
Vladimir Menshov

I completely agree with him.

[kalibr]

Quote: VasAndr

I completely agree with him.

If you don’t have your own mind, there’s always someone from whom you can borrow at least a quote.

[VasAndr]

But I don't agree with this.

[kalibr]

Quote: VasAndr

and you don't love yourself?

Should this be taken as a joke?

[Romans]

That is, in your opinion, all those who were cleansed in ethnic cleansing, in gangster showdowns, were simply cleansed by the authorities for the purposes of self-preservation and driven to suicide???

[kalibr]

Quote: Romani

That is, in your opinion, all those who were cleansed in ethnic cleansing, in gangster showdowns, were simply cleansed by the authorities for the purposes of self-preservation and driven to suicide???

There are a lot of people who are not ready for changes and are simply not smart. They become the first victims of changes. It has always been like that!

[alexoff]

The market economy is a master at growing its own executioners.

[foxes]

The targeted destruction of cooperative production and the pogrom in agriculture in the second half of the 50s became the main reason for the deficit, not the plan. Under Stalin, for some reason, everything worked.

[Cartalon]

What worked under Stalin, there was no shortage under Stalin? There was.
Was there an abundance of food? No.

[paul3390]

And what - were there calm years under Stalin? Sometimes preparation for war, sometimes war, sometimes post-war restoration...

In general - for some reason the Soviet Union is constantly compared in terms of consumption with the richest countries of the West, which robbed the entire planet.. And what - is this all that capitalist countries have? Why not compare it with the rest?

Again - my dad's friends who visited southern European countries in the 60s said that ordinary working people somewhere in Greece, Italy or Portugal lived not so much better than we did. Yes - there was more of something, for example, a variety of clothes and food, but when it came to basic things, like housing, medicine, education - we were immediately noticeably better off.

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

Why not compare it to the others?

With Burkina Faso or with Upper Volta? And, Pavel, no one denies that there was much that was good. But the state capitalism that existed in the USSR with a maximum capitalization of 98% did not ensure its survival, that's all.

[Sergej1972]

But our propaganda actually compared the lives of our people with the lives of workers in the richest capitalist countries.

[Vladimirsky]

Did everything work under Stalin? - they forced everyone to work. It was no longer the artels that provided food, but the collective farms, where people, having given everything they had to the collective farm, worked for nothing, that is, almost for nothing, without having passports in hand. It was only possible to move to the city to live with a "Komsomol permit".... The food problem was solved so easily and naturally: there was no longer a food market in the country, the state took it almost for free. And we still point to slavery in the USA..

[P]

a collective farm is an artel with a special charter, a private enterprise working for the profit of its members. Working for free in a private shop is a common thing, by the way, startups work at a loss and leave their health. By the way, they also share the profit themselves. People moved to the city in many different ways, and passports in the USSR were issued when necessary and without them it was possible to move around perfectly well, if there were no emergency situations. The food market really disappeared at different periods of the USSR, mainly during those same periods of famine, wars, collectivization, and relapses of the civil war

[Stardock]

A naive, illiterate article, every sentence of which distorts reality and does not reflect the true reasons for the collapse of the communist idea in dozens of countries around the world, and not just in the USSR.
Advice to the author: never write on this topic again. You don't even have basic knowledge.
The thesis - Khrushchev alone destroyed everything, destroyed the entire system of countries of the socialist community - evokes only a smile and sympathy.

[P]

the absolute role of personality in history = an ordinary idealist. Sadly, there are many of them

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

problems of the planned economy arose, it was shoved in everywhere, including small-scale production

[P]

a solvable issue in fact. DARPA has been moving this topic forward quite planned, no one is stopping them from taking it into service

[vovochkarzhevsky]

However, unlike a centrally planned economy, market mechanisms allow for a flexible response to demand, adjustment of output, introduction of innovations and elimination of inefficient production – all of which makes the economy more resilient to crises and competitive.

The rejection of market elements of the economy has repeatedly demonstrated its unviability.

Does anyone still believe in these fairy tales? Alas, but as practice has shown, this is just a trick of Western business to destroy the economy of competitors.
For example, how they killed the domestic aircraft industry. Now we can only remember it.

[your1970]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

However, unlike a centrally planned economy, market mechanisms allow for a flexible response to demand, adjustment of output, introduction of innovations and elimination of inefficient production – all of which makes the economy more resilient to crises and competitive.

The rejection of market elements of the economy has repeatedly demonstrated its unviability.

Does anyone still believe in these fairy tales? Alas, but as practice has shown, this is just a trick of Western business to destroy the economy of competitors.
For example, how they killed the domestic aircraft industry. Now we can only remember it.

Domestic aircraft manufacturing killed the USSR itself - by cramming unlimited money into it in the complete absence of competition.
When they were releasing it indefinitely - "They'll take it anyway, it's good enough for the army. If the military doesn't take it, they'll send it to Africa for free."
The same technology was used to kill the auto industry in the USSR.
When they started counting the money, it ran out right away.

We had a cinder block plant, it produced crooked cinder blocks, half of them were broken. As soon as they started to be paid for, and not distributed according to a compulsory plan, the plant immediately died in 1993. Because the tuff for it was brought from Armenia - and it turned out that it was not free.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Domestic aircraft manufacturing killed the USSR itself - by cramming unlimited money into it in the complete absence of competition.

What are you talking about? So it was during the USSR that aircraft factories were closed? And the boys don't even know.
But comparing cinder blocks and airplanes is only possible when your head is filled with cinders instead of brains.
It was exactly these, with slag in the head, that in the early nineties the same An-24s were cut into scrap metal. Like, worse than Western models. And now the surviving machines are protected like the apple of their eye, after they flew on Western crap in the North.

[your1970]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

So it was during the USSR that aircraft factories were closed.

- when they were shoving a lot of money into every nook and cranny, factories were working and producing things, including things that no longer needed to be produced - things that should have been taken out of production or improved. The An-2 should have been redesigned back in 1970
And they continued to sculpt antediluvian models in the name of the plan - it flies...
But as soon as the question of competition arose, it turned out to be exactly the same as with the auto industry.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

- when they were shoving immeasurable amounts of money into every crack - factories were working and producing, including things that no longer needed to be produced - things that should have been taken out of production or improved

Oh, really? Then would you mind naming which planes or helicopters the USSR produced in vain?

The An-2 should have been redesigned back in 1970.

Wow, your knowledge of aviation is on par with a conscript. If you don't know, the first modernization of the An-2 was back in the sixties, the An-2M. Then there was the An-3 version, but it was quickly realized that it was a bad idea.
In technology, as in nature, there are “ecological niches” where, along with mammals, including higher ones, there are also simpler organisms.
So the An-2, archaic even at the time of its creation (biplane, non-retractable landing gear, piston engine, etc.), fits perfectly into the international aviation and other tasks.
And attempts to replace it with something else inevitably increased the costs many times over. The An-2 "population" fell, regional aviation died. And all these "Baikals" and An-2s will not be noticed.

But as soon as the question of competition arose, it turned out to be exactly the same as with the auto industry.

I have always noticed that people who truly believe in the market and fair competition are somewhat short-sighted.

[your1970]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

I have always noticed that people who truly believe in the market and fair competition are somewhat short-sighted.

-I have always noticed that people who see people who are not very smart are usually not very smart themselves.

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

So the An-2, archaic even at the time of its creation (biplane, non-retractable landing gear, piston engine, etc.), fits perfectly into the international aviation and other tasks.
And attempts to replace it with something else inevitably increased the costs many times over. The An-2 "population" fell, regional aviation died. And all these "Baikals" and An-2s will not be noticed.

That's how they replace it in the world, but here in the USSR they couldn't do it with the An-2.
Or they didn't want to

[vovochkarzhevsky]

-I have always noticed that people who see people who are not very smart are usually not very smart themselves.

This is not your case.

That's how they replace it in the world, but here in the USSR they couldn't do it with the An-2.
Or they didn't want to

All over the world they continue to build and operate aircraft with PD and no one is going to abandon them. For the simple reason that they are operated where their operation is economically justified.
Take your time to find out why in the USSR, in the same polar aviation, they held on to the Il-14 until the very end before switching to the An-26.

[Stas157]

Quote: your1970

The An-2 had to be redesigned back in 1970
And they continued to sculpt antediluvian examples

So the Poles produced the An-2! ​​In the USSR, the An-2 was produced until 1971. Then they freed up space for more modern aircraft.

[VasAndr]

Quote: your1970

But as soon as the question of competition arose, it turned out to be exactly the same as with the auto industry.

In your understanding, competition means destroying what was created, worked and developed under the USSR and not creating anything of your own under bourgeois competition. Where are the domestic goods that compete with producers from other countries? They don't exist! If there is any production left that produces something better than under the USSR, remember how many years have passed. Under you, industry, agriculture, science, education, medicine were deliberately destroyed - and you still repeat the mantra about lack of competitiveness. In your opinion, if the USSR had not been destroyed, the same goods would still be produced today and in exactly the same form as in the late 80s? Do you really think so?

[your1970]

Quote: VasAndr

In your opinion, if the USSR had not collapsed, the same goods would still be produced today and in exactly the same form as in the late 80s? Do you really think so?

"The loaf was produced in the USSR for 26 years - nothing had changed by 1991." This is not a Land Cruiser with 4 generations - it was good right away"©
The Mi-8 was produced for 26 years - nothing had changed globally by 1991
Kalashnikov was produced for 50 years, the caliber was reduced and that was it - by 1991.
VAZ 2101 was produced for 22 years, they slightly touched the engine and that was it - by 1991.
UAZ-469 19 years without changes - until 1991.
TA-57 - 33 years without changes by 1991.
The field cable to it - oops, 50 years with a tail without changes by 1991
Automotive paint - introduced in 1958 - unchanged by 1991.
Snowmobile Buran 20 years without changes since 1991.
Druzhba chainsaw - 36 years old, ignition was changed in 1990 - that's all.

And so many examples - without any movement - "It'll do just fine!! They'll swallow it up as first class"© - trains and a cart to them.

[VasAndr]

Now the Russian bourgeois government whines and justifies itself with sanctions, but they were destroying the country all the time even before the sanctions. The USSR was under sanctions almost all the time, under the threat of war and even a nuclear attack. Nevertheless, it developed. Yes, there was not enough strength for something, but there were constant changes. If not in one, then in another production. And after all, it was necessary to help other countries that chose the path of socialist development to develop. Now the DPRK, in memory of the USSR, helps Russia.
Your examples do not reflect the full picture. Did VAZ only produce the 2101? You forgot about other models, in particular the Niva and front-wheel drive modifications. Were there other models besides the MI-8 helicopter? And so on in many ways. When the Germans produced their Beetle for many years - it was wonderful and an excellent car! And the VAZ 2101 - is it a disgrace? When we bought this model from FIAT, it had a slightly different engine. The valve drive was clearly outdated. Our engineers insisted that the Italians improve the engine in terms of the valve drive and in some other respects. So was it worth changing a good engine as quickly as possible? Modern engines, even from the most famous manufacturers, have become less reliable. They have applied advanced technologies and achieved that engines do not last much longer than the warranty mileage. It seems that you are better off driving checkers than driving.
Don't forget about the existence of good things in the USSR. I won't list them.

[your1970]

Quote: VasAndr

The USSR was under sanctions almost all the time, under the threat of war and even nuclear attack.

What are you talking about???
Right under the threat of war and sanctions???
What's wrong with her...
On one side there's the "Crusade" and the Fulton speech, and then bam - here you have jet engines for combat aircraft.
Will England sell us engines for combat aircraft now?
Yeah ....
And then - apparently under the threat of a nuclear attack - the USSR began urgently to build gas pipelines to the FRG - to NATO. Where, with the help of that gas, Leopards were built.
Today's bad guys trade gas with their enemies, in the USSR the good guys (???) traded gas with their enemies...

West depicted from the USSR an enemy - which the USSR was not for them. It was not a competitor for them - just a good excuse to squeeze some money out of their governments.
Mirage of the enemy, bogeyman...

Now we are the enemy - they didn't sell us the unfortunate Opel for good money, what can we say about engines for combat aircraft...

[VasAndr]

Quote: your1970

On one side there's the "Crusade" and the Fulton speech, and then bam - here you have jet engines for combat aircraft.

Well, a capitalist would sell his own mother into slavery if it was profitable for him. Our people bought the engines, looked at them and then produced their own.

Quote: your1970

Will England sell us engines for combat aircraft now?
Yeah ....

Of course, we almost ruined our production in favor of Western companies and now we are offended that they do not sell to us. And did these rams think about the country's security when they destroyed everything?
The Druzhba gas pipeline supplied socialist countries in Europe. Maybe something was sold to the FRG as well. I don't know, I haven't heard of such a thing. If such a thing happened, it was in peacetime, and now, mind you, it's war. We can consider that back then it was a breach of the Iron Curtain. Actually, it was organized by the bourgeoisie, not the USSR. The USSR leadership had no reason to isolate itself from the rest of the world. Why limit the spread of the ideology of communism itself?

Quote: your1970

Now we are the enemy - they didn't sell us the unfortunate Opel for good money

I repeat, there was no point in destroying our industry, science, education, agriculture, etc., cherishing the fantasy that the West is our friend and not hammering into our stupid heads that we will buy everything we need in the West. There would be no need to buy a bankrupt Opel. Buying a bankrupt factory seems to me like a private individual buying a used car.)

[your1970]

Quote: VasAndr

The Druzhba gas pipeline supplied socialist countries in Europe. Perhaps some was sold to Germany as well.

Well, let's read for starters - "Pro-NATO" in the person of Germany gave a loan to the USSR for construction and then a pipeline within the framework of this loan.
And all the socialist countries just got caught up in this issue along the way.

Quote: VasAndr

Well, a capitalist would even sell his own mother into slavery if it was profitable for him.

yeah, but here's the problem - Western capitalists aren't selling them to us now - apparently they sold all their mothers into slavery.

Quote: VasAndr

I repeat, there was no point in destroying your own industry.

The question is not what was destroyed - the question is what was sold then - and not now.
They sold jet engines to socialism, but they don’t want to sell them to capitalism – that’s the question.

[VasAndr]

Quote: your1970

Western capitalists are not selling them to us now - apparently they sold all their mothers into slavery.

And would you buy it? For what? But I don't know about the demand for bourgeois old ladies. Even for organs.

Quote: your1970

They sold jet engines to socialism, but they don’t want to sell them to capitalism – that’s the question.

In the USSR they felt strength, but in bourgeois Russia they feel weakness and an inability to create and establish their own production.
And in your words I can hear a whine: Well, how can this be? We are good people, we refused and destroyed the USSR, we became your loyal admirers, we are ready to lick you wherever you point, and you don’t want to sell us a bankrupt Opel.

[your1970]

Quote: VasAndr

In the USSR they felt strength, but in bourgeois Russia they feel weakness and an inability to create and establish their own production.

Since with your logic is strained- you don't understand that enemies in whom they sense strength - weapons (engines for combat aircraft) are not sold - because strong enemies will make aircraft and come to kill you. And weak and incompetent with a destroyed production- you can sell even nuclear weapons - they won’t make them.

[VasAndr]

Or your logic is completely screwed. Why sell technologies that could strengthen Russia to a weakened Russia. Especially if the goal is to finish off Russia.

[your1970]

Quote: VasAndr

Why weakened Russia sell technologies that can enhance it

Why to a strong USSR sell technologies that can enhance it? If the task is destroy him?

[Romans]

The USSR produced everything anyway, the technology was there, the British knew about it (their intelligence worked well)! So don't lie, it's not pretty!

[your1970]

Quote: Romani

The USSR already produced everything, the technology was there

Which technologies were there? What was the USSR producing from jet fuel at the time of the purchase of Derventa?

[Romans]

https://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig9.html и по энциклопедии, читайте!

[Stas157]

Quote: your1970

Domestic aircraft manufacturing killed the USSR itself

The USSR created our aircraft industry, not killed it. Half the world flew on Soviet planes! And now, under your capitalism?

[your1970]

Quote: Stas157

Quote: your1970

Domestic aircraft manufacturing killed the USSR itself

The USSR created our aircraft industry, not killed it. Half the world flew on Soviet planes! And now, under your capitalism?

Half of the world flew on Soviet planes - because their USSR for free distributed or, like, on credit.
And yes, capitalism is just as much mine as it is yours.

[Romans]

Dear Sir, how is it that the same IL-76, which was produced in Uzbekistan during the USSR (100 units per year!!!), is now produced in Ulyanovsk in your blessed Russian Federation, barely 6 units per year???? Is it that the market just can't decide??? Or what? Is it that the market people's brains don't work anymore? The same problems are with the Sukhoi SSJ-100 (0 aircraft), and with the MS-21 (Soviet Yak-242) (0 aircraft).
Your Russian Federation is incapable of creating an analogue of the Antonov AN-124 and AN-224, which are absolutely commercially profitable (!)! How is it that the army of the market-oriented Russian Federation fights mainly with Soviet weapons, including decommissioned ones, and the people supply this army with everything else through volunteers! And the Union managed to supply an army almost five times larger with everything necessary??? So what is the problem? Maybe you and Shpakovsky can think together and come up with a way to solve these problems?

[your1970]

Quote: Romani

Dear Sir, how is it that the same IL-76, which was produced in the USSR, was produced in Uzbekistan (100 units per year!!!

1 question - maybe it wasn't worth giving them out to the whole world for free or for non-refundable loans?
Maybe it made sense not to just throw resources away?

[Romans]

There is such a thing called DUMPING, and the Union also sold in barter.
IMHO: Here is another question for our pseudo-liberal, pseudo-communist, pseudo-patriotic, and now pseudo-religiously patriotic leaders: "Why was it necessary to drain the market of the USSR alone, 320 million souls? And also the markets of Eastern Europe and other satellites, a total of up to 2 billion souls!? This has no justification at all!"

[your1970]

Quote: Romani

There is such a thing called DUMPING, and the Union also sold in barter.

Yeah, planes in exchange for oranges.
If the USSR didn't inflate too much and take the dollar exchange rate at 68, then they would cost 3 dollars a kilo in the USSR.
I don't know how much they calculated for barter, but I doubt it was very cheap.

[P]

there was a lot of competition, with spies being sent in and other delights, and by the way, especially in the aviation industry

[Mihaylo Tishayshiy]

Maybe my computer is glitching? And who is the author of this short schizophrenic opus?

[the same doctor]

Marx's ideas cannot be implemented because they are utopian. The cornerstone of Marxism is that the worker will work better than under capitalism. This idea has not even been discussed or proven.
It turned out not to be so. All other shortcomings are trifles. As a result, no scientific organization, mechanization with chemicalization, huge natural resources... could compensate for this shortcoming of socialism.
.
When we yearn for socialism, we are really yearning for a strong state with its own national government. This can happen under capitalism too.

[kalibr]

Quote: also a doctor

In fact, we yearn for a strong state with its own national government. This can happen under capitalism too.

Exactly!

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Marx's ideas cannot be implemented because they are utopian. The cornerstone of Marxism is that the worker will work better than under capitalism. This idea has not even been discussed or proven.

This "utopia" won the Great Patriotic War.

[kalibr]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

This "utopia" won the Great Patriotic War.

And they lost in 1991.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

And they lost in 1991.

They didn't lose, they just allowed themselves to be deceived.

[kalibr]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

They didn't lose, they just allowed themselves to be deceived.

"As long as fools live in this world, it is convenient for us to live by deception!" There is no need to think so badly of our people...

[Romans]

So you need to understand what exactly are the reasons for the defeat! And you only think about covering your own butt!

[kalibr]

Quote: Romani

What exactly are the reasons for the defeat?

This is all I do. There will be an article in the series about this soon...

[Maxim G]

Well, you haven’t read Also a Doctor and Caliber by Marx, otherwise you would have known that he wasn’t talking about workers, but about employees.

And they didn’t work better, but their productivity was higher, due to the use of modern technology.
What is now being demonstrated is no longer mechanization, but automation of labor, with the replacement of humans by robots.

[kalibr]

Quote: Maxim G

read Also a Doctor and Caliber Marx,

I passed the PSS of Marx and Engels with excellent marks, otherwise how would I have been admitted to graduate school in the history of the CPSU in Soviet times?

[Maxim G]

Well, translated into French, it’s not a worker, but a labourer.
And everything fell into place

[P]

maybe in Tamil?))))))))))))))))))))))))

[Maxim G]

Maybe you should take an interest in the history of the issue, rather than asking stupid questions?

[P]

In what language was Capital originally published?

[Maxim G]

In German, worker and employee are one word.
In French, Marx's daughter Eleanor used the correct French word for worker.

[the same doctor]

here they objected to me: "We won WWII with this "utopia."
.
Well, well, well. When it smelled like destruction, the Jewish elite grabbed their heads. They banned layoffs, established discipline. They forgot about Marx, and began to exploit workers worse than capitalists. Sybarite Lavochkin, under the threat of having his factory taken away, created the La-5. He didn't use a single part that didn't exist before 41. Couldn't he have done it before?
And so it is with everything. It is Stalin's departure from Marxism that we owe all our successes. And when Khrushchev began to restore Lenin's principles, everything collapsed. If not for Samotlor oil, it would have collapsed a quarter of a century earlier...

[P]

In fact, the constitutional reform of 1936 buried the soviets as the main subject in the state; Khrushchev did not restore any Leninist principles.

[Maxim G]

Collapsed in 1991.
And when did Khrushev die?)

[P]

Can I find out where you got this with the quotes?

[lubesky]

The main scourge of GOSPLAN and GOSSNAB in consumer goods was the trade mafia and mass theft on the ground, starting from the real bases to the store and counter itself. Artificially "holding back" and dumping by pull - according to reports to the top gave rise to artificial shortages and incorrect planning based on "eternal demand". Naturally, with total planning there can be no talk of any FULL satisfaction of the need for goods, this is not a market.
So there is no need to talk about the IMPOSSIBILITY of planning in principle. GOSPLAN coped well, GOSNAB - with reservations about mass theft, especially in the 80s.
The key point in Marx is "fair DISTRIBUTION of wealth", and not satisfying the demand of the mass consumer.

[alexoff]

Well, the reason that it was possible to sell more expensively under the counter was the printing of unsecured rubles. It seemed like everyone was happy - wages were increased! But there was nothing to buy with it. People had more money than there were goods in the country, so they could pay more than the prices set by the state. And still, they put the money in savings books, since there was more money than necessary even for boiled jeans.

[kalibr]

Quote: lubesky

Mass theft on the ground

Soviet citizens, former Octoberists, Pioneers, Komsomol members and members of the CPSU, including!

[Revolver]

As they used to say with a grin: "If you couldn't get it from work, you stole it from your family."

[your1970]

Quote: Nagan

As they used to say with a grin: "If you couldn't get it from work, you stole it from your family."

"You're not a guest at work - steal at least a nail" ©

[your1970]

Quote: lubesky

So there is no need to talk about the IMPOSSIBILITY of planning in principle.

В principle at 70 years old you can run around to all your neighbors and satisfy them all - the fact This almost never happens.
That is why Gosplan dealt with things in an abstract way - in an airless space somewhere out there, in reality - and things didn't work out very well...

[P]

including. Control over the trading system through representatives elected by continuous elections and their recall could well resolve the issue at least at the regional level

[Conjurer]

market mechanisms... makes the economy more resilient to crises

It's funny. Like - look out the window and don't believe your eyes.
The market economy itself organically creates crises, because the volume of production in it is regulated by the fact of overproduction. It is strange not to know this.

[Stas157]

As I understand it, we need a mixed economy - a planned one with elements of a market and competition. And in the first decades of Soviet power there were attempts to go down this path. There were artels, cooperatives, collective farms... This is when an enterprise does not belong to some individual parasite-nouveau riche, but to all the workers of the same enterprise who work there. But then all this was curtailed.

[your1970]

Quote: Stas157

This is when an enterprise does not belong to some individual parasitic nouveau riche, but to all the employees of the same enterprise who work there. But then all this was closed down.

It collapsed on its own - when the Plan was created and they began to achieve its implementation by any means. What difference does it make who owns the cows - if the milk is given to the district without returning the butter?
What difference does it make after this what you call him - nouveau riche or chairman (especially if he fights with a revolver like M. Nagulnov) - if he is a peasant in any case with a bare bottom?

[P]

the problem is absolutely the same for socialism and capitalism. Dismissal of thousands of employees before the report to shareholders and hiring immediately after, saving on equipment upgrades, overexploitation, and so on. All this is the Plan and the efforts to achieve it, these are not exclusive things for socialism, modern monopoly capitalism is exactly the same

[P]

This is called socialism. A transitional form containing elements of the previous and target form of social relations.

[Pavel57]

The author speaks of the Khrushchev model of socialism. In the Stalin model, all the mentioned contradictions were resolved through consumer cooperation.

[Sergej1972]

Aren't you confusing industrial cooperation with consumer cooperation? By the way, Stalin practically never mentioned industrial cooperation in his works.

[Puper driver]

Under the planned economy, cities grew like mushrooms. It wasn't the sheep with fat wallets who entered universities, but the smart ones. People got sick less often, and you could go to the clinic any day, not by appointment in 2 weeks. And did you see homeless people and bums at the garbage dumps back then? In the 10th war in Afghanistan, they lost ~15 thousand. Now? And how did they get to this point? We can go on for a very long time. And it's not about the number of officials, but about their responsibility. Under Stalin, they moved vertically, not horizontally. And then there's the corruption, real estate in the West, kids, bills.

[kalibr]

Quote: PuperDriver

Under the planned economy, cities grew like mushrooms. It wasn't the sheep with fat wallets who entered universities, but the smart ones. People got sick less often, and you could go to the clinic any day, not by appointment in 2 weeks. And did you see homeless people and bums at the garbage dumps back then? In the 10th war in Afghanistan, they lost ~15 thousand. Now? And how did they get to this point? We can go on for a very long time. And it's not about the number of officials, but about their responsibility. Under Stalin, they moved vertically, not horizontally.

And where is this wonderful society, which its happy inhabitants were supposed to protect like the apple of their eye?

[your1970]

Quote: PuperDriver

It wasn't the sheep with fat wallets who entered universities, but those who were smart.

Boo ga ga..
"This is a gift, not a ram - and the ram goes to college" © 1970s

Quote: PuperDriver

Were sick less often, and went to the clinic any day

sure sure...
The unfortunate cocarboxylase - which is now everywhere - was brought to grandma from Vladivostok. There was nowhere closer...

Quote: PuperDriver

Under Stalin they moved vertically, not horizontally.

Read the case about 97% of defects in the production of 45 mm armor-piercing shells.
And then the tank crews were surprised - why did the German armor-piercing shells not penetrate but pierce the cans?
And about the 76 mm HE shells, how they were thrown at the factory without containers and they lay for 3 years under the rain and snow - a lesser-known story, but also yeah-yeah...
And all this without corruption and children in the west

[Sergej1972]

In provincial agricultural and pedagogical institutes, to be honest, there were quite a few sheep, although not the majority.

[Vladimirsky]

The weak point of the socialist economy is not its planned nature, but that it is socialist. As people used to say - "Everything around is collective farm, everything around is mine."
The contradiction is precisely that man is essentially a selfish creature, and no one will ever put public interests above personal ones. At the same time, work for the good of society is the main slogan of socialism.
And the distribution of the results of labor is to the chosen ones. Specialized stores, hospitals, studios, sanatoriums closed to ordinary mortals... the party nomenclature of the USSR times will not let you lie.
And yes, by the way, it is no coincidence that the founder of socialism, Thomas More, called it utopian.
All other reasons - low discipline, labor productivity, the sluggishness of a planned economy on the scale of a large country - are derivatives of the socialist system itself.
At the same time, under capitalism, unprofitable productions die, which determines the progress of industry. The task of the state is to create legislative conditions for the fair protection of workers' interests. And then - the market will sort it out.

[Stas157]

Quote: Vladimirsky

Low discipline, low labor productivity, and the sluggishness of a planned economy on the scale of a large country are derivatives of the socialist system itself.

How did the USSR become the second largest economy in the world if everything was so terrible?

Quote: Vladimirsky

And then the market will sort it out.

The market rules. The market will decide. We have already gone through this liberal formula. And we felt the results in full measure in the 90s on our own skin. We didn't like them.

[kalibr]

Quote: Stas157

How did the USSR become the second largest economy in the world if everything was so terrible?

Not all, by no means. But a lot. Otherwise, we would still be living in the USSR.

[Vladimirsky]

In China, the market rules too. Only there, if you know, the transition to the market was done smartly, unlike in the Russian Federation. What can I say, except for S. Korea, the market rules the planet. And in the 90s, we didn't have a transition to the market, but an attempt by the US to finish off the Russian Federation so that it would never recover.

[Stas157]

Quote: Vladimirsky

In China, the market is also in charge.

There, the Communist Party rules. The CPC vigilantly monitors any processes in the economy. And they tell Chinese billionaires: "This is not your money. This is our money! Because we allowed you to earn it."

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Stas157

There, the Communist Party rules. The CPC vigilantly monitors any processes in the economy. And they tell Chinese billionaires: "This is not your money. This is our money! Because we allowed you to earn it."

and if you look at the facts, then there are billionaires in China and they can afford the luxury of "This is not your money"... i.e. in fact, this is their money, despite the beautiful words...

[Vladimirsky]

Is the CCP watching closely? Is the CCP allowing it? The CCP is the authority there, simply establishing the right laws and trying to fight corruption. And the market is in charge and driving everything. If the CCP interfered in this process, everything would be sad.

[glock-17]

There was no market. There was a banal plundering of the Soviet legacy through various kinds of voucher schemes.

[your1970]

Quote: Stas157

How did the USSR become the second largest economy in the world if everything was so terrible?

And deflated in 30 years to the level of "Bush's legs"

[Wened75]

It didn't deflate (because it didn't do it by itself), but it was deliberately deflected. It's not that easy to build a powerful industry, somehow Mexico couldn't "inflate" itself, being a neighbor of the USA, and also 80% of the countries - members of the UN, and everywhere where they switched to socialist rails, there was growth of the economy and culture, until the Western countries or their satellites began to introduce sanctions or wars.

[your1970]

Quote: Wened75

It didn’t deflate (because it didn’t happen on its own), but was deliberately deflated.

If the leaders of the state PURPOSE-FILLED blown away the state - such a state is automatically unviable (which the USSR confirmed) because they have to do this no obstacles (competition, second party, king, etc.)

Quote: Wened75

somehow Mexico couldn't "puff itself up" while being neighbors with the USA,

- no country in the world located near the powers could do this. Away from them, easy, close - no.

[P]

where in what sources is it indicated that the interests of man are ignored? Distribution to the chosen ones is a problem that turned out to be a direct consequence of the destruction of the councils as a system of direct implementation of the interests of the working class, but this problem does not compare to what exists now. Utopian socialism is called that way precisely because it is not identical to scientific socialism. The tasks of the state are set by the ruling class, if the workers become the ruling class, they will own the state and will implement their interests directly. At least master the definitions.

[oleg Pesotsky]

They started talking about the inefficiency of the socialist economy, apparently they stole something somewhere again. Any system has its pros and cons. It's only a question of proportion. The pros of the USSR cover the cons like a bull covers a sheep. Let's also take into account that the socialist economy was in the process of formation and development. 70 years by historical standards is nothing. But it was precisely in 70 years that a superpower was created from a feudal landowner country on socialist principles and ideas, built on the principle - Everything in the name of man, everything for the good of man. And in general, after 30 years of restoration of capitalism on the territory of the former USSR, it is somehow stupid to compare what was and what was received.

[Vladimirsky]

This isn't even funny. "Everything for the good of man"? After the revolution, the Massandra Palace in Crimea was adapted for the treatment of tuberculosis patients on the wave of this slogan. And after the Great Patriotic War, it was already a closed sanatorium for members of the Central Committee of the CPSU and mere mortals got there only as servants. So there is no need for these cheap slogans, my ears are withering.

[lubesky]

Quote: Vladimirsky

And after the Great Patriotic War, it was already a closed sanatorium for members of the Central Committee of the CPSU and ordinary mortals were admitted there only as servants.

Hello! We have been building capitalism for 30 years, but even we, participants of the SVO, still can’t get into the best in terms of injuries and heavy shrapnel in Kurgan, what can we say about Afghans and Chechens? There is still no elevator in the Voronezh hospital, the wounded jump on crutches up and down the flight of stairs. Capitalism, however

[oleg Pesotsky]

But now I don't understand. I traveled a lot in the 00s and 10s. You drive around Abkhazia and see ruined sanatoriums and rest homes all around. You go to Yevpatoriya and it hurts to look at the empty buildings where people used to rest. About Berdyansk, it's a sad story. The reasons? Previously, everything that was destroyed was departmental. Plants, factories, enterprises were built and financed, now it's all gone bankrupt and there's no one to maintain it, and private owners have built beautiful things, but the price!!!! Not everyone can afford it. And the former pioneer camps? Only ruins remain. So this slogan was embodied in real deeds.

[your1970]

Quote: oleg Pesotsky

The advantages of the USSR outweigh the disadvantages like a bull outweighs a sheep.

The problem is that there are no people willing to go to hard labor or exile - like Lenin, Stalin, Kamo - and there are none in sight.
Everyone agrees that "bang, and the USSR itself fell from the sky", and to sit for 3 years - ugh, that's a lot, the government is torturing fighters for "freedom", yeah...

[oleg Pesotsky]

I agree here. Although in 17 the Bolsheviks also did not have any resources and few people suspected of their existence.

[Silhouette]

The author is, of course, a dilettante of the highest order. But I have always been interested in something else. Marx, Engels and Lenin described all the shortcomings of the capitalist mode of production well. But for some reason they did not say a word about the possible shortcomings of the communist mode of production they proposed. If they did not see a single one, then they are idealists and utopians, despite their proclaimed commitment to materialism. In the end, they offered everyone to accept their utopian ideas on faith, saying that it would be better this way. And the illiterate population of Russia fell for this scam, organizing a revolution.
But the truth turned out to be somewhere in the middle - capitalism with elements of a socialist economy or socialism with elements of a capitalist economy in everyday goods. In any case - state regulation of the market economy. Marx did not think of this. Too bad.
In fact, it was not only the USSR that failed to implement Marx's idea. No one could. Not a single country. Thus, practice confirmed the utopian nature of Marx's idea itself.

[P]

I suggest to master the sources a little more. "But the truth turned out to be in the middle - capitalism with elements of a socialist economy or socialism with elements of a capitalist economy in consumer goods." - this is quite described and is called...... socialism) The choice of specific limits for work is a completely scientific materialistic approach. Maybe the choice of the name of the work "Capital" should suggest what the work is about?)

[Silhouette]

Quote: Pandemic

it is well described and called... socialism)

Have you heard about convergence? ....No?...But it exists!

[Oldrover]

The laws of economics are as merciless as the laws of physics, whether planned or market, but both need a "market" for growth. For example, let's take industrialization, the country invested colossal resources, invited Western specialists who built factories, trained engineers, in general received relatively advanced technology, but after five years the technology was already outdated, after ten it requires modernization, and after 20 it requires complete replacement.
You can't invest millions of man-hours and tons of money, and then invest again in 10 years without recouping the first investment. For example, the USSR, not because life was good, began to copy Western microelectronics, because its own development would not have recouped the resources expended, when at the same time the West was already moving to the next generation.

[P]

the laws are merciless, yes. They were used quite well EXACTLY as you say. NEP - collectivization - industrialization were carried out exactly according to these laws, the return on investment of the previous stage was directed to the next one

[Workyaga]

great article, but forgot to mention feedback, because any improvement that will be in demand on the market is the result of analyzing the information received from the user, buyer...
At our plant, feedback is accepted with great difficulty and is often translated into personalities. People are motivated, interested, know, can, can, but it is very difficult, almost impossible, to convey information to the leaders. And even if you prove it, they will send you your own idea and set a deadline, without providing anything - neither time nor resources.

[Colleague]

The main problem of the USSR economy was the party apparatus, which interfered with all economic affairs from the government and ministries to the State Planning Committee and city authorities. At the same time, the created system of party power duplicated the executive power and secretly managed it without risking anything, since it did not bear any responsibility.
The economy, if it was planned and moved forward, then it was in defiance of the party apparatus, since after Khrushchev’s “thaw” outright saboteurs and careerists penetrated the highest authorities.
While Kosygin was alive, everything depended on him, because he knew how to bypass party bans. But he was still not allowed to carry out large-scale reforms (see Kosygin reforms). After his death, the economy still "turned the gears" by inertia, but gradually began to dry up and crumble. During the broadcast of Kosygin's funeral, my dad, sitting in front of the TV, said that now everything was completely screwed...
And what is written in the article is complete nonsense, in which the author threw everything together without going into detail. It looks very much like articles from the 90s...

[P]

the system of councils could have solved the problem, but the councils were effectively destroyed as a serious political force in 1936 and earlier, when the councils were disarmed. Who or what could have stopped a system where lower councils elect representatives to higher ones (up to the very top, without the Supreme Council of the 1936 model, which in fact was already a bourgeois parliament), recall them in one day, are not divided into branches, and possess infantry weapons at all levels (i.e. are capable of implementing any decision by force)?

[Colleague]

There was no "system of councils", but only hurrah-screamers who had not yet cooled down from their revolutionary views, who had neither the competence to govern the country nor the desire. If Stalin had not removed them in the 30s (repressed them), the country would have collapsed before 41, before the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.

[P]

the system of councils was quite possible, if there was nothing, who had to be removed and repressed? Furthermore, the system is really much more demanding of the quality of personnel at all levels, but history does not stand still, and alternatives to the councils (the bourgeois parliament, also known as the Supreme Council) similarly suffered from problems with personnel

[Bayun]

Now there is no problem to create an AI-Gosplan on supercomputers, which will calculate ALL natural "equivalents" between goods, right down to the correlation of a "shoe nail" with a "grain of pearl barley". And it will also rigidly build annual-decade-century trends taking into account everything from demography to climate fluctuations. What will have to be sacrificed? The usurious banking system - it is NOT NEEDED! The RCC on the mechanism of electronic "goscoin" is enough. Also, speculative - essentially - trade-logistics is leaving, giving way to a SINGLE fair DISTRIBUTION system of universal prosperity.

How many times better will the WORKER live at the current level? 10 times - guaranteed.

But at the same time, the "show-offs", "oligarchs" and all sorts of friends and relatives in "fat" positions will disappear. It will become very problematic to parasitize on the System.

PS: Today, at the "feeding trough" they "spill" (there should be a stronger word here) many times more than leaked out of the "leaky" planned system of the USSR.

[your1970]

Quote: Bayun

Now there is no problem to create an AI-Gosplan on supercomputers, which will calculate ALL natural "equivalents" between goods, right down to the correlation of a "shoe nail" with a "grain of pearl barley".

It was precisely the attempt to calculate everything that killed the USSR economy.
In Kushka, the Buran snowmobiles were parked as planned - where winter lasts for a month and a half, and further north, because of them, men waited in line for 3 years.
How else? All Republics - according to deficit....

Quote: Bayun

.S.: Today, at the “feeding trough” they “spill” (there should be a stronger word here) many times more than was leaking out of the “leaky” planned system of the USSR.

For 30 (!!!) years metalworkers have been collecting metal in our fields and it is not ending yet. This means that some Azovstal has been working for decades for waste, for the garbage dump and the ravine

[P]

all these things have been invented and applied long ago, AI is not needed. from the moment of introduction of a single plan, without taking into account other measures, goods in branded packaging on the store shelf will become approximately twice cheaper for workers, such is the share of advertising, promotion, brand, and so on

[Cartographer]

The very denial of private property and private companies was a huge mistake of the USSR

[P]

there was no denial. The collective farm is a private company

[Igorash]

The problem is that man descended from a beast.. they hint at a monkey.. But in essence man remains a beast.. Greed, avarice, desire to command, selfishness... etc. All vices are inherent in him... And the USSR... back in the 70s the state had to introduce private property and develop small and medium businesses, leaving for itself strategic industries.. And there was no need to be soft-hearted with those who put "spokes in our wheels"... We had to respond harshly and mercilessly... Two pillars - which could solve many problems... But alas.. Moscow betrayed.. as it has done more than once....

[P]

Socialism was never designed for angels, read books.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Reklastik

- Has the economy become more efficient?

How old are you? Every autumn, the whole country dropped everything and went to pick potatoes. Students, high school students with their teachers. Soldiers, workers. They picked them, dumped them in vegetable storage facilities, then these potatoes were delivered to stores, no one bought them there, rotten and broken, and EVERY week, two cars drove up to EVERY store. They loaded completely rotten potatoes into one, and unloaded the next batch from the other.
And the people ate potatoes grown either on their own plots or bought at the market. And so EVERY YEAR!
What was the cost effectiveness of this activity?
This is just one example.

[your1970]

Quote: Grossvater

Every autumn, the whole country dropped everything and went to pick potatoes. Students, high school students with their teachers. Soldiers, workers.

it is you bacchanalia I've never seen it with cotton. Potatoes against its background - ugh...

[strannik1985]

And the people ate potatoes grown either on their own plots or bought at the market. And so EVERY YEAR!

We open the statistical collection on agriculture, section on the structure of production of the main types of agricultural products by categories of farms. 2015, potatoes, households - 70,3%, agricultural organizations - 18,6%, farmers - 11,4%, 2022 - 61,4/23,0/15,6% respectively.

[P]

Apparently, you have never tried to understand how trade works. Potatoes from the same bases were sold at the market, they just sold normal ones at the market, and rotten ones were taken to stores. If the tools of a planned economy are used to extract capitalist profits in the interests of capital (and in the USSR it was just there, ready-made capitalists, fused with the party apparatus and crime, and tore the USSR apart), then SUDDENLY the economy begins to work for the capitalist

[Grossvater]

Quote: Igorash

to him... And the USSR... back in the 70s the state had to introduce private property and develop small and medium businesses, while reserving strategic industries for itself

Yes!

[Ponimatel]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

The weak point of the Soviet planned economy was the excessive number of officials, that is, bureaucracy.

Now there are more officials and the economy is unplanned (senseless).

[Cybersaurus]

On Zapreshtube (and possibly analogues) there is a video by economist Alexey Safronov, who studied in detail the planned economy at all stages of the USSR. He talks in detail about how the planned economy was formed in a particular period, what problems and shortcomings there were, what solutions there were and what was ultimately chosen, how it all fell apart later and how it can be done better based on modern technologies. In short, the USSR did not fall apart because of the planned economy, but precisely because it became less planned, and modern international corporations and the largest retail chains like Auchan, X5, Walmart, etc. have long ceased to provide any competition between manufacturers, but simply study the needs and behavior of buyers, and then decide who will produce what and what in what quantities to sell to consumers. Add to this the Internet of Things and it will be possible to track the entire life cycle of any thing from production to the trash, and, based on statistical data, plan all processes automatically without bureaucracy and other nonsense. And by the way, there were far fewer officials in the USSR than there are now, despite the fact that they did not have all the opportunities that modern computers provide. They were simply busy with work, and not sending tons of papers and simulating activity.

[gusev_sa]

This video is complete nonsense. The author doesn't know Marxism, he heard the bell, but doesn't know where it is.

[DrRey]

Under Stalin, there was a gradual process of transferring small and sometimes medium-sized enterprises to market rails, there was even an article about it. So, a purely planned economy was not considered a panacea in the USSR at the time. Success is in symbiosis. Meeting the basic needs of Soviet citizens with a mass product, and their desires with individual ones.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

The weak point of the Soviet planned economy was the excessive number of officials, i.e. bureaucracy. This deprived the planned economy of flexibility in decision-making.

Compared to - who? In fact, there were many times fewer officials in the USSR (per 1 million population) than in Germany, France or Japan. If you count the bureaucrats who work in large corporations - they are the same bureaucrats.
All this is nonsense, secondary in importance. Planning was a forced measure, the USSR, contrary to stereotypes, almost always existed in conditions of limited resources. After all, we had to make plywood fighters in WWII.
Those industries that had good resource provision, such as the military-industrial complex and the fuel and energy complex, developed quite successfully, despite the notorious bureaucracy and “inflexibility”.

[Illanatol]

Quote: your1970

For 30 (!!!) years metalworkers have been collecting metal in our fields and it is not ending yet. This means that some Azovstal has been working for decades for waste, for the garbage dump and the ravine

Nonsense. The metal they collect is the one that was left after the collapse of industry in the early 90s, when entire factories and plants were turned into scrap metal thanks to "effective managers".
And in Soviet times, pioneers collected scrap metal and metal recycling in the USSR was better than in many Western countries.
As for mismanagement... do you know how much metal rusts in depleted wells that are left after shale oil production in the US? Such wells produce not 20-25 years, as in conventional fields, but only 3-4 years. The equipment (pumps, pipes, etc.) hardly wears out during this period, but they just abandon it: dismantling it is unprofitable. So they just abandon it. That's how they work for the trash THERE. Well, oil and gas companies are not in the red, they pass the costs on to the end consumer. That's why shale oil and gas are much more expensive than conventional ones...

And millions of produced cars remain unsold and gradually rot. But it is more profitable for manufacturers to let them rot, but keep the prices down.

In fact, the modern Western economy is the most inefficient in terms of resource costs. It's just that until recently the West had an abundance of resources and these resources were cheaper for the West than for the USSR. The French developed their nuclear energy industry at the expense of free African uranium. Now that the free ride is over, hard times will begin for this sector of the French economy...

[Andrey A]

Until the end of Stalin's rule, the Soviet economy developed many times faster than the Western one and everything was OK with flexibility. In fact, by 1980, industrial production in the USSR had grown more than 150 times compared to pre-revolutionary Russia. The world had never seen such rates, the country turned from a backward agrarian country into one of the superpowers: in the economy, science, technology, military might, etc. Crisis moments in the economy began in the 80s.

[Dedrusav]

And who is the author of this illiterate opus? Did Biden really express his thoughts?!

[AS552000]

For the sake of this damn idea, many Russian people were killed, including my great-grandfather - a gendarme, in Moscow, on Krasnaya Presnya. As a result, there were no rich people at all, and the poor became beggars. The country has weakened significantly, is on the verge of degeneration and death. Because of crazy dreamers.

[Glagol1]

The USSR's neighbors in the socialist camp in Europe, primarily Yugoslavia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, actively promoted ideas, the implementation of which would build Developed Socialism. Kosygin was partly inclined to this. The idea is simple: the production of means of production, heavy industry, mining, fundamental science, media, education, energy and fuel - can only be in state ownership, i.e. belong to all the people. Catering, the service sector, agriculture, light industry, tourism, procurement, etc. - can be in any ownership, on the basis of competition. Base - superstructure.
If this had been implemented, we would now be living in a completely different reality. But the stubborn old men from the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee did not let this pass; in Europe we had 1956, 1968, 1980 and 1989, and then it went boom here too. Now we live better than in the USSR, but we could live and work even better if this idea had been implemented. And without the huge bloodshed that took place and is taking place…

[odisey3000]

The issue is not the planned economy, but the fact that the country's leadership itself had a poor idea of ​​where we should go and what path to take. We all look at China and there is no need to invent anything new.

[DO]

I read the comments. Most commentators are pulling the owl to their preferred side of the globe.
Economic management is a science, it is an art. And centralized management and market mechanisms are just two different instruments of economic management.
The basic tendencies of normal management are straightforward.
For the production of consumer goods, food products and their distribution, market feedback must prevail, because only they automatically take into account the difficult to predict demand of the population, on the basis of which both industry and trade are built.
But large infrastructure projects, large industrial startups with long payback periods, by definition, cannot do without centralized concentration of capital, and accordingly without centralized planning. Examples are the construction of roads, bridges and other infrastructure, the organization of the development and production of aircraft, motor transport, the creation and modernization of the army, the production of weapons, the development of modern machines for the semiconductor industry, etc.
The extent to which the managers of any country use the instruments of centralized planning and the market in a manner that is adequate to the surrounding conditions can be judged by the final result.
In peacetime, this result is the standard of living of the population, the development of technology, art and other attributes of civilization, in comparison with other countries, and, accordingly, the level of political influence of the country in the world.
In wartime, these are the country’s military victories and, accordingly, the level of its political influence in the world.
For example, the USSR, with its monopoly state capitalism and mobilization economy, became the main winner in WWII, but, without quickly rebuilding its economy for peace, ingloriously ended its existence in the peaceful 90s.