Comments by "DasBubba" (@dasbubba841) on "Explaining The Economy of The Soviet Union (Responding to Economics Explained)" video.

Romania used it's good relations with the West to obtain credit to purchase consumer goods and build big vanity projects during the '70s. This could also be seen in Poland and Hungary too. Ceausescu then realized that it was unsustainable and enacted harsh austerity measures (while also building up a giant cult of personality).
6
@stefangherman8408 Yeah, Romania felt the collapse of socialism pretty hard. However, much of the Romanian Communist Party was very crooked, and the fall of Ceausescu didn't mean that they would fall in turn. They just rebranded themselves as democratic and plundered Romania in the aftermath.
5
And yet, the USSR no longer exists. I wonder why that is...
3
@brandonpersaud5634 Strawman? Dude, the USSR is gone. If it was a regime that worked (not saying perfectly), it would still be around. The US, for all its faults, still exists.
3
@ThePainkillerDemon I would agree. The Soviet Party system led to factional infighting, and led to the promotion of people based on connections and ability to maneuver the system, rather than skilled technocrats. In fact, the Soviet adherence to doctrine hampered the adoption of new technology in some areas. And yes, the crushing of the Prague Spring was a disaster. It and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution were really what signed the delayed death warrant of the USSR. It was no longer considered with the worker, rather just an empire under a different name.
3
The best system would ultimately be somewhere in the middle. The Nordic model, for example, works pretty well. A combination of the best of both worlds. Too many people though, see the failings of a capitalist economy as proof that a socialist economy works.
3
@calebr7199 I never said socialism doesn't work. I just think using the Soviet Union as an example of socialism working well is not very smart, as the USSR collapsed. A better example would perhaps be the Nordic countries, who combine market economies with strong social programs. Or perhaps even the Persian Gulf states.
2
Thank you. Too many people shilling for the USSR here, when it was little more than oligarchic empire. The inefficencies of the centrally planned economy meant that, while the USSR could build an impressive nuclear weapons arsenal and put a man into space, it could not even manufacture a decent bra. Heavy industry and the armed forces were prioritized over consumer goods and consumer technology. Asianometry does a good job explaining how the USSR fell behind in computer technology, which is a good example of the overall inefficiency caused by the politics of the party. Ultimately, what few people here seem to understand, is that if the Soviet model worked and was so amazing, the USSR would still be around. Instead, it stagnated and collapsed. And as soon as the threat of Soviet military intervention was off the necks of Eastern Europeans, they overthrew their communist governments.
2
They are.
1
@xbox1286 But what spurred the USSR to try such reforms? If everything was going peachy keen, then such reforms would have been unnecessary. The USSR of the late 1980s was stagnating, and falling further behind the West in economic output. It was a miserable place to live, with shortages and breadlines.
1
@xbox1286 Ah, Khrushchev's reforms. Yeah, those were pretty botched. His political support had depended on them being successful, but when they failed, he lost power. Also created an environmental disaster in Central Asia too.
1
@howenator Soo, the USSR's collapse was caused by a failure in the model of its governance, principally a party dominated government that was beset by factional infighting that had more to do with politics and ideology disputes than the actual running of the country. Still, it is a bit strange that when the USSR withdrew it's troops from the Eastern Bloc, they immediately overthrew their communist governments. Or how there had to be a concrete wall surrounding Berlin, with armed guards that shot anyone trying to cross the wall. Or how the USSR brutally put down the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and crushed the reformist government in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
1
Capitalism ideally works under the supply and demand model. Labor is apart of that model. More labor, more supply and therefore lower cost.
1
The Soviet Union is a bad example for socialism, and should be seen as a what to avoid.
1
@howenator Stalin was a thug who cared little for ideology beyond maintaining his own power. Lenin's "vanguard" model allowed an unassailable "party" to dominate the politics of the country, and whoever could dominate that party would achieve total control over the country. And the Soviet Union stopped being about workers when the Krondstadt uprising was put down with machine guns and bayonets.
1
@calebr7199 The USSR was inflexible, and backwards. The CPSU had become a bloated behemoth, full of factional infighting and blind adherence to whatever was party doctrine. It's ironic that you mention computerization since the USSR lagged behind the West in computerization from the beginning, and only lagged more as time went on. They eventually had to resort to copying Western technology. The Politburo prioritized heavy industry and the military to the expense of all others. Especially prestige projects, like the space program. This is why while the USSR built a potent nuclear weapons program and could send a man into space, it could not manufacture a decent bra. The key objective should always be the improvement of the lives of the common folk, the working class, the backbone of a nation. I'd rather be a working class citizen in Norway, rather than the USSR. In the USSR, you could not strike. You could not express dissent. For a party that was supposedly concerned about the working proletariat, the CPSU was full of intellectuals and bureaucrats.
1
No, the Soviet idea was to "meet quotas" and nothing else. It was the reason why there were breadlines and shortages, and why the Soviet Union could even produce a proper bra (and had to import them from Czechoslovakia).
1
@marcelthoma8890 East Germany was better off than a lot of the Eastern Bloc. Still behind the West, and especially West Germany, but ahead of places like Romania and even the USSR itself. However, a lot of the state budget was eaten up by heavy industry and especially the Volksarmee and Stasi.
1
@marcelthoma8890 That is fair, I think I overemphasized the traditional Communist focus on heavy industry. And yeah, the USSR plundered East Germany after the war. Also, combined with the fact that most German industry was in the Ruhr valley (soon to become West Germany), East Germany had a rough start. It's pretty amazing that they would come to lead the Eastern Bloc in living standards.
1
Ah yes, the Soviet Union was an awesome place! That must be why it collapsed, right?
1
@octagonprime1 Because workers are easily replaceable because of mass immigration, population growth, and de-industrialization caused by outsourcing and automation.
1
Supply and demand. You quit, someone replaces you.
1
@felixii4931 Uh, yeah, it does. Of course, rather simplistic, but that's the basic premise. Many workers, the value of your labor is lower. Fewer workers, you're value goes up. Much demand for work (big mega project or something), your value goes up. Lower demand for work (recession), your value goes down. You can, of course, tilt the scale a bit, but it's just simple economics. Fool.
1