I thought you would have like 2 million subscribers until I looked at the number and realised you only had around 120. I hope you get more subscribes because you have very good content.

@Taylor_5724

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah ive been recomended his stuff quite a bit. I think I'm gonna sub

@CasualScholar

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, I really appreciate it! Glad you enjoyed the video

@JoseRodriguez-pn8yj

2 жыл бұрын

No. It’s not good content, it’s sorely lacking in sociological analysis, namely conflict theory, but that would debunk the entire premise that the Soviet Union had a communist mode of production

@geediali9941

2 жыл бұрын

@@JoseRodriguez-pn8yj I’m pretty lacking in that area, do you think you can explain it? Sounds interesting.

@JoseRodriguez-pn8yj

2 жыл бұрын

@@geediali9941 Would you like a long winded explanation, an severe oversimplification that doesn’t do the concept justice, or would you like to have it explained by Crash Course, yes THAT crash course, in 10 minutes. The video is titled “Sociology #6 Conflict Theory”. If you want my explanation I already warned you I’ll oversimplify it drastically.

"in capitalism, employers will reward you for working longer or harder" hahahahahaha good one.

@KawabangaChel

Жыл бұрын

Under capitalism employers will reward you for how difficult it is to replace you

@user-qt1cp1be3u

Жыл бұрын

@@KawabangaChel English Wikipedia address "Income inequality in the United States" [120] Between 1983 and 2007, the top 5 percent saw their debt fall from 80 cents for every dollar of income to 65 cents, while the bottom 95 percent saw their debt rise from 60 cents for every dollar of income to $1.40.[118]

@KawabangaChel

Жыл бұрын

@@user-qt1cp1be3u как это противоречит мною сказанному?

@KawabangaChel

Жыл бұрын

@@user-qt1cp1be3u Колтунов Серёга

@Archedgar

Жыл бұрын

@@user-qt1cp1be3u "income inequality" ? you mean *MERIT* ? GTFO with your pro-slavery BS, leftist.

Babe it's 2am. Time to watch a half-hour long documentary

@CasualScholar

2 жыл бұрын

Oh Boy! 2am!

@mattperry6612

Жыл бұрын

Haha just popped this on, it's currently2am 😂

@timkenda8203

Жыл бұрын

Story of my life

@HaloUppercut

Жыл бұрын

12.52am here lol

@farrajabd8640

Жыл бұрын

Its 2:44 AM for me

A story my grandfather told me about shopping in Soviet Russia: If you walk down the street and see people queuing up outside a store, you just get in line. By the time you reach the front, you'll find out what they're selling - if it's something you don't need right now or doesn't fit, trade it to your neighbor later!

@mustang1912

Жыл бұрын

Communism is a market economy and Ford ran the soviet car industry

@kensanity178

Жыл бұрын

Here's what my dad told me about shopping in Russia: you stand in one line to pay for the bread, you stand in another line to get the bread. By the time you get to the front of the line, they are out of bread. You stand in another line to get your money back.

@capitaldeecolon4819

Жыл бұрын

This sounds similar to what the anarchist Alexander Berkman in his book The Bolshevik Myth experienced when he visited Soviet Russia.

@Rampart.X

Жыл бұрын

Under communism, people queue for bread. Under capitalism, people queue for iPhones.

@HansWurst-lg1ws

Жыл бұрын

My grandfather living in northern soviet Kazakhstan told me that you usually want to get in line early (like 4am) otherwise meats and milk will be gone by sunrise if you live in more rural parts where all surrounding villages gather for food distribution.

The general joke in the Eastern Block was "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us".

@AlexanderTheBloodraven

Ай бұрын

Lol

@winteryyyyyy

18 күн бұрын

honestly that's the general joke in a lot of american jobs currently too lmao

@AnhNguyen-hn9vj

11 күн бұрын

Welcome to the real world. People are lying all the time. Lol

@bjorntorlarsson

6 күн бұрын

This one is from Scandinavia. A local journalist got a guided tour in a factory by a foreman and was very impressed. Asked: "- How many work here?" "- About half of them."

Also interesting is how people in USSR used to steal from their employers. We used to have saying in Slovakia “Who is not stealing is stealing from his family”. My grandpa built a whole tractor from parts he got this way lol

@Kashchey1

Жыл бұрын

My parents are from Poland, and they told me the same about life under communism. "If you're not stealing from your workplace, you're stealing from your family" XD Greetings from Australia my friend!

@Kovione996

Жыл бұрын

@@Kashchey1 hahah I imagine all the USSR countries were the same. greetings kamarat

@Archedgar

Жыл бұрын

Well yeah, socialism is basically slavery and slaves only work hard enough to not get in trouble. Makes sense that theft was common.

@TheHiHiPop

Жыл бұрын

wtf i live in germany and i am stealing from my employer in this very second. its the natural thing to do

@fenixchief7

Жыл бұрын

Was that not the entire point of communism? That the workers own the wealth? Seems stupid not to take and use whats supposedly yours.

That joke: 'what weighs 20 tons, guzzles diesel, belches clouds of steam and smoke, makes a ferocious noise, takes a team of 10 engineers and mechanics on round the clock shifts to maintain, and cuts an apple into 3 pieces?' - A Soviet machine designed to cut an apple into 4 pieces.

@user-pc7xo6pb7k

Жыл бұрын

you just made that up

@talhaamjad682

Жыл бұрын

It's from Chernobyl

@spaceflight1019

Жыл бұрын

Hey, they figured out how to send things into space first, so credit is earned.

@AsmodeusT

Жыл бұрын

@spaceflight101 True, but I would imagine that (in the same way it did for the west) it had something to do with the German rocket scientists they had working for them after the war.

@spaceflight1019

Жыл бұрын

@@AsmodeusT True. As my late father wryly observed, "their Nazi scientists are better than our Nazi scientists."

What to take away here: No matter what system is in place, if you allow crooks to control it, the people will suffer.

@lorenz4787

9 ай бұрын

No, Communism is just bad in terms of allocation of the resources and it's inherently very inefficient. In a free market once you recognise crooks you don't buy things from them anymore.

@ghosty0612

8 ай бұрын

And some systems are worse than others even if booth have the same crooks. But if you feel happy to simplify everything into a simple answer to pretend to be smart keep on doing you...

@almalayuwiyyah2512

8 ай бұрын

@@ghosty0612 but it ultimately come to individual leader itself. system that are better than other exist to create a good leader but sometime even a good system they will crooks up there by complete accident that ruin it.

@SP1D3R69

8 ай бұрын

Honestly, a crooked capitalist country works. A crooked socialist country gets obliterated.

@g1ld

6 ай бұрын

My take: although the tzar did not encourage industrial development and there were some problems, he offered better living conditions than his communist successors who saw people as mere disposable tools for their dystopian goals.

This is a tiny side note to a really excellent presentation. While the 'Romanovs' held the throne for 300 years, they were not blood-related. This was not a family in the Patri-lineal sense, but rather members of the Romanov clan who happened to bull their way onto the throne. The bloodline had been broken several times since Peter the Great. I don't think the Nicholas clan held it for even a hundred years.

@YamnayaSintash

10 ай бұрын

It died with the rurikids

@nicklevinson1755

9 ай бұрын

average western comprehension of Russian history

@matthewestrada5217

8 ай бұрын

The Romanovs were related to the German and English crown

@princecharming4708

7 ай бұрын

Aren't the modern day royals in Britain british I don't think so

@irynahepburn2777

6 ай бұрын

All true but Peter was not great. And they were mostly German.

If you want to really understand how crazy Soviet economy was, consider this. My grandfather used to be an engineer at a factory and they had two assembly lines that all they did was when there was no work to be done one line would assemble a tractor frame and then the other line would disassemble it. And they'd just keep cycling through 3 frames worth of parts over and over untill more work came in and those workers became needed for an actual work. Or how every buhgalteria (financing department? Don't know how to call it in English) would have 10-20 people working there when all it needs was ~5 people so everyone would just do actual work for an hour or two and spend the rest of the day drinking tea and gossiping about love life of people from other departments.

@nickb3164

2 жыл бұрын

shit like that happens all the time in capitalist countries too lol

@andylei3144

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickb3164 the second part is definitely true, there are excessive amount of workers in a certain field. But I doubt the first part is true for capitalist countries. There's no corporate that will allow workers to cycle assembly and disassembly. It will only happen to socialist countries because they put meeting quotas before production. I'm from mainland China, so I'm kinda familiar with these stuff lol

@pedroaugusto656

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like a good deal to me. If the pay was good, I would have no problem working for a hour and then doing fuck-all for 2.

@andylei3144

2 жыл бұрын

@@pedroaugusto656 It does sounds like a great plan, It's what had us Chinese fooled. Then came the great leap forward, and that's when we know we chose the wrong clan, it's too late then. Lol

@nelsonchinasamy9857

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickb3164 tell me which one, I don't mind working there too. I don't think there is any business in any Capitalist country that will allow that type of nonsense.

One minor point i think should be added here, is that a lot of the industrialization of the USSR came from other countries, namely the western capitalist countries. They didnt have the know-how nor the engineers at the time to expand their industrialization as almost everyone was stuck working at a farm, so what they did was they sold off wheat and other food stuffs which they did have, and spend that money on hiring people from the capitalist countries that had the know-how the engineers etc etc, so they could grow their economy for them. There is a very interesting historical examination of this but i cant for the life of me remember by whom, he examined the USSR's growing industrialization and how well it was linked with hiring people from other countries. And nearly all of their expanding economy at the start came from hiring people from capitalist countries, but it slowly changed over time as they gained the know-how and grew their numbers of engineers.

@CasualScholar

2 жыл бұрын

Great Point! I read a great biography on one of those foreign engineers, it was called "behind the Urals" by John Scott. I definitely agree that I should have touched on this subject, therefore Ill pin your comment so that other people can also know this. Thanks for the Great insight and feedback!

@dr.floridaman4805

2 жыл бұрын

Holodomor was the consequences of collective farming and mass execution of kulaks. Marxism is death

@0g0mogosepikworld31

2 жыл бұрын

@@dr.floridaman4805 that sounds a bit irrelevant

@DanHalper

2 жыл бұрын

Anthony Sutton?

@GeoffreyPicketts

2 жыл бұрын

@@dr.floridaman4805 Where does Marx tout the joys of forced collectivization? Actually he complains specifically about this sort of thing as it transpired in W Europe, completely obliterating the peasant population through famine and sweatshop labour in the 17-1800s. Marxism as a theory does not begin until capitalist development is achieved. Which, we know, the Soviet Union never had.

I wonder what role the arms race played in the economic weakening -- and eventual collapse -- of the USSR. I heard that as spending in the US and USSR on weaponry increased, the Soviets had a hard time keeping up, and this expenditure deprived other sectors of the Soviet economy of needed resources.

@colemantrebor1610

10 ай бұрын

It’s estimated that at it’s highest 40% if the Soviet economy was contributed by military industry.

@robertsansone1680

10 ай бұрын

At the beginning of this video, and if I heard it correctly, it was said that the USSR had the worlds second largest economy. ??? Germany & Japan, along with other Democratic countries, had much larger economies than the USSR. I remember an estimate from the Nineteen Seventies, (The Soviets never released their economic statistics) that the economy of the USSR equaled that of about Italy. In other words, The USSR was a military superpower, it was never an economic superpower. As for the Arms Race, of course the citizens of the USSR had a much lower standard of living than the people of the West. When a country spends around fourty percent of their GDP on weapons, and their economy is third rate, their people stand in bread lines and have communal bathrooms. The people of Italy had much higher living standards because they didn't spend a almost half of their income on weapons.

@kajetanscholz1991

10 ай бұрын

​@@robertsansone1680 the soviets never got to concentrate on life improvement since they were constantly forced into spending everything for their military. First in the civil war, then to defend themselves from the Nazis, and then they had to keep up with the other global superpower, the USA.

@robertsansone1680

10 ай бұрын

@@kajetanscholz1991 And if they weren't spending tremendous sums of money supporting "Socialist" countries all around the world, their people would have had a much higher standard of living.

@cactusman1771

10 ай бұрын

@@kajetanscholz1991 The soviet's didn't have to keep up with the US and maintain a superpower status. Britain and France relinquished their superpower status to save their economies after ww2. They could have poured money to maintain their status risking economic collapse. Instead they fixed their economies and maintained a major power status instead.

The roaring 20s being followed by the Depression and WW2 is the epitome of "pride cometh before the fall"

@dennisweidner288

Жыл бұрын

@antonkrieg3708 The roaring 20s had nothing to do with "pride".

@slow_goon73

Жыл бұрын

Read Rothbard's book on the American Depression. It explains boom bust cycles in greater detail that "They got greedy and it got bad."

@Huskerguy316

Ай бұрын

Chews come before the fall

@AEIOU05

Ай бұрын

Outside the US most people didn’t experience the roaring twenties. Central Europe still heavily suffered from the consequences of the war and economic turmoil. In Austria you had to spend 20000 Kronen for one beer and half a loaf of bread in 1922

@BrianFace182

Ай бұрын

@@slow_goon73 capitalists got greedy? Who'd have thunk it eh?!

I think in videos like these it is very important to emphasize that rulers who tried to reform the feudal system were often assassinated. People who live in comfortable modern-day societies and judge people of the past have no clue how difficult it was to change even the most obvious societal injustices. For most of history, a reformist ruler was literally putting his life on the line

@sandran17

2 жыл бұрын

Thats depressing

@troythompson2

2 жыл бұрын

@@sandran17 indeed

@AlbertBasedman

2 жыл бұрын

Which rulers?

@chadspaceman1014

2 жыл бұрын

@@AlbertBasedman dentist Speer

@AlbertBasedman

2 жыл бұрын

@@chadspaceman1014 I had nothing to do with it, I swear. I'm an architect.

In 1976 my company sold aerospace test equipment to the USSR. I spent 2 weeks there setting it up. It was unbelievable watching them work. Two men installed 2 marble tiles a day, often taking them down again next day. The restaurant had 2 waiters working and 10 sitting on a bench in the kitchen. The central planners scheduled concrete work so they did it at -10 C knowing it wouldn't set. The inefficiency drove me nuts.

@favoritemustard3542

Жыл бұрын

Imagine living in a building built with the same ethic - I couldn't. I flew a short flight in country & wanted to kiss the ground after deplaning...

@thekingofkingsrp

Жыл бұрын

That's crazy brother, would have drove me nuts also.

@Steve.._.

Жыл бұрын

@@favoritemustard3542 you say you couldn’t, But then you had the balls to get on their airplanes? Lmao

@favoritemustard3542

Жыл бұрын

@@Steve.._. hey - they served beer! No snack... Picture the Backrooms but a plane full of people. Yellow everything with mismatched upholstery, indeterminate carpets, but no (visible) gremlins. Had to get to the Square somehow amirite

@Dr-Alexander-The-Great

Жыл бұрын

Read how the Chernobyl power plant was built. Concrete was poured wrong, parts ordered for the plant were unusable. Bryukhanov who was in charge of the construction tried to quit, because of all the mismanagement

"Who is not stealing is stealing from his family" was something South and Western Slavs heard many times back in the day.

@neilreynolds3858

11 ай бұрын

And "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." That was a popular one in the USSR.

@rcyadav9746

Күн бұрын

It's love I can't steal from u utopia joint family

I just interviewed a gentleman who lived in old Soviet Union. He had a master degree in engineering. Once he graduated he was assigned to become a forklift driver in a factory. It’s pretty obvious why they failed lol

@tobene

Жыл бұрын

I know a guy with a PhD in Engineering, he leads a team of other engineers. All this team does is to make the "Order tracking" of an online shopping site a bit more accurate. Their goal is increase the accuracy of the estimated delivery time from ~1hour to ~10minutes. Capitalism has a different way of wasting talent, but talent is still being wasted. Just think of the thousands of well educated people working in consulting or finance

@philldonn705

Жыл бұрын

I've heard about this practice throughout western Europe even nowadays. The idea is for the employee to recognize and appreaciate the job of his collegues bellow his level of skill. He gets promoted to higher level, like every other day or so, until he gets the position for which he applied for.

@orangemanbad

Жыл бұрын

@@philldonn705 this wasn’t that. He was a forklift driver for 15 years. But even what you’re describing isn’t ideal but not a terrible idea. I worked at a company once that made all professional employees spend 3-6 months in their plants so they understood the operation which I thought was a good idea.

@joeruiz4010

10 ай бұрын

"Assigned" that Job. Simply to summarize it; Communism and it's descended ideologies are Feudalism Without Religion. That's all.

@joetred

9 ай бұрын

There are plenty of people with higher degrees from top tier US universities who could never find a job to utilize what they learned. I know guys with pharmacy degree who have struggled to find a permanent job. It happens in every system or country.

The analysis of the feudal system and how that indirectly led to such a long time of no technological developments was so well explained. You gained a subscriber just for that!

@CMVBrielman

2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, it is a gross oversimplification - its basically a description of video game feudalism.

@War4Skills

2 жыл бұрын

@@CMVBrielman in which way you think it is oversimplified? The video is also limited on how much it can say without going off-topic too much.

@CasualScholar

2 жыл бұрын

Really appreciate such a nice comment! Glad you enjoyed. Comments like these keep me motivated to make more content!

@Spacemongerr

2 жыл бұрын

@@War4Skills Some of the technological developments during European feudal middle ages: The blast furnace Rear-mounted rudder for stearing larger ships Gunpowder Eyeglasses Treadmill construction cranes Cannons The heavy plow, revolutionizing agriculture The hourglass Endless castle and other fortification and general construction technique developments Development of advanced armor Wheelbarrows (invented in China earlier but first seen in Europe around 1200) Caravel (ship that could travel further, vital for the Age of exploration) The printing press Perfection of astrolabes (astronomical device) Mechanical clocks Tidal mills Telescopes Advanced distilleries able to make fine liquour ++, the list goes on. I agree with Christopher, the video oversimplifies it to such a high degree it is almost wrong. The creater seems to have a heavy pro-capitalism bias and presents all other systems unreasonably harshly.

@ShubhamMishrabro

2 жыл бұрын

@@Spacemongerr and you're communism fan that's why you're downplaying holdomor death counts. There is no doubt capitalism is better than whatever soviet union was trying to do. And he would certainly criticize the system which soviet union was following that's why they started declining in 70s and 80s after the post ww2 boom.

The most interesting part of this whole shitshow would be the fact that Stalin knew and spoke about the problem of transformation which CPSU was undergoing. The one which turned revolutionaries into new tyrants. What is surprising is the method chosen to fight it. Great Purge wasn't just about spy paranoia, it was about counter-revolution as well. For whatever reason, instead of reforming the system, people in power doubled (or tripled? screw it, let's say, magnified) the suppression and bloodshed. The second interesting part is the fact that people describing Soviet economy somehow think that it didn't change in the 60+ years it existed. If someone will say that during the Stalin's reign there WERE market elements of the economy, no one will believe it. Private cooperatives were a thing, you know. Since such companies(? not sure if it's the right word) had a MASSIVE part in satisfying demand for the common goods (clothes, for example). Abolishment of that element is actually the major part of the bad image Khruschev has even now in the post-Soviet countries, and some russian economists think that it played a major role in economic stagnation and eventual decline of the Soviet Union. Do hope that my ramblings here are comprehensible. I tend to really mess up the word order in English.

@MammothChats

2 жыл бұрын

This was a very great ramble, thanks for sharing since I think a lot of people look at the Soviet Union in a black and white perspective

@DasRaetsel

2 жыл бұрын

Wait, so Khrushchev abolished private/market elements in the Soviet Union? Why would he do that? I always thought the fall of the Soviet Union came from bad leadership, not its core ideas.

@MammothChats

2 жыл бұрын

@@DasRaetsel bit of both I believe

@user-to2yk7jy6e

2 жыл бұрын

@@DasRaetsel core idea of communism is abolishment of classes and private property on the MEANS OF PRODUCTION. The latter part just means that means of production (instruments, factories, land etc) cannot belong to people who doesn't work on it (or with it, dunno how to say it better). The thing with cooperatives was that, if I remember things right, they couldn't use more than 40% of the stuff as the hired workers, everyone else should have a part of the business. Fun part being that market elements existence does not contradict the idea AT ALL. The thing with the Khrushchev is a little bit more complicated. As researchers say, computing (processing?) power necessary for fully planned economy will be achieved in a few years from now, thanks for the development of digital tech. Trying to do that in 1960s... Well, it didn't go well, right? Not to mention that "reorganisation of cooperatives" wasn't the only bad thing done by that man and his powerbase, restructurization of Gosplan (planning agency) was really, really badly mishandled. As they say, "is it a treachery or mistake, and what's worse?" Edit: Oh, and I'm sorry that I couldn't type this sooner, it was like 3 am in my time zone. Sleep is important. Edit 2: Cooperatives couldn't have more than 20% of hired workforce. Checked that just now.

@wesleywagumba812

2 жыл бұрын

I've actually watched a documentary on this!!Stalin had tried to democratize the USSR since he took power but the war and resistance from leaders hindered this.He worried about the bureaucracy and said that self criticism was key to growth.Also,the great purge was a result of him giving in to other leaders.I realize that setting up such a system will require a way for one to structure a government in which the leaders don't look for self preservation.

This reminds me of when I worked in the NHS. The Lada factory employed 10 times as many workers to make a car as it did in Developed Countries.

@henrylicious

Жыл бұрын

@@choro3d191 The inefficient Soviet production couldn't supply enough. The efficient developed production served more than the owner. It created a twx base for local governments to develop and maintain public works.

@vojtasmejda1254

Жыл бұрын

Because in "developed" countries, you have homeless starving people...

@humbleguardsman5578

Жыл бұрын

@@choro3d191 If you have less people to make the car. That means less people to pay. Which in turn makes the car cheaper.

@Foria777

Жыл бұрын

@@humbleguardsman5578 no freaking way. No one tells you how much money settles on bank account of the highest management. Wait, Forbes does)

@logicplague2077

Жыл бұрын

@@vojtasmejda1254 Better than starving in a Gulag.

I worked in sales for many years and I never knew that American companies adopted the Communist pay scale. In sales, one was given a goal and a bonus schedule. If you achieved your goal or exceeded it you got more money. However, next year your sales goal was what you sold last year plus a sales increase. It didn't take long to realize that it did not pay to work hard because of this constant increase in your goal and bonus. If they wanted maximum output they should have just paid a bonus on what you sold and not raise your cap every year.

@MelissaR784

Жыл бұрын

Think that's mainly in the public sector jobs. Everyone gets the same pay in their scale no matter their performance. Private sector pay is based on experience and demand, is my understanding.

@brettclark4276

Ай бұрын

Private sector sales isn’t this simple. Your goal does increase in most roles but you also continue to get renewals or repeat sales from your previous customer wins. You also have accelerators that incentivize you to keep going even once you’ve hit your target. Basic Example: your target is ten, you get paid $1000 on top of your salary for each of those ten. Your 11th, 12th, 13th etc. all reap you $2000 and in some cases, if you keep going, they start to pay $3000. It’s worth keeping going even if you fail the next year bc you get paid so much more on those extra sales.

"To understand Soviet economy we must go back to Romans". Holy shit that deep dive

@varunmittal3617

Жыл бұрын

because they were all cousins

@trevoncowen9198

Жыл бұрын

@@varunmittal3617 so they are genetically communist?

@varunmittal3617

Жыл бұрын

@@trevoncowen9198 We all are communist and capitalist in some sense at same time. When 4 friends open a startup they are communist for themselves and capitalist for others and when one of them try to outshine or do fraud with Company money that one friend is nothing but capitalist.

@tally1604

4 ай бұрын

It's a warm summer evening in Athens circa 600 bc

@Donk322

2 ай бұрын

Putin style

Fun fact about Stalin taking control: When Lenin was still alive, he held the position of General Secretary, which is not a fancy title because it's not a fancy position. The thing is, he never left that position; when Lenin died, he didn't take his position, he controlled the Soviet Union from the position of General Secretary. Every subsequent leader of the country also took that position, so for most of its existence, one of the most militarily powerful countries of its time was ruled by a secretary.

@Waterflux

Жыл бұрын

I would argue that Stalin was a pretty methodical politician. He was quite shrewd by portraying himself as "Lenin's best pupil" and "the defender of the revolution" during much of the 1920s when he started to embrace "us vs. them" tactics against his political rivals. Most importantly, the position of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union allowed him to gradually fill both the party and the government positions (the secret police and the military in particular) with his followers and also to recruit newbies who were more likely to be unconditionally loyal to him. Overall, all of these appointees owed their careers to him which allowed Stalin to gain the kind of influence none of his contemporaries achieved. (Hitler would be the only other leader who came close.) But notice that, once the Soviet-German War broke out, Stalin became both the Commissar of Defense and the Head of the Defense Council, meaning he no longer needed to cover himself under the veneer of the General Secretary. Of course, Stalin could afford to do so since, by then, he had destroyed all of his political rivals.

@fukkitful

Жыл бұрын

@@Waterflux Lenin warned not to let Stalin gain control of the party. Lenin unfortunately was correct.

@haraldthorson9153

Жыл бұрын

@@fukkitful Wrong, he actually put him in the position as the "second man" in 1922. Lenin was still alive when he appointed Stalin as the leader of the party.

@user-yy8qc6yo1m

Жыл бұрын

@John Doe In hes last word he warned about ALL who could become next leader

@brankodrljaca1313

Жыл бұрын

@@fukkitful Lenin was the one who gave Stalin control over the party. When Lenin testament came out, it criticized all high ranked Bolshevik, with Trocky being criticized the least. However, legitimacy of that testament is dubious. Remember, no original was ever found with his signature. At that time Lenin was paralyzed from stroke, barely spoke and could only use left arm. Even Trocky didn't initially claim that document was meant as testament (not to mention that in his publishing wording of document changed several times) so it might be something that Trocky or other disgruntled party members produced to get rid of Stalin because Stalin was already indirectly dictating in what direction will party go (by assigning his people to key positions). Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev met in secret during vacation to discuss how will recently leaked document be used: will they get rid of Stalin or put Stalin on a leash. Anyway, when testament was discussed among high ranking Bolsheviks Stalin offered resignation but these 3 gave Stalin support. However, they failed in long run use this because all 3 had their own vision of how to do this. Only Trocky and his block, who had large support in the army stood against Stalin, but he was exiled soon after. Zinoviev, Bukharin and Kamenev were kicked out of Party in 1934 purge for not reporting about Ryutin affair (200 page document circulating among Bolsheviks, calling for getting rid of Stalin for handling of collectivization and famine), shortly reinstalled only to be executed in Great Terror of 1937-1938. Am I only how thinks this would be excellent TV drama miniseries?

terrible shortages, food shortages and queues arose in the USSR during the privatization of the 80-90s, when traitors in the government began to create owners of national assets and it became profitable for them to export products to neighboring countries, leaving a deficit within the country. It was the same during the Tsarist oligarchic regime and famine constantly arose

I came back to this video months later. I just love how it simply conveys the topic without overburdening a viewer, but gives them enough context on its own at each stage to understand the main conversation point. It is divided up well and dialogue flows effectively and purposefully. The voice, assuming yours, is soothing but not so to the point of inducing slumber. I very much enjoyed rewatching this video again, and wanted to make sure I left a comment this time!

@philipthomey7884

8 ай бұрын

Even more fun at .75 % speed

16:40 this is absolutely not true. Most significant pay raises are self-made as they come from when people start new jobs, not employers giving current employees raises hence why they discourage salary discussions amongst employees

@vonkouva2619

Жыл бұрын

Its true in theory, not in practice. I mean in "Theory" you can make your own soda recipe and become a big competitor that can overthrow Coca Cola and Pepsi, in reality, Coca Cola will buy your company and not get overthrown, talking in "Theory" when discussing economics is usually the easiest way to explain things, so I guess that's why Casual Scholar phrased it like that

@bevvy.bee9

Жыл бұрын

Yeah exactly what I was thinking, especially for smaller businesses that rely on cheap labor regardless of the skill, eg small hats shops and malls. If the employee works hard, they get more responsibilities, if they don't they won't necessarily get fired either. Tho if they ask for a pay rise, no matter how hard working of an employee they are, for a job as mundane as cashier, they could leave and you could hire someone else. Pay rises may become an option tho in interesting scenarios like you're working for the small business of a family friend, but these scenarios are not rly important

@deathmetal11111

Жыл бұрын

@@vonkouva2619 It's in theory and in practice. Google, Facebook and Amazon were started just by a few average guys 25 years ago who are now all multi-billionaires. The sugar water example doesn't hold weight because society doesn't need another version of sugar water.

@kimobrien.

Жыл бұрын

@@deathmetal11111 I got the biggest pay raise of my life after the 2 week strike at Westinghouse.

I was in Russia after the fall. At one place there was a 15 hp electric motor running a little time card machine.

@knockhello2604

Жыл бұрын

What

Great video, very informative and gives you all the surrounding contextual information needed! Earned a subscriber 👍

We have always to keep in mind that Soviets were trying to deal with 1930 economic problems using a completely new economic system they built in under 10 years, out of the blue

@_reZ

Жыл бұрын

They also knowingly committed a genocide to to enact this super fast industrial economic plan.

@ratulxy

Жыл бұрын

@@_reZ what genocide are you talking about?

@Remix2366

Жыл бұрын

​@@_reZ which

@_reZ

Жыл бұрын

@@ratulxy the holodomor

@tomgu2285

Жыл бұрын

​@@_reZ sure buddy

The Soviet economy can best be summed up with this political joke: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." Great explanation of the enigma that was the Soviet economy! Keep up this quality work and your channel will truly go places!

@kaliyuga1476

2 жыл бұрын

You didnt watch the video

@Koooles

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaliyuga1476 Seems like you didn't watch the video, since this was indeed the main theme. Even during the biggest economic rise in Soviet Union it wasn't done through making workers more efficient (education, workers moving to the fields they have interest in, such as in West), but though purely dropping them and forcing them to work in profitable industries (from farming to steel factories). However, there is so much you can do when your workers aren't motivated by design, so even thought Soviet Union did had an economic burst, over time patching up economy didn't work anymore (because economic growth isn't just making someone use different machine) it started to slow down and eventually collapse. Incentives to make production more efficient also backfired, by making factories intentionally produce less, to make it look like they are getting better over time by just slowly only meeting bare minimum. There was no reason for anyone to actually produce more, even less so for invention. The produce quality was also always very low.

@sten260

2 жыл бұрын

that's true mostly because there were no incentives, it didn't matter how hard you worked or how many hours you still got paid similar to the drunk that just slept in a bush all day. And on top of that even if you did get some extra rubles for a "good job" there was nothing to spend them on!

@dataanimator

2 жыл бұрын

@@sten260 then for that drunk there is something called gulags

@stoggafllik

2 жыл бұрын

In b4 tankies sperg about Stalinism

the main question when we are discussing Soviet economic is whom the government belongs to. According to theory the government is a tool in hands of dominated class (there are only two classes: proletarians and bourgeoisie), and when proletarian class wins it means that government belongs to working class and gives them free education, vacation, 8-hours Labor Day, free health care. If it belongs to businessmen and do everything to make profit for them (for example sent American soldiers to Iraq to conquer oil and gas fields).

@aliexpress2109

2 ай бұрын

It's true

@rcyadav9746

Күн бұрын

U know why u earned this much capitalism luch rather then socialism planned

What a wonderful outstanding vid. On point, simple to understand and at same giving some new insights. Thank you.

I have always said that the reason the Soviet Union was so authoritarian was because all it did was replace an aristocratic ruling class with a bureaucratic one.

@proximamidnight1581

2 жыл бұрын

Every government is authoritarian. CAPITALIST OR NOT.

@thegethconsensus393

2 жыл бұрын

@@proximamidnight1581That’s not necessarily true. A government could be socialist or capitalist and be democratic or authoritarian, it’s all about the way it’s structured. As a Democratic Socialist I think capitalism is a corrupting influence on democracy. I believe that we need to have socialism and democracy in order to have either.

@proximamidnight1581

2 жыл бұрын

@@thegethconsensus393 There is no democracy under capitalism,only the illusion of it. Voting for someone doesn't mean it's democracy,it only gives who ever is in charge a four year term to do what ever they want,usually to benefit the filthy rich,with few minor changes from one president to another,but still keeping the status quo intact,and making fools out of people who voted hoping that this guy will actually make things better. I'm a socialist too,but I don't believe in democracy,as it is non existent. The socialist,communist parties also have a poor record of democracy,althouh i would say they had more than the capitalist counterparts. Socialist leaders are the same,with the only difference is that their policies are actually aimed at resolving economic a social issues,so them being authoritarian is not that big of a deal.

@thegethconsensus393

2 жыл бұрын

@@proximamidnight1581 Democracy existed under earlier stages of capitalism but was devoured by the later stages. The US has two parties that represent the same interests, that of the ruling elite. Therefore America is no longer a democracy. However, We see functional democracies in places like the Nordic states because they put a tight leash on capitalism which allows them to keep their democracy for now. These governments are responsive to the will of the people. Although, it will always be at risk until they do away with the ultra rich. My point is that democracy is possible and does already exist. Also, authoritarianism is always a big deal. I don’t think the people stuffed in gulags for challenging the party line thought “it wasn’t that big a deal”.

@duruarute5445

2 жыл бұрын

@@proximamidnight1581 Are you an anarchist?

You can tell this must be a banger because the tankies are here

@daMacadamBlob

Жыл бұрын

I expected to see more angry tankies

@maxonwolf5841

Жыл бұрын

@@daMacadamBlob I expected to see the generic teenagers who think pretending to see the USSR is still a glorious country, even if the joke has been mostly dead since 2018.

@stijn3085

2 ай бұрын

If by "tankies" you mean "people who aren't 95 IQ midwits who get their history from braindead KZreadrs", sure.

Regarding incentives for enterprise managers: That’s why, if you prioritize sustainability over short-term profits, bonuses etc. shouldn‘t be determined on a year-to-year basis but on the long-term development of that enterprise retrospectively (and maybe including a reasonable forecast, but that‘d be ultimately speculative and therefore should have less of an impact), even exceeding both employees‘ and managers‘ time of leaving an enterprise, so they have an incentive to work towards keeping and even leaving it in a healthy condition for future development.

Thank you for this video. It’s very valuable information while I try to learn more about how we got to where we are as a species through economic and political means

"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

@kimobrien.

Жыл бұрын

And you pretend to have a brain.

@millontc4146

Жыл бұрын

@@kimobrien. this is a real political joke so i dont know who's pretending to be smart here

@odder5154

Жыл бұрын

@@kimobrien. LMAOOO A REAL COMMIE

@NostalgicMem0ries

Жыл бұрын

@@odder5154 you have any argument against communisms? rewatch video again, communism was superior to all in 20th century first part

Correction: 1918 is when the armistice was signed to end hostilities but 1919 for the treaty to be signed.

@CasualScholar

2 жыл бұрын

Not for the Russians

@SCHMALLZZZ

2 жыл бұрын

@@CasualScholar didn't Lenin end the war between Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany?

@monsieurpoisson8163

2 жыл бұрын

@@CasualScholar but WW1 was still being fought in 1917, wether the Russians were in it or not ( also great vid)

@jgdooley2003

2 жыл бұрын

@@CasualScholar Treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1917 ended Imperial Russias involvement in WW1. This allowed the Germans to relocate manpower to the Western Front and led to the Falkenhayn offensive in early 1918. The US was able to reinforce British and French Armies to stall that offensive, but it was a close run thing.

@devinklassen9769

Жыл бұрын

@@CasualScholar Not what you said. Accept your correction.

Actually the last two decades of the Empire overall saw stunning improvements in the economy despite its problems. The productivity of agriculture in the 1911 to 1913 period was not to be matched for decades. From 1880 to 1910, Russia was a growing, developing economy setting records compared to most of the nineteenth century.

@dennisweidner288

Жыл бұрын

@lazybear236 Absolutely correct. The Bolsheviks actually slowed down Russia's economic development. As did Putin after he seized power. But it is interesting that Siviet industrial policy was actually superior to NAZI economic policy during World War II.

@tultoi5651

Жыл бұрын

The Soviet Union was the fastest growing economy in the late 1900’s.

@dennisweidner288

Жыл бұрын

@@tultoi5651 Nonsense. The Soviet economy began stagnating in the 1970s, The reason Gorbachev rose to power was to reverse the stagnation of the economy. And I might add that even when the Soviet economy was growing, living standards were far below European levels. And the quality of the goods produced was far below European standards and thus significant export sales never occurred -- in sharp contrast to China.

@quakeknight9680

Жыл бұрын

But sadly Russian nation would today have the most advanced economy and society if the West did something about Bolsheviks instead of just going on a vacation in Arkhangelsk

@dennisweidner288

Жыл бұрын

@@quakeknight9680 The same is true of the NAZIs. Basically, democracies do not like to fight wars.

Every economic systems in itself have flaws doesnt matter which one. Depends on who you're your opinion and bias would side or against which one of them. At the end, the life itself and how we should sustain it is pretty much absurd.

@Blainelyne

4 ай бұрын

This comment is probably the most true of all

A lot of major factors were not mentioned here. First, the plague epidemic was far worse in western europe, because it was more densely populated, than in the eastern part. So the workforce was never scarce in eastern europe. Second, you did not even mention the colonization of the western european powers during the industrial revolution. Serfdom and slavery was exported to their new colonies, which was not the case in eastern europe.

@user-dy4rh5vz4w

Жыл бұрын

The West is still exporting communist prejudice

@sblbb929

Жыл бұрын

Russia didn't colonize anything famously.

@Gunni1972

Жыл бұрын

That's because the "Sovjet Era" startet after the October revolution, and that was 60 years after the Industrial revolution. During that period you describe it was basically a Monarchy/Feudalist Economy. LIKE THE REST OF EUROPE.

@prw56

Жыл бұрын

@@sblbb929 You could argue they did when the soviet union kept occupied lands and nations around them after WW2, all the satellite states were very much under Russia's thumb and had a similar relationship with Russia as colonies did with owner countries.

@Ravie1

Жыл бұрын

Despite what some people like to say, the industrial revolution was not created on the back of colonial wealth. Portugal and Spain ran larger slave and colonial empires than brittain and they didn't birth the industrial revolution, and a large portion of the revolution happened in the US. It's a line people use to try to de-emphasize the importance of property rights and other government structures that motivated the innovation, it's a cynical dishonest ploy to promote top down control economies.

Today corporations owns all new ideas, products, why bother developing anything new as an individual? All the profits still going to the top and the most incredible thing is that was enabled by creative people trying to organize themselves, they were not good enough to prevent the organizations to be stolen.

@haroldgraphene

Жыл бұрын

I love how every video about economics etc just ignores these obvious facts.

@Archedgar

Жыл бұрын

Yeah because Notch is dirt poor, right? heh. Your propaganda is garbage, leftist.

@kerriwilson7732

Жыл бұрын

One obvious flaw in your reasoning is that disgruntled malcontents aren't actually ingenious drivers of technological innovation, they are the whiners dependent on the union to keep their jobs.

@tultoi5651

Жыл бұрын

@@kerriwilson7732 Inventing is all luck. You can increase the odds by trying, but if it doesn’t pay off (it doesn’t in a late stage capitalist society) why would you?

@RememberingWW2

8 күн бұрын

Yet here you are, on the internet, using a corporate service called KZread, posting a comment using a corporate made iPhone bitching about corporations.

Europe started having railways in 1830. A 23 year delay in that century wasn't a very big delay.

Also, famines and fuel shortages were common in imperial times, and led to the military and economic collapse of the Empire and ineffectual Provisional Government. These things weren't caused by the Soviet Union, they were remedied: centuries of damage in decades of repair, amid two world wars. It was far from the ideal solution, but the Bolsheviks weren't the main cause.

I had always heard the Black Death was simply not as impactful in Eastern Europe as it had low population density to begin with limiting the spread

@marcofontinha6296

2 жыл бұрын

Plus, ironically enough, they were relatively spared when compared to the west. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, they instituted quarantine type of measures which made it so that they were relatively spared compared to the rest of Europe. That backfired quite a lot. Lol

@RememberingWW2

8 күн бұрын

And it primarily spread through ports. When ships came in trading goods. The only access to the East really had to seaways was the Black Sea.

17:56 The Soviets weren't as affected by the Great Depression because were still focused on building up their infastructure. Rather than focus on Luxury Item companies. That would eventually flop in 1929. (Because so many people gambled borrowed money on stuff that wasn't useful in the long-run.)

@truwu8177

2 жыл бұрын

what do Luxury companies have to do with anything?

@vedsingh2108

2 жыл бұрын

@@truwu8177 Demand shock.

@truwu8177

2 жыл бұрын

@@vedsingh2108 what

@sten260

2 жыл бұрын

the soviets weren't affected because they didn't even have an economy, they weren't even trading with other countries how can it affect them. Russian people couldn't buy stocks in the US stock market either lol

@brandonlyon730

2 жыл бұрын

The closure of the Banks didn’t help matters either. After the crash so many people panicked and rushed to the banks to get there savings, this end up causing the banks to lose most of the money they have in stock and not enough to give back to there customers. Many were forced to close down because of the lack of funds, causing millions of people to lose there savings. Nowadays at least in America there are certain laws that will protect your savings if anything were to happen to the banks they were deposited in, but such laws didn’t existed in 1929, so millions of people lost almost all of there money and the economy suffered more since those people didn’t have the money to buy new products anymore.

16:39 your employer couldn’t care less about you leaving, a more desperate worker willing to work for less would just replace you

@oneshothunter9877

3 ай бұрын

Difficult if we talk about highly skilled and experienced workers. Different with untrained "conveyor line" workers, though. Easily replaceable.

After watching some asianometry, I was primed by the innovation part. He repeatedly mentions the ussr was good in inventing, but had much trouble rolling those inventions into their economy. This video feels like an explanation why that was the case.

@Passonator11

9 ай бұрын

Soviets incenting stuff? More like copying the homework of the occupied European nations.

@plumebrise4801

8 ай бұрын

No ,Communism can't Innovate ,they can only copy and steal technology ,only the German scientist that the USSR took after WW2 could invent .

@Dopaaamine27

7 ай бұрын

​@@Passonator11nope, they stole most stuff from enemy nations.

I’m the type of socialist who would’ve been killed or put in a gulag, so I loved your point about how a sustainable revolution requires a broad coalition. ANY government that stifles freedom is ultimately sowing the seeds of its own demise.

@edwardheaney3641

2 жыл бұрын

So what happens when someone uses that freedom to start their own business and hire employees?

@jaredharmer7047

2 жыл бұрын

@@edwardheaney3641 lmao same thing that happens when someone uses their freedom to buy slaves. I’m referring to freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. Small businesses are fine but (in the view of a socialist like myself) capitalist enterprise eventually becomes comparable to slavery so businesses should be capped and the rest of the private sector should be non profits and cooperatives

@markgilrosales6366

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaredharmer7047 what gives you the right to cap business?

@jaredharmer7047

2 жыл бұрын

@@markgilrosales6366 well I’m not a government so I don’t have that right, but it’s the same thing that gives the government the right to cap slavery

@ElectronFieldPulse

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaredharmer7047 - Except you would be more akin to the slave master in this scenario. You know what is funny? In a capitalist country, you are 100% free to start your own business, pay everyone exactly the same, and give everyone an equal vote. Other people are free to start businesses in the traditional sense. So, you are already free to be a socialist in a capitalist country, but socialist type models can't compete against traditional capitalist models, so they never grow above a neighborhood co-op. Why would you force an inefficient business model that can't compete with other models? It would ruin a country economically, and it would stifle the freedom of citizens. This is why socialists are inherently authoritarian. They have to force everyone to follow their model at the barrel of a gun, and it inevitably leads to that country having a horrible standard of living. So, what why do you hate freedom so much? Why do you hate prosperity so much?

Actually, the first Bubonic Plague epidemic was in 541-542AD (known as the Justinian Plague), it decimated Europe (and Asia) in the 540s and in many waves thereafter but was fairly quiet in the 3-4 centuries before its huge resurgence during the 14th C.

@newstartyt3700

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, it is said that the first Yersinia pestis(Bubonic Plague) epidemic was 4000 BCE in Europe, which practically wiped out their population and made Europe be far behind in creating civilizations compared to Mesopotamia and Egypt.

@andrewgavin1490

2 жыл бұрын

@@newstartyt3700 it must be fleas and rats all the way down then 😀

@edgarcardiff7874

2 жыл бұрын

All because some random Aksumite farmer threw a rat

@johnhurley8918

Жыл бұрын

It did however have a similar effect on labor markets.

@andrewgavin1490

Жыл бұрын

@@johnhurley8918 yeah. Huge effect on labor markets. Our current pandemic has too, although not for the same reasons (fortunately no drastic 40% population drop)

In soviet union...it was illegal to be unemployed. True story.

@dopaminedreams1122

8 ай бұрын

Which is why it’s hilarious that almost all western communists are unemployed, lazy neets who think communism means free money and no work lmao. I’d love to send some tankies to North Korea

Holy shit when you’re describing the feudal system it made my skin crawl how similar it is to the American model today.

I'd argue that the video is mostly on point, even though a lot of factors were left out for the sake of short video format. However, the ending kind of really lacks the much needed details, since gorbachev wasn't necessarily the first to try and didn't really have the goal in mind of instilling societal "freedoms" in SU. Good video nonetheless.

@Gunni1972

Жыл бұрын

Gorbachev was Focused on International relations, but lost in the National interest/control departement. After he was basically pushed out of Office, The Oligarchs ran wild under .Jeltsin.

@mirthmagic6370

Жыл бұрын

If to start showing the other point then it's all about a *colonialism* - the major source of so called freedom and success of the capitalism.

@kimobrien.

Жыл бұрын

@@mirthmagic6370 Gorbachev and company were following in the footsteps of Stalin and class collaboration with the Democratic Imperialists. Now the bitter fruit is being harvested by the Russian people in Putin's war on Ukraine. Ukraine's struggle for national independence is like all struggles of oppressed nations a progressive one despite the reactionary role of the US and NATO Imperialists. When Lenin was alive the Soviet Union was a voluntary federation of Socialist republics not a prison house of nations. Stalin reversed all that. It was Stalin who was responsible for the death of Lenin's party. Stalin who began the march back to the misery of capitalism.

@mirthmagic6370

Жыл бұрын

@@kimobrien. Soviet Union changed its economic structure several times during its 70 years of history. To be national independent Ukraine had to NOT sign the _European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement,_ besides typical bla-bla for all the good against all the bad, the most interesting part there is about the economy and relationship. If this is not enough, then Biden demanded to fire the Prosecutor General of Ukraine in exchange for a loan and Poroshenko did. These are few examples in the long list of being so called an “independent” country.

@ehfoiwehfowjedioheoih4829

Жыл бұрын

@@mirthmagic6370 soviets colonized Siberia and Kazakhstan. They used the same strategy to genocide the Kazakhs that the western American settlers used. Kill their food supply that they migrated with. Please educate yourself and stop simping for authoritarians.

Serfdom eh? *Looks around* I think we still have that with a new coat of paint.

@kmmediafactory

2 жыл бұрын

I can see that. We have very similar systems, just gilded

Where's the photo from 15:28 from??

As someone who lived in the Soviet Union, I don't think the private agriculture of the farmers (during the NEP, for example) was all that inefficient or backward. I saw with my own eyes how Ukrainian farmers squeezed huge (at least to me they were) amount of quality agriculture from very small plots (front and back yards) they were allowed to own privately in the 1970s. Then carried it all to markets and sold at profit. The same farmers had an essentially devil-may-care attitude to the large fields they were obliged to work on as members of collective and state farms. The amount and quality of agricultural production per area differed correspondingly: tiny family plots worked on with basic tools produced many times more per area than very large fields worked on by tractors and combiner harvesters. Resulting in full food markets and empty food stores (and also in the USSR buying grain from the US and Canada).. So what is efficient and forward, and what is inefficient and backward?

@beibotanov

4 күн бұрын

Ну лол, конечно выжмешь огромный урожай с клочка земли, когда труд ручной, каждому росточку уделяется внимания как ученику в школе, а ещё есть фактически бесплатный, то есть за магарыч механизатору, трактор. Моточасы и прочее, украденные у совхоза. А в вакууме, когда нет совхоза, чтобы что-то с него украсть тем или иным способом, конечно же, оно так не работает. Прекрасный пример Польша, где коллективизацию ещё в 60-х прекратили, и торговый баланс завалился набок чисто из-за импорта жратвы. Прекрасный пример Россия с Украиной, где фермеры частники занимали ~10% товарного сельскохозяйственного сектора, карлики на фоне выросших из совхозов агрохолдингов

The amount of “Great Depressions” we’ve been through at this point and more and more of us younger people can’t find meaningful work or affordable housing and likely never will with the economic problems older generations dump on us.

@kimobrien.

Жыл бұрын

Time too rebuild the trade union and fight back with the strike and work stoppage to make workers control a reality. Create a new independent labor party to fight the bosses in government.

@gekyumebelike8988

Жыл бұрын

@nuthurdu there actually is a pretty pronounced wealth gap between younger and older generations . even the difference between gen xers and boomers is pretty big

@tmdwu5360

Жыл бұрын

@nuthurdu many of them being part of older generations, often their parents being very wealthy and part of generations that created the current system and its problems.

@johnmclean8414

Жыл бұрын

@nuthurdu hey 'self enlightened' one; which fuck head generation reaped the benefit of a welfare state and gutted it for the next generations?

@spaceflight1019

Жыл бұрын

"Every generation blames the one before..."

I'm honestly curious about where you got the fixed wages thing? Yes, that was the case in certain times, in a few primary sourcea, pqy rates and their change over time increased. Look at for example Behind the Urals.

@Mango_Eter

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I thought in the first decades they didn't even want to use fixed wages (for that time), they rewarded you for your labour.

Amazing explanation.keep up!

Great video thank you

One of my History PhD minor fields was Soviet history. The details of this thesis are new to me, but the evidence is solid; I found only minor points with which to take issue. As an American living in rank-heavy China, I am pondering the flaws of hierarchal or extractative systems. They can grow rapidly early on (North Korea grew faster than South Korea until 1970), but seem destined to run out of steam, as there is little incentive to create or modernize. He highlights the importance of power in this dynamic, how Russian leaders chose economic stagnation over industrialization, because of its implications on power. Culture also plays a role. Nice food for thought.

@user-qt1cp1be3u

Жыл бұрын

"but seem destined to run out of steam, as there is little incentive to create or modernize." English Wikipedia address "Income inequality in the United States" [120] Between 1983 and 2007, the top 5 percent saw their debt fall from 80 cents for every dollar of income to 65 cents, while the bottom 95 percent saw their debt rise from 60 cents for every dollar of income to $1.40.[118] ( In capitalist countries there is a tremendous incentive PAY OFF DEBTS. )

@jaylearned3

Жыл бұрын

@@user-qt1cp1be3u Indeed, income inequality is eating up US progress and prosperity. US capitalism is a combination of laws sponsored by the rich and extreme individualism that blames the losers for society's failings. I'm teaching economics now. Toxic individualism vs toxic hierarchy: I hope there are other choices.

@user-qt1cp1be3u

Жыл бұрын

@@jaylearned3 "Toxic individualism vs toxic hierarchy:"??? ( Toxic individualism USA vs toxic hierarchy USSR. did I understand correctly? ) English Wikipedia address"Economy of the Soviet Union" There were two basic forms of property in the Soviet Union: individual property and collective property. These differed greatly in their content and legal status. According to communist theory, capital (means of production) should not be individually owned, with certain negligible exceptions. In particular, after the end of a short period of the New Economic Policy and with collectivization completed, all industrial property and virtually all land were collective. ( If industrial propertyand virtually all land is collectively owned, which means hierarchy=capital (means of production) cannot be inherited. inherited 5 percent vs inheritance 95 percent it's a hierarchy inherited.)

@jaylearned3

Жыл бұрын

@@user-qt1cp1be3u By toxic hierarchy I refer specifically to a culture in which the norm is to defer to the top, so people are afraid to make a decision; better to do nothing than the wrong thing. Loyalty over competence. I live in China and see this almost every day, and it was evident in Soviet communism. Progress and innovation? On the other hand, the opposite extreme, hyper-individualism in the US is also toxic in its own way; witness our our response to Covid-19. I prefer balance.

@user-qt1cp1be3u

Жыл бұрын

@@jaylearned3 "By toxic hierarchy I refer specifically to a culture in which the norm is to defer to the top," Britannica address "income inequality" On a global level, income inequality is extreme by any measure, with the richest 1 percent of people in the world receiving as much as the bottom 56 percent in the early 21st century. English Wikipedia address "Food loss and waste" .[4] The analysis estimated that global food waste was 931 million tonnes of food waste (about 121 kg per capita) across three sectors: 61 per cent from households, 26 per cent from food service and 13 per cent from retail. .[24] According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Americans throw away up to 40% of food that is safe to eat.[25] In 2015 the Chinese Academy of Sciences reported that in big cities there was 17 to 18 million tons of food waste, enough to feed over 30 million people. About 25% of the waste was staple foods and about 18% meat.[81] English Wikipedia address "Mortality rate" According to Jean Ziegler (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food for 2000 to March 2008), mortality due to malnutrition accounted for 58% of the total mortality in 2006: "In the world, approximately 62 million people, all causes of death combined, die each year. In 2006, more than 36 million died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients".[17] ( "Loyalty over competence." The only competence of individualism is to be an executioner. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qIqNj9yOlqnTn5M.html )

Another lesser fact know in the west. After 1945, the USSR was using east european countries as its collonies. These countries had to support extremely uneffective soviet economy and had to cooperate in so called Comecon(RVHP in czech) which caused, that more modern countries such as East Germany, Czechoslovakia or Hungary, had to support the worse ones. This caused another degradation of the economical growth.

@beibotanov

4 күн бұрын

How come negative trade balance of USSR, DDR and CzSSR in favour of less developed countries is colonialism? Colonialism is what like 1880-1910 several TRILLIONS of modern USD's juiced from India

@premyslsedy2904

4 күн бұрын

@@beibotanov Curse between rubles and czechoslovak crowns was 10:1. The prices were artificial. 2 000 factories were robbed and moved to USSSR from Czechoslovakia after WWII. Part oc Czechoslovakia was added to the USSR. over 30 000 czechoslovak citizens were kidnapped to USSR and murdered there. etc.

@beibotanov

4 күн бұрын

@@premyslsedy2904 yes, in the early 50's USSR needed restoration. Let me remind you, these factories were working for whom? And these exact citizens were collaborators with whom? Indeed a hideous Soviet crime. Also, wasnt' Cz-S the one of the few countries having a real Socialist revolution in 1948, not a rigged election with smart political maneuvering like Hungary had? (It was)

@beibotanov

3 күн бұрын

@@premyslsedy2904 reparations. It was USSR having 10 millions of it's civilians killed and a third of national wealth destroyed not without the help of Czech-produced weaponry. And those citizens - do you really mourn collaborators? Ew

@premyslsedy2904

Күн бұрын

@@beibotanov Czechoslovakia was occupied (partially) by the Third Reich. Exile Czechoslovak government signed several pacts with the USSR. Czechoslovakia and USSR were allies at the paper. But in reality, USSR was only next ocupier. SO called socialistic revolution was just a military putsch led by soviet agents (Zorin etc.) You may think, you know more about it than me, but You don´t.

Can you maybe increase the basic audio volume? My phone is at max and it is still pretty quiet

If you can manage an economy that stagnate you truly won because growth is alway only for a time. No one managed to do it

You did a good job starting at the beginning & going through the whole history & yet still keeping the video relatively short. Keep up the good work you're making some concise yet comprehensive videos.

I think soviet workers also had incresing in payment for experience(стаж), qualification(разряды), extra work hour(переработка). Its a fact. They were not stupid

@haroldgraphene

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, pretty sure this video is blunt and dishonest about reality of Soviet Economic system. It also ignores differences of Soviet generations. Not to say the economy functioned well and didn't have serious contradictions.

Anyone know what the track played at 13:50 is called? Ive been looking for it for a while.

It's almost 2am and I decided to watch this...

One thing I would like to add is the massive amounts of bureaucracy that the USSR had and the massive amounts of corruption that came with that. That just costed the Soviets even more money, which they didn't have.

@user-xg8yy7yl1d

2 жыл бұрын

Apparently there was a plan to computerize the economy of the USSR that would have in essence given planners the total information they needed. The plan was axed because it would have cost much of the bureaucracy it's power.

@kimobrien.

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-xg8yy7yl1d Computers in the west eliminated scores of white collar jobs like railroad clerks, and draftsmen. With socialism if you cut the size of the administrative workforce you can increase the size of the productive workforce. With capitalism cutting the administrative workforce only results in more unemployment.

@user-xg8yy7yl1d

2 жыл бұрын

@@kimobrien. Computerization didn't eliminate banking and debt though because like the bureaucracy of the USSR the financial elite in the Amerisphere don't want to lose their undue power.

@user-xg8yy7yl1d

2 жыл бұрын

@@kimobrien. Unemployment is good in of itself. The ultimate goal of mankind should be a 100% unemployment rate via automation. The problem is that under the current system people can't purchase what they make if they don't keep working even if such work is pointless, unnecessary and wasteful. Planned obsolescence is the perfect example of this. Ideally if there is no more work to be done people should get time off to enjoy what they've produced until more work needs to be done. All work should serve a purpose and all work that doesn't serve a purpose should be time off.

@kimobrien.

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-xg8yy7yl1d Unemployment is used by the capitalist as a way to hold down wages. Planned obsolescence is used by capitalist monopolists to keep up a market for industrial production. Production must be based upon meeting the needs of human beings not making a profit for a capitalist class of exploiters based in nation states.

Actually, the so-called "second serfdom" in the eastern (tightening of control over serfs) part of Europe did not have result in centralized absolute power as in Russia. In Poland, it led to... weakening of the royal power to the benefit of nobility. Nobles empowered by increased ownership over their serfs, and high demand for their produce in the 16th century got strong enough to widen their political powers at the expense of the king and burghers. Generally, Poland transformed into a sort of a republic: nobles elected, impeached kings. At the local level, nobles ran a sort of self-governing bodies, which voted on local affairs and delegated members to the country's parliament/diet (naturally only composed of nobles). Peasants were reduced to slavery: not only were they unable to leave the land without permission but there were cases of trading them like livestock and they could not appeal to royal courts - their lord was their judge and master of their lives. Burghers and cities started to vegetate due to unfavorable laws enacted by the nobility. The next stage of the system was an anarchic oligarchy: a dozen of rich noble families accumulated so much wealth, that they could raise private armies and buy the votes of poorer nobles - unlike elsewhere, nobility was numerous in Poland and amounted to even 5-10% of the population, so it was stratified economically, many did not own any estate altogether, the only things differentiating them from peasants being personal freedom and political rights. Under the shock of the first partition, some top families pushed for reforms, so the last stage was a proper, "English-like" constitutional monarchy when the national constitution was adopted in 1791. Alas, the extractive second-serfdom could also end up with a constitutional monarchy. The reasons why Russia has almost always been a tyranny are more complex.

@Taospark

Жыл бұрын

I've also seen arguments that the Polish noble class also hurt Polish sovereignty and nationalism overall by often being easily lulled by Russia, Austria, or Prussian neighbors to snap off pieces of the country over the centuries which in many ways makes them more like the Holy Roman Empire than a republic per se.

@ironhead2008

Жыл бұрын

@@Taospark It was less "The nobles were fooled" and more "The nobles were bribed": The senior nobility in Poland-Lithuania had what was called a "Librum Veto": during most normal meetings of the legislature (the Sejm) all it took was one senior noble objecting to grind everything to a halt. The Austrians, Prussians, and Russians exploited this constitutional quirk to eventually destroy Poland. The reforms of the 1791 Constitution were only possible because they were enacted by a "Confederated Sejm" which were immune to the librum veto. By this point Poland was so weak militarily that the Russians, Austrians, and Prussians were able to roll in under the pretext of "defending the ancestral rights" of nobles they had bribed. Afterwards, more bribes and direct force (there were Russian troops in the chamber) led to the later Grodno Sejm ratifying the destruction of the nation. It arguably had the effect of martyring the country in the eyes of its people however. Over the next 100+ years the Poles would be a restive as all hell pain in the ass for the Czars. "Poland is not yet lost" indeed...

@alanpennie8013

Жыл бұрын

Polish history is fascinating. It's a pity it's not better known.

@schoo9256

Жыл бұрын

Where do I find out more about this?

@alanpennie8013

Жыл бұрын

@@schoo9256 Try Perry Anderson, Lineages of The Absolutist State, a great overview of the period from 1500 - 1800.

When I heard The song at the start of the video chapter "The Soviet Economy Stands Alone" I forgot what It was called and I still can't remember what it is called can you tell what it is called

Shared … real good analysis

FYI 4:37 is the castle of Hohenzollern in Germany. I see this beauty every day from my window

are your sources a full list? I would like to learn how feudalism worked and which (kindle available) book to read about that. Could you list any more books that informed the video, if any?

@rcyadav9746

Күн бұрын

Feaudilism was better then communism maybe

“If McDonalds were run like a software company, one out of every hundred Big Macs would give you food poisoning, and the response would be, ‘We’re sorry, here’s a coupon for two more.’ “ (Mark Minasi)

@Bagunka

Ай бұрын

Doesn’t make a y sense my guy

Crimean war wasn't a "decisive defeat" because that implies that the other side had a decisive victory, which in turn implies low to no casualties and lemme tell you, the casualties were not low

Don’t stop producing these, this is top notch content, you’ll be over 1 mil subs someday. I’d recommend making on the most interesting economies in history

@jasonmain6398

2 жыл бұрын

Top notch? Bro I'm 19 seconds in and dude said the great war ended in 1917 😆

@gsuhz41

Жыл бұрын

@@jasonmain6398 For Russia, it did.

@angamaitesangahyando685

Жыл бұрын

Blaming the economy for the fall of the USSR is Marxist, ironically. A more idealist approach would be blaming the lack of ideology in the late USSR, the way Kurginian does. And I tend to concur - a few weeks ago, I watched a Soviet WW2 documentary from 1971 which did not mention Stalin a single time! Is it such a surprise Soviet Russians began worshipping their American enemies, dismantling their own empire without a shot fired? - Adûnâi

If Bukharin took over instead of Stalin the Soviet economy would be a lot more saner and functional. Unlike Stalin, Bukharin is a trained economist and knows that an economy needs to have a certain level of competition, liquidity, incentives and a mechanism for allocation of capital goods and means of production. He might continue and develop the NEP further such that we end up with a Soviet Union which has a market socialist economy not too dissimilar to what Yugoslavia has back in the day, or modern Vietnam which is fairly prosperous.

@kimobrien.

2 жыл бұрын

Bulgarian lead the right opposition which in the US meant the Lodestones who reverential made peace with Imperialism like Gorbachev did. This whole line of peaceful coexistence with the imperialist on the same planet was totally wrong. You only get to socialism by advancing the world revolution.

@TheVoiceOfReason93

2 жыл бұрын

@@kimobrien. Fair, but you need a system that works first. Marx was right about a lot of Capitalism's problems but was hazy about what could replace it, something even Lenin acknowledged. Had Bukharin's ideas take precedent instead of Stalin's the USSR would actually be in even better position to spread world revolution under whoever succeeds him since the economic system, instead of the dysfunctional centralised planned economy under Stalin, would had worked a lot better and address/mitigated issues such as lack of incentives. This is especially since Bukharin would never had been able to achieve the level of totalitarian domination as Stalin did, meaning there would still be plenty of Trotskyites in the Soviet government who would have a shot to take over once he hits the bucket.

@kimobrien.

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheVoiceOfReason93 Stalin should have been removed as Party Secretary as Lenin had said it was too much power for him and I don't know if he will always use it wisely.Once he went though with the fame ups and murder of the old Bolshevik's the Party as a revolutionary organization was finished. He also destroyed the Communist International. Put in a bunch of yes men as leaders. It was enough to just murder the Party in the Soviet Union but he had to do it in Spain also.

@TheVoiceOfReason93

2 жыл бұрын

@@kimobrien. Yes. And he also messed up the five-years plans and caused disasters (some accidentally and others deliberately) like the Holodomor. He turned his back on many tenets of Communism, and despite his supposed obsession with saving it ultimately doomed it. In the end, whether he was a true believer or a power-hungry tyrant, it was ultimately his fault the USSR failed, or at least failed as it did in our world.

@kimobrien.

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheVoiceOfReason93 When Trotsky died he left a movement behind Bukharin didn't. Today that movement still publishes The Militant and Pathfinder Press.

Soviet economy lacked innovation for the same reason we are starting to see lack of innovation in the capitalist world today, when profitable companies prefer to hoard cash or do stock buybacks. It is risk aversion. Soviet managers could do things the conservative way, satisfy the 5-year plan KPIs, and get a small but predictable ROA. Or they could try introducing a new technology, production method, etc. If it worked out, great, you get a nice bonus, might get a promotion and your next year's KPIs go up. Worse yet, if it didn't work out, you could fail to deliver on this year's plan, which meant breaking the law. Also despite what "Chernobyl" series portrayed, it was very difficult to fire or lay off personnel. Managers had far less power over their employees, especially highly trained professionals like nuclear plant engineers.

Great video!

You skipped over a few things that I feel really hindered their progress. The white army shipped over half their gold reserves to Japan just before the red army was victorious. And after ww2 everything west of stalingrad was destroyed. And they lost millions of men. Regardless of their flaws I feel like they were disadvantaged from the start

@blue-pi2kt

Жыл бұрын

The issue wasn't the lack of gold or material resources, it is the lack of functional feedback mechanisms in any planned economy. It doesn't matter if they needed a million boots or a million hats - they were making them, and this plan was made years in advance. The Holomodor largely occured due to a preference to meet targeted metrics as opposed to responding to clear issues by adjusting strategic broader objectives. Capitalism embeds this feedback loop at essentially every level of the process of 'production'. It caters directly to market preferences from meal replacement shakes that taste like fruit loops to prostitutes. The loss of a million people whilst horrific didn't break the nation so severely as its remarkable maladministration.

@AlexanderRM1000

Жыл бұрын

They had some disadvantages compared to the US but West Germany and Japan were bombed into the ground in WW2 and overtook the Soviet Union, despite their at this point dominating a massive empire, within a decade or two. South Korea and Taiwan which had been Japanese colonies until WW2 would be better examples (ironically both dictatorships for much of their fast growth- and both did have some things like major land reforms after WW2 and other government intervention in the economy, just smarter and well targeted).

@Not.a.bird.Person

Жыл бұрын

That's a flawed argument in many ways. Gold reserves a meaningless when global production of goods doesn't allow you to buy more things with your gold and gold is largely an importing device rather than an internal economic store of value. Since Russia was a major part of world population, using gold to import things would've been useless because other countries would've had famines if allowed to accur to feed Russians but it wouldn't have been allowed by the exporting countries in the first place. There's no real difference there. For the other part about the destruction... well most of Europe was leveled after WW2 so Russia didn't really have that much of a disadvantage against countries like France which has seen major economic growth compared to Russia and where the only real difference was the economic system they employed. Millions of men were lost everywhere during that period. Sure Russia lost more but it didn't prevent them from becoming the 2nd largest economy so I fail to see why it would be meaningful in any way after that.

@d3thkn1ghtmcgee74

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexanderRM1000 being a wartorn feudal backwater from start with millions dead, starving, bankrupt, and noone willing to pump unlimited amount of money into your country like Japan and South Korea. I like how you ignore all those facts. 🤣 Like seriously it doesn't take a genius to see the USSR had severe hurls to overcome even before WW2 began then they had to rebuild their country without 1 out of 5 ppl a second time in a generation again with no country pumping endless resources to prop up their country.and instead an antagonistic world leering at them for weakness. The soviets were playing hardcore mode in history lol

@archvaldor

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexanderRM1000 "but West Germany and Japan were bombed into the ground in WW2 and overtook the Soviet Union" Because they were given billions by the US and could rebuild their infrastructure from scratch for a modern economy.

I think this is overall a good video. I particularly liked that that the power/wealth dynamic between elites and the rest of the population was discussed, as I think this is a power dynamic that is still quite relevant to consider today. The only thing I want to point out after watching this video is that many of the points made when discussing a general capitalist market system deals with how these systems should work ideally, IE. intellectual property should ideally be protected, employers should ideally reward workers who work smarter/harder/better, etc. It's important to recognize that the extent to which the political and economic systems of various countries have actually managed to live up to these ideals varies quite a bit.

@mrhelzbygrad7485

Жыл бұрын

He also kinda skipped over how they accrued they capital to industrialise through slave labour.

@hurrdurrmurrgurr

Жыл бұрын

@@mrhelzbygrad7485 Slave labour was a nett economic loss which concentrated wealth into the hands of a few unproductive slave holders who had little incentivise to industrialise their workforce while the working class faced limited upward mobility and in turn an increased incentive to commit crimes. The English who banned slavery didn't use slaves in England to industrialise and the slave dependent confederate states were vastly underdeveloped compared to their northern brothers. A better argument can be made Western nations accrued the capital to industrialise through colonialism, taxing and stealing the wealth of conquered lands.

@mrhelzbygrad7485

Жыл бұрын

@@hurrdurrmurrgurr Yes I know that compared to wage labour it was less efficient, which later led the northern states to seek to abolish slavery partly as a means to become more competitive. But Britain's profits were still heavily linked to slave cotton long after they had abolished slavery (Abraham Lincoln has a statue in Manchester commemorating when Lancashire mill workers refused to handle slave cotton, to their own detriment). My main point was that through slavery and colonialism, capitalism gained it's the money which contributed to its industrialisation, whereas in the video it's presented as nice capitalists were just better than everyone and their fairer system makes innovation on its own.

@agentsteell

Жыл бұрын

@@mrhelzbygrad7485 The ussr had true unpaid slave labor, through the millions that passed through the gulag system and yet it didnt achieve much compared to western economies. Africans and muslims in north africa were the ones that provided the slaves, but they didn't achieve much in term of their economies. My point is the main factors that lead to wealth are innovation, freedom and protection of property rights. Everything else is secondary.

@mrhelzbygrad7485

Жыл бұрын

@@agentsteell capitalism is now at the stage of abandoning freedoms (through increasing surveillance securitization etc), property rights (through increasing reliance on leasing and finance/rental) and there's issues with market led research stifling innovation through planned obsolescence. If capitalism was committed to keep those things I'd be less critical, but a lot of those are side products to large surpluses and will be discarded in order to compete with China.

What's the name of the song playing in the background of the Stalin segment

Per person productivity suffered... Also: the economy grew... Well I imagine the productivity wasn't stellar, but at the beginning it did improve, because, well the economy grew... by a lot... (Well I think they did catch up on productivity in that time, because it was just way worse before. But the inefficiencys start to show after a few of the 5 year plans, because corruption increased and there was no system to combat the corruption effectivly, like in every dictatorship) Edit: Timeline is kinda wierd in this story. Seems like you were talking about the first 1 or 2 plans, as i wrote this, but then you jumped to the 70s lol

I think you're wrong on Tsars during the 18th-19th century. There were some real western-philes that tried to modernize Russia during that time. It was the old nobility that tried to curtail this process. For example they tried several attempts on Peter I 's life over his reform mentality

@yuliako2132

Жыл бұрын

Peter I was in the very beginning of the 18th century. But yeah Alexander I was more liberal, especially in the begging of his reign

@rcyadav9746

Күн бұрын

Passion knows student student is greatest army he we don't want to choose gossips students

15:48 The numbers most acknowledged in this period are 4-7 million, of which many were because of things like low degree of advanced technology. "Collectivization led directly to 12 million deaths" is wrong twice over.

@felipebrunetta2106

2 жыл бұрын

I mean, you have like 5 million guaranteed just between Kazakhstan and Ukraine, might be looking at a number of 7-10 million deaths. 12 million is still VERY wrong though

@ElectronFieldPulse

2 жыл бұрын

Are you a tankie?

@Spacemongerr

2 жыл бұрын

@@ElectronFieldPulse If "tankie" means "fan of correct information", then yes. If it means "fan of Stalin", then no.

@ElectronFieldPulse

2 жыл бұрын

@@Spacemongerr - Youre a socialist, so the truth has never been important to you. Socialists like you cannot accept the basic fact that socialism has failed every single time it has been tried, and that capitalism is league's better.

@damienchall8297

2 жыл бұрын

@@Spacemongerr actually they say 10 million to 14 million

What’s the name of the Russian waltz song played at minute 1:20ish?

The issue of quota-based bonus incentives to increase production seems nounsense.. How is that ANY different from any organization in a "capitalist" country? On Practically every company everywhere, managers and sometimes even workers get bonuses by increasing production, profits or efficiency by a certain % every year.. MEANING, each target achieved on a year will serve as a baseline for the next year.. and that incentive system is used and "works" everywhere..

@lmy2366

Жыл бұрын

Your missing the fact that if companies don't create the right kind of incentives, they go out of business. Creative destruction of this type was not present in the Soviet economy. For whom is the government competing against?

@MA-mg1qj

Жыл бұрын

​@@lmy2366 that's not really the point .- practically EVERY company does performance-based bonuses, it's a generalized practice in any capitalist economy, and it's proven to be very effective. So it's silly to argue that the same exact practise had the opposite effect in the URSS

@lmy2366

Жыл бұрын

@@MA-mg1qj Bonuses are primarily given in the form of stock options or restricted stock to key executives. Why would such executives steal, slack or mismanagement resources when they themselves would be most impacted by such actions? In the Soviet model managers are not stakeholders and are thus not encouraged to perform or be honest in the same manner.

@MA-mg1qj

Жыл бұрын

@@lmy2366 I wouldnt qualify that as "primarily", many performance bonuses are in cash, promotions, or even non-monetary rewards such as trips, gifts etc. And i was not refering to just key executives, but all levels of management and even workers. I.e. comission-based earning models, wherein part of pay is a % of sales. The whole capitalist model is driven by incentives and performance rewards

@MA-mg1qj

Жыл бұрын

@@lmy2366 You are probably thinking of the US wherein stock options are common, but that's not universal

So basically it comes down to something Marx also heavily implied: before you can do socialism you have to master capitalism. You can't just jump to it from feudalism directly, and you definitely can't do it while being a very poor country, it basically takes a lot of effort and preparation.

@RumHam5570

2 жыл бұрын

Good intuition - I think he went beyond that, explicitly mentioning the 1- the wonders of capitalism, 2- anyone’s inability to control it, and 3- the ultimate outcome developed through capitalism. 1- “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground - what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?” 2- Further explaining the power of capitalism, he says that capitalism cannot remain fettered by the narrow conditions that favor the bourgeoisie alone, and that it transforms society despite efforts to restrain it. “The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.” 3- Relating back to your point, he then mentions the crucial relationship that capitalism plays as the successor of feudalism, and the mechanism by which a society continues to develop the next stage of economy: “The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.”

@damienchall8297

2 жыл бұрын

basically marx said that as automation came about the workers would be forced to over throw the system so they would not starve. All communists ignored this and tried to get to that point with a command economy. China seems to have figured this out which is why they went sorta capitalist while keeping the country ruled by communists so as to create their economy

@ArkadiBolschek

2 жыл бұрын

@@damienchall8297 It's worth noting that China's policy _still_ constitutes an awful perversion of Marx's ideas.

@eunbiasedfan2873

2 жыл бұрын

That is interesting since most countries that are or were communist started off impoverished and were hardly industrialized. Marx also predicted the first socialist countries would emerge from the most advanced and industrialized nations and that was not the case at all.

@RumHam5570

2 жыл бұрын

@@eunbiasedfan2873 it is odd… in most cases, the rise of socialism in Russia and some African nations is due to intervention of industrial powers (Germany in the case of sending Lenin to Russia, and Soviet influence in the African socialist movements.) in the latter case, it’s worth noting that much of the 3rd world was looking to shake off colonial governance, and adoption of Soviet ideology often came with the benefit of Soviet sponsorship. … given the exploitative relationship between the 3rd world and industrial powers (the former feeding resources into the industry of the latter), it’s worth noting that you have and offshore proletariat feeding Industry in Europe and elsewhere... that technically attaches them to the crappiest end of exploitation. In the case of China, we do see the emergence of socialism out of a fractured semi-feudal warlord era, world war, and civil war. The rise of socialism there is odd since the society explicitly supported the nationalist side during the civil war, and it was a largely agrarian society (despite having a rich history and some massive cities).

You made quite a lot of great points, but it could be a bit more elaborate towards the end. Congrats anyway, great work!

@rcyadav9746

Күн бұрын

Communism is like religion without god

Is it just me, or is the audio of this video really quiet? I have my tablet at max volume and I can barely hear it.

Superbly insightful documentary

>there was no incentive to do work because your wages were fixed. This doesn't really make any sense. Firstly, Workers had considerable control over production rates, wages, working conditions, housing, and treatment by managers. For instance, in August 1935, of 118 cases regarding pay handled by the Commissariat of justice in the city of Saratov, around 75% were ruled in favour of workers. They took part in direct oversight of managers. Workers participated by the hundreds of thousands in special inspectorates, commissions, and brigades which checked the work of managers and institutions. These agencies sometimes wielded significant power. These policies effectively provided control of the means of production to the workers. Workers clearly had a major role in production and management, so its weird to make this claim. This level of worker control also disproves the later claims about fixing prices too. As well as the so-called "issues" with enterprises. They were fundamentally answerable to the workers via the model of Soviet Democracy and the way in which the economy was structured, so it woulnd't have been possible for managers to say "this is the output we want. Go and do it" with no response being made. >heavy industry was emphasises more than civillian goods In the historical context of the USSR, this is nothing worth pointing out. The Russian Empire was lagging behind in production and development in comparison to everyone else, even a seeming economic rise was only due to a commodity bubble for grain before and during WW1. Given the multiple acts of aggression against the USSR by the West (Intervention in Russian civil war, Lebensraum, Hokushin-ron in Japan) it makes sense the USSR was primarily concerned with developing this. And given that you need to have a strong heavy industry in order to develop light industry (where do you get the iron you need to produce tractors?) alongside that Soviet fears of an invasion were proven correct in 1941, I never really get this objection made. >information faliure Similarly, false, assuing I understood the objection here at least. The centralised form of the USSR's economy combined with the model of Soviet democracy and worker control meant that information was not an issue. By design, what needed to be known was known. That is the consequence of a centralised economy. The stagnation that came funnily enough, came with the start of Capitalist reforms in 1965! Where profit was placed at the heart of production, not use. Claims about innovation are also bizarre to me. The old saying is not "Money is the mother of innovation". The saying is that necessity is the mother of innovation. Putting aside the fact that Capitalism has strong motivations to not always pursue innovation, the USSR did demonstrably have significant bouts of innovation, it was a Soviet doctor iirc that pioneered Stem Cell Research. And of course the USSR imported things like tractors in terms of innovation from the West? Can we expect them to make new ways of making tractors? That seems like a wierd suggestion to make to me :/

@ImmortalDemonV

2 жыл бұрын

The video is just plain anti-communist propaganda.

@fraktaalimuoto

2 жыл бұрын

Not to defend the Soviet Union, but even in capitilast societies innovation in academia is not given incentive by getting rich. We academics care more about recognition and status when it comes to external incentives. I am a scientist and while I like to get paid so that I can pay my living in capitalism, hope of getting rich is not among the things that keep me going.

@sten260

2 жыл бұрын

@@fraktaalimuoto it's because you are mostly useless for the economy. Academics have very little value in the real world, unless they actually develop a real product and sell it to the masses. Capitalism does NOT reward useless people

@user-to2yk7jy6e

2 жыл бұрын

Especially since the civilian goods were handled mostly by private cooperation during the Stalin's times. Non-governmental self-organising collectives of people selling products on the market. Utensils, clothing, furniture, toys, food, et cetera, et cetera was produced by cooperatives. More than 2 millions of people, 114 thousands of companies. Then 14 april 1956 under the rule of Khruschev Central Commitee releases decree "About reorganisation of cooperatives" in which orders to give control of cooperative industries to the state by 1960.

@mart4144

2 жыл бұрын

@@fraktaalimuoto I know nobody that's going into the field of sciences whose doing it for the money. Studies have shown that most people rather work in a profession that they enjoy or have a passion in, than make more money. Either way, the capitalist argument of innovation coming from money is just a bit silly

AS a Lithuanian, ex soviet state, i am glad that it fell down, life is much greater now here compared to soviet union

@jgdooley2003

2 жыл бұрын

I am glad you enjoy the fruits of EU membership. Ireland joined the Community, then known as the EEC, in 1973. Before that the country was very poor and backward and relied mainly on agriculture and local services and mnfg for its sparse survival. Most people emigrated to the UK and US to find work and make a living. Now after nearly 50 years of EU membership Ireland is an economic hotbed of foreign direct investment in growing sectors such as IT and pharma. Large scale investment in education and infrastructure has resulted in making Ireland very attractive for immigration, the exact opposite of the situation in one lifetime. In 50 years ireland has gone from a population of 2.8 million to a population exceeding 5 million with high employment. The two flies in the ointment are dear and inaccessable housing and substandard, often chaotic, health service provision, especially for those who cannot afford private health insurance. It seems that the government, in focussing on job creation, has taken its eye off the ball in terms of providing secure and affordable housing of a acceptable standard and an adequately run health service. It is interesting to note that sectors which have no outside competition such as teaching, law and some parts of health, have very high costs and those sectors such as private sector mnfg and tech have lower costs because of external competition from poorer countries. This has resulted in higher inequalities than existed in the 1950's when everyone was poor. Not everyone has benefitted from EU membership and the uneducated and older people have not seen any improvement in living standards.

@MlokLik

2 жыл бұрын

@@jgdooley2003 Interesting comment, thank you for it.

@halohaalo2583

2 жыл бұрын

When Britain tried to leave the EU, all it took was a vote. When Hungary tried to leave the USSR, they sent in the tanks and murdered everyone

@kobemop

2 жыл бұрын

p.s. some kid born after the 1991

@TheRadistai

2 жыл бұрын

@@kobemop i was born after 1994 xD

I love how you used the ideas from the book Why Nations Fail. One of the best reads I have ever come across. Amazing video

6:20 I would live in that archway gate post in a heartbeat

The first part is basically Why Nation Fail written by acemoglu, right?

@mwanikimwaniki6801

Жыл бұрын

Bingo

I read that a Soviet shoe manufacturing manager could not meet his monthly quota. No matter how hard he tried he could just not do it and was destined for the firing squad. Then he realised he only had to produce a certain number of shoes per month and by making only right shoes he could meet his quota.

@stephenwood2172

Жыл бұрын

Don't believe everything you read lol

@socialaccount1421

Жыл бұрын

This is exactly how specialization works, and would lead to an increase in efficiency. If having the factory only make one set of shoes is more efficient, have one factory make left shoes and the other make right shoes and you'll make more pairs in total.

@DonMeaker

Жыл бұрын

@@socialaccount1421 Except very small shoes are of no good to anyone, except government bureaucrats who write fictitious reports.

I work for an American company. And the only difference to what I saw on this vid is: Managers actively reduce personnel and increase workload, to meet their targets or overperform. Besides that, it's the same shit.

@beibotanov

3 күн бұрын

Do you have free healthcare (except dental) and housing (after a several year queue)?

There is a saying in Poland What dosen't glow and dosen't fit in an ass? A soviet tool to glow in an ass.