Why the Soviet Union failed - my hypothesis

Post Reply New Topic

Opinion only, there are no such absolutes, might I suggest an objective course comparing economic theories? Perhaps also some investigation of humanism and ethics could be of use too?

On Subject; The failure of the Soviet Union transcended mere economic matters and did not occur in isolation to the actions of other global players, serious study of the subject takes years of multidisciplinary investigation.

it fell because it was a flawed system. Totalitarianism doesn't work well. Not to mention that they wasted all their money developing weapons.

The USSR wasn't always totalitarian, and actually most historians agree that it was the loosening of totalitarianism under Gorbachev that led to (or at the very least accelerated) the Soviet Union's collapse.

Also, we here in the US waste all our money developing weapons, and we haven't collapsed yet.

However the overspending in various areas leave us vulnerable to economic shocks which could take the system down.

ruveyn

Which is taking the system down. The diversion of liquidity out of technological progress from reinvestment in capital and labor for industrial innovation into Wall Street gambling is destroying the country.

The Soviet Union failed because Russia is a cold, miserable, uninhabitable hell. If the Italians had set up a Soviet Union in Italy that would have succeeded. Their land and good weather would have easily been able to support all their citizens.

America, too, could easily make a Soviet Union set up work. California alone is one of the most bountiful places on earth. Then there's the breadbasket of the middle of America. Not to mention the vast renewable energy potential of New Mexico with solar power.

There is no way of managing a modern industrial economic system by central command. The combinatorics of the system outrun any computer control system and no human has an overall algorithm for allocating the time of people and the material resources of a modern society optimally. Only a non-central system has a chance of working. We call it a market place. The human race has developed trade and markets over the last ten thousand years of human history and it works. It has made our survival as a species AND our prosperity and health possible at the same time. That is why the world is tending toward mixed economies with the market component the main driver. Governments regulate but they cannot produce.

In addition to which, there is more to Mother Russia than Siberia. Russia extends over six time zones east to west and has a variety of climates and a variety of geographical configurations. The only thing Russia is deficient in is warm water sea ports. Russia has some of the most beautiful forests and meadows in the world.

ruveyn

And so spaketh the prophet of dumm...

This is simplistic nonsense, you are merely spouting the articles of faith of one particular temple to mammon, it is not absolute truth. As for your technocratic babble about computers and algorithms etc... blah blah blah... nonsense

You have managed to elevate ignorance and lack of knowledge to a virtue and High Calling.

ruveyn

Your cohesive and eloquent counter-argument has won me over to your cause...

Ruveyn's comments were actually the opposite of technocratic. A technocrat, in common with the socialist, would hold the utterly absurd notion that the economy can be centrally controlled in an effective manner.

If you disagree with the claims he made in that regard, I'd be happy to walk you through the math. The pre-reqs aren't too daunting; you should be able to follow as long as you've had three semesters of calculus and a first course in differential equations.

Don't bother, as far as I can tell Red H here is more interested in personal attacks and anti-Americanism than actual discourse; you'd be throwing perfectly good posts down a black hole.

I know. The only reason I called him out was because Red H criticized another poster, alleging that they lacked knowledge of economics, ethics, etc. While this may or may not be true, Red H then went on to dismissively reject an accurate observation based in a field of study that is actually legitimate and objective. "Serious study of the subject takes years of multidisciplinary investigation" indeed. Study of the facts he rejected takes only a couple years worth of basic undergraduate-level mathematics; surely that shouldn't be beyond such a sage?

Wow, poor iddy biddy yanks are offended by me, oh dear.

Firstly, Economics is more than mathematical equations and there are no absolutes.

Secondly, The reasons for the Soviet Union collapsing are myriad and transcend mere economics. where shall we start, shall we start with the social changes of the mid 19th century, the dissolution of the serf system and it's outcomes, shall we look at the different groups within this society and their aspirations? Shall we look at a peasant based culture grappling with a revolution, a civil war and then the most rapid industrialization the world had until that point seen. Then there is the optimism of the late 20's and early 30's, the fear during Stalin's purges and the Nazi invasion.... which of these isolated points shall we leap on, isolate and construct a theory to use in placing blame?

If you wish to engage in serious debate, make serious comments based on fact and exposition of ideas, not sloganeering and emotive absolutes delivered in one sentence blip-verts of ignorance and bigotry.

Thirdly, My use of the term 'technocratic' was in relation to the use of jargon a trait/device used by technocrats in their ivory towers. If you read John Ralston Saul you will find that technocrats exist in all technological/capitalist societies as well as socialist ones.

Anti-American? probably, but hey act like d^#@$%^ds get treated like d^#@$%^ds, what can I say? If those of you engaged in the all American locker room circle jerk could look at the world through some other lens than your anal sphincter then you might start making some intelligent HUMAN decisions.

Now lastly, 'command economies do not work'? Lets look at China shall we? let's see? here we have an adaptive command economy that is performing brilliantly in pure technical terms, in fact isn't it holding the mortgage on the USA as we speak .

peace j

Is that an absolute statement or a provisional statement?

Which?

ruveyn

Ok, but mathematical equations are incredibly relevant to economic planning. In fact, the idea of organizing all of that information, forecasting, and determining ideal production is going to be highly mathematically dependent.


Ok, but having an economic system that cannot succeed is still going to be a death knell for any society.


That's the thing. China has relaxed the command. China was absolutely a failure as an economy for a few decades until it decentralized some decisions and allowed for some market forces to make decisions. For this reason, I would have to say that it isn't "an adaptive command economy", so much as a mixed economy.