An Examination of Key Factors in the Collapse of the Soviet Union | Robert Wenzel

[@libertyeconomics]

This is what I like. Educational, not confrontational.

[@andypotanin]

Trick to "beating" communism: wait.

[@modusartsgroup]

Or as my father taught me - socialism is a generic term and Communism is a specific brand name....

[@jenR2120]

Not that you will see this 8 years later after writing this but smart Father!!! I was trying to explain exactly that to some a few days ago and had I thought to use those brief words it would’ve much simpler. Now the person I was speaking with was a Marxist so maybe he wouldn’t have liked that but that was the exact point I was making in many more words. Your dad was straight and to the point👍

[@ghostKurt]

This is an important video as the same will happen to the USA if they keep this up

[@glsrecovery]

In the language of our fathers, simple logic and complete truth in all matters. Your message is growing rapidly on earth. Not for money but for sacred individual liberty. That is patriotism. Way to go Bob.

[@Janlaxle]

I'm russian. I've studied this topic alot. Most of what is said by Robert is simply not true. Rise and fall of soviets more sophisticated than you think.

[@kmg501]

Highly educational lecture, thanks so much for uploading! -

[@michaeltolan7356]

In

[@rumco]

Getting a lecture at LvMI is the top of his career. Especially after that IP fiasco.

[@19battlehill]

Look at the energy costs --- the Soviet Union was very similiar to Venzuela where it was very dependent on Oil prices --

[@xblue1476]

Total BS

[@modusartsgroup]

Do a youtube search for Juri Lina's THE LIGHTBRINGERS if you want to understand fully just what forces were at work under Soviet rule.

[@Malthus0]

Is this the one where he plagiarized wikipedia?

[@moneybagzz]

Excellent talk, very informative. If I am not mistaken, Reagan's Federal Reserve started a strong Dollar policy which cut the USSR's oil revenues. Pope John Paul was able to provide majority Catholic Poland with spiritual support Strategic Defense Initiave, which sounded 'pie-in-the-sky' at the time caused some of the Russian leadership to seriously consider US technical expertise and how it would affect the nuclear arsenal.

[@Janlaxle]

In general,soviet elites in 80s realisied its doom, so their plan was to be like China - party-led state capitalisam. However Yeltsin's ideas was different - he wanted democracy, kinda true capitalism. Gaidar's was a key person and a double agent - if you simply study his works, and then his actions (and not from his books) you realise - the only reason he did all that stupid stuff in 1992-93 - is to discredit Yeltsin. This fight with old communits lasted until Putin takeover. It's state cap now

[@ChrisBarcelo]

Wonderful talk Wenzel.

[@ianllomeli2855]

With regards to the claims that USSR survived WW2 solely thanks to US aid, as if somehow they were unnable to produce anything is LUDACRIS, and tremendously uninformed. As well as the mention of being of lower quality. For a fact, over the course of the war they produced over 110 thousand armored vehicles (comparable to the US production during the same timeframe). This includes the T34 and IS2 tanks, considered best all-round tanks of the war. By comparisson, US supplied only about 15000 tanks, many of which have been used for training purposes. Small arms production figures are also comparable, while artillery production is double to the US, 500K units over the course of the war. The united states supplied LESS than 10% of USSR's weaponry. What it did supply in great numbers were trucks (about 500k) and non-combat provisions (food being of great importance in that respect). It is generally agreed by millitary historians that this aid was instrumental in decreasing the duration of the war by giving them the ability to quickly operate over longer distances. The US help however, was not what saved USSR from complete and utter devastation, it mearly helped them reduce their losses and speed up the war.

[@frankhajek4821]

Not tremendously uniformed but overstated for sure. The reason is stated above, the trucks and an additional 2000 locomotives. These were delivered at the time most Soviet factories were being moved east and at the time there was minimal Soviet production. If the Soviets hadn't this equipment they would not have been able to stop the Germans were they did in the fall of 1942 and then transition to offensive on the scale they did from that winter on. The only reason this was possible, at that time, were those trucks and trains, logistically without them it would have been impossible. What would have happened should the Germans have taken the oil fields and link to the mid-east? Who knows, that being said it can't be said that they are what saved the USSR from complete and utter devastation, they did/do have the whole of Sibera to fall back on. on the other hand their impact surely was not mere.

[@mhandley0711]

Ian, the quality of commie stuff was shite. Not sure which fantasy you’re living in. When’s the last time you saw a Volga at a used car dealership? That was their premier car and was shit. How about the last time you saw a tupelov at a western airport? Or any soviet or even Russian appliance at a store in the USA or a western country? They can’t compete and they don’t. Russia is just an extension of the Soviet Union: low standard of living, short life expectancy, low quality of manufacturing base, low quality of agricultural production. Besides, if they’re so good- where’s your hammer and sickle now?

[@billmelater6470]

True, I also think he way over-states the issue but I don't think the program can be dismissed. Not to mention we supplied a huge amount of food and oil, not just equipment. At the risk of jumping into this never ending fray; the T-34 and it's quality are vastly over stated IMO. They were not a "quality" tank but rather a "quantity" tank. For its time in the beginning, the T-34 had thicker armor (and sloped) and a bigger gun which gave it a tremendous edge early on but was quickly surpassed. The Germans when they first invaded did not know they had them and in the quantity they came in. Now, I personally love the T-34, but it simply is not the quality sports car of the war. It was a tank that worked and one that could be produced en masse which was what the Russians needed. Those factors are a quality in their own right. Anyway, everything is a trade off and everyone has different assessments of the subjective evaluation of "quality". It really depends on how you see it, so don't think that I am holding my opinion as the be all end all. If I were to give the quality award to anything, I might have to give it to the Panzer IV. Again, just my opinion, but this topic is just as volatile as the AK vs. M16 debate.

[@thetedmang]

This account is wholly inaccurate. Not only did the US practically give away thousands of trucks, tanks, food and munitions to the Soviets, Khrushchev even wrote in his memoir that "had it not been for the United States, we would have lost the Great Patriotic War." That's impressive revisionist history; let me guess, you learned it in school, in the Russian Federation?

[@UAESalmaHussain]

We as hindu 🕉️pray 🙏for Russian union of Christan,which is far better for hindu than greedy looter british 💂or caliphate of Eu ☪️

[@weis.victor]

STEF-AWN! STEF-AWN! STEF-AWN!

[@spanaker]

i like the way robert wenzel talks

[@bostjanklemencic]

especially the drooling part?

[@gborrego1991]

EPJ is probably the best libertarian blog out there

[@CaleyMcKibbin]

Why would Kinsella dislike this? You mean Stephen Kinsella?

[@MabusZero]

One thing Dr. Wenzel, and this is a thing that annoys me to no end regarding Popperian interpretations of Marxism. Marxian Dialectics are distinct from the Hegelian IN THAT they have so little respect for the dignity of the individual in assessing their own experience. Hegel begins with the sphere of Logic, which is subjective. Marx eschews the subjective sphere with the assumption that he has adequate understanding of Natural phenomena to do so. An Hegelian understanding of praxis can be quite compatible with Misesian praxeology, with the germ of human motivation emerging in the subjective experience for both schools of thought.

[@sdkee]

> Long monotone speech. Is there a version retold by Tom Woods or Peter Schiff or anyone that don't put me to sleep? So you need to have shiny things in front of you to keep you falling asleep? Are you a fish?

[@sashimanu]

The story about TVs catching fire is true. The common practice was to toss it out of the window if it did. And those things were heavy (60 kg ~ 120 lbs) At the end of the programming around midnight there was a sign-off screen saying "Don't forget to turn off the TV" (Не забудьте выключить телевизор) with a nasty loud beeper to wake any viewers who fell asleep.

[@sentilopis]

Not to take from your point, there is no "true" socialism, since both Russian and German strands of socialism just reference prices from the world economy for production. As advanced by Mises, true socialism itself is impossible.

[@bizwiz21]

Great talk!

[@gaplauche]

Yes, we finally know what Raymond Nize...er, Raymond Salter... Peter Stojan... er, Robert Menrohm... er, Robert Wenzel, or whoever he is, looks like.

[@yossarianmnichols9641]

wholesale prices in electricity in California became unregulated and retail rates were controlled by the PUC. Enron feasted on this system until they were finally caught shutting down power plants to create spikes in wholesale prices.

[@AxLogan0212]

is there any transcription of this conference?

[@christiansmith-of7dt]

I just want everyone else to have a better life than me , good job guys youre the best

[@MrPerlishells]

Long monotone speech. Is there a version retold by Tom Woods or Peter Schiff or anyone that don't put me to sleep?

[@FishFromInnsmouth]

Kinsella made 9 accounts to dislike this.

[@justicar5]

Comparison of American and Soviet world war 2 military equipment (especially tanks and ground attack aircraft) shows that the Soviets had better (for purpose, they had brutal assumptions about obsolescence by fire) on most fronts, individual rifles where better with US forces, aircraft it's completely different requirements and doctrine so that's a hard comparison to make, but the t-34, KV and IS series of tanks where better for the type of war that happened in the East. However the point semi stands. On 'mixed economies' how many million will Mr Wenzel kill for his utopia, either as people riot as their children needlessly die because they can't afford the fees of the coke addled psychopaths and monsters who run the insurance industry, or by illness and food poisoning as they are forced to buy hideously unsafe food? America already has the worst food safety record in the western world, without any restraint food will literally be toxic. On the 'reforms instantly making things better' They didn't they lead to oligarchs and huge criminality, unsurprisingly, they got the model right, classic capitalism, they just where to open about the murder, in short the mix you claim doesn't exist works, and the utter horror you call for is a 'utopia'''for a very few and grinding, relentless poverty for everyone else, like all extremist answers.

[@nknowledge11]

EPJ is awesome!

[@magister343]

They were never synonyms. and Communism was never an implementation. Those who called themselves Communists were Marxist Socialists who held that Communism should be the end goal. They never claimed that any existing system was anywhere close to communism. Many groups identified as Socialists who had nothing to do with Marx at all, including some individualists and anarchists.

[@Metzenger]

The problem is that socialism is a term that's used to encompass a big set of things. Originally socialism and communism were synonyms, in the way Marx and Lenin used them in reference to a theory. Then came actual implementations, first big-C Communism in Russia, then Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany. Now socialism refers to the theory, and communism is a specific implementation with certain unique characteristics.

[@thinksimon]

As a school report it might've earn "B" for the effort. As a scholarly work it's mediocre at least. A lot of factual errors, lots of uncalled for simplification, lots of unrelated information, and he doesn't really proof his main point. Just to mention one of his argument that death of millions of people (destruction of human capital) somehow propped up socialistic economy. A Malthusian/Keynesian argument in H. Hazlitt memorial lecture? How very unfortunate, it's a very promising topic.

[@DF-ss5ep]

Malthus was proven wrong by the Haber process. In the early USSR, at least according to the speaker, the inverse of the Haber process happened: production collapsed.

[@bostjanklemencic]

He likes what he talks about so much that he can't stop drooling constantly...

[@TheCruxy]

Rest In Peace

[@kRudAres]

2. (cont) society to set the necessary material conditions for socialism. Lenin, Stalin and Mao pushed Marx/Engels aside and tried to use "socialism" to do capitalism's job. Essentially to industrialize and advanced the economy. Also to advanced the population to a point where they could run production/distribution themselves. The Marxists in Russia/China didn't place workers in control of production instead the party/state took the role of capitalist and forced speed up progress on peasants.

[@timstarr01]

Completely wrong: 1) The Soviet conventional military buildup began under Brezhnev in the mid-1960s, then maxxed out in the 1970s, so it couldn't posssibly have gone up under Reagan - which Reagan knew, & was one of his major points. 2) That Soviet building up was funded by oil revenues, which skyrocketed in the 1970s thanks to inflation, the Arab oil embargo, & the Iranian Revolution. 3) Reagan had the Saudis cut oil prices to de-fund the USSR, greatly, thus leaving it with a military budget that accounted for more than 40% of GDP. Britain spent 50% of GDP on the military in WWII, and had to give up its empire afterwards even though we loaned them the money. 4) Yes, the Soviets got tons of foreign aid from the US & others going way back to the 1920s. Reagan stopped that, imposing sanctions instead. 5) High oil prices made natural gas relatively cheap for the first time, so the Soviets tried to build a natural gas pipeline to Europe. Reagan sanctioned it then sabotaged it, resulting in it being much smaller & less revenue-generating than originally planned. 6) Reagan's military buildup was designed to qualitatively neutralize Soviet quantitative superiority, which the Soviets couldn't afford to compete with. This qualitative superiority was demonstrated when Israeli F16s beat Syrian MiGs over Lebanon, when US Stingers killed Soviet assault choppers in Afghanistan, and when US Abrams tanks slaughtered Soviet-made T72s in Iraq. 7) Reagan denied Western technology transfers to the Soviets, both via trade & theft. 8) Reagan sponsored anti-Soviet resistance movements both peaceful (Solidarity) & violent (Afghanistan, etc.). 9) Stockman's not a credible source, he's been anti-US since he coined the phrase "trickle-down economics" to oppose Reagan's tax cuts, which worked as predicted once they were made permanent.

[@TheLifeTrekker]

LOL. I watched part of it live just to see what he looked like.

[@erelpc]

I can't take this guy seriously after listening to the interviews on his talk show.

[@adammarxist]

Umm, the US was not living under free market conditions though, as you point out yourself.

[@1schwererziehbar1]

he should have said a few words about the space program. great talk though.

[@sdkee]

> No gun control under the Tzar Which Tzar?

[@Dinawartotem]

In a book neatly dubbed "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty." The soviet union is explained as to have crashed due to a lack of inclusive political institutions that were made to extract wealth from the masses into the communist party and insecure property rights. It seems this movie is saying the same thing. xD

[@ScarletWitchJakarta]

He's an impressive looking dude. I imagined a younger skinnier guy.

[@PoliticalWeekly]

before i met him at AERC, i thought he was a 28-31 businessman.

[@againstjebelallawz]

The "a" in "Glasnost'" is the same sound as the a's in "Argentina", the "t" in "Glasnost'" is the same as the "t" in "tea".

[@edwardrichardson8254]

History for the Mentally Challenged. Throughout the 70s and 80s the Soviets were pouring billions annually just into Cuba alone as their staging ground for running "revolutions" in Latin America. Soviet subsidies averaged $4.3 billion a year for the period of 1986 to1990, and constituted 21.2 percent of the Cuban Gross National Product and in addition the Soviets were 80% of their trade. About $600m/yr went just to the Cuban military alone which was responsible for the export of subversion to Latin America. Note how Mr. Wenzel does not address exactly what Soviet military spending was during 80s - it was 12% of GDP, an increase of 4-7%. For comparison, the US averaged 6% of GDP military spending throughout the Cold War. Is Mr. Wenzel unfamiliar with Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala Honduras, Grenada, Bolivia? Pick up any autobiography of a US Special Forces veteran from this time and they're entrenched in black wars in Latin America. Soviet economic aid provided 25% of Nicaraguan needs, Soviet tankers ran into mines trying to get the Sandinistas, their communist angels with AK-47s, their oil, Thousands of tons of Soviet wheat arrived after the United States cut its credit line for wheat purchases. In El Salvador the Soviet Union and Cuba backed the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) and ran a covert program that supplied 15,000 guerrilla rebels with 800 tons of modern arms and training - including the supply of western manufacturers to cover up the source of the weaponry. Reagan countered with $5b in support for the Nationalist Republican Alliance. Note that during this time while the USSR is funding Marxism in America's backyard, they're engaged from '79--89 in a withering, expensive war in Afghanistan. Mr. Wenzel addresses the "Well how did it survive for 68 years (MASSIVE American Lend-Lease during WWII not even mentioned by the MIses bigwigs) with "Well they had a 'reserve fund' that leeched off enterprise." It's all money any way you cut it Mr. Wenzel and war is not just obscene, it's obscenely expensive. It's laughable that this man starts this lecture by blaming America for "imperialist" wars (after 9/11 even Jimmy Carter would've invaded Afghanistan) but is completely mum on the Soviet involvement in Latin America and Afghanistan. Mr. Wenzel quotes Gorbachev's worries that they're printing too much money and facing food shortages. The Soviets entered into Afghanistan riding the high of a massive increase in the scarcity and price of oil, but this turned into a 'resource curse' for them for ten years as the price of oil immediately began to drop! And if the Latin interventions were 'proxy-war Lite' the Afghanistan war was nothing of the sort, the US dropped $20 billion into that war while the Chinese allocated between $6-$12 billion to the mujahedeen. For comparison the CIA assessed that b '86 the Soviets had dumped $50 billion into Afghanistan, and that was MONEY in the Third World USSR. Mr. Wenzel wants to mention meat shortages but can't mention billions going to a useless war in Afghanistan and to a lesser degree to back failed communist insurgencies in Latin America? You can keep communism going simply by stringing people along in misery in a police state (Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela), you can't keep it going by dumping treasure on global Leninism countered at every turn, your hand called every time, by the richest nation on the planet.

[@danelirimescu6832]

I don't know anything about soviet union . Not only that but although there was communism back than in my country we were anti russian . Ceausescu masterminded a special secret service anti kgb but still moscow was able to inflitrate them only insignificantly though . I don't have any education in economics . I hold a master in mechanic engineering. To make the story short cause i am a lazy bum as far as writing is considered between mid 60 - mid 79's there was no happy people in this world as the romanians . Probably only germans enjoyed this between 33- 39 '. In the 60's Romania become the fifth most important diplomacy in the world becoming the chief negociator between USA and the vietnamese . The same isrel and palestinians The number 5 secret service in the world. The only country in eastern europe who let Israel and Bundes Republik opened embassies in bucharest . The only country in the treaty of warshaw who opposed and did not participate in the invasion of prague to annihilate the czeks revolt . As a result Ceausescu was the only leader from eastern europe to be invited at the white house by three american presidents in a raw . Even queen elizabeth invited him in London . What he got in return ? Simply . The so called " MOST FAVORED NATION" status . At the time markets were full of cheap and healthy food . No unemployment .Culturally we flourished . I am talking only about the 70's in particular . Today after 29 years since the change of the system Romania has become MR. NOTHING . In 89' population numbered 22 million . Today ? 18 million .

[@christiansmith-of7dt]

I just want everyone else to have a better life than me

[@aaronho2938]

Explain the Singapore Model to me please, li family is in control for generations. It’s not a democracy.

[@bidenator9760]

You are right. It's more a technocracy. The opposition has been winning more seats, but with limitations on free speech, it's still only partly free.

[@wingpilot]

I'm sorry to say that, but you are poor-educated person. Socialism and communism are not synonyms.The main difference is that the communist society does not need the money. The principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Because such a system requires absolute consciousness of every man, it's impossible to create it in real life. However, socialism can be built that with varying degrees of success has been demonstrated in certain countries.

[@christiansmith-of7dt]

All they did was change the map book no big deal

[@kRudAres]

3.The socialist phase, if done in advanced capitalist nations with socially advanced workers, is a phase of expropriation (using the state to abolish capital) and also a transitional phase placing workers in control of production/distribution. Communism is when workers control production/distribution and there is no more capital/concentrated wealth forcing market property relations on the population. Communism also can't arise in isolation.Marx always said so which is why Stalin further (cont)

[@kRudAres]

forgive any typos. I type extremely fast and don't 'proof read' youtube posts.

[@mch8957]

Well, Robert Wenzel is right about Reagan not defeating the Soviet Union, everybody in Russia will agree with that, even the most pro-western Jews who hate everything Russian and are always more than happy to diminish Russia by declaring its defeat.. But his own explanation is as ridiculous as the one he correctly refuted. And by the way, Socialism was a Jewish idea to start with, it was never Russian! It was propagated by Jews (starting with Karl Marx) and on British money. The "Russian" revolution was essentially financed by British and German governments and organized by Trotsky (aka Lev Bronstein, another Jew), along with his party comrades Lev Kamenev (aka Lev Rozenfeld) and Grigory Zinoviev (aka Ovsei Aphelbaum)... Anyway, to make the long story short: I am not impressed. I am a Russian, and I lived in Soviet Union and I lived through collapse of Soviet Union, and can tell you: you should not try to refute some stupid myths with a longwinded story mostly consisting of random facts, old stereotypes.and bad jokes you have to explain! Yes, you hate Putin, that's well understood! And you love to spew your hate and to spread your lies, that must be your Jewish thing...Yes, your Jewish Socialism does not work, no matter how many Russian people you kill! But it did not fail because of the Russian people, it lasted so long because the Russian people: their patience and their persistence and their self-sacrifice in protecting their country and their people: something that the American political caste and their Jewish puppet masters are about to learn the hard way!

[@dustinholt7308]

The idea that Ronald Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet union is naïve.

[@TheCruxy]

He does not mean “nothing” as in 0%, his point (supported by a man who was there), was that saying Reagan broke the soviets is a falsehood

[@anniestone9343]

not the best public speaker I've ever heard. I don't like how he stutters and it's distracting. I don't like it.

[@MrGiggity890]

Wow that's cute - so go on the internet and complain about it.....oh wait...

[@michaelvainer3350]

1917------1991------State on clay feets !

[@jtku4057]

He's an awful speaker.

[@marcusdavenport1590]

wow

[@kevinsheerinAllThingsFitness]

swing and a miss

[@NickF1227]

TOO MANY QUOTES

[@brandonvereyken3925]

raising a society without incentives to work and help each other doesn't work any better than raising children without incentives to work. if you let your kid play all the time and never clean his room, never go to school, never study; if you let a child be lazy, he'll be lazy. why? because he's human. you have to provide INCENTIVES, or REASONS to work, to save, to help others. freedom does this. people will always find ways to cooperate that are mutually beneficial, and they will cooperate to EXACTLY that extent and no more. If you take away the reasons to work hard, don't act so surprised when people don't work hard, or work at all. It doesn't take socialism. High tax rates or a welfare program can achieve the same thing. Pay less for work and you'll get less work. DUH....

[@bbcapryllian9337]

LOL....take it home strud.

[@chriswood1661]

The moment he starts plugging a book, and his view on Keynes I started to have doubts. Then when he started talking about “evil empire”, I tuned out…. I don’t adhere to any specific ideology, but want do expect from any so-called academic is objective analysis. Instead, what we have here is a child-like neo-liberal fantasist.

[@njrod2008]

not anymore, lol

[@ChuteBoxe3]

Oh, boy! Someone who doesn't know the difference between the normative and the descriptive calling someone else poor-educated.

[@christinecanda4004]

Xb

[@kRudAres]

1.Lenin was a Marxist who stormed Russia and implemented state capitalism not socialism. Socialism is the phase where workers take over industry in an advanced capitalist nation. Russia was both socially and economically undeveloped hence actual socialism was not possible. If Mises actually read Marx he would know Lenin/Stalin/Mao completely warped Marx's writings in a disgustingly opportunist fashion. Marx always praised capitalism and bourgeois democracy for it's ability to advance (cont)

[@samluke8121]

How is it one is able to simply misread what Marx clearly sates in the Manifesto?

[@MrToddrific]

An actual solution? To be ruled by a computer? ha ha

[@DiagonalSeven]

Those were great ideas applied in a really nad way... And anyway capitalist idea didnt bring anything good too... Or not?

[@Thiagooooo13]

yeah, except, you know... All the stuff that you are currently enjoying e that make your life so much less miserable...

[@shoebox91us]

sounds like he wants a job to me ?

[@MaxOpSuReal]

Just another absurd Austrian interpretation of basic historical facts made to support their semi-religious belief in market economy. Nuff said.

[@82zerox]

hahahaha poor commie

[@MaxOpSuReal]

@@82zerox, soooo, basically any person who do not support semi-religious belief in market economy is commie to you?