How Did the Soviet Union Actually Work?

How did the Soviet Union actually function? The USSR was a country of contradictions. It was a state purportedly founded to serve the interests of the working proletariat but that was always ruled either by a small elite (the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) or by one man alone, as it was under the dictator Joseph Stalin. In theory, the Soviet people had votes and a voice, but in practice, a group of about 20, the Politburo, made all major government policies and were accountable only to the party.
Subscribe for more history:
www.youtube.co...
More Videos:
How Did the Russian Empire Actually Work?: • How Did the Russian Em...
Why Did the Kaiser HAVE to Abdicate in 1918?: • Why Did the Kaiser HAV...
What Caused Division in Cyprus?: • What Caused Division i...
How Did the Allies Divide Germany?: • How Was Germany Divide...
What Caused the Iranian Revolution?: • What Caused the Irania...
Sources Consulted:
“1936 Constitution of the USSR, TOC.” Accessed May 3, 2023. www.departments....
Derbyshire, Ian. Politics in the Soviet Union: From Brezhnev to Gorbachev. Cambridge: W&R Chambers LTD, 1987.
Marx, Karl & Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Translated by Samuel Moore (1885). Introduction and notes by A J P Taylor. London: Penguin Group, 1985.
Miller, Stuart T. Mastering Modern European History. London: Macmillan Education LTD, 1990.
O’Neil, Patrick H et al. Cases in Comparative Politics: Sixth Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2018.
Pipes, Richard. The Three Whys of the Russian Revolution. London: Pimlico, 1998.

[@MichaelJohnson-vi6eh]

In the 80's when I was in high school I did a lot of research and still could not figure out how the government of the Soviet Union worked.

[@guslarz]

bc it didn't work

[@usurparemagnus]

@@guslarz oh it did, just not on the things you’d expect a government should do?

[@guslarz]

@@usurparemagnus yeah, it worked on occupaing my country for 45 years

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

@@guslarz there is a 90 percent chance the majority of people born during that era in your country wanna go back.

[@guslarz]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 it ain't

[@phoenixshadow6633]

This more closely resembles corporate bureaucracy than it does any other democracy at the time.

[@LookBackHistory]

That's not a bad analogy.

[@JackChurchill101]

Always fear a bureaucracy that wants more power for it self, "for the people"

[@bluedoes2143]

Best way to understand it.

[@pierren___]

It looks like the us federal system lol

[@answerman9933]

@@pierren___ Well, a federal system actually has smaller jurisdictions (such as states/provinces) working independently withing a framework of a large federal government. Now, had you wrote, "It looks like the US federal government" your comparison would have made more sense.

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

"Soviet" means council. That pretty much explains everything you need to know about the system. The soviet union was basically a bunch of councils that managed the workers in a geographic location, almost like a labor union but on steroids. Its called syndicalism.

[@SwedishDrunkard5963]

Syndicalism is more than that, syndicalism also envolvs unions alot, and unions was not a thing in the USSR I think. and a few more things

[@difox5731]

It was more of an industry related voting system. Unlike in any other 'democracy' voters could remove the guy they voted for (in modern 'democracies' you can't recall a person you elected which leads to popularity contest - 'elections' with X years of fucking over voters after that). So, if person X goes from bottom to top from one industry/plant => voters from that industry/plant can remove him => he'll be removed from the top position. If other top position people want him to stay then they could supress that (there are many ways to illegally influence voters in any country) or help that process if they don't want him there. Some people even made research on that, if it was fake populism or real thing that worked.

[@Prororo]

@@SwedishDrunkard5963 weren’t councils basically unions?

[@SwedishDrunkard5963]

@@Prororo not exacly, there are diffrences, also unions were organizations of workers which they used to better force their will thru and get better working conditions and stuff, a council is more of a place were people are elected to represtent them and their local area, they dont have the same direct conection to the labour itself, ofcourse they still could try to get better working conditions for workers and stuff but that is more like a politician fighting for better working conditions than the workers directly them self. this is not the best description but its what I can do right after I have woken upp.

[@theparadigm8149]

The USSR wasn’t “syndicalist”, as syndicalism wants worker unions, called syndicates, to control the whole economy. It’s more appropriate to see the USSR as having a council communist economy, with more authoritarianism and centralism, of course

[@aps125]

Using corporate analogy, central committee = shareholders, politburo = board of directors, general secretary = board chair. government = corporate office

[@kyjo72682]

That's a really bad analogy. Central commitee is incomparable to shareholders. None of these analogies work..

[@robnobert]

@@kyjo72682 ☝️those particular corporate analogies may not work but you do have to admit they are ABOUT work... 🥁

[@petebondurant58]

The shareholders in communism answer to the politburo in reality.

[@AT-9777]

​@@kyjo72682Explain how general secretary does not fit board chair

[@littlemoocow]

If you don’t agree with the ways the government functioned, that is completely understandable. Saying “it didn’t work,” is just childish…

[@sosig6445]

if you ask the leaders it worked as it should: preserving their power.

[@littlemoocow]

@@sosig6445 okay, does that mean we have to agree with it?

[@sagitarriulus9773]

But if it worked it would still be around…

[@littlemoocow]

@@sagitarriulus9773 so, no socialist countries exist??

[@endryl08]

@@sagitarriulus9773 WRONG, just compare how Russia was before the societ union, like trillions worse haha, everything literelly everything eventually go down, that like saying the Roman Impire never work?? lmao ofc it Worked, thats why it lasted so long, the USRR worked fine until it went down.

[@KingSizzle21]

When I visited Russia a few years ago, I found that most Russians, especially the older ones, had the same view of Stalin that they had of Peter the Great: a Russian leader who acted the way Russian leaders always have: using forced labor, secret police, and autocracy to modernize Russia. An older woman who was born in the 1950s there said to me, “Russian people can do anything as long as someone forces us.” A lot of westerners are too preoccupied with going out of their way to denounce countries that offered alternatives to capitalism to take the time to understand the USSR in the greater context of Russian history, and to not-do that inevitably prevents you from having a handle on the subject.

[@maarten1115]

Being made to do things at gun point is objectively worse than a more effective system where you don't get shot for choosing your own lifestyle.

[@KingSizzle21]

@@maarten1115 well, for Russia, this works better. For us, our less coercive, but coercive nonetheless, system works. You have to understand that different parts of the world have different histories, and different cultures because of it. Russia was first a Khanate ruled by the Khan, then an autocracy for three hundred years. The only leadership Russia has ever seen has been coercive, and that shaped their political culture. With that being said, most Russian people have never been forced at gunpoint to do something. It’s just that most of their major historical advancements happened as a result of forced labor.

[@maarten1115]

@KingSizzle21 It may be more compatible with their culture, but that doesn't excuse it. If anything, their culture is both the result and main enforcer of this backwards way of thinking. Russian culture teaches cynicism, self repression of independent thought, minimal work effort in the absence of external motivation, i.e., the metaphorical or literal gun to the back. It is russian culture that keeps the country backwards until every few decades a new stalin comes along to force march the country forward a bit at an enormous human cost.

[@maarten1115]

@KingSizzle21 The chronically underfunded welfare system introduced under the soviet system has turned into a cynical nationwide loyalty system where passive acceptance of the regime earns you a little bit of money to subsidise ones meagre income. Ironically, it is not too different from some systems in the west where local parties reward poor people with welfare in exchange for party loyalty.

[@maarten1115]

@KingSizzle21 F**k this website, I crafted two long responses, and the YT gives them to boot. Probably for mentioning the Georgian moustache man.

[@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad]

0:57 why are the baltics 🇩🇪

[@LookBackHistory]

Oh! Coincidence that I didn't notice.

[@morgoli2916]

Because its Reichskommissariat Ostland

[@wallcreeper5327]

@@morgoli2916 HEY, no TNO.

[@iumbo1234]

So many mistakes in this video, most of them come from the usual anti-Soviet mythology. Just to name a few: -The Communist Party didn't debounce Stalin, Khruschev denounced Stalin mixing truth, half-truth and starightforward lies to drag more support towards him. In fact the Party tried to depose him a year later. -The rest of the republics were not puppets of the RSFSR. The Communists there had already quite strong organizations by themselves, that's why following Lenin's national autodetermination ideas instead of being absorbed inside the RSFSR the USSR was created. Of course they kept being junior members as Russia was demographically and economically bigger than all of them combined by still retained a lot of power. The ammount of people from the other republics in high positions and important institutions never declined. -After Stalin's death the country didn't go back to Lenin's view, it was the exact opposite. The corruption of the Party became bigger each year after Khruschev took control. Ideology and skill were bo longer needed to ascend, loyalty was enough. The Party started to fill with people that were everything but Communists. They promoted a gradual liberalizarion of the economy, rejected the OGAS and eventually well, we all know what they ended up doing. Today they are the "elites" of the post Soviet stayes. I doubt that's what Lenin wanted.

[@stall162]

This guy is a stalinist

[@christopherfowler9777]

Iumbo never got past the Communists screensaver that looks good in theory but doesn't work in practice

[@I.Meleshko]

​@@stall162а ты просто дурачок

[@I.Meleshko]

Полностью согласен. Хорошо бы ещё для англоязычной публики книгу "Кристалл Роста" перевести

[@animal16365]

I always wondered if the people were better off under this type of system? Some would say yes and give some answers, While others would say no and list there answers.

[@joycebrownsmith7541]

My girlfriends grandparents told me it was the time of their life in the USSR and they had everything they needed. The only negative thing they talked about was their neighbor being sent to prison fo praising western capitalism and organising some pro capitalist movement or so. But apart from that they said they were way happier, safer and had a better standard of living with less work hours as they later did when they moved to capitalist bulgaria. But I mean of course everyone is going to say something different. It just striked be surprising as all I learnt in school was how terrible it was to live in the USSR and then to hear something totaly different from two people who actually lived there.

[@Prororo]

@@joycebrownsmith7541I mean most schools in capitalist countries are EXTREMELY anti communist

[@shauncameron8390]

@@Prororo And for good reason. Many of the immigrants fled from countries that actually had communism.

[@Cat_Guevara]

​@@shauncameron8390Gee I wonder why, maybe if you abolish communism into capitalism they will have a harder time competing with the western markets in the cock-meaduring GDP contest. Immigration is an artificial problem created by capitalism, just like global starvation, homelesness, joblessnes, privatized healthcare and planned obsolence

[@petebondurant58]

@@joycebrownsmith7541 There are people in Germany in the sixties who said the same thing about Germany in the thirties. People tend to remember the best of the past. It's called the 'fog of nostalgia.'

[@JackChurchill101]

I think there's a lot of merit to the 1850s analysis. However once the 1920s to 70s came along the world was so complicated that a simple "take control of the local factories farms and mills for your own local township" was no longer viable. Before there was mechanisation, before there was advanced industrial medicine, before there was international travel and communication, before there was a need for roads, powerplants, cars, fashion, entertainment, science, and a real middle class... - it might have worked... But the Communist manifesto was a political document 70 years out of date by the time it was implemented... By the same logic we could implement feudalism today "in order to maintain local provincial autonomy"....

[@pierren___]

The situation was the same in 1920 than in 1850 lol. Already had trains and galleries lol. But yeah its better to have a centralised system than a federal one.

[@p00bix]

Marx made the mistaken assumption that if workers could earn more money per hour, that they'd choose to work fewer hours, rather than keep working the same number of hours to make even more money. In fairness, the Industrial Revolution was only a few decades old; can't really blame him for it! But it turns out that people usually prefer to get paid, say, $800 a week for 40 hours of their labor rather than $200 a week for 10 hours. You just can't build a functioning society based on a fundamentally flawed assumption that most people want extra free time more than they want a bigger house or fancier clothes.

[@SeenNothinYet]

maybe I'm off here, but - the Russian Empire was still in the 1800s before the revolution. Besides a handful of cities the rest was still practically feudal when WW1 started, the communist revolution was supposed to be in Germany 1st then the other developed capitalist states. And worker control of local factories (means of production) is a an oversimplification of what 'worker-soviets' were. Anyway, going past the 50s without any of the European powers actively opposing [global] capitalism (I'm thinking 'financialization') + all the 'Cold War' meant "communism in one state" while doing 'great power' competition etc, etc.

[@pomponion6977]

You could say this about a lot of things

[@lukasmadrid1945]

@@JackChurchill101 russia into the soviet union (like 1917-60s before stagination)had to be one of the fastest developing states in history. The literacy rates, infant mortality rates, life expectancy and standard of living all increased at very high speeds, going from the weakest world powers that was still semi feudal to the second most powerful nation on earth and sending the first people into space

[@colindaniels945]

The big reason why Stalin was able to rule as an absolute dictator with no one to stop him was because he had the 2 most powerful positions in the country and the party: 1. Stalin was General Secretary Of The Communist Party, this was the highest political office in the party, this meant that he was in charge of the party and could hire and fire people at will 2. He was the Premier of the Soviet Union, this meant he ran the country,in theory,the only one who could fire him was the General Secretary Of The Communist Party, but since Stalin held that post as well,the only one who could fire Stalin was Stalin. Stalin was also a major ass kisser.

[@dsxa918]

It seems to me that ass-kissing is the currency capitalism is critiqued on the basis of respectively administering. It seems to me like literal "devil you know being better than the devil your criticising; and never-ending that all those criticisms are at least 'as bad' when directed at yourself.

[@paintingdreams290]

funnily enough Lenin loathed Stalin and it was Stalins pettiness and asskissing that got him the job. Apparently he told Trotsky the wrong date for Lenins funeral which made him more unpopular ( i mean Trotsky and this guy was Lenins faavourite)

[@JohnWilson-hc5wq]

If he was a supreme leader, whose ass did he kiss? His own?

[@ПапашаБесчленофф]

Вы всё написали неправильно. Юридически главой государства был Председатель Верховного Совета СССР, но реальным был Генеральный Секретарь партии. Михаил Калинин мог бы теоретически уволить Сталина.

[@petebondurant58]

@@dsxa918 There was plenty of arse-kissing amongst the members of the Central Committee as well.

[@DerAndere1918]

you forget that, the party internally was also democratically structured.

[@TM_RUDE]

Great Video as always

[@LookBackHistory]

Thanks!

[@lucianoosorio5942]

“How many dictators does it take, to turn an empire into a Union of ruinous states? It’s a disgrace what you did to your own people!” Rasputin

[@Xxx_KittySlayer_xxX]

Onondaga

[@mst2082]

ah the glorious industrialized, prosperous, innovative and democratic Empire before the USSR sure as hell got destroyed by these pesky dictators

[@catmonarchist8920]

@@mst2082 The Empire so threatening that the Germans advocated for an early war before Russia industrialised because Russia would be too strong for them after 1915.

[@safalyadasgupta]

Ur daddy beat you like a dog and now ur evil !

[@d3thkn1ghtmcgee74]

​@Nathan Waterser you do realize that the empire was never going to implement democracy right? If anything corporations would have took over as a corporate oligarchy. The duma wasn't even given any real power until the the pressures of losing in one of most devastating wars in human history forced the czar to concede some power. The Ural mining company had people and their children paying off their freedom from serfdom debt in the mines and would have made their grandchildren do it and likely their children too. Literally gave meaning to "you have nothing to lose but your chains" for the vast majority of people in the empire...

[@waytoobiased]

seems very similar to the structure of the PRC’s government today, and that’s probably no coincidence

[@capncake8837]

@@waytoobiased I mean, they are inspired by different versions of the same ideology, so it makes sense.

[@CamiciaRossa]

Wikipedia levels of understanding.

[@IsaiahReitanFilm]

favorite part of the video is where the guy claims all authority was top down then goes on to say that decisions at the top had to be greenlit by regional authorities.

[@JesseBundrick]

So is this video inaccurate?

[@1cupof6]

No he's upset the guy didn't outright praise the ussr

[@CamiciaRossa]

@@1cupof6 so true. Btw why is it that most of the sources he used aren't about the Soviet political system?

[@CamiciaRossa]

@@1cupof6 Yes totally not because of historical nuance, a lack of good sources and whatnot

[@legohistorytube.3148]

Could u pls do a video on how the British Empire worked or The Troubles in Northern Ireland?

[@TheVanpablo79]

Was voting mandatory, according to a couple of old Soviets I worked with, they never voted

[@rws2833]

Well.... Simple answer.... NOHOW

[@lukaswilhelm9290]

I don't care about if communism works or not but i do care about how Soviet bureaucracy and government works. The whole video is about that not to defend communism so why the comments get it wrong?

[@Ttdogi]

Before watching the video: It didn't, everything that the government touched was the governments property. The only way to get somewhere in life was to study hard and get taken in to the communist party and be a part of the government, be a doctor, engineering and into the VEF (or State Electrotechnical Factory in English) like my grandfather or become a Agronomist and work in one of the kolhoz 6000 hectare farms. Anything else and you were considered a regular person. From what I've seen and heard from my grandfather, there were newer Technologies available given by the state, but the people in charge (factory directors) did not use them usually for whatever reason, because it would take time to implement or use them and there were quotas, so they were left alone. From my uncle who worked in one of those big farms but wasn't and agronomist, and worked all kinds of jobs, for example a driver. what i heard was that everyone wasted fuel basically, people would drive the the big trucks, haul lumber, other things and use those trucks as personal vehicles some times, steal fuel which was incredibly cheap, or straight up dumped it out somewhere so that when the boss or accountant or whatever looked at the expenditure of fuel, you would meet the daily quota. My grandfather also drew blueprints on the side for students and whoever needed them for extra income because the basic pay wasn't enough. My great grandfather farmed on 2 hectares which were leftover after the communists took the rest of 28 hectares,( he was lucky he wasn't deported in one of the mass deportations of farmers, because the guy who was responsible for the list of people to be deported married into our family and so on) Basically what i heard from my old relatives is this everything was inefficient, waste of resources. Certain products or things could only be gotten through favours and if you knew a guy who worked there. Plus everything unravelled under brezhnev (the shadow economy, increases in military spending and so on).

[@garrettramirez428]

If nothing changed after Stalin how come there were no more famines and virtually no gulags?

[@garrettramirez428]

Well, there were also no more German and Japanese empires perpetually threatening the country...

[@maksim05makarov]

0:00 «Хрущев является единственным в истории человечества политиком, который умудрился объявить войну мертвецу. Но самое забавное даже не это, а то, что Хрущев эту войну проиграл» данную фразу приписывают Черчиллю, и она абсолютно верна. Даже не смотря на как минимум 3 массовых компании десталинизации, это все еще самый уважаемый человек на пост Советском пространстве (исключая больные Прибалтику и Украину)

[@Komrad_Cybersyn]

Well he technicly was second. We had a pope that judged his predecessor and threw his corpse down the river. ^^

[@luciefrka124_]

Oh yeah, this russians who write everywhere in russian because of what? I don't think you don't understand this video because it's in fucking English, or you just see that this video about ussr and on the same moment writing about how grate of a country sovients was (it didn't) And this takes about sick Baltic States and Ukraine because they don't like and even hate person who annexed the first one and literary killed millions of Ukrainians in aesthetic famine (and also russians and another ethnicities)

[@tompeled6193]

Прибалтика и Украина не больные. Российский коммунизм-колониализм больный. Беларусь и Средняя Азия больные зависимостью России.

[@rishavkumar1250]

Lmao , 😂 salty alcoholic ruskyy

[@kindlingking]

​​@@tompeled6193и Прибалтика, и окраина обратились к неонацизму в качестве национальной идеологии. Это по твоему здоровые?

[@Spido68_the_spectator]

It's a bit unfortunate that you didn't consult the books " soviet democracy" and " human rights in the soviet union ". An even more thorough deep dive into the mess it was

[@DeusVultConstantinople]

Wow, I never thought the USA and USSR had the same type of democracy

[@LookBackHistory]

Haha.

[@DeusVultConstantinople]

@@LookBackHistory I lied, I knew they were the same

[@Megalodon_Megumer]

Simplification - It worked, just not how a government should work.

[@sagitarriulus9773]

And now it’s gone so did it work? Was it prosperous? Do people stand on the roofs and shout it’s success?

[@bill5627]

@@sagitarriulus9773 It DID work,just because it's evil/authoritarian doesn't mean it DIDN'T work.Evil/authoritarianism and not working are not the same thing.

[@Commissar_4735]

​@@sagitarriulus9773it was the richest country in Europe and second worldwide

[@sagitarriulus9773]

@@Commissar_4735 was big was

[@petebondurant58]

It didn't work at all, which is why it collapsed and disappeared.

[@quark-nova]

And this is why vanguardism can never work to build a classless society. It always ends up with the bureaucracy becoming its own class concentrating power instead.

[@earth2006]

Bolshevic's nope, no jokes here.

[@tanarur4707]

That's the neat part: it didn't

[@johnrigler8858]

How Did the Soviet Union Actually Work? Did it? (I sometimes think that about the USA)

[@petebondurant58]

Well, the United States has existed for two hundred and forty-eight years, while the USSR didn't last for seventy years.

[@RSjs25]

Privileged british man talking about a state for the people, whats new sausage fingers?

[@legendarygodzilla3577]

Meanwhile a guy with an easy Germany pfp:

[@RSjs25]

@@legendarygodzilla3577 It was an easier Germany, yes

[@legendarygodzilla3577]

@@RSjs25 not really, it was a big giant slum people wanted out of 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@RSjs25]

@@legendarygodzilla3577People ran to both sides

[@legendarygodzilla3577]

@@RSjs25 not really no barely 1k people a year left, compared to 100,000 people who fled east germany. to say its easier is disengenious

[@eazye088]

The Soviet Union was cool.

[@simonbauke1802]

No it wasn't. People were tortured, killed and send to labour camps without honest judicial process in literally millions. It was not cool. If was one of the most hell-resembling places humanity has ever lived and or created. Read the Gulag Archipelago. Have a blessed day

[@jameshpotato2675]

This guy lives in modern day Russia

[@alexandermalinowski4277]

Very ignorant video with many errors. First of all, Lenin tried first war communism that didn’t work. The second try of Lenin was NEP, which fast improved situation, but was king of capitalism without guarantee of security. Stalin system was completely different, instead of economic incentive he mobilized people by terror and by good conditions for managers. Khrushchev communism was different than Lenin’s. The system tried to provide incentive instead of terror, but was impacted by aging management, failed investments in Siberia, women refusing to have children and afterwards by falling oil prices, Afghan war and Chernobyl.

[@sosig6445]

The problem of any ideologically charged government is that it cannot remain a democracy or it will risk being outvoted and the ruling ideology fails. In the case of moderates it's okay because they are relatively popular and always try again next election and unless the system is treathened heavily moderates won't bend it to their will too much. But when the ideology is framed around a sense of urgency, solving injustices immedietly, and facing the crisis of your time such as the communists, or fascists they have 2 options left both of wich leads to the death of legalism and democracy. The fascists argue that one must install a military dictatorship so that the army can leverage the entire state quickly to defend the state frome external enemies at a moments notice, or to push forward the geoplitical interests of the nation and people effectively and fast. Thus democracy is sacraficed and demonised even as an inefficent weak system leading to infigthing and factionalism, the government justifies itself with end results: higher living standard, efficency, and succesfull military campaigns. Legality is breached in order to obtain these goals. Notably the fascists rarely uproot traditions customs and pre existing soceital structures, unless they are deemed to be an active treath, often leaning on said traditions by "preserving them" from foreign influence. The Communists instead dress up as democrats while they say they HAVE TO take away certain freedoms (right to vote privately) in order to make shure the system is not infaltrated and that the communist government isn't overthrown. Now to be fair if they wouldn't cheat and bend the rules it WOULD BE overthrown immedietly yet it still leads to them tightening the rope. A communist would argue that so long as everything is done for the greater good of the people, the workers, the revolution it's still a democracy even if it's a top down dictatorship. A communist democracy is where you can only vote for communists, "for your own good" every other candidate is disqualified. Combined with the inherent ideas of soceity needing drastic changes communists uproot everything and than wonder why they are "forced" to rig the system to keep their power.

[@lox7182]

this made me realise that the "abolish all oppressive hierarchies" shit is definitely only an anarchist thing lol

[@gustavberg5460]

this might be one of the most pefectly crafted, entertaining, and hysterical propaganda videos against the ussr ever

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

(After Stalin) it was basicly a party dictaitorship.

[@colindaniels945]

Now Lenin did attempt the Karl Marx version of communism very early on, but it wound up not working,so he was forced to make adjustments that led to the New Economic Policy(NEP).

[@xp8969]

Marx warned Communism could never work in countries like Russia, industrial capitalism and liberal democracy are necessary prerequisites

[@fifty784]

The best course of action would be for the provisional government to cooperate with the soviets, and grant independence to Ukraine, Baltics, Poland etc. When they started losing the great war.

[@unamisthekgb]

Can you make a video on how Socialist Yugoslavia actually work?

[@airl10]

Can you do one on the PRC?

[@dannydacheedo1592]

It was essentially all the phoniness of western democracies, but cranked up to 11

[@MrRhombus]

1:57 Woah, I don’t think of the 1 of the 3 major parts of Romania were made into an SSR

[@petebondurant58]

Moldova became a Soviet Socialist Republic.

[@MrRhombus]

@@petebondurant58 Yes, Moldova. A part of Moldavia. There’s a difference.

[@MrRhombus]

@@robowisanveithasung6022 Moldavia didn’t become an SSR or SFSR. *Moldova* became an SSR, not an SFSR. I already said in this comment section there is a difference.

[@robowisanveithasung6022]

@@MrRhombus oh yea my bad

[@Foria777]

Puppets. What else was puppet? Latvia that joined later?

[@Tuttiragazzo]

Video Starts : _theteteleterianterre_

[@aresgalamatis7022]

3 minutes in there are so many mistakes that would take at least that many hours to recount.

[@CRsquared64]

Average 14 year old communist

[@idestquodest]

What did you expect from the yanks, I suggest watching Hakim, FinnishBolshevik or The Marxist Project for more indepth analysis for the inner workings of the Soviet Union.

[@thejustifier5566]

Cope harder commie. They lost

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

@@idestquodest the way you know the person that talks about something Probably doesn't know much about what he is saying is when they cite books in their descriptions. People who actually do analysis that is appropriate and accurate too the topic show their sources, show imperical evidence and quote out of their sources if needed to clarify.

[@idestquodest]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 The comrades I listed in my original comment are far more educated than I am, hence why I recommended OP to check the videos produced by said comrades. I may only attempt to copy what Hakim, FinnishBolshevik or JT Chapman (Second & First Thought) have said.

[@gamerabossb1777]

Bruh I though this was history matters from the thumbnail bruh.

[@polandiumi5211]

Short answer: it didn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have collapsed in 1988-1991

[@asdasd-cq1pk]

How it worked? Long answer : This video Shot answer : it fuckin didnt

[@MNHA-youtube]

@@asdasd-cq1pk thats like saying capitalism doesnt work because somalia collapsed and was capitalist smh

[@AlexVictorianus]

0:57 the Baltic states in German colors? :)

[@Dragonx9287]

Moldavia💀

[@zxera9702]

United states of america

[@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0]

They were the france to America's britain So close to being #1 but there's always someone better

[@Turf-yj9ei]

Badly 😂

[@SeriousPlastiek]

I barely got to 1 minute and already so many extremely biased and misinformed statements were made it would take 30 minutes to refute. Perhaps "Look Back Western Cold War Propaganda" would be a better name for this channel.

[@idestquodest]

Looks like something the History channel would air on tv at 3:21 AM or something, indeed it is most unfortunate that cold war indoctrination still runs deep within the blood of the general American public. Thankfully a growing number of Americans have begun to re-learn of class consciousness and the real history of former communist and socialist projects.

[@Megalodon_Megumer]

Okay tankie

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

@@Megalodon_Megumer you are aware saying tankie isn't going to change that this video is obviously biased towards a certain outlook and took the liberty of researching with a conclusion instead of forming one with the evidence, right?

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

@@Megalodon_Megumer also, i would suggest not acting like this considering you are literally a channel that is made for larping.

[@Megalodon_Megumer]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 what? 💀

[@Sir_Seach]

It didn’t…

[@omdeep9183]

“How did the Soviet Union function” It didn’t.

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

Very interesting take considering it was the same country that became a super power.

[@Peplll]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 Because of forced industrialization and slave labor.

[@d3thkn1ghtmcgee74]

​@@Peplll it didn't. Czarist Russia actually had literal slave labour and didn't become a world super power. >•>

[@joshuamitchell5018]

​@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 Tsarist Russia was an exploding Industrial and demographic power leaving the world on it's toes out of fear for it potentially becoming the supreme power over all asia with germany pre ww1 estimating that they would be incapable of defeating russia in a war the the near future, The communists did nothing but eviscerate the potential of their country, raising heavy industry and the expense of pretty much everything else economic and socially. Russian superpower status was something that occurred in spite of the soviets not as a consequence of it.

[@tunemaki_izlasitrlv6835]

​''Super power'' is not how people living in it described it. Did you live in Soviet union? Do you know someone who lived in it? People even up to 1980's didn't have fridges in their flats (yes you heard right not homes with cold basements but flats), and something like washing machine didn't even exist in this ''super power'' so clothes were washed by hand up to mid 1990's. There were often 2 families with people from 3 generations living in tiny flats with 2 small rooms at best, and children often would sleep on floor not in beds. In shops people would form ques that were often 30 min - 1h long each morning before work. Why? Because there wasn't enough food for everybody. If you came last you often got almost nothing for that day. Fun fact - people often had too much money in Soviet union. People from west might ask how is that possible? Well, because there was not much you could spend that money on. You were not allowed to buy property. If you wanted a car you would wait 5-7 years in a que or 2 years for motorcycle. There was never that many clothes or furniture in shops. But guess what? Alcohol rarely run out so many people just drunk themselves to death. I often hear people on internet mentioning that people in Soviet union had free housing in ''commie blocks'' - meaning they got those flats for free (for their ''labour''). Yes that is true however that is not the entire story. Here is why: How did those blocks got build in first place? Back in 1970's my Grandmother had and 6 bedroom family home that was there for many generations. One evening police came to her door and said that she will be moved to 1 room flat in a ''commie block'' and she had to pack immediately. She was moved out of the house the same week and right after that house was destroyed and more ''commie blocks'' got built instead. Her house was stolen from her and the compensation given back was barely worth anything in comparison. And honestly this is the best possible outcome. Many people weren't that lucky so instead of being put in 1 room flat they were put in basements instead. Every ''commie block'' that I know of has a basement and believe it or not entire family would often live in them. And also Soviet union never put russians in basements at least where I live. Basements were only reserved for non-russians. This is just one part of ''Russification'' processes that went up to 1985-1986 in place where me and all my family has lived for centuries. I would be getting into a real horror story territory which I am not in a mood for. So if you want to keep calling Soviet Union ''SUPER POWER'' you can, but as I said that is not how people living in it describe it.

[@marym7104]

Within 3,600 views!

[@theMultiJawee]

Haha I’ve never been so done with a video so quickly

[@LookBackHistory]

Fan of Stalin, hmm?

[@theMultiJawee]

@@LookBackHistory a fan of impartial history haha. But get that check buddy!

[@LookBackHistory]

@@theMultiJawee If you know someone offering checks, send 'em my way.

[@theMultiJawee]

@@LookBackHistory the people I know that write checks require actual history. They’re called universities.

[@Megalodon_Megumer]

​@@LookBackHistory all of these people in the comments disagreeing are just tankies, ignore them and don't respond because that's what they want, you're a cool KZbinr, don't let them bring you down

[@volition2015]

"Democratic centralism" is just a fancy term for dictatorship of the majority. Bolsheviki is linguistically derived from Russian word 'bolshinstvo' which means majority. So, "dictatorship of bolsheviki" it was! Just kidding, please don't use linguistics as an argument. ;) The way I understand it, USSR basically had two sets of government hierarchies: Party and Soviet at various levels: Soviets went from municipality to province to republic to federal or union-level from Gorsovet (city) to Supreme Soviet and Soviet of Nationalities at the top federal level. Party hierarchy went further down to city district committee (Raykom) and to the primary organization, like individual factory, army unit, etc (Partkom). Deputies to the Soviets were elected by the general population in accordance with the constitution, and deputies to the Party Committees of various levels were elected by members of the party according to the Party Manual. One simplified way to think of the dual Soviet & Party system as a Red Army officer (Soviet) and Political Officer, or Politruk (Bolsheviks/Party). Red Army Officer is free to give orders down rank within the scope of his or her responsibilities as defined in the Polevoy Ustav, or Field Manual (Soviet Constitution and other laws in our analogy), but the Politruk can intervene and change or cancel the order at their discretion. Another very crude way to look at it would be a private business owner (Party), and a manager of the business (Soviet). Both can tell an employee what to do, but in case of conflicting instructions, the employee will usually listen to the owner.

[@maarten1115]

Not even the majority, the bolsheviks never recieved more than 30% of all votes in the only real election that the country ever had (in 1917 when the USSR technically didn't even exist yet).

[@FlyingAlfredoSaucer]

How does the Russian Federation actually work next

[@FlyingAlfredoSaucer]

@offroadguy7772 All countries work differently, so that's a non-answer.

[@loathecraft]

It didn't.

[@franzupet4406]

You speak like you are not shore what you are tolking about.

[@daviddelgado6090]

It had two bureaucracies, the Communist Party and the Government. The party dictated policy and the government implemented it. It's even worse in China. They add the military as a third pillar of power in their constitution.

[@fritzzon]

When you say Bolshevik i thought you were gonna say Bullshit

[@SlobostanCroatYu]

Love Stalin From Croatia.

[@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993]

But he is evil he killed 2.4 million people

[@Cat_Guevara]

Lol​@@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993

[@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993]

@@Cat_Guevara whats so funny?

[@Cat_Guevara]

@@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993 Your og comment is invisible now, I didnt remember exactly. Maybe you can write it again?

[@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993]

@@Cat_Guevara ok

[@basileus_angelos_v]

"How did the USSR work?" "It didn't" [End video]

[@nigellee9541]

It didn’t

[@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993]

If it didn’t how was it able to last that long

[@nigellee9541]

@@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993 69 years is even shorter than a person’s average life expectancy in the west back in the 1950s. And Soviet Union only had one last ruler born under its rule. You wanna call that’s long so be it 🤷‍♂️

[@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993]

@@nigellee9541 yeah but at least it lasted longer then nazi germany

[@nigellee9541]

@@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993 that’s the standards to thrive for lol?

[@raidang]

Short answer - it didn't

[@Pyramidus88]

How did the Soviet union work you ask ? Short answer : it didnt

[@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993]

It did it lasted for a long time from 1922 to 1991

[@xp8969]

​70 years of failure and devastation, it never worked ​@@changingpeopleslivesmoon2993

[@nikobellic3856]

It didn't 😂

[@ultimatealthistory5502]

Fun Fact- It didn't.

[@Entdon]

Thats the neat part, it didnt

[@MrBoysOG]

@@Entdon exactly, perestroika deception worked perfectly

[@MauroGames1]

Simple, it doesn't. Proof: it DIDN'T*

[@TotalCommieJewDeathEnjoyer]

Not so fun fact: The only reason why the country Moldova exists now is because the some Romanians from that region got ethnically clensed and Russians were forcefully integrated in that territory The soviet union was imperialist

[@xp8969]

Of course it was imperialist, it was Russian

[@KCCOmug]

Same thing happened to East Prussia... I mean Kaliningrad which has always been called that.

[@JamesTaylor-on9nz]

@@xp8969 All countries are imperialist

[@buddyluv584]

Cool story, clown

[@TotalCommieJewDeathEnjoyer]

@@buddyluv584 everything I said is true

[@reznov129]

first

[@hectorzapata1019]

Trumpist, probably.

[@TomiThemself]

That's the dumbest take ever. Trump is closer to the Nazi Germany, at least. Yeah, Trump is totalitarian, but the USSR was leftist and not right-wing (Trump is right-wing, just like Nazi Germany tho).

[@Janissarythinner1826]

İt didnt and it collapsed

[@MrBoysOG]

Perestroika

[@Edits-with-Niko]

Fun fact: The Karelo-Finnish SSR (Karelia) was briefly it's own constituent republic from 1940 until it was annexed by Russia in 1956.

[@socitour]

Эта республика изначально была выделена из территорий РСФСР, а после провала проекта по созданию альтернативного советского финского государства, ее просто внедрили в состав России как еще одну автономную республику, которая существует до сих пор

[@Dr.Blader]

Fun fact: Abkhazian SSR exists before being annexed to the Transcaucasian SFSR which split into the Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani SSR.

[@zebra1327]

The only SSR in the USSR to ever be demoted to an ASSR!

[@Dr.Blader]

@@zebra1327 Abkhazia?

[@ildart8738]

The politics behind this decision is much more complicated. One big reason was that Stalin did not want Finland to think that he would invade for the third time, and make all of Finland another Soviet republic. Cold War brought its own correctives into the external politics of the Soviet Union.

[@burakbozacoglu4899]

It didn't.

[@CJ-NYR]

It didn’t

[@buddyluv584]

Typical anti-Soviet clownery

[@petebondurant58]

Typical pro-Soviet buffoonery.

[@Foria777]

Too poor. You can not shrink its story into 9 minute observation. You simply do not have an expertise.

[@SomasAcademy]

~4:29 Marxism-Leninism is the name of the ideology developed by Stalin, not Lenin. Lenin's ideology is just called Leninism. Stalin referred to his ideology as "Marxism-Leninism" to give it the weight of Marx and Lenin's legacies, but it's really a mix of his interpretations of Marx and Lenin and his own ideas (the name was part of Stalin's broader "cult of Lenin," where rather than deliberately building up his own cult of personality he built one up for the late Lenin and then associated himself with Lenin to elevate his own reputation indirectly).

[@zxera9702]

What is stalinism then

[@SomasAcademy]

@@zxera9702 Stalinism is sometimes colloquially used to refer to Marxism-Leninism, but it more formally refers to the policies that Stalin employed while in power, namely in terms of heightened repression, heavy focus on rapid industrialization, and the formation of a cult of personality around the leader. The USSR went through "de-Stalinization" after Stalin's death, becoming less repressive (still authoritarian, but significantly less so), decreasing focus on the head of state, and shifting some of its priorities, so it stopped being Stalinist. It remained Marxist-Leninist because it retained the ideological precepts that Stalin came up with, but it manifested them in different ways, a bit like how different US presidents can belong to the same party and/or follow the same ideology as each other but put forward very different policies.

[@manuellanthaler2001]

"and the formation of a cult of personality" Stalin didnt want to have this cult he didnt even like it. People just loved him automatically and I cant blame them. He wasnt actively making a cult. They loved him by accident

[@SomasAcademy]

@@manuellanthaler2001 As I stated in my initial comment, Stalin did not deliberately cultivate a cult of personality around himself, but rather built one around Lenin. The effect was the same, however, as through Stalin's personal association of himself with Lenin this cult of personality also served to legitimize his own authority indirectly.

[@lucca3113]

@@SomasAcademy according to who?

[@alexthorne6996]

Ive been studying about the ussr on and off for a bit now and could never fully get my head round the parrallel powers, like for example the politburo being part of the govt and the central committee the party. But i thought the politburo was voted in by the cc and made up of memders of the cc? Whats the difference between party and govt? Especially in a one party state? I think this clears things up 🤟

[@micahistory]

Sure was complicated, thank for this breakdown

[@pierren___]

Its a federal system with socialism

[@petebondurant58]

It was a one-party authoritarian system with false federalism.

[@Swissswoosher]

I love your videos. You take relatively complex themes like this and break it down to its most simple forms. Keep em coming!

[@christopher9727]

... Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

[@Dez.B]

I know you were just THRILLED to use that term “Totalitarian terror“ for the intro 😂

[@commenterthe3rd]

right from the first 3 seconds I understood what I was watching

[@tunemaki_izlasitrlv6835]

I originally wrote this comment as a reply to someone but I thought other people also might want to hear about how did people actually live in this disaster of a country that some of you in west even dare to refer as ''Super power''. People even up to 1980's didn't have fridges in their flats (yes you heard right not homes with cold basements but flats), and something like washing machine didn't even exist in this ''super power'' so clothes were washed by hand up to mid 1990's. There were often 2 families with people from 3 generations living in tiny flats with 2 small rooms at best, and children often would sleep on floor not in beds. In shops people would form ques that were often 30 min - 1h long each morning before work. Why? Because there wasn't enough food for everybody. If you came last you often got almost nothing for that day. Fun fact - people often had too much money in Soviet union. People from west might ask how is that possible? Well, because there was not much you could spend that money on. You were not allowed to buy property. If you wanted a car you would wait 5-7 years in a que or 2 years for motorcycle. There was never that many clothes or furniture in shops. But guess what? Alcohol rarely run out so many people just drunk themselves to death. I often hear people on internet mentioning that people in Soviet union had free housing in ''commie blocks'' - meaning they got those flats for free (for their ''labour''). Yes that is true however that is not the entire story. Here is why: How did those blocks got build in first place? Back in 1970's my Grandmother had and 6 bedroom family home that was there for many generations. One evening police came to her door and said that she will be moved to 1 room flat in a ''commie block'' and she had to pack immediately. She was moved out of the house the same week and right after that house was destroyed and more ''commie blocks'' got built instead. Her house was stolen from her and the compensation given back was barely worth anything in comparison. And honestly this is the best possible outcome. Many people weren't that lucky so instead of being put in 1 room flat they were put in basements instead. Every ''commie block'' that I know of has a basement and believe it or not entire family would often live in them. And also Soviet union never put russians in basements at least where I live. Basements were only reserved for non-russians. This is just one part of ''Russification'' processes that went up to 1985-1986 in place where me and all my family has lived for centuries. I would be getting into a real horror story territory which I am not in a mood for.

[@maksim05makarov]

У меня такое ощущение, что вы читали про разные эпохи. Несколько семей в одной квартире и очереди на час это вообще с противоположных сторон. Первая из времен товарища Сталина, вторую устроил людоед горбачев.

[@tunemaki_izlasitrlv6835]

​@@maksim05makarov The source of information specifically in this comment is not the history books, but these are stories of people I know. It is very possible that the some of these are slightly inaccurate in timeline. But the fact that you mentioned that multiple families live in same apartment happened ONLY in Stalin era is inaccurate. This also happened much later in 60's and 70's. The issue was that a lot of immigrants from different parts of USSR were flooded into Baltic states way after Stalin era, and there were not enough flats for everybody. The immigrant problem was so huge that when construction of metro was announced in Riga people were horrified. Why? Because metro construction meant approximately 100k - 150k immigrants (and also destruction of many historical buildings). The long ques in shops however were also an way issue before Gorbachev era (at least in Baltic states) Most grain, meat and fish from this region was exported to other regions in USSR where the population was a lot higher. There barely enough ''good ''food left for everybody and If you wanted some better cuts of meat or sausages or even fruit you did have to get to shops as early as possible.

[@sosig6445]

@@tunemaki_izlasitrlv6835 it's very telling that whenever a soldier was stationed in one of the "allied" countries such as Hungary or GDR or Poland they often weren't allowed to re enter the urban centers lest they tell the other Russians how much of a shithole the USSR is compared to EVEN THE OTHER COMMIE countries. Ceasure of land DID happen even in Hungary but almost never to that insane extent. Villagers were regurarly left with almost 1 ha per household where they suplemented the mass produced grain from the state farms with their own produce to such an extent they could easily stock most of the nation with it usually thus shortages were rarer and private property was only obliterated on the large scale.

[@SwedishDrunkard5963]

still a super power, how the people live does not detarmin if its a super power its about how much influence they have in the world and the USSR had alot

[@manuellanthaler2001]

Yea now... but is the poverty a problem of the economic system or the 3 consecutive wars against communism by capitalists that always bombed them into stone age everytime it was done.

[@СергейГражданский]

More like "Things I cannot explain are "contradictions"."

[@black_thunder2159]

Dude there is no way you're simplifying Soviet Politics this way there is a fuck ton of genuinely good research pieces of Soviet Union, how the election system works, how the structure works, and you managed to find the shallowest possible take. calling them undemocratic is like calling USA democratic just because they have two parties, sure u can't vote other party, but the Supreme Soviet will sure as fuck listen to your demand, until Boris Yeltsin came to power ofc. Soviet Democracy is fucking deep, and for whatever bad thing they did, they gave great future for Russian & all of its state subjects. turning a war torn nation into a space faring civilization in 12 years before anyone else speaks Volume.

[@petebondurant58]

"Soviet Democracy is fucking deep" There was no Soviet democracy. There was literally one party on the ballot. "Whatever bad thing they did..." They literally slaughtered millions of people, while those that survived had a paltry standard of living. The USSR should have devoted more of its resources on other things that were needed, rather than wasting them on outer space projects.

[@danielbishop1863]

I've heard that, as a way to drum up voter turnout (because elections are boring with only one party to choose from), it was common for election places to provide free vodka.

[@maksim05makarov]

Most likely, this is a myth. What difference does it make if one batch or two are the same?

[@judithshapiro1557]

Not so much vodka as food in short supply

[@JonathanMeyer84]

That's a trick question! It didn't.

[@chegevara1967]

Классное видео, привет из России.

[@dangerous_ideas16]

Serious misunderstanding of Leninism. The Vanguard party would not be meant to do the revolution for the proletariat but they are meant to prepare themselves and the masses for revolution so that when the right circumstances arise they can seize the state power and through it abolish private property and acquire the means of production and then make it collective. There are several approaches to this complex theory and several perspectives on the role of the vanguard party in revolution. It's not as simple as you mentioned.

[@petebondurant58]

Blah...blah...blah. It was all horseshit.

[@TomiThemself]

@@petebondurant58 Obviously you know that since you're such a genius on the theory... /s

[@TomiThemself]

A nuanced take under a Western propaganda video? :o Genuinely though, I hate this - one can have criticism of the USSR, as everyone is biased (even among leftist groups), but one thing is biased criticism and the other thing is totally false depiction of how some country worked. The latter is just propaganda at that point...

[@MsAkash619]

Soviet union had free health care , education and no unemployment. ❤ Better than USA when many died without proper healthcare during Covid

[@shauncameron8390]

But pointless jobs, low life expectancy and a meh economy.

[@kazuhiramiller7491]

@@shauncameron8390 "meh economy" is your definition of the second largest economy in the world for decades? pointless jobs like, hmm... cosmonauts, engineers, scientists, doctors, and a life expectancy of 70 years just 20 years after half its population was decimated, sure i guess

[@shauncameron8390]

@@kazuhiramiller7491 Yet it all fell apart once they were no longer able to maintain the facade.

[@gergoo007_]

It couldn't even stay communist lmao

[@Cat_Guevara]

​@gergoo007_ Yeah because Stalin didnt purge the likes of Krustchev hard enough, if they could stick to the anti-market model, they would have lasted way longer, maybe even today

[@mrvn000]

Russian, the best state ever.

[@maarten1115]

If you exclude all other countries that is.

[@ChristianDall-p2j]

How did the soviet party control the State?

[@petebondurant58]

Everyone in positions of power were party members.

[@m......7984]

No wonder America saw this as a threat in Africa it works and even if it collapses then you’ve built infrastructure