Soviet Style Economics Was Insane and Here’s Why

The Soviet Union's Economy was once the envy of the world, But as rapidly as it arose the Soviet Union collapsed as a result of its crumbling Economy. but why?
While the rest of the world struggled during the great depression, The Soviet Union was quickly and rapidly industrializing under Stalin's command, but locked within the foundations of the country lie an unavoidable time bomb. In this video we travel all the way back to the 14th century to understand the fundamental forces and conditions that caused Communism to arise in Russia in the first place. Then we follow the economic story and evolution from the Russian empire to the fall of the Soviet Union.
-Contents of this video-------------------------------
00:00 - 1920's Global Economic Boom
00:50 - Great Depression
01:19 - The Soviet Economy Stands Alone
02:45 - The Roots of Economic Divergence
04:09 - The Black Death
06:40 - East Vs West European Economic History
07:55 - Industrial Revolution in the West
08:47 - The Russian Empire's Economy
11:55 - The Soviet Economy's Beginnings
13:42 - Soviet Industrialization - Stalin's 5 year plans
16:22 - Problems with Soviet Economy
21:00 - Cause of Soviet Union's Collapse
25:11 - Thanks for Watching!
Support the Channel! / casualscholar
-A Thank you to Viewers!-------------------------------
I really appreciate all those who watch my content, Thank you for being as interested in these topics as I am!
As this is the channels first video, Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated :)
please Like and Subscribe to follow up for more Economics, History, and Geopolitical videos coming soon!
-Sources----------------------------------------------------
(Books)
-The Rise and Fall of the The Soviet Economy: An Economic History of the USSR from 1945
-Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
(Scholarly Articles)
-Economics in the Former Soviet Union -The Journal of Economic Perspectives
Vol. 6, No. 2
-Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985 - Journal of Economic Literature
Vol. 25, No. 4
-The Soviet Economy, 1917-1991: Its Life and Afterlife - Vol. 22, No. 2
#EconomyExplained #Economics #SovietEconomy

[@Dyn0saur]

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

[@Taylor_5724]

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

[@CasualScholar]

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

[@JoseRodriguez-pn8yj]

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

[@geediali9941]

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

[@JoseRodriguez-pn8yj]

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

[@thecursed01]

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

[@KawabangaChel]

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

[@user-qt1cp1be3u]

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

[@KawabangaChel]

@@user-qt1cp1be3u как это противоречит мною сказанному?

[@KawabangaChel]

@@user-qt1cp1be3u Колтунов Серёга

[@Archedgar]

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

[@Kovione996]

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

[@Kashchey1]

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

[@Kovione996]

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

[@Archedgar]

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

[@TheHiHiPop]

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

[@fenixchief7]

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

[@talknight2]

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

[@mustang1912]

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

[@kensanity178]

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

[@capitaldeecolon4819]

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

[@Rampart.X]

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

[@HansWurst-lg1ws]

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

[@ArianeQube]

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

[@AlexanderTheBloodraven]

Lol

[@winteryyyyyy]

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

[@AnhNguyen-hn9vj]

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

[@bjorntorlarsson]

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

[@Frozen_Lizard633]

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

[@CasualScholar]

Oh Boy! 2am!

[@mattperry6612]

Haha just popped this on, it's currently2am 😂

[@timkenda8203]

Story of my life

[@HaloUppercut]

12.52am here lol

[@farrajabd8640]

Its 2:44 AM for me

[@musashidanmcgrath]

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

[@user-pc7xo6pb7k]

you just made that up

[@talhaamjad682]

It's from Chernobyl

[@spaceflight1019]

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

[@AsmodeusT]

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

[@spaceflight1019]

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

[@paulrevere5197]

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

[@lorenz4787]

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

[@ghosty0612]

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

[@almalayuwiyyah2512]

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

[@SP1D3R69]

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

[@g1ld]

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

[@jwoodrff]

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

[@YamnayaSintash]

It died with the rurikids

[@nicklevinson1755]

average western comprehension of Russian history

[@matthewestrada5217]

The Romanovs were related to the German and English crown

[@princecharming4708]

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

[@irynahepburn2777]

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

[@daniellassander]

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

[@CasualScholar]

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

[@dr.floridaman4805]

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

[@0g0mogosepikworld31]

@@dr.floridaman4805 that sounds a bit irrelevant

[@DanHalper]

Anthony Sutton?

[@GeoffreyPicketts]

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

[@MrFuckingKololo]

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

[@nickb3164]

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

[@andylei3144]

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

[@pedroaugusto656]

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

[@andylei3144]

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

[@nelsonchinasamy9857]

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

[@gerberjoanne266]

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

[@colemantrebor1610]

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

[@robertsansone1680]

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

[@kajetanscholz1991]

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

[@robertsansone1680]

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

[@cactusman1771]

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

[@antonkrieg3708]

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

[@dennisweidner288]

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

[@slow_goon73]

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

[@Huskerguy316]

Chews come before the fall

[@AEIOU05]

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

[@BrianFace182]

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

[@MA-go7ee]

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

[@sandran17]

Thats depressing

[@troythompson2]

@@sandran17 indeed

[@AlbertBasedman]

Which rulers?

[@chadspaceman1014]

@@AlbertBasedman dentist Speer

[@AlbertBasedman]

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

[@War4Skills]

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

[@CMVBrielman]

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

[@War4Skills]

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

[@CasualScholar]

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

[@Spacemongerr]

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

[@ShubhamMishrabro]

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

[@LaVaZ000]

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

[@neilreynolds3858]

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

[@rcyadav9746]

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

[@user-sx9zo4vg2x]

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

[@Patrick_3751]

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

[@kaliyuga1476]

You didnt watch the video

[@Koooles]

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

[@sten260]

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

[@dataanimator]

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

[@stoggafllik]

In b4 tankies sperg about Stalinism

[@Norm475]

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

[@MelissaR784]

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

[@brettclark4276]

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

[@Gungho73]

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

[@philipthomey7884]

Even more fun at .75 % speed

[@Denzelidos]

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

[@varunmittal3617]

because they were all cousins

[@trevoncowen9198]

@@varunmittal3617 so they are genetically communist?

[@varunmittal3617]

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

[@tally1604]

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

[@Donk322]

Putin style

[@user-to2yk7jy6e]

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

[@MammothChats]

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

[@DasRaetsel]

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

[@MammothChats]

@@DasRaetsel bit of both I believe

[@user-to2yk7jy6e]

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

[@wesleywagumba812]

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

[@iainmclaughlan1557]

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

[@henrylicious]

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

[@vojtasmejda1254]

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

[@humbleguardsman5578]

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

[@Foria777]

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

[@logicplague2077]

@@vojtasmejda1254 Better than starving in a Gulag.

[@hockeyholic8]

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

[@namenamename390]

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

[@Waterflux]

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

[@fukkitful]

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

[@haraldthorson9153]

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

[@user-yy8qc6yo1m]

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

[@brankodrljaca1313]

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

[@jasonhaven7170]

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

[@vonkouva2619]

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

[@bevvy.bee9]

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

[@deathmetal11111]

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

[@kimobrien.]

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

[@orangemanbad]

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

[@tobene]

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

[@philldonn705]

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

[@orangemanbad]

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

[@joeruiz4010]

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

[@joetred]

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

[@sokolmihajlovic1391]

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

[@jameslovelady7751]

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

[@favoritemustard3542]

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

[@thekingofkingsrp]

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

[@Steve.._.]

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

[@favoritemustard3542]

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

[@Dr-Alexander-The-Great]

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

[@jeffarchibald3837]

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

[@knockhello2604]

What

[@Boomhauersdad]

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

[@karimben7758]

Amazing explanation.keep up!

[@thegethconsensus393]

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

[@proximamidnight1581]

Every government is authoritarian. CAPITALIST OR NOT.

[@thegethconsensus393]

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

[@proximamidnight1581]

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

[@thegethconsensus393]

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

[@duruarute5445]

@@proximamidnight1581 Are you an anarchist?

[@_BirdOfGoodOmen]

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

[@daMacadamBlob]

I expected to see more angry tankies

[@maxonwolf5841]

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

[@stijn3085]

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

[@christianosminroden7878]

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

[@lazybear236]

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

[@dennisweidner288]

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

[@tultoi5651]

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

[@dennisweidner288]

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

[@quakeknight9680]

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

[@dennisweidner288]

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

[@theMOCmaster]

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

[@marcofontinha6296]

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

[@RememberingWW2]

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

[@markholcomb8101]

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

[@CasualScholar]

Not for the Russians

[@SCHMALLZZZ]

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

[@monsieurpoisson8163]

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

[@jgdooley2003]

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

[@devinklassen9769]

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

[@lordlorian81]

Shared … real good analysis

[@alessioflammia2028]

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

[@_reZ]

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

[@ratulxy]

@@_reZ what genocide are you talking about?

[@Remix2366]

​@@_reZ which

[@_reZ]

@@ratulxy the holodomor

[@tomgu2285]

​@@_reZ sure buddy

[@destruction1928]

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

[@haroldgraphene]

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

[@Archedgar]

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

[@kerriwilson7732]

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

[@tultoi5651]

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

[@RememberingWW2]

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

[@sol1spartan584]

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

[@kimobrien.]

And you pretend to have a brain.

[@millontc4146]

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

[@odder5154]

@@kimobrien. LMAOOO A REAL COMMIE

[@NostalgicMem0ries]

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

[@troyelliott1063]

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

[@jasonz7788]

Great video thank you

[@jaredharmer7047]

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

[@edwardheaney3641]

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

[@jaredharmer7047]

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

[@markgilrosales6366]

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

[@jaredharmer7047]

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

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

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

[@tw8464]

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

[@FishtownRec]

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

[@myriaddsystems]

Superbly insightful documentary

[@user-hf6hp9ou3v]

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

[@Gunni1972]

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

[@mirthmagic6370]

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

[@kimobrien.]

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

[@mirthmagic6370]

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

[@ehfoiwehfowjedioheoih4829]

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

[@clarkkotte3069]

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

[@Mango_Eter]

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

[@lukaswilhelm9290]

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

[@Blainelyne]

This comment is probably the most true of all

[@user-xn7ri2tg7m]

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

[@aliexpress2109]

It's true

[@rcyadav9746]

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

[@zsoltpapp3363]

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

[@user-dy4rh5vz4w]

The West is still exporting communist prejudice

[@sblbb929]

Russia didn't colonize anything famously.

[@Gunni1972]

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

[@prw56]

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

[@Ravie1]

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

[@erisboxxx]

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

[@jasonmain6398]

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

[@gsuhz41]

@@jasonmain6398 For Russia, it did.

[@angamaitesangahyando685]

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

[@Yegorific]

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

[@Kurtlane]

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

[@beibotanov]

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

[@andrewgavin1490]

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

[@newstartyt3700]

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

[@andrewgavin1490]

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

[@edgarcardiff7874]

All because some random Aksumite farmer threw a rat

[@johnhurley8918]

It did however have a similar effect on labor markets.

[@andrewgavin1490]

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

[@henriquemartins8259]

Man, what a great video! One can understand it without really having previous knowledge about economics👍good work

[@sjoerdglaser2794]

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

[@Passonator11]

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

[@plumebrise4801]

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

[@Dopaaamine27]

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

[@ROXANNE708]

Great video!

[@alperenborklu4005]

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

[@rcyadav9746]

Communism is like religion without god

[@wilhelmbittrich88]

This is probably the best video I’ve seen on the Soviet Economy. The part at the beginning which explains the history and origins was super helpful. Well done, subscribed

[@CasualScholar]

Thank you so much! Comments like these really keep the channel going!

[@user-uy1rg8td1v]

@@CasualScholar Great video and videos. I would highly suggest not having background music. I feel it's unnecessary and distracting especially for education videos with a lot of talking. I feel people want to hear you talk/get information and not hear generic background music that they have to filter out.

[@AntonBrazhnyk]

I'm yet to watch the video, but most probably it's just reflection of the books mentioned in description (all western, right?). And you can't really understand anything about USSR from the sources which are just half-truth, since the other half there is western propaganda.

[@blabbergasted4380]

Love your content. Nice flow with relevant facts. Thanks.

[@dannyfoelber2124]

One of the best videos I have ever seen.

[@sotokorro]

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

[@emuriddle9364]

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

[@truwu8177]

what do Luxury companies have to do with anything?

[@vedsingh2108]

@@truwu8177 Demand shock.

[@truwu8177]

@@vedsingh2108 what

[@sten260]

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

[@brandonlyon730]

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

[@jodrizzly1766]

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

[@joeyjojo84]

I worked in the public healthcare system in my country, and it sounds like this. If anything there’s disincentive to be productive because if you work harder, make improvements, stay under budget the government will expect the same next year. Any funding that wasn’t used will be reallocated elsewhere next year. If you show you can be efficient on a tight budget with low staff, they’ll never increase. So people do bare minimum to get their pay checks. And managers make sure they only just meet their targets and spend all their allocated funds by the end of the financial year.

[@itsreal4738]

This was a really interesting video, thank you for making it!

[@CasualScholar]

Thank you for such a nice comment! I'm glad you enjoyed :)

[@kingace6186]

Very informative, efficiently communicated, and direct explanation. Great video. Well done. I will check out more of this channel's content.

[@Jacob-og9pz]

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

[@lumbrs]

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

[@dopaminedreams1122]

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

[@jaylearned3]

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

[@user-qt1cp1be3u]

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

[@jaylearned3]

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

[@user-qt1cp1be3u]

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

[@jaylearned3]

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

[@user-qt1cp1be3u]

@@jaylearned3 "By toxic hierarchy I refer specifically to a culture in which the norm is to defer to the top," Britannica address "income inequality" On a global level, income inequality is extreme by any measure, with the richest 1 percent of people in the world receiving as much as the bottom 56 percent in the early 21st century. English Wikipedia address "Food loss and waste" .[4] The analysis estimated that global food waste was 931 million tonnes of food waste (about 121 kg per capita) across three sectors: 61 per cent from households, 26 per cent from food service and 13 per cent from retail. .[24] According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Americans throw away up to 40% of food that is safe to eat.[25] In 2015 the Chinese Academy of Sciences reported that in big cities there was 17 to 18 million tons of food waste, enough to feed over 30 million people. About 25% of the waste was staple foods and about 18% meat.[81] English Wikipedia address "Mortality rate" According to Jean Ziegler (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food for 2000 to March 2008), mortality due to malnutrition accounted for 58% of the total mortality in 2006: "In the world, approximately 62 million people, all causes of death combined, die each year. In 2006, more than 36 million died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients".[17] ( "Loyalty over competence." The only competence of individualism is to be an executioner. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rIe8Xq2Lm6ugpZI )

[@TopCelebMedia]

This is a great peace of content 👍👍

[@rcyadav9746]

Dopemine is money understand pycology

[@felathar1985]

This right here... This is gold

[@cursedcat6467]

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

[@oneshothunter9877]

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

[@xxdarthxmurderwolfxx4621]

Legitimately surprised by how high the quality of this is. Don’t give this up, you’ve got a real talent for it

[@heckinmemes6430]

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

[@kmmediafactory]

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

[@willwarner9059]

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

[@volition2015]

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

[@butteredtoast6510]

I’m so glad I caught you so early! With well-researched videos on history in an easy to digest format, I can see this channel getting some real success in the years to come! Great job!

[@yami6499]

This is single most acccurate and best documentary on Soviet union economy I have ever seen. This guy is an absolute genius.

[@salvatoreschoen7823]

Talking too fast

[@ciro_costa]

How can you tell it's well researched? Are you a historian?

[@philipthomey7884]

@@salvatoreschoen7823 I have him on .75 % speed of course. Try it. You'll like it.

[@andrarias]

I just found your channel and so far I like your content quite a bit. I just want to point out a "minor" mistake: I couldn't find extractative on google at all! I guess you meant extractive. Also in the graph at 3:52 you wrote "extractatice" (not even extractative). thanks for the great content!

[@Xapheus]

Just found this channel as well, and I agree. Unfortunately, that was just the first of many spelling issues in this video which detracts from its otherwise good content and narration.

[@nikolayd.3880]

​@@Xapheus The guy's a hack. The topic was presented poorly. Uncritically taking the Why Nations Fail framework for granted, school-level understanding of history, and plainly misstating facts.

[@dananskidolf]

Ughh. I just went through the same search. I was just thinking back to this video, which I watched a few weeks back, and googled 'extractive system' and 'extractive economy' to see if there were more in-depth materials on it. They mostly seemed to talk about extraction of resources rather than extraction of wealth from serfs, so I found this again to see if I was remembering the term right. He actually says 'extractative' so I googled that and... it's not even a word. Sigh. But 'extractive' does appear to be used in this way in one of the video's sources (Why Nations Fail) so maybe I'll check that out. As for extraction from serfs / from natural resources, those are probably quite easily conflated as you typically extract the resources by getting serfs to do it, but I see something of an analogy to extraction of labour in even a service economy with no natural resources, but still this rich owner / poor worker divide.

[@r.w.v4723]

This changes everything.

[@user-kt7ew4hb5v]

I was sad (and almost turned off the video) when you didn’t mention the US adoption of a federal reserve as the reason for the Great Depression. I kept listening and it was a good video.

[@chinmayhundekari]

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

[@karmaskavern3131]

A deep insight into a topic I never really thought about, awesome job, you have my sub

[@CasualScholar]

Thank you! Really appreciate it and glad you enjoyed :)

[@karmaskavern3131]

@@CasualScholar no problem, remember me when you blow up cause I guarantee it’s happening soon

[@Incuggarch]

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

[@mrhelzbygrad7485]

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

[@hurrdurrmurrgurr]

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

[@mrhelzbygrad7485]

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

[@agentsteell]

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

[@mrhelzbygrad7485]

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

[@aaronmillen2026]

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

[@1KilledKenny1]

"Jobs were legally guaranteed in the soviet economy" That actually don't sound half bad

[@ovariantrolley2327]

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

[@rcyadav9746]

Feaudilism was better then communism maybe

[@premyslsedy2904]

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

[@beibotanov]

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

[@premyslsedy2904]

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

[@beibotanov]

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

[@beibotanov]

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

[@premyslsedy2904]

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

[@neenee8194]

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

[@puebespuebes8589]

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

[@user-xu6yg6uj9o]

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

[@haroldgraphene]

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

[@johnmonkelennon3900]

I havent end watching it but I hope you mention the compulsory military spending wich was insane... there were some moments that it reach 50% of the gdp

[@pradstar_]

DAMN

[@tomlxyz]

To be honest, it was kinda needed to fight against anti communist forces

[@johnmonkelennon3900]

@@tomlxyz "kinda needed" I mean not really, they priotized military power rather than economy and ended having neither of those

[@MsMattmatt24]

@@johnmonkelennon3900 but why do they have prioritised the military? They were intelligent orherwise the ussr would never reached second world superpower right? So what was the rationel behind « we have to spend so much in the military »?

[@vedsingh2108]

@@tomlxyz No it wasn't spending half your goddamn federal budget on defence isn't a necessity, it's lunacy. 50 percent is nation ruining. And it did ruin said nation.

[@adhdave]

Good effort cheers

[@rcyadav9746]

Intellectual propert rights inheritance rights class system rights jealsy envy right life is horrible who doesn't get for all means no one special

[@gameingwill]

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

[@haidernaeemmalana8601]

This is way too good for someone with 90k subs. Amazing content, very nuanced, well edited and sound.

[@JanuszKrysztofiak]

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

[@Taospark]

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

[@ironhead2008]

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

[@alanpennie8013]

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

[@schoo9256]

Where do I find out more about this?

[@alanpennie8013]

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

[@gavinkennemore3413]

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

[@MalaysianBallProductions]

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