I'm somewhat shit with my 20th Century History because the lack of swords n shit made me not care for it when I was younger so..
...how was the economy of the Soviet Union? Was it North Korea Isolated-Tier or was it trading within communist countries only? Or was it more like Modern China: a communist government trading with everyone?
http://msxnet.org/orwell/print/animal_farm.pdf
read this
>>1084041
>Fiction
>>1084044
If you're too slow for allegory, I won't hold it against you. Wikipedia is probably more your speed anyway.
>>1084036
>...how was the economy of the Soviet Union?
From the formation of the Soviet Union a capitalist economy existed. This varied between allowing formally privately owned and substantially privately owned enterprise. Wage labour, alienated wage labour, was a continuous phenomena and the control over plants varied between private individuals and cells of nomenklatura. The central economy was controlled through banking institutions which were established on an industry basis.
Excess loans were taken back through excess labour as in the 1940s.
Workers generally valued the economy, as it resulted in full employment and until the 1960s rapid promotion (as people were being forced off the land).
The peasantry and rural proletariat detested party rule, particularly as MTS and Kholkoz foremen were incompetent. Sovkoz/Govkoz foremen were better, but these were fewer by far. Low productivity set in in the 1920s, but increased in the 1930s to "acceptable" levels.
>Was it North Korea Isolated-Tier
The soviet economy was never isolated. They were taking loans from France and England even as they were calling for the defeat of the bourgeois countries in the IIIeme International.
>or was it trading within communist countries only?
The majority of Soviet trade was within their own imperium.
>Or was it more like Modern China: a communist government trading with everyone?
It was also like this, but few Soviet products circulated widely, in part due to unmet internal demand, in part due to poor quality.
>>1084055
>From the formation of the Soviet Union a capitalist economy existed
Mostly, yes. But not for around twenty years of the Stalin era. Although it was dismantled after his death a socialist planning system existed. Transactions were planned by the industrial ministries (supervised by Gosplan) and therefore brought no real changes of ownership. Private property over production was nonexistent, firms were merely custodians of social property. Wage-labor existed but it was not the defining feature of the system. Unlike capitalism, it could've been done away with and the economy would've remained fundamentally the same.
>>1084103
>But not for around twenty years of the Stalin era.
Wage labour still existed my Maoist friend.
The banks still existed my Maoist friend.
A Red CEO is still a CEO.
A Red Profit is still Value in the Expanded Form.
I cite the first three five year plans.
(by the way: Stakhanov was a foreman).
>Although it was dismantled after his death a socialist planning system existed.
A government planning system existed, this is not incompatible with capitalism. See IBM, the US Army or the United Kingdom for other evidence.
>Transactions were planned by the industrial ministries (supervised by Gosplan)
Agreed.
>and therefore brought no real changes of ownership
So we agree that formal and substantive relations are different? When the value form is reproduced in the expanded form, it doesn't matter who formally owns it. Substantive ownership was expressed by the industrial ministries in competition, design bureau in competition, and firm nomenklatura in competition.
>Unlike capitalism, it could've been done away with and the economy would've remained fundamentally the same.
Wage:ration increased during the first three five year plans until rations were abolished for workers. It looks like the exact opposite is true: wage labour was a defining feature of the first five year plans and essential.
>>1084036
> ...how was the economy of the Soviet Union?
Mostly planned.
> Was it North Korea Isolated-Tier
Nope. NK isolationism was considered retarded in USSR.
However, West was embargoing the shit out of Soviet consumer goods and Soviets didn't want to run a deficit against West. Thus trade was somewhat limited.
As a rule, Soviets were buying tech (machines for factories) and stuff like coffee/cacao/tobacco/fruits (sugar from Cuba). Grain never went over 10%, in case you are wondering.
You could buy Western consumer goods in USSR, but only if they were produced in USSR (Pepsi, for example). By the end of 80s Soviets were negotiating with Apple to get some factories running (yep, Steve Jobs went to USSR). If not for collapse of USSR, we might've been using Soviet-made iPhones.
> or was it trading within communist countries only?
20s - mostly with Germany. After Hitler - less. Soviets increased trade with the USA and France, IIRC.
After WWII - approximately half of trade was with Communist states (COMECON). The other - First and Third world (mostly First).
> Or was it more like Modern China: a communist government trading with everyone?
Nah. China was allowed Western companies to set shop in China and got in return the right to sell their consumer goods to the West.
>>1084055
> From the formation of the Soviet Union a capitalist economy existed. This varied between allowing formally privately owned and substantially privately owned enterprise. Wage labour, alienated wage labour, was a continuous phenomena and the control over plants varied between private individuals and cells of nomenklatura. The central economy was controlled through banking institutions which were established on an industry basis.
Are you high?
>>1085362
finally someone mentioned comecon
The problem with Soviet economy was that it was almost pointlessly based on heavy industry ever since Stalin. Even after 1945 when half of the country was plundered and bare they once again focused on building steel factories instead of investing in consumer goods or agriculture. Agriculture was seriously neglected in Soviet economy despite the huge amounts of fertile lands. Khrushchev tried some shit to revitalize it but it all failed miserably and the country was even forced to import grain at some point in order to prevent famine.
Another weakness of Soviet economy was its inability to modernize, especially in the period of late 70s and early to mid 80s when IT industries and new technologies started developing, the so-called third industrial revolution. The USSR skipped this revolution because it has placed all its funds on the army fighting a grueling and unnecessary war in Afghanistan. This meant that many Soviet technicians, scientists and engineers were transferred into the military industry, thus again neglecting the more important parts of economy. At the end USSR was again forced to import shit in order to save the situation, but this time they imported expensive computers instead of producing them on their own.
tl;dr The joys of planned economy
>>1085364
Are you? (Strauss, 1941 https://www.marxists.org/archive/strauss/ ; S. Pirani)
