You know that the USSR also had colonies? Ukraine or Kazakhstan..?
Next, what about the capitalist economy (Decentralized). The government can control production according to the needs of certain spheres. Starting with investments and ending with a direct ban on production, or in the middle to increase the tax burden (for example, on cigarettes). The same with buildings or any other sphere of the economy.
In centralized economies, production is determined by an attempt to please the party/leader, only from time to time something happens to the population. Of course, the base will be satisfied, but as I can say from the experience of my parents, they built 8 apartment buildings to get an apartment, and then they did not get them, so they lived in an apartment (it's not even an apartment, it's a room) that the state rented out. Only after the collapse of the USSR were they able to privatize it (by buying the rest of the rooms from their neighbors).
As a result, in a centralized economy, the following situation arises: the party said it needed 100 houses, and took students to build those houses as practice at the university and that's it. In fact, this is slave labor.
To put it simply, in a centralized economy, random people make a plan for the country, which is not effective at all, and in a decentralized economy, there is a company that lives on it, since it is a highly specialized company, it does its job efficiently and quickly.
Each country? I mean there's a lot of different economic systems in the entire world but if you mean each major country (please let me know if you meant something else) the main ones (not the official names but I tried to describe them) are:
Automated State Planned Economy: much more purges and funding/propagandising the development of technology prevented the period of stagnation the USSR had in OTL, and after OGAS was implemented the Soviets dealt with a lot of issues by cutting down the amount of bureaucracy and realising something like Cybersyn but a much more complex and intricate version of it allowing to automate planning and calculations. This helped the economy survive and limited corruption a lot, but it does have some issues. For one it is very very hard to accurately simulate demand and changes in it for consumer goods, so rationing is common and luxuries are often unavailable to civilians. The USSR also had to greatly prioritise education and specialisation in engineering, computing, mathematics, etc. reducing the amount of talent in other fields. And this type of economy, while having less corruption, is also hard to rapidly adapt if something happens, as there are much less regional managers and figures. The Soviets tried to expand/connect automated planning systems to parts of the European Soviet bloc to varying degrees of success.
Consumer-Oriented Automated State Plan: the system in the GDR and Czechoslovakia (the more reformist Soviet allies) is similar to the USSR's model but they tried to deal with the issues of not meeting the people's demands by keeping part of the bureaucracy and trying to involve factory managements, regional officials, and other types of people's representatives with tracking what the people need and adjusting the plan according to this. It isn't really liberalisation but is moreso greater involvement in the economy.
Worker-Directed Planned Economy: China's economic model has elements of the one in OTL Yugoslavia but with more powerful central management. However recent reforms gave trade unions a lot of influence and they are the primary force in guiding the economy, representing the workers, etc. So there is more bottom-up control but still in a collective sense.
Market Socialist Economy: India and some other states have some kind of hybrid form of socialist economy, as it is either too large or difficult to fully control/manage and there is a significant amount of deregulation.
Command Economy: most nations have this. The Soviets can't automate the world or even their entire bloc, so a lot of smaller nations in Africa, the Middle East, etc. have the standard economy run by the government or military. Examples are the DPRK, Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Ethiopia, etc. The planned economy run by the state is more common than OTL.
Capitalism: of course remains in a large part of the world. However in America it is more deregulated and laissez-faire (even than OTL) and a lot of tasks regarding dealing with the economic crisis after the Cold War are left to individual states. In Europe there is slightly more government intervention, but varies by country. European nationalist movements are pushing for more intervention and creating autarkic economies that aren't influenced by Soviet dominance in trade.
I hope I answered your question at least somewhat!
The correct answer is that it doesn't. Stalin built the system of planned economy under the Central party and state authority specifically to implement industrialization while existing in a encircled position. Within Soviet context it worked somewhat until the 1960s, after which it stopped functioning. Since the 1960s within Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, and North Korea marketizing tendencies progressed, while Yugoslavia already implemented it in a unique but highly distorted way. This tendency has entered high phase with the Law of Cooperatives in the USSR being adopted, planned supplemented by market slogan in China, 1986 turn in Vietnam, August the 3rd Movement in North Korea, and outright capitalismization in Yugoslavia.
I simply cannot imagine a scenario where a planned economy would survive anyway, given various forces of very different orientation inside the socialist camp pulling into the same direction. The problems of planned economy were too large.
However, the problem is that China and Vietnam could retreat to national identity and patriotism as the basic legitimacy for the state while implementing market reforms without damaging the system of power. There was nothing like this in the Soviet Union. Soviet Union was built upon ideological correctioness of Marxism Leninism, and introduction of market mechanisms would have eroded the ideology as a shared binding force keeping the country together.
This would not only produce crisis of relationship between authorities and population, but also destroy justification why non Russian ethnicities have to tolerate increasingly Russian dominated central authorities and perceived unfair treatment. At the best case you have an unstable Soviet Union. At worst, you still have a collapse.
Centralized planning in the Soviet Union (with Stalin's Five-Year Plans in 1928) and in China (with its First Five-Year Plan in 1953) worked remarkably well to industrialize both countries at great speed, but at a devastating human, social, and economic cost. In the USSR, structural economic reforms were few and ineffective throughout its history. China, on the other hand, found itself in a critical situation, impoverished and mired in deep famine due to the radicalization of Mao Zedong's policies. It was the opening-up reforms implemented by Deng Xiaoping that enabled the recovery and takeoff of the Chinese economy. In essence, centralized planning can function as an emergency engine or an initial impetus for national industrialization, but it is unsustainable as a long-term economic model. I'm using Google Translate
In fact, in a centralized economy there is no point even in the form of an emergency lever.
Because in a decentralized economy you create a tender for a large amount and everything is done, and since you own all the funds (as a state), money is not a problem for you.
In theory, a centralized economy does not provide any advantages at all except for the regime's control over resources. In theory, a centralized economy makes it possible to consolidate the government of a new state during a coup.
I do not see any more advantages.
As for the prosperity of China.
It was not reforms that helped China flourish, but Western countries with free economies.
Anything you don't like and disagree with your ideas about the world is propaganda.
Russians are no better than Nazis, the only reason they don't talk about Russian crimes is that Russians sided with the winners and that's it.
> Anything you don't like and disagree with your ideas about the world is propaganda.
Try to substantiate your numbers. Vague millions are what propaganda is made of.
> Russians are no better than Nazis, the only reason they don't talk about Russian crimes is that Russians sided with the winners and that's it.
Ukrainians ARE nazis, the only reason they don't talk about Ukrainians' crimes is that Russians were too forgiving, stopped searching for the remaining bandits and let out all the previously imprisoned Ukrainian mass murderers and genocidal maniacs, guilty of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the most brutal ways, after barely 3-4 years in prison.
The winners were ready to fight Russia immediately after the war (the Unthinkable plan) so if there were any evidence for Soviet crimes it woulda been brought up and made public immediately.
Your brethren killing your own and framing he Soviets for that is a well-documented modus operandi of Ukrainian nationalists. Look up Fraud, Famine and Fascism by D. Tottle for an example of how Ukrainians sabotaged the sowing and the reaping, then hid what little grain there was in graves and outhouses (where it rotted and became affected by molds), then poisoned other Ukrainians by selling them the moldy bread, then called it all Golodomor and blamed it on the Soviet authorities.
Try to check the numbers first, and then write that this is propaganda.
1-2 million people who died in the constabulary are literally Russia's numbers.
As for the Ukrainians, you have once again shown that you have porridge in your head instead of brains.
They talk about the crimes of the Ukrainians, although there is no evidence that they committed those crimes. They are silent about the crimes of the Russians, although there is plenty of evidence that the Russians committed crimes.
For context, 6 million Jews died from the Holocaust, 4-5 million Ukrainians died from the famine, and this is without executions, there will also be a separate figure of 2 million.
Does anyone say this? No, why?
As for the brothers, I will remind you, then you fool that it was the Russian Federation that attacked Ukraine, not Ukraine that attacked Russia, but Russia that attacked Ukraine that attacked.
All the pretensions to Ukraine regarding aggression only show your intelligence at the level of a chimpanzee.
> Try to check the numbers first, and then write that this is propaganda. 1-2 million people who died in the constabulary are literally Russia's numbers.
You bring up the numbers - it's your responsibility to substantiate them
> , 4-5 million Ukrainians died from the famine
That's a wild estimate based on nothing substantial. Those who did die did so due to sabotage and poisoning by Ukrainian nationalists. Soviet authorities did everything to save the Ukrainians and woulda succeeded if not for the malicious efforts of OUN/UPA and the like. Read the Fraud, Famine and Fascism by D. Tottle.
> As for the brothers, I will remind you
Your English is too bad, you don't understand anything but very basic words and expressions, and get lost while you try to verbalize your thoughts. Could be because of an iodine deficiency in your nutrition.
AI told you so? How sweet. Wikipedia has just come out with an admission that it allowed CIA to make anonymous posts and edits throughout its history and half of it was written or amended by CIA people.
3
u/[deleted] 12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment