Did an Oil Crisis Cause the Transition in the Soviet Union

www.hubbertpeak.com ^ | don't know | Reynolds?

[VeniVidiVici]

Because they had the guns, the secret police and were brutal.

And the toilet paper. Don't forget they had the toilet paper ;-)

[CWOJackson]

LOL! How true. Great one.

[wotan]

He's a moron for asking that question?
Seems a stretch.

[Lessismore]

Russia and China abandoned most of their command economies, Vietnam, Cuba and even North Korea (yes, Kim John Il has SOME sense) are in the process of abandoning theirs.

They may have abandoned the "command economies" as such. But they, as well as the US and all the other developed countries of Europe and Asia, have retained a high degree of governmental control of their economies. The difference is that it is acheived in a more flexible way through taxation, regulation, governmental spending, financial planning, financial regulation, think tanks, research institutions, media, etc. This allows much better control than the old Stalinst or Maoist methods.

[AmericaUnited]

Worth noting Bill Casey's job description in the OSS during WWII: developing and implementing an economic warfare plan against Nazi Germany

Yes, well noted! Casey and Reagan had the all-out warfare mentality of WWII.

[AmericaUnited]

Don't forget one little fact: OPEC cut oil prices by huge amounts and with the USSR a major exporter, their one major source of funds dried up and left the country bankrupt. I know this sounds like heresy, but Reagan only helped with their demise.

This WAS NOT accidental. Baker made a deal with the Saudi's to make this happen.

[spanalot]

"If Marxist-Leninist Communism was so inefficient, then why did it last in one form or another for over 70 years "

I'm going way out on the limb but my guess is that they lasted so long BECAUSE THEY SUCKED THE LIFEBLOOD AND WORDLY ASSETS OUT OF 100 MILLION VICTIMS.

[spanalot]

"I know this sounds like heresy, but Reagan only helped with their demise."

It was Reagan who jaboned the Saudis into opening the spigot.

[lawdude]

It held on because it was forced upon those who had no choice. I killed millions after it became a failure (well, it was always a failure) but the Soviets killed off dissenters and gave their wealth to the rest. It worked for a while but in the end it had to fail because the people were becoming "restless".

[Romanov]

That's the only way it lasted for 70 years - through force, intimidation, murder, and treachery. The Soviet system set neighbor upon neighbor and kept everyone looking over their shoulders. The Soviet "economy" was a joke - lies upon lies of faked "five-year plan quotas being met or exceeded" while buildings crumbled and infrastructures lay unbuilt. The author of this article is a complete moron and has obviously never seen a communist country first hand and has never seen the ruin the communist system leaves in its wake.

[Romanov]

"I don't know if Russia collapsed properly (Putin). We got lazy and did not follow up after 1991, this is mostly Clinton's fault."

Take a look at the Gore-Chernomyrdyn Commission and you'll find a lot of the mistakes. Having said that, Bush Sr. dropped the ball on Russia too. Nothing will be done properly as long as embedded Democrats are still roaming the halls of the Dept. of State.

[Thunder90]

Putin would not be there in the first place had our policy makers been doing their jobs.

[b2stealth]

"spectacularly inefficient and was an adequate, though far below average, system for running an economy."

Year, right, try millions of people in free labor (GULAGs)
others working for cents.
Only single item were produced - like one soviet car, one vacuum, one stove, one refrigerator type etc. Everybody had the same things.

Ronald Reagan won the cold war because he was bold enough to cause a quick meltdown coupled with soviet people being increasingly intolerant of CPSU.

The saying goes: "Call to work better tomorrow than today was understood as - there is no point in working today at all!"

[Romanov]

That may be correct. Unfortunately we kept backing Yeltsin and ignored true reformers (or those who appeared to be reformers). Yeltsin, like Putin, had a fairly good (for Russia) first term. His second term lodged Russia solidly into a Kleptocracy. Putin's first term made some inroads into destroying the Kleptocracy, but his second term has been filled with missteps in foreign policy - both in the near abroad and far abroad. He's obviously believing those near him who are telling him the U.S. is weak because of Iraq. Why he would continue to follow their wrong advice is beyond me - but keep in mind, he's not the "powerful" leader that he is painted as in the West. He's got to kowtow to the FSB guys to keep the military guys at bay. In the meantime, corruption continues to permeate throughout Russian society and that eats away at any economic gains they have seen.

[Romanov]

"Only single item were produced - like one soviet car, one vacuum, one stove, one refrigerator type etc. Everybody had the same things."

While they all technically had access to these things, the reality was most people didn't even have fair access to the scant goods that were produced. Plus, in communal apartments (still around, unfortunately) several families shared one beaten up old stove, a Minsk refridgerator, and one toilet and shower. And that Soviet car - ha! 10 years to wait if you had no connections or nothing to trade to the people who made up the waiting lists.

[b2stealth]

Exactly..