Was Soviet Union a Command Economy?

The democratization, economic liberalization, and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union is commonly attributed to Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost reforms during the period of 1985-1991. This purpose of these reforms is still a trenchant question as the countries of the old Soviet Union, particular Russia, are being pressured to further liberalize their economies.

Communism is also a form of a command economy. In a communistic economy all the

The Soviet Union, which was once a world superpower in the 19th century saw itself in chaos going into the 20th century. These chaoses were marked by the new ideas brought in by the new leaders who had emerged eventually into power. Almost every aspect of the Soviet Union was crumbling at this period both politically and socially, as well as the economy. There were underlying reasons for the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eventually Eastern Europe. The economy is the most significant aspect of every government. The soviet economy was highly centralized with a “command economy” (p.1. fsmitha.com), which had been broken down due to its complexity and centrally controlled with corruption involved in it. A strong government

While the liberal experienced emotional changes amid the 1970s, the Communist agreement experienced reduced rates of development yet not the sorts of amazing economic rebuilding that happened in the West. These improvements in the 1970s suggested the Cold War's determination in the 1980s. Arranged in similar connection, the changes of the liberal world economy during the 1970s uncovered – an in a few ways improved – the relative backwardness of the Soviet Union's charge economy, with final outcomes for the truth of the Communist administration. Universal fiscal change, in this view, encouraged the ideological and geopolitical improvements that would take the Cold War.

The industrial expansion of the Soviet Union resulted in one of the greatest economic growths for a single country that the modern world has ever seen. This economic growth ultimately led to the USSR becoming one of the world’s only two superpowers in the post-WWII era. Much of the country’s economic growth occurred because of the USSR’s use of a command economy, which is “an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by a government” [1]. Using a command economy, the USSR was able to force industrialization in certain sectors in which pre-Soviet Russia highly struggled. One of these sectors was the Nuclear Power sector. Ultimately, Soviet successes in the nuclear power industry were highly evident

The first part is about economic growth. In command economy, the government planned the demand and supply as well as resources distributions, which makes it easier

this  shows  how the Soviet  Union  were  still  trying to maintain an  advantage over  the  Capitalist world rather

The people were in a state of famine, the political government was weak, and the economy was in shambles with inflation as high as can be. As Stalin rose in power, this would all change in both positive and negative aspects. One of Josef Stalin’s first methods of rebuilding broken Russia was through what he named to be the Five-Year economic Plans. Through these plans, Stalin would induct a Command, or a Socialist, Economy. This Command Economy would involve a society in which the government would make all economical decisions, controlling nearly all aspects of societal life. As seen in Document One, Stalin believed that implementing a “Socialist economy” would prevent from Russia “[lagging] behind the advanced countries by fifty to a hundred years.” It would bring them up to pace with the surrounding capitalist economies, keeping Russia as a world power. The Five-Year Plans also included the increase of quota in both industrial and agricultural positions. If quota were increased, industrial increase would soon follow. Seen in Document Eight, “the fulfillment of the first and second Five-Year Plans strengthened the U.S.S.R.’s economic position.” The Five-Year Plan would cause for Russia to rise to become a modern industrial society, as well as

Under the pressures of the Soviet regime's plans for economic development, the Russian people were worn down. Subsequently, the willingness of these people to do further work for the Soviet cause was wavering. The transfer of power within the Communist Party also provided a source of instability within the USSR. Infighting over potential leadership changes provided a very real force of upheaval within Russia. These weaknesses showed that the USSR may bring about its own downfall.

The Soviet Union was none the less held together by "…powerful central institutions, pressure for ideological conformity, and the threat of force." (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) Therefore, these new reforms could not overpower the previous ‘seventy years' of soviet rule.

In times of economic and infrastructural strife, the Stalinist-style of leadership appeared to be the appropriate solution to the immediate set of problems. A unilateral command system was deemed vital to coordinate a relatively swift industrial improvement to repair the damage done by World War II. This style of governance was only advantageous for so long as “the inflexibility of Comecon’s command structure” was unable to adapt to the economic environment that it was entering into (Stone 168). With the world focusing less with weaponry and more with consumer demands, Eastern European countries were unable to fulfill the promises they made to their constituents since some could see or hear about how green the grass was on the western side in comparison. As more people resorted to other means to find necessities and more funds were being tied up in military and defence spending, Eastern Europe gradually exhibited symptoms of a failing society that only grew as the decades went along until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of communist dictatorships throughout the

The Russian state has been characterized by its strong heritage of powerful, autocratic leadership. This domination by small ruling elite has been seen throughout Russia's history and has transferred into its economic history. Throughout the Russian czarist period, to the legacy of seventy years of communism; Russia has been a country marked by strong central state planning, a strict command economy and an overall weak market infrastructure (Goldman, 2003). Self-interest, manipulation and corruption have all been present in the Russian economy, and have greatly helped the few as opposed to the many. To this day, Russia still struggles with creating a competitive and fair market.

In a market economy, consumers decide what is produced, producers decide where and how to produce, and consumers decide who gets the products. Also, all productive resources are privately owned and operated. In a traditional economy all resources come from self labor and the government owns all resources. In a command economy, the government plans ways to allocate resources in key industries. Command economy’s government owns all basic resources and anything else is privately owned.

Though loyalty and the military were important components of Communism, there was one thing that the government system had at the core of its existence, control. All of it’s principles tied back to control whether it being the control of its people, other counties, or the whole world. Though, because of its many flaws, it never branched out far; it still used a great

For many nations, it is essential to choose a system of organization that successfully and thoroughly meets the needs of all the people. While some countries have supported the idea of communism and strong government intervention in the economy, others have limited the role and power of their governing body in the marketplace. For instance, in the United States, the government has a small role in the planning and monitoring of their economy. Individuals compete heavily against one another to receive the maximum profit for themselves in an sufficient manner. The former USSR, on the other hand, used large amounts of government control to restrict competition and control the output and distribution of the goods