The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Economy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2022
- The Soviet economy was the second largest and arguably, the second most successful economy in the 20th century. At its heights it has a GDP of $2 trillion, and it was a self-sufficient economy that produces its own fuel, machinery, consumer goods, food, etc.
The Soviet economy had an annual GDP growth of 5% for 42 years long (meaning that they outperformed all countries in the 20th century except for Japan), and it grew from a poor country wrecked by famines and civil wars into a power that rivaled the United States. But of course, it has entirely collapsed.
Now, the standard criticism of the Soviet economy is that socialism could have never worked, and it was a big mistake to try this system in the first place.
And while there are certainly many things wrong with the Soviet Union, the fact that they managed to grow rapidly and turned a nation with extreme poverty to become economically sufficient must mean that they’ve done something right. Even other poor nations with little to no hope of growing like China and Vietnam eventually embraced the Soviet economic system, with varying results.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Stock Footage by Storyblocks
#Soviet #Economics #Doverhill
about economics explained, about Finance and how money works, on the rise and fall of the soviet union, This is an economics/finance video
It's amazing that a bunch of bureaucrats who never owned businesses tried to set prices based on years of data when price is determined by supply and demand and changing every second.
Which is why our foreign policy towards them was so tragic.
Excellent video, informative and well presented
The Soviet Union finished third in a two country race.
Many congratulations for your video. A huge factor contributing to the fall of the Soviet economy along with the points you raised was the Chernobyl disaster which cost hundrends of billion of dollars.
Thanks for making this! It's so hard to find good impartial resources on the Soviet Economy, most videos I've seen are heavily biased one way or the other -- but this was a good facts-based video that acknowledged both the flaws and successes of the Soviet system.
As someone who comes from ex Soviet Union state. Was taught a lot in school about it. Researched extensively Soviet Economy. And speaks Russian with one of my parents. I can tell you guys. The info here is very shallow, and provided from perspective of some kid reading in internet about soviet unions economy and not a historian specialising in this topic. You really can feel it. Being an expert on topic makes a huge difference. Your knowledge is just much more wast. You orientate more in the topic. You can argue better. And this is not that. This is complicated topic, and you can’t form your opinion based on 10 minute UA-cam video. Also there are much better videos in net about this topic. Sorry, Dover. This is not a diss or personal attack. I’m sure you have many very good videos.
@@captn_maverick well do you have any recommendations for better English language materials covering the topic? Western economics is highly focused on capitalist systems, so we basically learn nothing about the soviet economy in school. Vague statements about a lack of consumer goods are about as deep as most English language sources go.
@@captn_maverickI would also love to hear about a better source. It's really hard to find videos that explain it in more detail
@@TheNodrokovi think this video has a good description on soviet economic from communist view. ua-cam.com/video/nGm0u3UHDZM/v-deo.htmlsi=jPbk36dnnqVWpIvr
@@TheNodrokovua-cam.com/video/2zjL2EXo07I/v-deo.htmlsi=aERM4u6QAYktok9d in my opinion most accurate among the others "explain everything in 20 minute videos"
Thanks! I didn't know much of this history.
As someone who comes from ex Soviet Union state. Was taught a lot in school about it. Researched extensively Soviet Economy. And speaks Russian with one of my parents. I can tell you guys. The info here is very shallow, and provided from perspective of some kid reading in internet about soviet unions economy and not a historian specialising in this topic. You really can feel it. Being an expert on topic makes a huge difference. Your knowledge is just much more wast. You orientate more in the topic. You can argue better. And this is not that. This is complicated topic, and you can’t form your opinion based on 10 minute UA-cam video. Also there are much better videos in net about this topic. Sorry, Dover. This is not a diss or personal attack. I’m sure you have many very good videos.
Bruh you deserve more subs ❤
USSR 1929 Economic Environment:
1. Recovery growth in 1921-1928; 1913 figures exceeded (national income grew by 19%, industry, by 32%, agriculture, by 33%, fixed assets by 36%).
2. Sanctions: The country had not yet been recognized by many countries. They refused to accept gold as payment. The country was suffering from a credit blockade. Anti-dumping sanctions and embargoes: USA (1930), France (1930), England (1933).
3. External public debt and reserves: Debt more than $350M to U.S. private companies. Total reserves comprised $150M, including 138 tons' worth of gold reserves.
4. Modern industries and technologies: No competencies or technologies in contemporary economy sectors, including machine tool construction, non-ferrous metallurgy, chemical industry, aviation industry, automobile industry, agricultural machinery production, tractor industry.
5. Life expectancy: 43 years. Low-level healthcare and education systems. Population: 154M people.
- - -
USSR 1929-1955 results:
1. The largest economy in Europe and the second largest economy worldwide. The economy grew 14 times, by 13.8% annually on the average (the war years excluded). The country was the world leader in terms of economic growth in the 20th century).
2. External public debt: None. Gold reserves: 2,050 tons (ranking 2nd in the world).
3. World's leader in mechanical engineering in industrial production (100% technical and economic independence has been achieved);
1st in the world in terms of agricultural mechanization;
1st in Europe in terms of the absolute size of industrial production;
1st in Europe and 2nd in the world in terms of labor productivity in industry.
4. New world-class industries: nuclear, space, rocket, aircraft, professional equipment, radio, electronics, electrical equipment, chemical, machine tool construction, etc. The Russian economy has the youngest engineering and manufacturing system in the world.
5. Personnel: world-class engineering/technological/scientific school, education and healthcare are high-quality and affordable.
6. Life expectancy increased by 26 years. Population grew by 46M people, reaching 200M.
Real income grew over 4 times. People's deposits in savings banks increased more than 5-fold.
Great video, thought you presented such a complex topic with great flow. Kept it short and sweet while hitting some important marks. Keep it up. Assumed this was a bigger channel haha
What those guys said. Great video!
Sources please.
Interesting video!
I'd love to see the sources for the video
his mind.
A phrase from Cuba: if socialism was put in place in the Sahara Desert, in a short period of time there would be no sand.
Western Oil money also helped for a lot of decades, that regular injection of foreign currency helped paper over the misallocation of resources from state control.
Great video. Gotta get a different narrator.
The Soviets also had nearly 25% less people to feed after the mass starvation that occurred in Ukraine during the twenties and thirties. No wonder their agricultural output. Went down and industrial went up. They were also building up for war with Europe.
I’d love to see some sources too.
Sources of what though?
Source? I made it up!
Nah, it's a good video. It would just be nice to have sources cited tho.
Source for GDP growth. All of this video is based on premise that GDP grew ca 5% per annum on average. Where does this figure come from. Especially, since Soviet economy had set, not market set prices, how is the actual value of value added calculated. If it is based on artificially set prices then everything in the video falls apart.
Such a resource rich country, would have developed and grown irrespective of political system.
Yet it was the poorest European nation under tsarist rule
@@CyberdarkHellKaiser like the poorest? A bit wide of a claim, no?
Ok but theres plenty of countries that struggle with the same pretext
@@CyberdarkHellKaiserpoorest?! Where did you get that nonsense lol
*one of the poorest, mb
Let's be real, the Soviet Union never truly rivaled the United States economy. They temporarily got ahead in rockets but that was because of the German scientist more than anything they did.
These aren’t the same thing. Economic success and “rockets”?
The USSR failed due to two significant b factors. They felt (rightly) as if they were surrounded by ideological enemies determined to destroy them and their socialist economic system. (This feeling is true to this day … Putin just isn’t a socialist anymore … but still gains political power by continuing the old Soviet mythos of being surrounded by enemies). This obliged the USSR to spend ridiculous amounts of money on their military and new military technology in order to retain the capability of a credible defense against any new technology the worlds capitalists might invent in order to threaten and destroy their socialist system and take over their resources and economy for themselves. Military and military technology spending over decades crippled them.
Second, beginning in the 1960s Kruschev and subsequent Soviet leaders decided to introduce bourgeois consumerism and fashion and trend conscious consumer goods to parts of their “white collar” workers in their urban centers in an effort to promote a Soviet alternative to the West’s bourgeois consumer culture the citizens of the USSR were becoming increasingly aware of and interested in.
This effect of “westernizing” might have been easier to manage and not allow to overwhelm socialist values with greedy selfish capitalist western bourgeois values that typically come along with consumer culture, except for the overwhelming amount of their economy the USSR was wasting on arms races and militarism. The two effects together after two decades (including ever-more leakage of western culture into the USSR vis the increasingly sophisticated media to an increasingly sophisticated bourgeoisie who were growing in number at the same time. Of course, the US and the other western capitalist nations were relentlessly propagandizing the Soviet people about the “freedom” they were supposed to be enjoying along with all the consumer bourgeois products and lifestyle. These expectations spread to all levels.
By the 1980s this became unsustainable.
But, what if we invested in MORE heavy industry and machinery production? It worked before, maybe we're just not doing it enough.
My main issues is the overt generalisation of issues and poor understanding of mechanisms. Also not understanding The background behind these historical events.
If they didn't have to spend a massive amount of their wealth to found the army the USSR would be alive and kicking. The USA wanted anything that was different form capitalism to fail cos they were scared that socialism would succeed in the US too.
The Soviet Union was an imperialist project under a red banner
@@holocene6 Still the same old Russian colonial empire just pretending to be a single nation. Still the same old police state with the same old secret police just with a new name.
So how do you explain the US system able to outspend the soviets and not implode? The Soviet system was going to implode either way, the military spending may have played a part in speeding up the process, however they nailed their own coffin with the Chernobyl nuclear disaster highlighting the inherent problem, that the government and society was afraid of telling the truth and face its own flaws.
@@ip4pwn1 the USA was an economic superpower way before WW2. Russia had an feudal economic system until the Soviet revolution. You can't compare the two.
if you rate the quality and productivity of a countries economy in the number of corpses it produces then yes the Soviet economy was second only to China .
In Stalin era, average annual economic growth was almost 14%, for more than 20 years, which is amongst the best long term growth in the world. The stagnation came with Khrushchev and his deregulation and decentralization, and with Gorbachev and his pro-western "reforms".
USSR fell because a small but decisive part of society, including Gorbachev, got hooked on the "american dream".
However they didnt realize that american prosperity was paid by switching to neoliberalism in 80s, by Reagan´s voodoo economics, by debt and stock market casino.
Usa was actually in very similar situation as before the Great Depression in late 80s. But the gamble worked out, because they acquired East markets and supercheap resources. Americans together with starting local speculators privatised and exported whole factories of goods and machinery, sometimes not even paid.
USSR should have continued the way of self sufficiency, long term planning and sustainibility, stability and social services for workers. Even in the West many people agree now that is the correct way.
Collectivisation was necessary for industrialisation, and that was necessary to defeat Germany. Otherwise Russia would become a subhuman german colony, similar to what Britain had in India.
Centralization of resources was already killing the Soviet Union as bureaucracy kept expanding. Khrushchev was somewhat helpful in that regard, but he also spent the USSR's gold reserves to buy outside resources to keep up growth. The USSR then got lucky in the 70s as oil prices kept shooting up, until they didn't. From there it was only a matter of time due to their own fundamental internal issues and Reagan wearing them down on all fronts while the American and Allied economics experienced an end to stagflation and a resurgence of spendable growth.
Typical deluded description of American economic realities in the 1980s though, well done!
Funny because India is better off today than Russia is.
@@RememberingWW2
nope
The soviet economy grew because Soviet Russia moved from a pre-industrial, agricultural based economy to an industrialized economy. It came from a low, low base. But it was highly distorted and inefficient. This analysis is very superficial.
The government should just leave people be to do what they want and make their own economy
Doverhill you forget to mention a crucial point, that is the initial Capital...
As far as I know, the Russian Empire money were heading to the west during Tzar Civil War, so the URSS started almost as a poor country..., so we should be speaking of it as a Miracle Economy like it or not...
Then the causes of decadence you mention in the late stage were apparently right, but we should analize if they were not related to the lower starting point, that didn´t allow them to catch up with the western technology??
Greetings from Buenos Aires 🙂
Saying USSR started with no capital so we should see it as more of a miracle economy is ... Well I won't say that it's false but it's incomplete. Many things: The USSR refuted all Tzarist Russia's debts. Meanwhile, they still had $ to fund revolutions (which all failed) all over Europe. Also many foreign owned concerns were nationalized or often profits not allowed to leave USSR ie couldn't pay dividends to foreign investors (bf the NEP took effect). And oh, then there's the natural resource wealth.
The USSR was incredibly rich in mineral resources - much more so than the rest of Europe and Asia combined.
So while, tzarist Russia did spend massively and left the new govt "cash poor", the USSR had ready access to cash from riches of Mother Russia herself. And, later, when Stalin needed even more money, he instituted forced collectivization which required the sale of agriculture at low prices to the govt so as to make a harder push on industrial infrastructure investment.
Collectivized exports were raised so high that millions of Ukrainians starved. eg, Read about the Holodomor in which 5m-7m Ukrainians starved to death.
the NEP was instituted (early 1920s) and many western nations and capitalists were all too happy to do business with the ussr and did do so to the great benefit of both. Read Antony Sutton's trilogy "Western Technology and Soviet Economic development" specifically volume one 1917-1930.
And, in 1936, the USSR ended up with Spain's gold reserve (500+ tons) initially for "safekeeping" but republican Spain "spent" all of it (per the USSR) on munitions to fight nationalist forces in the civil war. So, if you want a country that started with nothing, look at Franco's Spain. Their entire gold reserve was in the USSR when Franco took power.
So I don't agree they started with nothing or if they did they were positioned to make up for it and did so quickly via natural resource wealth and property theft (being blunt here). Anyway, that's my response ;) greetings from Central Texas.
@@reidawg72 Hi, how are you?
You are right about the big potential in natural resources, we should add this point to the comments.
But..., even with that they started with "zero" capital, as far as I see it is a fact, and take into consideration that they could have failed to exploit natural resources effectively, so that ability maked part of their "miracle".
I´m not a communist but we should recognize the things they made with big effort, because that brings us a better understanding of human/social possibilieties...
Thanks you, greetings 🙂
@@danielschiavo5371 I understand where you're coming from that's why I made sure to say your statement isn't false but is incomplete.
In the US especially, there's been a huge effort to cover up just how huge of a role western finance played in the "miracle" of the Soviet economy. As Lenin said, "if you tell a group of capitalists you're going to execute them, they'll all fight over who can sell you the rope." He also called western capitalists "the deaf mute blind men" bc they put making money over all else even to their country's detriment. He knew the west wouldn't be able to resist $ making opportunities in ussr which is why he opened it up so quickly to the west with the NEP.
It really is fascinating history. I'll let Lenin have the last words as quoted from page 8 in "Red Carpet" by Joseph Finder (1984): "the capitalists of the world, in pursuit of the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the indicated higher reality and thus will turn into deaf mute blind men. They will extend credits which will strengthen for us the communist party in their countries and giving us the materials and technology we lack. they will restore our industry, indispensable for our future victorious attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will labor for their own suicide."
The west played a huge part in the miracle. To me, that renders moot how much cash they started with. But, like you say, they did start with very little cash. I push back hard on the miracle part and feel the real story is just how much the west funded the whole thing as Russia offfeed a lot in the way of natural resources and provided a "boogey man" for western citizens to fear and thus approve nonstop military spending.
@@reidawg72 you are right about the paradox of western making bussiness with them, but as far as I know that was not a total technological interchange, the only enterprises that produced in the USRR were the italian joint ventures (FIAT, etc).
The interest point to me is that there was a country who proposed a totally different system (whatever one), started with virtually nothing (they had no money and they had no industries) and become a Super Power 🤯, it is something very remarkable, and speaks to us about different possibilieties for humankind, and in someway in the personal sphere what a man can do whith determination.
Thanks for your history insights, they enrich my point of view about it 🙂
@@danielschiavo5371 Absolutely. Your comment actually made me pull a couple books off my shelf and I've been re-reading "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution." It's a wild history for sure. Sutton claims there were millions transferred to Moscow from western elites. I realize this is revisionist history so you can choose to ignore it. Sutton's citations are all bulletproof and even the mainstream academics can't refute that. where they do push back is they claim sutton reaches 'exaggerated conclusions' based on those irrefutable facts🤷♂. It's all very very interesting and really does help to understand our world today and those who run it.
Citroen was also in the USSR with a plant from bf the revolution and operated privately until nationalized in 1921. In 1929, Ford adn USSR contracted for Ford sales and the construction GAZ plant in Nizhny Novgorad in partnership with Ford. That plant would go on to manufacture trucks which delivered weapons to the Vietcong via the Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War.
best of luck to you in your research and belated congrats on the World Cup.
END THE FED Gold IS money.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, how much wealth did the United States share?
The best explanation i ever got was from a woker "they pertend ro pay us and we pretend to work"
is Soviet union a high income country in per capita
Soviet Union and and their satellites were extremely good at wasting resources
Failure to automate the planning system aka OGAS and failure to connect all factories caused the failure of the planned economy.
How do you create the Technologies to automate something if you don't have a private sector to innovate and create them in the first place?
Soviet Economy was never self sufficient particularly in Agricultural sector.
Soviet Union was too focused on issues with the west and had little diversity in its economy.
Society union failed because everything was based on death and lies. My parents lives thought that regime.
1. Gulags provided human power for most big project, e.g., Belomor Canal. People used dead bodies to strengthen the foundation and has to dig in ice covered ground without shovels. But gulags had so many people that nobody cared.
2. Insane amount of resources. Russia and other republics had all the resources a country might need.
3. Propaganda that was telling people that working 24/7 is helping to build communism.
4. Quite a few skilled engineers, foreign engineers, and tons of stuff that was stolen from US or Germany.
At some point NKVD and KGB killed a lot of smart people. Gulags were not as populated as during Stalin's time. Socialist programs started failing. Society products like cars/computers were not required in the west. Insane levels of corruption crippled the system. And the regime had 0 incentive to work/design new things so efficiency was at ground level.
Then there was a borrowing spree in the 80s, economy collapses and we get modern russian with ex-kgb president and millions of angry poor people.
Back up your sources, and do comprehensive research,as the author of this video has done. Not just anticommunist ranting.
@@wesleywagumba2806 Bro dont even bother, he is too far gone
@@konstantinkelekhsaev302 you're right
I think the least working hours and the actual works on some sectors on Soviet Union was superior rather than US and Britain. Second even the economy was falling, the socialist revisionists who leaded by some powerful members of the party lead that. Stalin's Soviet Union even with short term policies proven to be successful, but the long one possibly doesn't much implemented nor doesn't continued leaving Soviet Union on it's fate during Stalin's health deteriorating after the war. Collectivization was required since even the grain confiscated is on decline, Stalin's Soviet Union is in the neutral stage and weakened diplomatic relations with much of the world thanks to Lenin's revolutionary ideas. Vladimir Putin actually decreased poor people in Russia during his early years, however Putin changed his stance during 2008 possibly on Iraq war. He weakened US and European companies control on oil and gas, making oligarchs to support himself and his beliefs.
@@wesleywagumba2806 I have, at least, 2 generations of my family living under Soviet regime and myself living on its death corpse.
I don't need to research stuff like, for example, soviet civilian cars are based of Fiat. However, Soviet engineers didn't manage to build a decent engine or carburator so those models were shit. Ice cream factories were imported from USA during great depression. Gulag system is documented well and widely available everywhere on the internet.
Unlike many of people in these comments I actually visited and lived in industrial cities that have railways going nowhere, factories that produce nothing, schools that have no one to teach. Soviet industrialist were great at building useless stuff and this is why it all failed.
My mom recalls how you had a hop with 1000 pairs of 10.5 size for women but there wasn't a single pair of any other shoe available in the whole city. Then next month you would get 1000 of 7 shoe size. That is your efficiency. Due whatever research that you want but if you haven't lived there, trust me, it's difficult to understand how wasteful and useful it was.
I personally think a communist economy would only be good to boost developing nations or war-torn nations with crippling economies, because it allows the state to pretty much run everything and stabilize the nation. But a communist economy wouldn't work in the long term because the base principles of Communism conflicts with human desires, which will hinder growth and development.
The thing is that unless you’re starting from the bottom command economies fail due to them being unable to have enough information to determine correctly which resources should go where because at best it’s like predicting the weather which is extremely hard to predict
I know some people who visited Poland and the USSR in the 70's and 80's. They said there were no good consumer goods to be found anywhere. At a department store in Moscow, the cookware, clothes, toys, and pens were terrible in quality. He purchased a "good quality" camera, and on return to UK, found that it didn't work. He showed it to experts, who said it was garbage. He also noted that whatever photos he saw in Moscow were very poor in quality. How is it possible, that a nation with abundant resources, workers, and skilled educated people, could not make a good camera, car, bicycle, printing machine, generator, or even a good pair of shoes? Something tells me that a man who can't get rich and affluent off of his talent will not bother to work hard. Unless the commissar is in town.
It turns out that a centrally planned economy is far inferior to the forces of supply and demand in a free market.
One example I heard: Whenever it started raining, every driver would pull over to put the windshield wipers on their cars. They kept their wipers locked in their cars because there was no system in place to buy replacement wiper blades. The only way to get new wipers was to steal them from another car or to bribe someone working at a car factory who had access to wiper blades. All because the central planners didn't think of the fact that wiper blades wear out and need replaced, and therefore didn't tell factories to make extras to be sold at state stores. If the central planners didn't order someone to make something, it didn't get made. And when it was ordered to get made, it likely didn't get made by someone who had the ability or motivation to actually make a quality product; but someone solely motivated to be able to report that they produced the quota number of that product.
@@lawv804 You're right about that one. I also heard that the USSR had no garages to fix the cars!
@@MondoBeno no its not true. I from formed USSR
Citing the Soviet Union's own GDP numbers about its economy is like letting a failing student grade their own term papers.
I didnt watch the video yet but i would say. 3 big destructive wars in a row against the soviet union.
1. After Revolution civil war. Basically capitalists against communists. White army against red army. Then
2. WW2 Nazis destroying 80% of productive forces... then
3. Directly after WW2 The cold war and its various consequences... then revisionists generated themselves got voted in these made the soviet union ultimately fall then... But really just capitalist powers mainly US straight up actively fighting against communism because theyre so evil or whatever... they then became evil because they had to defend themselves and the revolutuon yea but they made them be like that... but yea lets see what the video will blabber on about.
Self sufficiency is inefficient
Yeah the famous Siberian jungles 🤓
the revisionists ruined it
Totalitarianism
If the only purpose of an economy is to turn out vast quantities of cheap weapons - then sure, it was successful.
But seeing as the USSR had to use force and terror just to stop their population fleeing to the west, we may conclude that its citizens did not consider it a success.
2/3 of Russians tody would go back to the Soviet Union
@@CyberdarkHellKaiser Half of them born after the fall of the urss lmao
@@CyberdarkHellKaiserso?
Planned economy.
nono, it was not about money they had or not, to fix that pipes etc. it was all about motivation. people just was not motivated to work well, earn more money etc. course every products was unsufficient and bad, again - course noone gives a shit about its quality
Chernobyl made it collapse
Lol
Why did the Soviets collapse dam liberals took over😮
You wrote that all by yourself! 😉
Simple,starlin system worked at beginning.after your mom is party money party money is party money was not work.
Material incentives for workers in USSR:
In 1931, mass transfer of enterprises to piecework wages. Bonus of +30% if the plan has been overachieved by 5%. Bonus +60% if it was 6 to 10%.
In 1942, special rewards for inventors and innovators were introduced.
In 1947, company received 4 to 10% of the planned and 50-75% of the overachieved cost reduction (bonuses, housing for employees, etc.).
In 1953, 77% of industrial workers were on piecework wages.
In 1955, there was an economically justified differentiation of wages: 7.1 million people had monthly salaries of more than 1,000 rubles, about 1 million people's salaries exceeded 2,000 rubles per month, there were official millionaires among designers, inventors, scientists, cultural figures, etc.
Actions that lead to the end of economic growth:
Elimination of money circuits (1987 - 1991):
- severe deficiencies, hyperinflation, the collapse of the economic system.
Liquidation of entrepreneurship:
- personal household farms (1953 - 1960) and artels (1956 - 1960), resulting in deficiencies of consumer goods.
Elimination of high rates of technological growth:
- importing ready-made products instead of technology.
Elimination of efficiency:
- liquidation of the Director's Fund system; elimination of the target performance increaser; elimination of the cost reduction goal.
Elimination of the planning system:
- 1953-1964: administrative reshuffling. 8 top managers change in the State Planning Committee, it undergoes 4 reorganizations.
- 1955-1965: transition to achievement-based planning, no more ambitious goals; reduction of target scores by 5.5 times (1,780 units vs. 9,990), in-kind scores replaced with monetary ones.
- disorganization: dividing economy into 105 Councils of National Economy (1956), autonomization of the interests of hundreds of thousands of individual enterprises and the actual refusal to maximize the growth of the entire economy in favor of profits and interests of individual enterprises (1965), and finally, eliminating the remnants of targeted organized planning (1987).