This video briefly in the minute from 27:55 gives the impression that Putin was 'rolling back the collapse of the Soviet Union', which isn't what was happening, he wasn't aiming at restoring Soviet Communism, but steering Russia away from either Communism or market capitalism, to something else. Kleptocracy perhaps, but that was already going on in the Yeltsin years.
At the time Russia could have lost its most valuable assets to outsiders. Taking ownership of the commodities put the country on a more prosperous course. The country still moved closer to the west, especially Germany.
Even if he wanted, Russia was too weak and western imperialism too strong in 2000. He had to play along with imperialism to some degree. We don't know his long term intentions.
I believe Putin plays his role in the second NEP period which is soon to end. Yeltsin played his role of corrupted comprador who successfuly discredited global capitalism in Russia. Communists have strategy that spans many decades.
I think you may be unintentionally misrepresenting the speaker here. I don't think Daunton meant that he was aiming at restoring Soviet communism by "rolling back the collapse" of the Soviet Union, I think what Daunton was saying was that Putin had imperial ambitions to restore the borders of a greater Russia (i.e. rolling back the collapse by restoring the pre-1991 borders). I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not personally, I think Vladimir Pozner had some interesting points arguing against this sort of view.
It’s pretty interesting that the poster for BRICS came up right at the last point made about marrying nationalist concerns for folks within a society with internationalism.
Many claim that socialism has failed, where is capitalism's success? Capitalism, celebrated for its achievements, benefited from the Industrial Revolution and the huge British Empire and witnessed the growth of a prosperous capitalist class. At the same time, the working class, including men, women, and children toiling in factories and mines were ruthlessly exploited. This economic success was achieved by the heavy burden of social inequality. In 2020/21, a staggering one in five people in the UK lived in poverty, which means 13.4 million people. Shockingly, this included 7.9 million working-age adults, 3.9 million children, and 1.7 million pensioners. One in four children in the UK, 27%, are growing up in poverty. For a large proportion, the system is failing to fulfill the vision set by Lloyd George's promise of "Homes Fit for Heroes" The housing problem is also acute today. Comparatively, former socialist countries endured immense devastation during World War II. However, they managed to reconstruct their nations, offering security, healthcare and education to once-illiterate citizens. Today, the people of these nations reminisce about their socialist systems provided, but the West dismisses this as sentimental nostalgia.
Why do you think this people stopped working on the farms (as in the centuries before) and went to the cities and factories? Because wages were lower and work was harder in the cities and factories? People like you underestimate the hardship of the life as farmers. Work in the factories was eighter simpler or better paid. Or even both.
Soviet Union tried twice to reform, one after WW1 with Lenin 's New Economic policy, ended by Stalin, and second after WW2 ehen reforns were stopped by discovery of oil. Both reforms were triggered by hunger and crisis. Gorbachev had a strong oposision inside the party that's why he gave the places in parliament.Also Rissia till 19 century has serfdom, this was not existing in China, China had an open economic sysyem for milenia.
China had a “central command economy” under Mao but you referred to it as temporary. This is false information. Like any normal society trying to prevent imperialism from Japanese and NATO to build a resilient state, China had to try ideas then settle on what works. China has succeeded by not attacking other countries by armed forces to steal. You ignore that fact that capitalism was built on free labour so is a criminal system. Capitalism has not triumphed as it has failed then been propped up to fail again then propped up again so we shall see a repeat or an implosion to render it unfit for freedom loving people.
You ignore the attack of China in '75. Chinese peasants started to work the fields in private before Deng Xiaoping reforms. Without American investment I doubt that China would have the sane results, Soviets tried reforns before Deng Xiaoping, but they were undetermined by party members who had to lose.
If you read history in Europe land lord's had the free labour: serfs, the market economy didn't grow from there it grower in the city where merchants and artisans changes different products with high added value
The main issue is central control versus distributed planning and control. With higher and higher integration in big corporations and their political clout, capitalism looks more like a comunism oriented to produce cinsumer goods.
Hence Alfred Chandler Jr writing "The Visible Hand" in 1977 about how capitalism had developed in the US. Except companies rise and fall, whereas communist entities are able to ossify.
I wonder USSR met so many economic problems as unveiled. Of course, some periods in soviet history were painstaking famine, terror, war. But civil life was pictured happily enough. Or it biased viewpoint?
USSR was doing much better under the NEP of the 1930s when the economy was led by the theorist Bukharin. Many labourers migrated from the Western World to find work in the USSR undergoing revolution.
A former citicen of communist east germany i can tell you: it is biased. Why did the people revolt? Why did the regimes need an internal secret security force directed against the own people to keep people in line? Why was there a wall with barbed wire, mines and security posts to keep people from fleeing the country? Of course people tried - and often succeeded - in creating a happy life on their own, away from the state. Despite economic hardship. But that was despite the system, not because of the system.
what we need really is embracing a true Laissez-faire economy similar to what Milton Friedman advocated. The problem is that governments/leaders have always put their thumb on the scale to pick winners/losers. (subsidies, regulations, kick backs, different types/levels of taxation, etc).
Maybe there should be an experiment where they get 1000 or so free-market true believers to go and live on an island with an ideal laissez-faire economy.
@@mawkernewek I'm for it, but that's way too small to replicate an economy. Even in the days of greek city states you had more people needed to supply/create all the products consumed by a citizenry. And today with electronics and items of modernity you would need much more.
The gene matters a lot. Your genetic development and what you inherit from your family tree shall determine the development path, i.e., personal and national. You must study Evolutionary Biology and Epigenetics to understand Economic Development and its stages. Rostow, Lewis, or any other model taught in a standard Development and Growth Economic Modelling Seminar/ Course is not very helpful. Economists have limited to no understanding of Darwinism and its outreach to Social Sciences.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This video briefly in the minute from 27:55 gives the impression that Putin was 'rolling back the collapse of the Soviet Union', which isn't what was happening, he wasn't aiming at restoring Soviet Communism, but steering Russia away from either Communism or market capitalism, to something else. Kleptocracy perhaps, but that was already going on in the Yeltsin years.
Putin said that the biggest disaster of 20 century. So he regretted it.
At the time Russia could have lost its most valuable assets to outsiders. Taking ownership of the commodities put the country on a more prosperous course. The country still moved closer to the west, especially Germany.
Even if he wanted, Russia was too weak and western imperialism too strong in 2000. He had to play along with imperialism to some degree. We don't know his long term intentions.
I believe Putin plays his role in the second NEP period which is soon to end. Yeltsin played his role of corrupted comprador who successfuly discredited global capitalism in Russia. Communists have strategy that spans many decades.
I think you may be unintentionally misrepresenting the speaker here. I don't think Daunton meant that he was aiming at restoring Soviet communism by "rolling back the collapse" of the Soviet Union, I think what Daunton was saying was that Putin had imperial ambitions to restore the borders of a greater Russia (i.e. rolling back the collapse by restoring the pre-1991 borders).
I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not personally, I think Vladimir Pozner had some interesting points arguing against this sort of view.
Great lecture
It’s pretty interesting that the poster for BRICS came up right at the last point made about marrying nationalist concerns for folks within a society with internationalism.
It is not clear what the failure is in Russia; Russia has a 100% capitalist market economy.
excellent - thank you
Many claim that socialism has failed, where is capitalism's success?
Capitalism, celebrated for its achievements, benefited from the Industrial Revolution and the huge British Empire and witnessed the growth of a prosperous capitalist class. At the same time, the working class, including men, women, and children toiling in factories and mines were ruthlessly exploited. This economic success was achieved by the heavy burden of social inequality.
In 2020/21, a staggering one in five people in the UK lived in poverty, which means 13.4 million people. Shockingly, this included 7.9 million working-age adults, 3.9 million children, and 1.7 million pensioners. One in four children in the UK, 27%, are growing up in poverty. For a large proportion, the system is failing to fulfill the vision set by Lloyd George's promise of "Homes Fit for Heroes" The housing problem is also acute today.
Comparatively, former socialist countries endured immense devastation during World War II. However, they managed to reconstruct their nations, offering security, healthcare and education to once-illiterate citizens. Today, the people of these nations reminisce about their socialist systems provided, but the West dismisses this as sentimental nostalgia.
Why do you think this people stopped working on the farms (as in the centuries before) and went to the cities and factories? Because wages were lower and work was harder in the cities and factories? People like you underestimate the hardship of the life as farmers. Work in the factories was eighter simpler or better paid. Or even both.
Well said.
The fact people live to 80 instead of 50 is proof of capitalism's success.
@@ajs41 Huh?
@@ProleCenter Yes. Before capitalism most people died about 30 years younger than they do now.
Soviet Union tried twice to reform, one after WW1 with Lenin 's New Economic policy, ended by Stalin, and second after WW2 ehen reforns were stopped by discovery of oil. Both reforms were triggered by hunger and crisis. Gorbachev had a strong oposision inside the party that's why he gave the places in parliament.Also Rissia till 19 century has serfdom, this was not existing in China, China had an open economic sysyem for milenia.
My Great Great Great Great Great Great Uncle approves this. Long live The People's Republic of China.
China had a “central command economy” under Mao but you referred to it as temporary. This is false information.
Like any normal society trying to prevent imperialism from Japanese and NATO to build a resilient state, China had to try ideas then settle on what works.
China has succeeded by not attacking other countries by armed forces to steal.
You ignore that fact that capitalism was built on free labour so is a criminal system.
Capitalism has not triumphed as it has failed then been propped up to fail again then propped up again so we shall see a repeat or an implosion to render it unfit for freedom loving people.
capitalism is organized crime, destroying the planet
You ignore the attack of China in '75. Chinese peasants started to work the fields in private before Deng Xiaoping reforms. Without American investment I doubt that China would have the sane results, Soviets tried reforns before Deng Xiaoping, but they were undetermined by party members who had to lose.
If you read history in Europe land lord's had the free labour: serfs, the market economy didn't grow from there it grower in the city where merchants and artisans changes different products with high added value
The main issue is central control versus distributed planning and control. With higher and higher integration in big corporations and their political clout, capitalism looks more like a comunism oriented to produce cinsumer goods.
Hence Alfred Chandler Jr writing "The Visible Hand" in 1977 about how capitalism had developed in the US. Except companies rise and fall, whereas communist entities are able to ossify.
I wonder USSR met so many economic problems as unveiled. Of course, some periods in soviet history were painstaking famine, terror, war. But civil life was pictured happily enough. Or it biased viewpoint?
USSR was doing much better under the NEP of the 1930s when the economy was led by the theorist Bukharin. Many labourers migrated from the Western World to find work in the USSR undergoing revolution.
A former citicen of communist east germany i can tell you: it is biased. Why did the people revolt? Why did the regimes need an internal secret security force directed against the own people to keep people in line? Why was there a wall with barbed wire, mines and security posts to keep people from fleeing the country? Of course people tried - and often succeeded - in creating a happy life on their own, away from the state. Despite economic hardship. But that was despite the system, not because of the system.
It was propaganda
This is very biased. Whatever one thinks of Putin, the worst kleptocracy happened under Yeltsin, with full American backing.
Bill Browder was one of those Americans.
Are there other YT videos that show this?
Miller Sharon Hernandez Eric Walker Charles
Anderson Jose Harris Brenda Moore Matthew
what we need really is embracing a true Laissez-faire economy similar to what Milton Friedman advocated. The problem is that governments/leaders have always put their thumb on the scale to pick winners/losers. (subsidies, regulations, kick backs, different types/levels of taxation, etc).
Maybe there should be an experiment where they get 1000 or so free-market true believers to go and live on an island with an ideal laissez-faire economy.
@@mawkernewek I'm for it, but that's way too small to replicate an economy. Even in the days of greek city states you had more people needed to supply/create all the products consumed by a citizenry. And today with electronics and items of modernity you would need much more.
A disgusting thing indeed.
The gene matters a lot. Your genetic development and what you inherit from your family tree shall determine the development path, i.e., personal and national.
You must study Evolutionary Biology and Epigenetics to understand Economic Development and its stages.
Rostow, Lewis, or any other model taught in a standard Development and Growth Economic Modelling Seminar/ Course is not very helpful.
Economists have limited to no understanding of Darwinism and its outreach to Social Sciences.