Do you thing that the U.S.S.R. would have been more prosperous if it weren't for corrupt leaders.?

Answer 1

Russia did not have the heavy industry the United States had. Its hard to expect riches when more than 40% of your population is farmers as compared to the United States 3%

Answer 2

Not really. The Communist system of economics is fatally flawed, just as is the current laissez-faire (semi-feudal) system we see in the United States today. Both revolve around the concept of the Commons. The Commons are those things that "We The People" own collectively, as in, our air, water, parks, highways, military, government buildings, Federal lands, etc, etc, etc.

The trick behind economic prosperity is finding the balancing point between Common and private ownership of resources, combined with an appropriate legal structure and support services.

A Communist system takes resources from private hands and places a large majority of it in the Commons. The State owns and operates manufacturing, farming -- basically all the major sectors of industry. The problem with this system is the breakdown of incentive: since social mobility and incentive is utterly destroyed, the opportunity for growth becomes less and less.

A feudal/fascist/laissez-faire system takes resources from the Commons and privatizes it. (IE, attempts to privatize Social Security). The idea is that private enterprise is more efficient and provides more incentive than collective ownership and operation. For 90% of endeavors, this is correct. However, the problem comes with the destruction of fairness and safety regulations, and especially the dissolution of labor and monopoly laws. Eventually, the "big fish" will swallow all the little fish, then eventually the medium-sized fish, leaving a single corporate entity managing the entire spectrum of one or more industries (IE, DeBeers and their diamond monopoly).

For each nation, the correct balance is different. Most industrialized Western nations have several common threads in their Commons:

- Health care (either all aspects, or insurance/care management)
- Social safety nets (old age retirement pensions & disability insurance)
- Parks, lands, forests, seas
- The government itself
- Military
- Roads, rails, mass transit
- Electrical production (less common)
- Telecommunications (also less common)

If you see a pattern, it's quite clear that governments have a strong interest in nationalizing strategic resources, such as roads and highways. Health care is generally nationalized under an insurance program, but some go even further, employing the medical staffs and managing facilities (IE, the UK's National Health Service). [Just an aside: the United States is the only major industrialized nation that does not include health care coverage in the Commons.]

However, you don't really want your government to make your clothes, or grow your food. A regulated market does that much more effectively. This is where the Soviet Union continued to fall behind the West: with the Marshall Plan in effect in Europe, the disparity of wealth quickly became obvious. Since the USSR's policy of aggressive expansion of its influence, it was eventually unable to compete after the expensive failures of Afghanistan and the massively expensive suppressions in Eastern Europe. Eventually, they just couldn't pay the bills.

Answer 3

More prosperous, yes. Obviously, if there were less corruption, there would be more prosperity, or at least more efficiency. Would less corruption make the communist state economically viable? I doubt it. While socialism and communism look good on paper (and maybe in very small, controlled, and near-ideal conditions), it seems to break down for large scale economies. This may be attributed to the lack of incentive for initiative and entrepreneurship.

Answer 4

They were extremely prosperous, depending on how you look at it, in the Stalin years. I have always felt that they ran out of substantial resources. Kind of like what every other country is doing or has done.

Answer 5

Nope
When you take away people's motivation it is hard to get them to do much if it means no matter how hard you work you still get the same amount.

Answer 6

Perhaps. It is more likely that lack of incentive or motivation created a lack of interest in progress.

Answer 7

I think its a little more complicated than that. It was more of a case of them not knowing how to properly govern and maintain power.

Answer 8

Wouldn't every country? I mean come on that question is a little simplistic don't you think??

Answer 9

yep