Why communist russia failed

The impressive performance was largely due to the fact that, as an underdeveloped economy, the Soviet Union could adopt Western technology while forcibly mobilizing resources to implement and utilize such technology. An intense focus on industrialization and urbanization at the expense of personal consumption gave the Soviet Union a period of rapid modernization.

However, once the country began to catch up with the West, its ability to borrow ever-newer technologies, and the productivity effects that came with it, soon diminished.

The Soviet economy became increasingly complex just as it began running out of development models to imitate. With average GNP growth slowing to an annual 3. The Soviets had been aware since the s of such long-term problems as command economy inefficiencies and how adopting the knowledge and technology of developed economies could come at the expense of fostering an innovative domestic economy.

Piecemeal reforms like those of the Sovnarkhoz implemented by Nikita Khrushchev in the late s attempted to begin decentralizing economic control, allowing for a "second economy" to deal with the increasing complexity of economic affairs.

But with economic growth declining and inefficiencies becoming increasingly more apparent, partial reforms to allow for more decentralized market interactions were reintroduced in the early s. The quandary for Soviet leadership was to create a more liberal market system in a society whose core foundations were characterized by centralized control. These early reforms failed to revive the increasingly stagnant Soviet economy, with productivity growth falling below zero by the early s.

This ongoing poor economic performance led to a more radical set of reforms under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev. While attempting to maintain socialist ideals and central control over primary societal goals, Gorbachev aimed to decentralize economic activity and open the economy up to foreign trade. This restructuring, referred to as perestroika , encouraged individual private incentives, creating greater openness.

Perestroika was in direct opposition to the previously hierarchical nature of the command economy. But having greater access to information helped foster critiques of Soviet control, not just of the economy, but also of social life.

When the Soviet leadership relaxed control in order to save the faltering economic system, they helped create conditions that would lead to the country's dissolution. While perestroika initially appeared to be a success, as Soviet firms took advantage of new freedoms and new investment opportunities, optimism soon faded. A severe economic contraction characterized the late s and early s, which would be the last years of the Soviet Union. Soviet leaders no longer had the power to intervene amidst the growing economic chaos.

Newly-empowered local leaders demanded greater autonomy from central authority, shaking the foundations of the command economy, while more localized cultural identities and priorities took precedence over national concerns.

With its economy and political unity in tatters, the Soviet Union collapsed in late , fragmenting into fifteen separate states. The early strength of the Soviet command economy was its ability to rapidly mobilize resources and direct them in productive activities that emulated those of advanced economies. Yet by adopting existing technologies rather than developing their own, the Soviet Union failed to foster the type of environment that leads to further technological innovation.

After experiencing a catch-up period with attendant high growth rates, the command economy began to stagnate in the s. Rather than saving the economy, various piecemeal reforms instead only undermined the economy's core institutions. Accessed Oct. Department of State. Library of Congress. British Library. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for Investopedia. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page.

The clever and entrepreneurial found opportunities to enrich themselves provoking even further protest from Kremlin apparatchiks who considered Gorbachev feckless. They therefore planned his removal. On August 18, , they held him and his family captive in his summer home on the Black Sea claiming that he was sick. Three days later, the president of the Russian Republic, Boris Yeltsin rejected the putchists, rescued the Gorbachevs and restored him to the Kremlin. Authority and influence had passed to Yeltsin who now collaborated with the leaders of Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Kazakhstan to create a Commonwealth of Independent States and to achieve their independence.

On December 25, , the hammer and sickle that had flown above the Kremlin for over 70 years was replaced by the Russian white, blue and red. In his article for Foreign Affairs, George F. However, the Soviet Union could have staggered on for a further decade were it not for Gorbachev who both unleashed radical reforms and provoked strong opposition to those changes. He was the trigger that brought about the collapse of the union. To the citizens of Russia, he is the man who brought chaos through his economic plans, disarray through his destruction of the CPSU, and national humiliation through his acquiescence to the West.

Nevertheless, both supporters and detractors recognize that the collapse of the Soviet Union took place rapidly and with minimum violence: the only empire in history to have dissolved without extended violent conflict. Order from Chaos. A how-to guide for managing the end of the post-Cold War era. Read all the Order from Chaos content ». Related E. Related Books.

Bucharest Diary By Alfred H. Transatlantic Relations By Xenia Wickett. Cite this Item. Read and download Log in through your school or library. Alternate access options. Get Started Already have an account? Abstract Robert Service's Comrades! Journal Information Since , the Council has published Foreign Affairs, America's most influential publication on international affairs and foreign policy.

Publisher Information Founded in , the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.