Putin meant it in the sense of being a backward society.
Watch Putin's interview with Oliver Stone.
Russia Economy Thread
- Thread starter NiuBiDaRen
- Start date
Watch Putin's interview with Oliver Stone.
But Russia literally collapsed twice. I literally mentioned the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.
Let me alert you to a story I heard from a Russian immigrant:
Her grandfather, who worked in the fields at the time of the Revolution in 1917, didn't yet have machines to increase his productivity. This only happened with the Bolsheviks' rise to power. The fields, which were previously unproductive on most collective farms, became more productive with the mechanization of agriculture, a situation the Russian Empire hadn't resolved, when most European countries and the United States had long since overcome it.
This is a situation that literally exemplifies the backwardness of the Russian elite during the Russian Empire, and the marginalization of industrial workers ultimately provided enough reasons for the revolution to succeed and overthrow the Russian monarchy.
Well... that was a very basic summary of one of the collapses Russia experienced.
The fact that modern Russia hasn't yet collapsed doesn't mean its economic system is efficient. It's simply more efficient than previous ones and has made Russia richer, but still far from developed economies. And the fact that the modern Russian economy is resilient to the Western economic blockade doesn't mean its economic system is efficient; they're two different things.
Mmmmm, Putin is occasionally a bit melodramatic with his words.
USSR's economic woes are constantly overstated. It reminds me of how economists analyzed and viewed China's economy 2010-2020. At least now, in 2025, there's a lot more counter-narratives and public intellectuals correcting these things now, which is good. Unfortunately, no such impetus exists for USSR.
Being a child of parents who were born in 67' in USSR, as well as most of my extended family, and having actually lived in a post-Soviet Republic (plus having visisted many others), the economy was nowhere near as bad as argued by Western economists.
This is kind of an issue on this Forum as well (as well as doomers in America), with how America's economic woes are viewed. It has far fewer issues than people think. The biggest problems are ultimately political. Just like with USSR.
Collapsed, but within mostly same borders. And ironically second collapse(which was technically more of an internal coup) led to far more significant territorial losses, despite keeping closely linked ruling class.
Which is indeed failure of Soviet governance (failure to deal with/contain nationalism, and, most crucially - Russian nationalism, which was the only one that truly mattered), but totally not in a way you imply.
Unless you really only count France, Germany and northern banana as European countries.
Most actual mechanization of agriculture (which was rather token before 1920s) simply happened after Russian Empire collapsed. Early 1900s steam mechanization wasn't nearly as thorough as that came after.
You have to take one. Either industry was marginal, or industrial work force was strong enough to collapse the government(amidst a war which also happened to collapse 3 other European Empires, including particularly backward German one).
The technologies for 21st century in Dubai exhibition. I presume Ukraine experience transition to civilian.
Putin went to Tajikistan and it was his longest trip to that country 4 or 5 days. Putin message to them is replace imports with local products and leadership in strategic sectors.
Russia want to develop northern ports and use shorter North-South distance for logistics distribution internally and to Central Asia/Mideast.
Moscow has population of over 13million. not small city to manage it when you include the regions. the population is well above 20m.
The want Saudis but airline industry simply not develop yet. Kazan first time enter top 3 internally.
Putin went to Tajikistan and it was his longest trip to that country 4 or 5 days. Putin message to them is replace imports with local products and leadership in strategic sectors.
Russia want to develop northern ports and use shorter North-South distance for logistics distribution internally and to Central Asia/Mideast.
Moscow has population of over 13million. not small city to manage it when you include the regions. the population is well above 20m.
The want Saudis but airline industry simply not develop yet. Kazan first time enter top 3 internally.
China is a completely different nation than the USSR, especially economically. I don't know why you make these meaningless comparisons, even mentioning the US. I think you're particularly disturbed by my "America Dream" series of relevant posts about the US's economic problems. Is that it? Dude, this isn't personal. These are facts!!!!
To say that the USSR's economic problems were exaggerated seems like an understatement, given the number of reforms they attempted, all of which were unsuccessful. After Stalin and before Gorbachev, Nikita Khrushchev and Yuri Andropov tried to reform the Soviet economic system, but they failed for various reasons that are not the time to discuss now.
The fact is that the USSR was indeed a stagnant and backward society. This was even the butt of many jokes, even among Western politicians.
When I refer to mechanization, I'm referring to agriculture.
I don't know if you know, but the agricultural tractor has been around for over 100 years, even before the Russian Revolution.
The tractor established itself as an important agricultural machine 100 years ago; before that, animal traction predominated. However, since the Industrial Revolution, in which human workers began working in factories instead of subsistence farming, it has been necessary to invest in technologies that could replace this human labor force in the fields. From then on, the steam engine began to gain popularity and advance technologically.
Brief timeline:
– In 1784, William Murdock built the first model of a high-pressure steam engine;
– There are reports from the 19th century of attempts to use a steam engine to power a plow;
– By 1850, stationary and portable steam engines were already commercially available; – At the end of the 19th century, this steam-powered vehicle began to compete in the agricultural market with animal traction.
In the 1850s, the world's first tractors appeared, still powered by steam engines, weighing up to 40 tons. Case was a pioneer in this field, becoming the first manufacturer of steam engines for agricultural use and dominating the sector.
A notable milestone was the Case 150 Tractor, the largest steam-powered tractor ever manufactured, originally built in the late 19th century.
From the expansion to steam engines in 1869 to the pioneering construction of the first diesel tractor in 1892, Case was at the forefront of incorporating advanced technology into the agricultural field.
This is only particularly true of tractors.
The introduction of revolutionary innovations, such as threshing machines at the Racine Threshing Machine Works in the mid-19th century, set a standard for excellence. These machines not only separated grain efficiently, threshing ten times more wheat than manual methods, but also marked the beginning of an era of agricultural mechanization that would shape the future of global agriculture.
Until the 1917 revolution, none of this was reflected in the Russian fields.
I think that's enough here. I don't like to prolong discussions.
How can Russia backward society when modern Science and Maths essentially came from there.
Putin say different things to different people. Public and Private is not same. when he say backward than backward compared to whom?
Putin will laugh at countries who called themselves economic powerhouse like US and China. because they havent faced the combined forces that Soviet and Russian empire faced over a long period of time. Putin is re introducing the true elite of Russia in round about way. here the elite means Character , finest qualities and unmatched scientific power sustained over centuries. since new industrialization and Science is created than more people will be employed than obviously restrictions are coming.
Last edited:
I didn't say they were the same economies. I said that USSR economic analysis suffers from the same inaccuracies as Western punditry on China does today.
As for your "American Dream" series, I don't pay much attention to it so I don't mind it. I was referring to the general tone of the board in regards to the American economy, which I find to be rather far from reality.
Unsuccessful? Even USSR's NEP was broadly successful. Khruschev's housing policy was highly successful. My great-grandparents lived in literal huts for most of their lives, whereas my grandparents lived in a much nicer, if still relatively squalid house, but nevertheless adequate shelter for a large family.
The reality is that the USSR was not as stagnant and backward as people think in the 80s and 90s. The fall of USSR was ultimately the result of political turmoil and dissatisfaction with the government, not a complete backwardness of and stagnancy of society or the economy.
Indeed, when we consider the "triumph" of the 90s and celebration of a Pizza Hut in Moscow, Pepsi being sold in supermarkets, and a new vibrant economic middle-class in Moscow profiting from the massive import of Western culture and products... It is all rather hollow and empty considering the horrific economic consequences of privatization, destruction of savings, and an inflationary spiral.
The economy of the late 80s and 90s USSR was stable, produced a respectable number of innovations, products, and consumer goods (to say nothing of the cultural achievements of the 80s which were considerable). This is visible in objective metrics and subjective ones. The so-called "stagnancy" of the USSR is merely a subjective label issued by Western punditry and analysts who have benefitted enormously from the triumph of Western capitalism outlasting USSR's statehood. Even though the collapse had much less to do with the flaws of the Soviet economy, than it did with the political mismanagemenf of the Gorbachev administration.
There's a lot to criticize about USSR's economic policies, but calling the country as stagnant and backward is rather lazy and quite frankly, inaccurate.
The USSR was getting increasingly indebted. That is why it collapsed. But Gorbachev's "reforms" hastened its demise.
Gorbachev got into power in 1985 in the first place because the external debt grew 10x over the past decade. The crash of the oil price ruined the Soviet economy and its leaders did little about it.
Gorbachev got into power in 1985 in the first place because the external debt grew 10x over the past decade. The crash of the oil price ruined the Soviet economy and its leaders did little about it.