I think ot would be interesting to analyse the constitutions of other eastern bloc states. For example the first communist constitution of Czechoslovakia had passages like "The right to private ownership of land is guaranteed, except for when a law says that it should be violated. In that case, the former owner is entitled to financial compensation, except for when the law says that no compensation should be payed" and I think that is hillarious.
Basically it was all a sham. Václav Havel had his parents opulent apartment seized. I don't remember if they were compensated but they were downgraded for sure.
@@paulmattt Not really. People who throw the word "Orwellian" around almost never understood how it went in the book. Basically, Oceania didn't have any concrete legal code. The Party had rules, most of them unwritten and arbitrarily enforced. This meant that every outer party member lived in fear that they might be breaking some rule they don't yet know about.
Just a quick vote in favour of more on Soviet Constitutions, Soviet law and the divergence between bourgeois and socialist justice systems. Excellent work as always.
The Cold War, can you please make a video on Françafrique, which is basically France's Monroe Doctrine approach towards Africa. I want you to make a video on this topic, since the concept of Françafrique dates back to the Cold War era.
Stalin's constitution and the process of its creation deserves its own episode It was actually not predetermined how the 1936 constitution would look like and Stalin actually did not get almost anything he wanted in that document as he was outvoted by others in the government; Additionally, the Purge was incited by the rank & file commies, not by Stalin because the beurocrats were deathly afraid of what Stalin wanted to see in his constitution: voting rights and the removal of the Party from leadership positions in the industry...
@gmodrules123456789 Yes The communists were severely undereducutaed and could not effectively run the industries Stalin wanted the pros to run industry and the communists to be only in charge of propaganda But the communists did not want to lose control and the extra paychecks The new voting system failed because the beurocrats initiated the Purge and kept pointing out to the enemies of the state as the reason the new system could not be implemented In USSR, it was Yezhovshina that was the Purge, not Stalinism But yes Stalin & co had to give up and sign thousands of death sentences in order to stay in power and prep ussr for ww2
@@gmodrules123456789 История ГУЛАГа. 1918-1958 [Галина Михайловна Иванова] Максимальный уровень концентрации заключенных в местах лишения свободы отмечался летом 1950 г., когда в лагерях, колониях и тюрьмах содержалось более 2,8 млн человек. Такое же число советских граждан находилось в ссылке и на спецпоселении. Всего за годы существования ГУЛАГа через лагеря, колонии и тюрьмы прошло более 20 млн человек, из них каждый пятый был осужден к лишению свободы за так называемые «контрреволюционные преступления». = 4 миллиона В целом, лагерная экономика носила убыточный характер. Уровень производительности труда на предприятиях и стройках МВД был в среднем на 50% ниже, чем в отраслях, где применялся вольнонаемный труд. Себестоимость лагерной продукции значительно превышала себестоимость аналогичной продукции, выпускаемой местными предприятиями. При этом качество изготавливаемой заключенными продукции неизменно оставалось очень низким. Подконвойный труд, несмотря на его фактическую бесплатность, дорого обходился государству. Содержание лагерей и колоний не окупалось доходами от эксплуатации заключенных, поэтому ГУЛАГ ежегодно получал большие суммы дотаций из государственного бюджета. Экономическая экспансия МВД разоряла страну и развращала производителей. ГУЛАГ с размахом истреблял человеческие ресурсы, нещадно губил природу. Начало экологического неблагополучия в СССР связано с хозяйственной деятельностью ГУЛАГа. Лагерная экономика носила хищнический, расточительный характер. Практически все хозяйственные проекты, которые осуществляло МВД, финансировались по фактическим затратам, зачастую исполнители не имели ни сметы, ни технического обоснования проекта. Был лишь высочайше утвержденный план, который требовалось выполнить любой ценой. В такой ситуации широкое распространение получили массовые приписки с той целью, чтобы показать выполнение плана, а потом получить причитающуюся премию. Искажение отчетности практиковалось на всех стадиях производственного процесса, что, естественно, вело к удорожанию конечного продукта. По данным комиссии ЦК КПСС, в течение шести лет, т.е. с 1935 по 1940 г., в стране было арестовано только по обвинению в антисоветской деятельности 1 980 635 человек, из них расстреляно 688 503. Пик репрессий приходится на 1937-1938 гг. За эти два года по политическим мотивам было арестовано 1 548 366 человек, из них расстреляно 681 692. на Западе сложилось стойкое убеждение, нашедшее отражение в предъявленных материалах о принудительном труде в СССР, о наличии в Советском Союзе не менее, а, может быть, и более 10 млн заключенных. В скобках можно было бы заметить, что такого же мнения придерживаются и до настоящего времени некоторые представители общественности, бывшие заключенные и отдельные граждане, как на Западе, так и в странах бывшего СССР. Между тем современные научные исследования показали, что в любой период единовременное число заключенных в СССР во всех местах лишения свободы не превышало 3 млн человек.
So let me get this straight. Stalin was a prisoner of the Communist Party and because he wanted there to be voting rights, which the Soviet Union on paper at least, had throughout its history?
The Soviet Union isn't unique in stating its policies/goals and then not following said policies/goals. A lot of organizations like to state their lofty ideals in writing, while practicing something completely different.
The irony is that the Constitution, once it started being taken seriously, was a self-destruct mechanism the moment the Communist Party no longer had a monopoly. And the abortive coup of August 1991, the aim of which was to, among other things, to return the Communist Party to monopoly power, tripped that mechanism, as every Soviet Socialist Republic realized that they were all in danger so long as they remained in the USSR. And pretty much, that was that.
@@BesthinktwiceI was just going to write a similar comment re the USA - a government completely captured by corporations and working for corporate interests rather than “We The People”. The fusion of corporations with the state is by any measure, fascism!
In democratic countries, the state can be prosecuted failing to meet the terms of the constitution. In tyrannical regimes, only the people can be prosecuted for suggesting that the state is failing to meet those terms
"I here affirm categorically that not a single letter of the law is being infringed in any Soviet glasshouse. Let us take, for instance, 'jobs time'. That most democratic constitution in the world - the Soviet Constitution - ensures, for all citizens, the right to work. Now where else, if not in the glasshouse, can you indulge this right to your heart's content? Or, let us take the right to education. Whether you want it, or whether you don't, you must give three hours a day to drill and tactical training, plus political training twice a week. Is that not education? Or, for instance, the right to rest. Every day they take you to and from work, so use this time for resting, or at night on that plank-bed take your rest, then right up to reveille, at 0530 hours - if, of course, you were not arrested during the night in accordance with the regulations concerning the right to work. But neither in the Constitution nor in any other law is any mention made about the exercise of one's physical needs. So don't go and demand anything over and above what is stipulated in the constitution! Or, are you setting yourself up in opposition to our Soviet rule of law?" From "The 'liberators': My Life In The Soviet Army" by Viktor Suvorov
The most recent constitution does not protect the ability of the populace to utilize the bell button. It is only the state that has the ability to utilize (or not utilize) the bell button for it's own purposes.
Yeah I always wondered how much of those Constitutions would be used in a future Communist state where it's founders want to "do Communism right this time" and what they would be willing to keep or remove as part of "doing it right".
When I was in history classes and we talked about Soviet system (I am from Lithuania by the way, in case you don’t recognize this, since I sometimes state this in my comments) my teacher made a joke: “The constitution existed to get you on “trial” and arrest, by following it’s guaranteed right to free speech and self-expression” 🤣 Cool video Edit: fixed the misspelling
@@xenamorphwinner7931 sorry if it came off disrespectful. I know how pointing out spelling mistakes online can seem petty but I didn’t mean it like that
Officially yes but it was the Russian SFSR a long with the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, and the Transcaucasian SSR. So it was the USSR in all but name.
*fifth republic. If you factor in the two Empires, the fascist Vichy state, and the several short-lived attempts at establishing a constitutional monarchy, France has had *15* constitutions in total-some rather brief.
@@jonathanwebster7091 I discard Vichy and I wasn’t counting the Napoleon I’s empire, the first Bourbon Restoration, The Hundred Days, the Second Restoration, the July Monarchy, Napoleon III’s empire, anything provisional or anything involving the Germans. I was sticking to the established institutional republican constitutions.
18:00 - yes, soviet constitution (even stalin's variant) declared that each republic can leave the union. But there was one little catch. Article says that the republic can leave the union as a result of a referendum held in accordance with the legal procedure. But the law on the procedure for holding referendums in the Soviet Union did not exist until 1991. This means that any attempt to organize a referendum was considered a crime against the state and was punishable by imprisonment or execution. So no such attemps was made until collapse of USRR. The law on referendums in the USSR was adopted for one specific case - for the legal registration of the collapse of the USSR, which in fact has already occurred at that time. And immediately after the adoption of the law, referendums were held in which unequivocal support was expressed for the withdrawal of the republics from the USSR.
You are spreading lies, how can I believe in anything you said, considering you lied when you said referendums were univocally supportive of the end of the USSR, when said referendum had a 76% percentage of vote to maintain the Union.
My old history teacher told us that the 1977 Soviet constitution enshrined the right to private plots of farm land (expanded from 1936 at 7:00)... after they discovered that the 4% of private land in the Soviet Union was producing around 80% of agricultural output. Open to a fact check. Shared as an interesting sign that, as with Chinese peasants and private markets in 1980: ultimately constitutions are made for people not people for constitutions.
That's not even the correct wrong claim. First of all, private farming plots were never really illegal. There was a drive at the beginning of collectivization to eliminate them, but peasant backlash stopped the govt. So the claim makes no sense to begin with, the 1977 constitution did nothing to change that, as the video you're commenting under, the 1977 constitution major change was allowing inheritance. Now to the 1% and 80% claim. The correct claim is that private plots accounted to 2 to 3% of farming land, and produced a fourth, ie 25% of the total agricultural value, not 80%. Basically the other wat around. Still, 25% would be a lot! But that claim has a loooot of issues. Now lets get to why. Private plots didn't produce grains, or or crops other crops which production was able to be mechanized. Ergo private plots were used to farme vegetables and fruits, that produce a lot more value per unit of land than the crops that were farmed in collectivized farms. Not only that, 2/3% only represents the directly allocated land to private farming, it doesn't take into account the land that was permited to use for cattle grazing, same as federal land in the US is used for grazing by ranchers. That puts the number at 20% of agricultural land. Of course, that doesn't mean that 20% of land was used for private farming, but it makes that 25% much less impressive. And let's keep going. Private farms accounted for only 2/3% of agricultural land yes, but they also accounted for 40% of agricultural labor, ie 40% of workers produced only 25% of the total agricultural value. Why? Bc again, private plots were used to cultivate vegetables and fruits, which are more valuable per kilo, bc they cost more to produce. Besides, private plots were not business, they were family farms, they were definitely not more efficient, as the common narrative would tell. Lastly, and most importantly, measuring value instead of quantity is nonsensical in a system like this, bc the produce of collective farms was heavily subsidized, unlike the produce of private farms. The monetary value of the produce didn't reflect it's actual value. To put a final nail in the "private farms were more efficient than collective farms" coffin, all previously collective farms in Russia and Ukraine were privatized. Following that logic, agricultural production in modern Russia and Ukraine, should be much higher than in soviet times. Specially with newer and better technologies available. Just do a quick search and see where it's at. It hasn't even reached the levels of soviet times, let alone surpassed it
@AgusSimoncelli It is though, as the Ukraine war has revealed: Ukraine produced around 30% of world grain, and Russia similarly. Yet during Soviet times the USSR was famously an importer of food, except under Corn Lord Khrushchev. Curious how, even under your own figures, 3% produces 25%. 🤔 How's is that not more efficient? Even if you take away peasants siphoning off state resources (e.g. fertiliser, tractors, etc) to farm their own plots, private plots still come out 5-6 times more efficient. This is why I point to what China's peasants did. Collectivisation runs against the grain of human nature. As for the constitutions, at 7:00 it does mention private plots in the 1936, hence the comment. This right was expanded in 1977 as it worked. It's almost of microcosm of what happened under Gorbachev; a socialist system often forgets itself and follows what works... even when it might contradict socialism.
Hold on, are we talking about the amount of food or it's monetary value here? Because those are very different metrics, and I feel like people are using them interchangably. And if it's money, are we talking sales price or a more standardised measurement? Sales price seems the easiest, but also a very bad way to measure productivity.
@@TheMagicLemur you asked to be fact checked if your comment was wrong, and you still come to defend the comment? Ukraine doesn't produce 30% of the world grain, that's ridiculous. It may produce 30% of SOME grain (you're probably referring to sunflower seed?) it's not the same. Actual agricultural production has not reached peak soviet production, not in Russia nor in Ukraine, that's not debatable. The USSR was one of the biggest producer of grains in it's time, the fact that Russia and Ukraine also are now is not surprising. The 3% and 25% figure would mean that private farms sre more than 10 times more productive. But again, as you probably didn't read my previous comment, the 3/25 figure is wrong, private farms mever produced 25% of value with 3% of the land. That number is the result of a bad (and let's be honest, biased) interpretation of data. And even if that figure made sense, that 25% of value needs 40% of the labor. That means that the other 75% of the value is produced by only 60% of the labor. I think it's not hard to see that that's a more efficient use of labor. Collective farming was the norm for thousands of years, claiming it's against "human nature" is completely ridiculous. Private property is the new, "not nstural" thing, not the other way around. Of course, that doesn't make collectivization wrong, if you're appealing to "human nature" you already lost the argument The 1977 constitution did nothing to change the status of private farms. They also weren't particularly encouraged under Brezhnev, bc for what i said, they weren't particularly productive. Gorbachev reforms had nothing to do with "socialism following what works". Gorbachev reforms were explicitly designed to introduce capitalist reforms in the USSR. Which weren't exactly successful in any way for the USSR, so I'm not sure what you even mean
I read all four "constitutions (Basic Laws)" of the USSR, as well as the treaty of union of the USSR, and the 1921 organic law of the RSFSR in law school. I also read the East German constitution, and the three Chinese constitutions. You left some stuff out, but I like your presentation over all. you should do a comparative study of these instruments, especially as it relates to the emergence of the current Chinese political system.
How did PRC perceive the condition of the USSR to be in the late 80's, early 90's? Did it understand what was about to happen with socialism in Europe?
This is a fascinating video. You tend to not think of the USSR and a constitution since things just occurred by the will of those in charge and changed frequently. But it is interesting to see what was in the constitutions.
A constitution where the rights within are not protecting by the legal and economic reality isn't worth the paper its printed on. I am not my country's biggest fan, but say what you will, the US Constitution has teeth.
"The principal direction in the development of the political system of Soviet society is the extension of socialist democracy, namely ever broader participation of citizens in managing the affairs of society and the state, continuous improvement of the machinery of state, heightening of the activity of public organisations, strengthening of the system of people's control, consolidation of the legal foundations of the functioning of the state and of public life, greater openness and publicity, and constant responsiveness to public opinion." -- Article 9 of Chapter 1; Principles of the Social Structure and Policy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1977 constitution --
This video could have been hours long. I hope you will go into more detail on this topic. Also maybe cover this as it applies to other Soviet satellite states.
Who cares what was in the Soviet so-called Constitution if there was no actual independent judiciary (or any other institution free from Party control)? What was James Madison's apt phrase? A "mere parchment guarantee" (regarding any rights enumerated in a written constitution)?
Four constitutions were introduced through 80 years of rule, which was reflected in the continued expansion and depths of poverty in the countryside and southern east Soviets Republicans
I at least respect it theoretically gives the right to independence for nations of the thus consensual union (that can be given and retracted), if only the Spain and UK ones could have that level of democracy in them...
Seeing as these Soviet constitutions are being exposed as shams can you do the same expose for the one 'Merikan constitution and how many many times it's a complete sham in practice 🤣😂
Normally I'm not much interested in the sponsorships, but this one sounds genuinely interesting lol. Thank you for another informative episode too! God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Article 124 always made me erm…laugh: “In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and *freedom of anti-religious propaganda* is recognized for all citizens.” Translation: while we begrudgingly say it’s okay to have a religion, don’t be too vocal about it or we’ll arrest you, send you to a gulag or have you locked up in a mental asylum. Oh, and you can’t join the Party or have any prospects of career advancement. Also we’ll periodically murder priests, monks, nuns, and the lay religious on the pretext of them being “reactionary”.
This is somewhat incorrect. The Soviet system allocated space to religious organizations Ina way that if you didn't go through state registered organizations/places/times, you were breaking the law. That's why, especially in the 80s, protestant groups would deliberately meet in the middle of the night out in a park, which was illegal, but then could say "look we are being repressed" Not that they shouldn't have been able to do that, but the USSR and most places in history are a bit more complicated and nuanced
@@josephernst709 yeah that was true for most of the communist countries. Most of them had that “but freedom of atheist propaganda” clause (I…think China still does). Apart from Albania of course, which between 1976 and 1990 outlawed religion completely in the constitution of that year (although that clause was in practice ignored after Enver Hoxha’s death in 1985). The relevant clauses being article 34: “The state recognizes no religion whatever and supports and develops atheist propaganda for the purpose of implanting the scientific materialist world outlook in people.” And article 54: “The creation of any type of organization of a fascist, antidemocratic, *religious*, and anti-socialist character is prohibited. Fascist, anti-democratic, *religious*, warmongering, and anti-socialist activities and propaganda are prohibited as well as the incitement of national and racial hatred.” Also the penal code of 1977 imposed prison sentences of three to ten years for "religious propaganda and the production, distribution, or storage of religious literature." A new decree that in effect targeted Albanians with Islamic and religiously-tinged Christian names stipulated that citizens whose names did not conform to "the political, ideological, or moral standards of the state" were to change them. It was also decreed that towns and villages with religious names must be renamed Which…yikes.
@@jonathanwebster7091 sorry friend, but i am not finding the error in everything you type. Religion must be annihilated through ideas for a better society
@@jonathanwebster7091 you need to understand that religions were created to explain physical and social phenomena. With the scientific advance, they became useless, and even if in the past, they had a progressive character, helping to end slavery, today has a completely regressive, reactionary character, serving as an auxiliary to both feudalism and capitalism, and that is why all countries should have laws like soviet, chinese and albanian
Wasted my time. No adequate clear argument. Did racism and sexism persist in the USSR? It is interesting to ask about the racial segregation of blacks and the oppression of women in the freest country in the world. It is also worth remembering about child labor in third world countries in the interests of American corporations today.
The problem with socialism and its successor, communism, is precisely the fact that on paper they sound attractive, "libertarian" and open, but in reality they are something completely different - the rule of the elite in the true sense of the word (socialist bourgeoisie)! 😅
exactly why 'the paper' is not enough. As Marx observed; "men make their own history, but not in conditions they necessarily choose themselves" . You gotta work on it. That's why some socialist parties that took power by war and revolution had to hold on to power in a context of fierce oppostion and sabotage, and why others, like the parties of Salvador Allende and Chavez found themselves in democratic systems and attempted to increase economic democracy. Socialism is not monolithic, it appears differently in different situations.
@@Besthinktwice The things communist nations did relatively well (e.g. healthcare, education and guaranteed housing) were the same things governments everywhere should be doing, while the things they did badly (e.g. food production, cars, and bringing new technology to market) were the same things governments should avoid becoming too hands-on with. You can have universal healthcare, high-quality public education and universal housing in a social democracy, along with capitalism, and what you'd have is a country like Finland: a good place to live. As for cooperatives, they are legal in most capitalist countries, and they do exist, but the advantages they provide to workers aren't that great, else they would have had a significant competitive advantage over other businesses. That both traditional businesses and cooperatives exist shows that neither has a great advantage over the other.
omg it's so fucking frustrating when you want to watch a video to ACTUALLY learn constitucional law from de URSS and you end up watching 20 minutes of the same old shitty U.S anti-soviet propaganda :(
we are NOT stupid; we are hyper-vigilant (sensitive). everything is being politicized now, and if you dont vocally object to whatever premise, it is assumed you consent to it.
Because it was a civil case based on events that were considered legal facts at that point. DJT had to show he was not at least 51% liable in relation to the claims. I'm sorry if you find that disconcerting, but that's how civil cases have worked in the US for most of its history. You're only guaranteed presumption of innocence when one party is the government. Edit: Same goes for the measure of "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil cases, the limits of your harm could be in doubt, but if you're considered at least 51% liable for it, even just persuasively, you're on the hook.
The main and overriding part of the Constitution was the "leading role of the CPSU", everything else was superfluous as ot enabled the dominating role of the party bodies like the politburo, central committee and the Obkoms. The Soviet side was subordinate to the CPSU side. When the USSR tried to actually follow the constitution by transferring power to the supreme soviet it quickly collapsed as the supreme soviet was totally dysfunctional and without any driving ideology. Most of the republican soviets suffered the same issues and collapsed allowing the presidents unlimited power. Btw, one of the few republican soviets to survive is the Rada of Ukraine (Rada=Soviet)
Wait the soviet union had a law system that they actually followed? I thought it was just a hive of nepotism chronism and learning who to assassinate or bribe
The Soviet Union and eastern bloc nations were literally paradise on earth. It’s a shame that capitalist imperialism had to subvert it and destroy the perfect utopia they had built for themselves. That’s okay though because socialism is back and every nation on earth will have this utopian society by 2025 and everyone is going to be so much happier than they’ve ever been under the slavery of capitalism.
@@FerdarPleaseSubscribe It was indeed utopia. There was no homelessness, no drug addiction, and everyone was guaranteed employment, education, child care,healthcare, and retirement. None of these things have ever been universal in any non-socialist nation.
Soviet Constitution? Smoke and mirrors. Mere words open to the nomenklatura to decide what is legal and to use the full powers of the state to repress any dissent or dissendent. No wonder the USSR failed.
@@jamg2376 The USSR didn't "collapse", it was undemocratically abolished by the party elites. The "collapse" came only after it was abolished. Just look up what happened to the economy after 1991 there. The worst kind of shock doctrine you can imagine
Use my code COLDWAR to get $5 off your delicious, high protein Magic Spoon cereal by clicking this link: sponsr.is/magicspoon_coldwar
Cool code
Any constitution can exist on paper it doesn't matter if it's not followed.. take a look at china's "constitution" for example
Or even the us's..
I think ot would be interesting to analyse the constitutions of other eastern bloc states. For example the first communist constitution of Czechoslovakia had passages like "The right to private ownership of land is guaranteed, except for when a law says that it should be violated. In that case, the former owner is entitled to financial compensation, except for when the law says that no compensation should be payed" and I think that is hillarious.
That’s what happens when your laws have to be proofread by russians
Basically it was all a sham. Václav Havel had his parents opulent apartment seized. I don't remember if they were compensated but they were downgraded for sure.
Very Orwellian.
Albania's and Yugoslavia's as well.
@@paulmattt
Not really.
People who throw the word "Orwellian" around almost never understood how it went in the book.
Basically, Oceania didn't have any concrete legal code. The Party had rules, most of them unwritten and arbitrarily enforced. This meant that every outer party member lived in fear that they might be breaking some rule they don't yet know about.
Just a quick vote in favour of more on Soviet Constitutions, Soviet law and the divergence between bourgeois and socialist justice systems. Excellent work as always.
The Cold War, can you please make a video on Françafrique, which is basically France's Monroe Doctrine approach towards Africa. I want you to make a video on this topic, since the concept of Françafrique dates back to the Cold War era.
He has some
France after ww2
The Algeria. War of independence
@@cd5433 That's not enough. I want The Cold Wr to make a video that focuses mostly, if not entirely, on the concept of Françafrique.
Stalin's constitution and the process of its creation deserves its own episode
It was actually not predetermined how the 1936 constitution would look like and Stalin actually did not get almost anything he wanted in that document as he was outvoted by others in the government;
Additionally, the Purge was incited by the rank & file commies, not by Stalin because the beurocrats were deathly afraid of what Stalin wanted to see in his constitution: voting rights and the removal of the Party from leadership positions in the industry...
"voting rights and the removal of the Party from leadership positions in the industry"
Is this actually what he was trying to achieve?
@gmodrules123456789
Yes
The communists were severely undereducutaed and could not effectively run the industries
Stalin wanted the pros to run industry and the communists to be only in charge of propaganda
But the communists did not want to lose control and the extra paychecks
The new voting system failed because the beurocrats initiated the Purge and kept pointing out to the enemies of the state as the reason the new system could not be implemented
In USSR, it was Yezhovshina that was the Purge, not Stalinism
But yes
Stalin & co had to give up and sign thousands of death sentences in order to stay in power and prep ussr for ww2
@@gmodrules123456789
История ГУЛАГа. 1918-1958 [Галина Михайловна Иванова]
Максимальный уровень концентрации заключенных в местах лишения свободы отмечался летом 1950 г., когда в лагерях, колониях и тюрьмах содержалось более 2,8 млн человек. Такое же число советских граждан находилось в ссылке и на спецпоселении. Всего за годы существования ГУЛАГа через лагеря, колонии и тюрьмы прошло более 20 млн человек, из них каждый пятый был осужден к лишению свободы за так называемые «контрреволюционные преступления». = 4 миллиона
В целом, лагерная экономика носила убыточный характер. Уровень производительности труда на предприятиях и стройках МВД был в среднем на 50% ниже, чем в отраслях, где применялся вольнонаемный труд. Себестоимость лагерной продукции значительно превышала себестоимость аналогичной продукции, выпускаемой местными предприятиями. При этом качество изготавливаемой заключенными продукции неизменно оставалось очень низким. Подконвойный труд, несмотря на его фактическую бесплатность, дорого обходился государству. Содержание лагерей и колоний не окупалось доходами от эксплуатации заключенных, поэтому ГУЛАГ ежегодно получал большие суммы дотаций из государственного бюджета.
Экономическая экспансия МВД разоряла страну и развращала производителей. ГУЛАГ с размахом истреблял человеческие ресурсы, нещадно губил природу. Начало экологического неблагополучия в СССР связано с хозяйственной деятельностью ГУЛАГа.
Лагерная экономика носила хищнический, расточительный характер. Практически все хозяйственные проекты, которые осуществляло МВД, финансировались по фактическим затратам, зачастую исполнители не имели ни сметы, ни технического обоснования проекта. Был лишь высочайше утвержденный план, который требовалось выполнить любой ценой. В такой ситуации широкое распространение получили массовые приписки с той целью, чтобы показать выполнение плана, а потом получить причитающуюся премию. Искажение отчетности практиковалось на всех стадиях производственного процесса, что, естественно, вело к удорожанию конечного продукта.
По данным комиссии ЦК КПСС, в течение шести лет, т.е. с 1935 по 1940 г., в стране было арестовано только по обвинению в антисоветской деятельности 1 980 635 человек, из них расстреляно 688 503. Пик репрессий приходится на 1937-1938 гг. За эти два года по политическим мотивам было арестовано 1 548 366 человек, из них расстреляно 681 692.
на Западе сложилось стойкое убеждение, нашедшее отражение в предъявленных материалах о принудительном труде в СССР, о наличии в Советском Союзе не менее, а, может быть, и более 10 млн заключенных. В скобках можно было бы заметить, что такого же мнения придерживаются и до настоящего времени некоторые представители общественности, бывшие заключенные и отдельные граждане, как на Западе, так и в странах бывшего СССР. Между тем современные научные исследования показали, что в любой период единовременное число заключенных в СССР во всех местах лишения свободы не превышало 3 млн человек.
So let me get this straight. Stalin was a prisoner of the Communist Party and because he wanted there to be voting rights, which the Soviet Union on paper at least, had throughout its history?
That's what we see with every evil tyrant. Oh, he wasn't actually evil! It was just his advisors and subordinates!
Well, who was their boss?
I ❤ the transition from the Cold War to breakfast cereals, so "seamless" 😂
It reminds me of Maduro eating on live tv while the nation starved.
So "seamless" it made me sick and I just skipped over it.
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal.
Constitution: Soviet
Intelligence: Domestic and international
Dexterity: Chernobyl
Agility: Nylon stockings
Health: Potato
Wisdom: Unquestionable
Workers Rights: Guaranteed
Anus: Dilated
Bureaucracy: Strengthened
NKVD: Enlarged
Yep, its time for revolution
The Soviet Union isn't unique in stating its policies/goals and then not following said policies/goals. A lot of organizations like to state their lofty ideals in writing, while practicing something completely different.
The irony is that the Constitution, once it started being taken seriously, was a self-destruct mechanism the moment the Communist Party no longer had a monopoly. And the abortive coup of August 1991, the aim of which was to, among other things, to return the Communist Party to monopoly power, tripped that mechanism, as every Soviet Socialist Republic realized that they were all in danger so long as they remained in the USSR. And pretty much, that was that.
@@BesthinktwiceI was just going to write a similar comment re the USA - a government completely captured by corporations and working for corporate interests rather than “We The People”. The fusion of corporations with the state is by any measure, fascism!
In democratic countries, the state can be prosecuted failing to meet the terms of the constitution. In tyrannical regimes, only the people can be prosecuted for suggesting that the state is failing to meet those terms
I've been waiting for a video like this. Thank you! 😊👍
"I here affirm categorically that not a single letter of the law is being infringed in any Soviet glasshouse. Let us take, for instance, 'jobs time'. That most democratic constitution in the world - the Soviet Constitution - ensures, for all citizens, the right to work. Now where else, if not in the glasshouse, can you indulge this right to your heart's content? Or, let us take the right to education. Whether you want it, or whether you don't, you must give three hours a day to drill and tactical training, plus political training twice a week. Is that not education? Or, for instance, the right to rest. Every day they take you to and from work, so use this time for resting, or at night on that plank-bed take your rest, then right up to reveille, at 0530 hours - if, of course, you were not arrested during the night in accordance with the regulations concerning the right to work. But neither in the Constitution nor in any other law is any mention made about the exercise of one's physical needs. So don't go and demand anything over and above what is stipulated in the constitution! Or, are you setting yourself up in opposition to our Soviet rule of law?"
From "The 'liberators': My Life In The Soviet Army" by Viktor Suvorov
The most recent constitution does not protect the ability of the populace to utilize the bell button. It is only the state that has the ability to utilize (or not utilize) the bell button for it's own purposes.
Now that you've done a video on the 2 boring ones can you do a video on the first 2?
They had some wild aspirations those early days
Yeah I always wondered how much of those Constitutions would be used in a future Communist state where it's founders want to "do Communism right this time" and what they would be willing to keep or remove as part of "doing it right".
When I was in history classes and we talked about Soviet system (I am from Lithuania by the way, in case you don’t recognize this, since I sometimes state this in my comments) my teacher made a joke: “The constitution existed to get you on “trial” and arrest, by following it’s guaranteed right to free speech and self-expression” 🤣
Cool video
Edit: fixed the misspelling
Trial*
@@cd5433 thanks for pointing out my misspelling 👍
@@xenamorphwinner7931 just trying to help since you mentioned you weren’t a native English speaker
@@cd5433 👍
@@xenamorphwinner7931 sorry if it came off disrespectful. I know how pointing out spelling mistakes online can seem petty but I didn’t mean it like that
The USSR didn't come into existence until 1922, so the 1918 constitution was of Russia, not the USSR.
Officially yes but it was the Russian SFSR a long with the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, and the Transcaucasian SSR. So it was the USSR in all but name.
Having more than one constitution in a country’s history is not rare. The U.S. is on its second, the French Republic is on its fifth.
*fifth republic.
If you factor in the two Empires, the fascist Vichy state, and the several short-lived attempts at establishing a constitutional monarchy, France has had *15* constitutions in total-some rather brief.
@@jonathanwebster7091 I discard Vichy and I wasn’t counting the Napoleon I’s empire, the first Bourbon Restoration, The Hundred Days, the Second Restoration, the July Monarchy, Napoleon III’s empire, anything provisional or anything involving the Germans.
I was sticking to the established institutional republican constitutions.
@@ericoberlies7537 that’s…specific; but okay.
@@ericoberlies7537the Laws of 1875 were meant to be temporary
I'm sure France isn't done
Love your program
"the food may not be varied, the house small and the job boring.. but it was there"
That's hardly a situation exclusively for Soviet-styled nations
Na maioria dos países, isso é quase inexistente
18:00 - yes, soviet constitution (even stalin's variant) declared that each republic can leave the union. But there was one little catch. Article says that the republic can leave the union as a result of a referendum held in accordance with the legal procedure. But the law on the procedure for holding referendums in the Soviet Union did not exist until 1991. This means that any attempt to organize a referendum was considered a crime against the state and was punishable by imprisonment or execution. So no such attemps was made until collapse of USRR. The law on referendums in the USSR was adopted for one specific case - for the legal registration of the collapse of the USSR, which in fact has already occurred at that time. And immediately after the adoption of the law, referendums were held in which unequivocal support was expressed for the withdrawal of the republics from the USSR.
Actually the majority voted to NOT break up the Soviet Union- you are incorrect
You are spreading lies, how can I believe in anything you said, considering you lied when you said referendums were univocally supportive of the end of the USSR, when said referendum had a 76% percentage of vote to maintain the Union.
you can bring stability and growth to the state if you could do more videos about this
Very good comrad
Very good.
Come let us celebrate the state.
Very interesting!
My old history teacher told us that the 1977 Soviet constitution enshrined the right to private plots of farm land (expanded from 1936 at 7:00)... after they discovered that the 4% of private land in the Soviet Union was producing around 80% of agricultural output.
Open to a fact check. Shared as an interesting sign that, as with Chinese peasants and private markets in 1980: ultimately constitutions are made for people not people for constitutions.
Tbf, farners already privately owned land before Stalin forced collectivisation on the whole country.
That's not even the correct wrong claim.
First of all, private farming plots were never really illegal. There was a drive at the beginning of collectivization to eliminate them, but peasant backlash stopped the govt.
So the claim makes no sense to begin with, the 1977 constitution did nothing to change that, as the video you're commenting under, the 1977 constitution major change was allowing inheritance.
Now to the 1% and 80% claim. The correct claim is that private plots accounted to 2 to 3% of farming land, and produced a fourth, ie 25% of the total agricultural value, not 80%. Basically the other wat around. Still, 25% would be a lot! But that claim has a loooot of issues.
Now lets get to why. Private plots didn't produce grains, or or crops other crops which production was able to be mechanized. Ergo private plots were used to farme vegetables and fruits, that produce a lot more value per unit of land than the crops that were farmed in collectivized farms. Not only that, 2/3% only represents the directly allocated land to private farming, it doesn't take into account the land that was permited to use for cattle grazing, same as federal land in the US is used for grazing by ranchers. That puts the number at 20% of agricultural land. Of course, that doesn't mean that 20% of land was used for private farming, but it makes that 25% much less impressive.
And let's keep going. Private farms accounted for only 2/3% of agricultural land yes, but they also accounted for 40% of agricultural labor, ie 40% of workers produced only 25% of the total agricultural value. Why? Bc again, private plots were used to cultivate vegetables and fruits, which are more valuable per kilo, bc they cost more to produce. Besides, private plots were not business, they were family farms, they were definitely not more efficient, as the common narrative would tell.
Lastly, and most importantly, measuring value instead of quantity is nonsensical in a system like this, bc the produce of collective farms was heavily subsidized, unlike the produce of private farms. The monetary value of the produce didn't reflect it's actual value.
To put a final nail in the "private farms were more efficient than collective farms" coffin, all previously collective farms in Russia and Ukraine were privatized. Following that logic, agricultural production in modern Russia and Ukraine, should be much higher than in soviet times. Specially with newer and better technologies available. Just do a quick search and see where it's at. It hasn't even reached the levels of soviet times, let alone surpassed it
@AgusSimoncelli It is though, as the Ukraine war has revealed: Ukraine produced around 30% of world grain, and Russia similarly.
Yet during Soviet times the USSR was famously an importer of food, except under Corn Lord Khrushchev.
Curious how, even under your own figures, 3% produces 25%. 🤔
How's is that not more efficient?
Even if you take away peasants siphoning off state resources (e.g. fertiliser, tractors, etc) to farm their own plots, private plots still come out 5-6 times more efficient.
This is why I point to what China's peasants did. Collectivisation runs against the grain of human nature.
As for the constitutions, at 7:00 it does mention private plots in the 1936, hence the comment. This right was expanded in 1977 as it worked.
It's almost of microcosm of what happened under Gorbachev; a socialist system often forgets itself and follows what works... even when it might contradict socialism.
Hold on, are we talking about the amount of food or it's monetary value here?
Because those are very different metrics, and I feel like people are using them interchangably. And if it's money, are we talking sales price or a more standardised measurement? Sales price seems the easiest, but also a very bad way to measure productivity.
@@TheMagicLemur you asked to be fact checked if your comment was wrong, and you still come to defend the comment?
Ukraine doesn't produce 30% of the world grain, that's ridiculous. It may produce 30% of SOME grain (you're probably referring to sunflower seed?) it's not the same. Actual agricultural production has not reached peak soviet production, not in Russia nor in Ukraine, that's not debatable. The USSR was one of the biggest producer of grains in it's time, the fact that Russia and Ukraine also are now is not surprising.
The 3% and 25% figure would mean that private farms sre more than 10 times more productive. But again, as you probably didn't read my previous comment, the 3/25 figure is wrong, private farms mever produced 25% of value with 3% of the land. That number is the result of a bad (and let's be honest, biased) interpretation of data. And even if that figure made sense, that 25% of value needs 40% of the labor. That means that the other 75% of the value is produced by only 60% of the labor. I think it's not hard to see that that's a more efficient use of labor.
Collective farming was the norm for thousands of years, claiming it's against "human nature" is completely ridiculous. Private property is the new, "not nstural" thing, not the other way around. Of course, that doesn't make collectivization wrong, if you're appealing to "human nature" you already lost the argument
The 1977 constitution did nothing to change the status of private farms. They also weren't particularly encouraged under Brezhnev, bc for what i said, they weren't particularly productive.
Gorbachev reforms had nothing to do with "socialism following what works". Gorbachev reforms were explicitly designed to introduce capitalist reforms in the USSR. Which weren't exactly successful in any way for the USSR, so I'm not sure what you even mean
I read all four "constitutions (Basic Laws)" of the USSR, as well as the treaty of union of the USSR, and the 1921 organic law of the RSFSR in law school. I also read the East German constitution, and the three Chinese constitutions. You left some stuff out, but I like your presentation over all. you should do a comparative study of these instruments, especially as it relates to the emergence of the current Chinese political system.
Great video. Thanks for the info.
How did PRC perceive the condition of the USSR to be in the late 80's, early 90's? Did it understand what was about to happen with socialism in Europe?
Any chance for a video on OPERATION KEELHAUL?
Somehow, I can't see Stain being like..." Well, the construction says I cant do this, so I better not, I could get in trouble "
I can’t think of any national leader that cares what the constitution of their country says.
@@BMWE90HQ I think it did happen once, but he died under mysterious circumstances! LOL
@@BMWE90HQ Gross overstatement.
18:16 Is that Lukashenko in the background with the stripped red, black and white tie?
It might just be me, but I find your lighting kind of dark. Almost... cold.
Love the tie in with the sponsor
IIRC, the 77 constitution also proclaimed that the goal of the "dictatorship of the proletariat " was achieved. A milestone towards actual communism
This is a fascinating video. You tend to not think of the USSR and a constitution since things just occurred by the will of those in charge and changed frequently. But it is interesting to see what was in the constitutions.
This is due to Cold War propaganda. In reality it was nothing like this. This video barely scratches the surface of how wrong that assumption is
@@jaggmeeler2039You are completely correct!
Fascinating.
Video starts at 2:28
A constitution where the rights within are not protecting by the legal and economic reality isn't worth the paper its printed on.
I am not my country's biggest fan, but say what you will, the US Constitution has teeth.
"The principal direction in the development of the political system of Soviet society is the extension of socialist democracy, namely ever broader participation of citizens in managing the affairs of society and the state, continuous improvement of the machinery of state, heightening of the activity of public organisations, strengthening of the system of people's control, consolidation of the legal foundations of the functioning of the state and of public life, greater openness and publicity, and constant responsiveness to public opinion."
-- Article 9 of Chapter 1; Principles of the Social Structure and Policy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1977 constitution --
This video could have been hours long. I hope you will go into more detail on this topic. Also maybe cover this as it applies to other Soviet satellite states.
Interesting video
Wow prefect video none of TH-cam about it !
Who cares what was in the Soviet so-called Constitution if there was no actual independent judiciary (or any other institution free from Party control)?
What was James Madison's apt phrase? A "mere parchment guarantee" (regarding any rights enumerated in a written constitution)?
🇺🇸
Do the Chinese Constitution (or equivalent)
Also, all these videos on the Soviet Union are making me want to play as I'm in HoI 4 XD
thanks.
plz talk about soviet computers
Four constitutions were introduced through 80 years of rule, which was reflected in the continued expansion and depths of poverty in the countryside and southern east Soviets Republicans
"Listen, our Soviet constitution is a noble piece of work. But only if honourable men and women respect it." "Gorky Park"
I see that vault boy
I at least respect it theoretically gives the right to independence for nations of the thus consensual union (that can be given and retracted), if only the Spain and UK ones could have that level of democracy in them...
just dont test it or you get the tanks
violent discretion was and is the law in moscovy
For something merely for show, I'm surprised how detailed the Soviet constitution was.
Seeing as these Soviet constitutions are being exposed as shams can you do the same expose for the one 'Merikan constitution and how many many times it's a complete sham in practice 🤣😂
Normally I'm not much interested in the sponsorships, but this one sounds genuinely interesting lol. Thank you for another informative episode too!
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Article 124 always made me erm…laugh:
“In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and *freedom of anti-religious propaganda* is recognized for all citizens.”
Translation: while we begrudgingly say it’s okay to have a religion, don’t be too vocal about it or we’ll arrest you, send you to a gulag or have you locked up in a mental asylum.
Oh, and you can’t join the Party or have any prospects of career advancement.
Also we’ll periodically murder priests, monks, nuns, and the lay religious on the pretext of them being “reactionary”.
This is somewhat incorrect. The Soviet system allocated space to religious organizations Ina way that if you didn't go through state registered organizations/places/times, you were breaking the law. That's why, especially in the 80s, protestant groups would deliberately meet in the middle of the night out in a park, which was illegal, but then could say "look we are being repressed"
Not that they shouldn't have been able to do that, but the USSR and most places in history are a bit more complicated and nuanced
@@josephernst709 yeah that was true for most of the communist countries.
Most of them had that “but freedom of atheist propaganda” clause (I…think China still does).
Apart from Albania of course, which between 1976 and 1990 outlawed religion completely in the constitution of that year (although that clause was in practice ignored after Enver Hoxha’s death in 1985).
The relevant clauses being article 34:
“The state recognizes no religion whatever and supports and develops atheist propaganda for the purpose of implanting the scientific materialist world outlook in people.”
And article 54:
“The creation of any type of organization of a fascist, antidemocratic, *religious*, and anti-socialist character is prohibited.
Fascist, anti-democratic, *religious*, warmongering, and anti-socialist activities and propaganda are prohibited as well as the incitement of national and racial hatred.”
Also the penal code of 1977 imposed prison sentences of three to ten years for "religious propaganda and the production, distribution, or storage of religious literature." A new decree that in effect targeted Albanians with Islamic and religiously-tinged Christian names stipulated that citizens whose names did not conform to "the political, ideological, or moral standards of the state" were to change them. It was also decreed that towns and villages with religious names must be renamed
Which…yikes.
@@jonathanwebster7091 sorry friend, but i am not finding the error in everything you type. Religion must be annihilated through ideas for a better society
@@GuntherFehlinger we’ll agree to disagree.
@@jonathanwebster7091 you need to understand that religions were created to explain physical and social phenomena. With the scientific advance, they became useless, and even if in the past, they had a progressive character, helping to end slavery, today has a completely regressive, reactionary character, serving as an auxiliary to both feudalism and capitalism, and that is why all countries should have laws like soviet, chinese and albanian
Skip to 2:27
Analyze other communist constitutions please. Particularly Yugoslavia, North Korea, China, east Germany, and Cuba
Wasted my time. No adequate clear argument. Did racism and sexism persist in the USSR? It is interesting to ask about the racial segregation of blacks and the oppression of women in the freest country in the world. It is also worth remembering about child labor in third world countries in the interests of American corporations today.
You could never quote the constitution or you would be cancelled in society totally
Have you seen the recently destroyed Russian armor with red stars crudely painted on them? I don't think that bodes well for Putin!
soviet legal system - nice oxymoron
It had one, it was just extrajudicial lol.
Bias
Model for all other Communist and Far-Leftist "Democratic Socialist" nations.
@@reeyees50listen, for a change
@@salamanderw2843 Get over the "feeling"you have all the answers, and already "know everything".
Remember, facts don't care about your feelings.
Does not matter if it was a lie anyway.
The problem with socialism and its successor, communism, is precisely the fact that on paper they sound attractive, "libertarian" and open, but in reality they are something completely different - the rule of the elite in the true sense of the word (socialist bourgeoisie)! 😅
What left-wing revolutionaries in the 20th century failed to realise was that political equality is more important than economic equality.
Tu amigo que no sabe nada del socialismo be like
exactly why 'the paper' is not enough. As Marx observed; "men make their own history, but not in conditions they necessarily choose themselves" . You gotta work on it.
That's why some socialist parties that took power by war and revolution had to hold on to power in a context of fierce oppostion and sabotage, and why others, like the parties of Salvador Allende and Chavez found themselves in democratic systems and attempted to increase economic democracy. Socialism is not monolithic, it appears differently in different situations.
@@Besthinktwice The things communist nations did relatively well (e.g. healthcare, education and guaranteed housing) were the same things governments everywhere should be doing, while the things they did badly (e.g. food production, cars, and bringing new technology to market) were the same things governments should avoid becoming too hands-on with. You can have universal healthcare, high-quality public education and universal housing in a social democracy, along with capitalism, and what you'd have is a country like Finland: a good place to live.
As for cooperatives, they are legal in most capitalist countries, and they do exist, but the advantages they provide to workers aren't that great, else they would have had a significant competitive advantage over other businesses. That both traditional businesses and cooperatives exist shows that neither has a great advantage over the other.
80 years?! don’t you mean 69 years?
2:27
omg it's so fucking frustrating when you want to watch a video to ACTUALLY learn constitucional law from de URSS and you end up watching 20 minutes of the same old shitty U.S anti-soviet propaganda :(
LITERALLY I HATE US HISTORIANS FOR THIS
To be frank, a piece of paper with less value then the stuff humans round the world wipe their asses with
Same sponsor as Brandon F. Samma sponsor som Brandon F.
It´s bizarre that when you try to provide unbiased political content, you end up beeing called biased by both "sides". People are so stupid...
we are NOT stupid; we are hyper-vigilant (sensitive). everything is being politicized now, and if you dont vocally object to whatever premise, it is assumed you consent to it.
Huh, that’s odd. I remember Nancy P. saying DJT had to prove his innocence. Now I know where she got the idea.
Because it was a civil case based on events that were considered legal facts at that point. DJT had to show he was not at least 51% liable in relation to the claims. I'm sorry if you find that disconcerting, but that's how civil cases have worked in the US for most of its history. You're only guaranteed presumption of innocence when one party is the government. Edit: Same goes for the measure of "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil cases, the limits of your harm could be in doubt, but if you're considered at least 51% liable for it, even just persuasively, you're on the hook.
7 minutes in and he starts to give minor snippets of what the video title suggests. Just a political rant
why anti communist be more nutrual
Exactly. It's a political rant telling us nothing
In constitution many broad rights, like religion etc, but in practise it was very narrow interpretation in contrast to USA constitution.
COVER ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS :)
Guilty until proven Innocent. Intressant.
The main and overriding part of the Constitution was the "leading role of the CPSU", everything else was superfluous as ot enabled the dominating role of the party bodies like the politburo, central committee and the Obkoms. The Soviet side was subordinate to the CPSU side. When the USSR tried to actually follow the constitution by transferring power to the supreme soviet it quickly collapsed as the supreme soviet was totally dysfunctional and without any driving ideology. Most of the republican soviets suffered the same issues and collapsed allowing the presidents unlimited power. Btw, one of the few republican soviets to survive is the Rada of Ukraine (Rada=Soviet)
Algorithm
Wait the soviet union had a law system that they actually followed?
I thought it was just a hive of nepotism chronism and learning who to assassinate or bribe
They had a legal system they pretended to follow would be the more accurate description.
It was still better than usa haha
How was it ? FULL OF BS
Same as rushitski mir. Shit
Lots of hypocrisy and ignorance on display here.
It is like a document explaining the benefit of slave ownership to the slaves.
Try reading some of the founding documents of the various sessionist states. 😬
The Soviet Union and eastern bloc nations were literally paradise on earth. It’s a shame that capitalist imperialism had to subvert it and destroy the perfect utopia they had built for themselves. That’s okay though because socialism is back and every nation on earth will have this utopian society by 2025 and everyone is going to be so much happier than they’ve ever been under the slavery of capitalism.
lol
is this a joke?
Socialism isnt utopian, if you were an actual socialist you would know this
@@FerdarPleaseSubscribe
It was indeed utopia. There was no homelessness, no drug addiction, and everyone was guaranteed employment, education, child care,healthcare, and retirement. None of these things have ever been universal in any non-socialist nation.
Soviet Constitution? Smoke and mirrors. Mere words open to the nomenklatura to decide what is legal and to use the full powers of the state to repress any dissent or dissendent. No wonder the USSR failed.
In what way did it fail? It did exactly what it set out to do
@@raymondhartmeijer9300 collapse?
@@jamg2376 The USSR didn't "collapse", it was undemocratically abolished by the party elites. The "collapse" came only after it was abolished. Just look up what happened to the economy after 1991 there. The worst kind of shock doctrine you can imagine
First!
Nice!
I’m done with your channel,sooo sad
Found the progressive fascist
Isn't it nice to live in a society where you can decide to say and do such a thing without ending up in a prison camp?
Well, 'bye.
@@jorenvanderark3567 I do have first amendment and second amendment just in case first didn’t work
No the real sad thing is you actually saying this here as a sign that you like watching this channel
That sponsorship stuff was dumb. Love everything else.