Thread 17915930

But seriously, why did they collapse?

>they were poor
Bro, 90% of the world was poor. They weren't doing that bad globally and calorie intake was similar to the West. Not being rich is not a logical reason for collapse.

>the enslaved people wanted freedom blabla
You can want freedom as much as you want, but even millions are powerless against a few thousand with machine guns, tanks and grenades. If they really wanted to they obviously could have kept the whole thing going.

Remember, when they downed a civil aircraft and nobody in the West said a single word? That's true power. But they surrendered in the cold war for some reason despite doing alright and nobody knows why.

>>17915930 (OP)
>But they surrendered in the cold war for some reason despite doing alright
Communism sucks ass, bro.

>>17915948
It's worth reminding everyone that Eastern Europe has the best quality farmland in the world and Soviet agriculture was so terrible they managed to have constant famines because they tried to kill all the people that were good at farming for being "kulaks".

Gorbachev's reforms hurt more than they helped, and he wasn't brave enough to initiate a crackdown like Tiananmen Square.

>>17915930 (OP)
Same reason Russia collapsed in '17 and is on the verge of collapse now. It's just what they do

The Soviet Union would have fallen in the 70s if not for the oil crisis.
Oil money poured in obviating need for reforms ie undoing collectivization that had killed agricultural productivity. (Post Soviet Russia went on to become food exporter like it had been pre soviet times).
80s oil slump triggered balance of payments crisis and from there empty shelves because lack of hard cash for the imported food it shouldn't have to import in the first place.
Empty shelves then destroyed government legitimacy and faith in the Communist religion at least among the upper levels.

>>17915930 (OP)
they wasted all their resources on pointless endeavours like sending people into space and building heavily subsidized cities in middle of nowhere in asia

>>17915930 (OP)
You might find Chinese takes on it interesting because they have a Leninist party structure there and they've also put some thought into it. Here's from their (state-controlled or at least monitored) online encyclopedia.

Basically the main problem as they see it was political, then economic. The party-state was excessively centralized during Stalin's time, which bred corruption and formed by a new privileged class by Brezhnev's time (but that's when the USSR had a really bad falling out with China so keep that in mind when they are more critical of Brezhnev than Stalin) which became detached from the population they ruled over. It was too rigid (politically and economically) and by the time they began to make reforms, it was too late, and they screwed it up.

Then going down the list, other factors included the excessive militarization to compete with the U.S. for global hegemony and which consumed a lot of resources. It also says that Western propaganda played a role, but that was not a primary reason (as it's only effective in proportion to the amount of internal problems in the society... that's a very Maoist notion and the line to describe this paraphrases Mao actually, and I also think it happens to be correct). Then lastly were ethnic conflicts as "the Soviet Union's long-standing application of Great Russian nationalism resulted in rather sharp contradictions between the various ethnic groups."

The USSR basically turned into an oligarchy ruled by a privileged class who gave zero fucks about most of the population, and they had no outside feedback or checks into their own system, while ruling over a rigid economy based on heavy industry and oil export earnings. The people tasked with delivering reports were the same people who were tasked with carrying out plans. You see how that works.

>>17916028
*run through Google Translate but you get the main points.

There are some iffy translations. Like "demilitarized" is probably a mistranslation, it's more like "warmongering."

>>17915930 (OP)

the answer is the chernobyl disaster. it was like the culmination of everything wrong with the soviet union. a microcosm even. it exposed how the ussr was held together with lies and duct tape. putting ideology over reality requiring a tighter grasp of authoritarianism which only causes more contradictions to reality. design flaws that everyone knows but no one can say. built on fear. can't innovate = can't adapt to a changing world. forced to engage on espionage and stealing ideas from the west. decades of gibs to communist proxies in the cold war and spreading too thin. now when the plant workers were told to run the test that day, they knew violated safety protocol, they didn't want to question authority. so now chernobyl explodes and the kremlin covers it up until sweden detects fallout and the soviets have to address it, damaging their legitimacy as well as losing their grip of psychological control on their own population. it's giving people cancer and birth defects and now other countries have to clean up the mess. it's also a frigid wasteland that is way too big.

>>17915930 (OP)
Brezhnev stagnation was what drove it into the ground eventually. They should've kept going with Khrushchev/Dubcek style reforms. Though I think the main issue was being too ideologically rigid with regards to how the economy was ran, because Yugoslavia had liberal communism and yet had the worst breakup of all

>>17916092
Yep, they took communism seriously, unlike China who were always just larping. Russia was insane enough to take it seriously

>>17916121
No I think China was taking it seriously until after Mao died, which is why they stayed poor for so long

>>17915930 (OP)
USSR literally run out of food after oil prices fall.
Shock demanded to act fast and commies didn't have solution in limited time frame.
Also Gorbachev was hardcore Stalinist regarding agrarian polices and continued to strangle peasants with commie nose that didn't help to solve food crisis.
Essentially Stalin's collectivization killed USSR in teh end, karma of millions soviet peasants tortured and killed by communists

>Bro
>Why doesn't communism work?

>>17916028
>The USSR basically turned into an oligarchy ruled by a privileged class who gave zero fucks about most of the population
Same as China.
But largest problem of USSR that their elites clung to hardcore Marxism mumbo jumbo.
Compare to China. In 1979 Deng Xiaping starts reforms with disbanding kolkhozes, reintdocing family farms (Stalin called them kulaks), and introduced market prices for agrarian surplus sold by those kulaks. Essentially things opposite to what Stalin did during collectivization. Things unthinkable inside Marxist political framework. USSR and Gorbachev clung to Stalinist agenda in agrarian sector till the bitter end. These polices were canceled in Russian Federation January 1992 after Stalinist Gorbachev was kicked out from power.

>>17915930 (OP)
The budget deficit in 1991 was like 20% of their GDP.

>>17915930 (OP)
The USSR was too diverse. Ethnic Russians were quickly sinking below half of the population, and carried a lot of resentment at having to finance the development of fast-breeding non-Russian populations like Uzbeks, Turkmen, and Tajiks at their expense. The Afghan war further created a sense of "fuck all this Central Asian nonsense; this union is bullshit." That's a big and under-reported part of the story. Along with events like the 1986 riots in Kazakhstan souring Russians on the idea of the USSR as a singular entity.

>>17915930 (OP)
Russia just changed the aesthetics, elite stayed the same and instead of living like middle class they became small kings after they consolidated all wealth.

>>17917820
And now all these countries still migrate to Russia and are still replacing native population lol
brexit tier decision making

>>17917820
>Ethnic Russians were quickly sinking below half of the population, and carried a lot of resentment
Ordinary Russians were isolated from actual ecomic facts (i USSR everything was classified so they couldn't actually analyze costs of mentioned republics. Everything at best was just a gossip.
When at the same time Russians had largest imperial identity and wanted republics to stay as Russian vassals making USSR map looking bigger.
Its national republics themselves who wanted independence from Russian chauvinism.

>>17917879
>Russia just changed the aesthetics,
Boomer tier take. Who thinks they had it tough during Cold War opposing "mighty Soviet Union".
USSR fell apart itself because of rediculous Marxist economic system. Moving to capitalist economy is quantum leap in countries capabilities.

This book is interesting (Russian historian) who starts the narrative with Soviet troops arriving in Germany at the end of World War II and being shocked at Germans' higher standard of living. They had questions. Huge numbers of these unruly troops came back, and Stalin obviously knew this would be a problem so he sent a lot of them to labor camps, and tightened up repression even more. There were also the antisemitic campaigns very late in his life that was very demoralizing and divisive among Soviet elite society. But the system persisted through what the author describes as fear of encirclement and a "revolutionary imperialist" worldview to hold onto Eastern Europe and expand Soviet influence.

Stalin dies. Khrushchev tries to open things up a bit. Soviet citizens (or some of them) come into more contact with foreigners through World Youth-type festivals. They also had questions. The system became softer and more moderate, with goals to improve the standard of living and achieve detente with the West. But the economy couldn't deliver, and by Brezhnev's time the elites didn't really believe in communism outside of a formulaic manner in which it was expressed. Eventually the economy reached a crisis point and Gorbachev rushed the reforms and unintentionally blew up the system, and the elites abandoned it.

>The picture he paints of the USSR is of a shaky edifice with much insecurity and uncertainty amongst its leaders as to where to go and what to do (especially after the Stalin era). This insecurity characterised the leaders themselves and their conduct. During their youth during a trip to Western Europe in the 50s, Raisa Gorbachev asked her husband the painful question why "they" had more than Russians did. Henry Kissinger thought that Brezhnev concealed his insecurity through his boisterousness. This contrasts with the Western image of the USSR as something much stronger and formidable with a clear sense of self and direction.

>>17915930 (OP)
>But seriously, why did they collapse?
1.) US offers Stalin aid after world war 2, Stalin refuses over power politics
2.) US and friends start a defensive alliance and transition to a peacetime economy, the USSR remains in a wartime economy focused on national defense
3.) The vast majority of Soviet production is not being used to improve the standard of living of the average Soviet man but is pumped directly into their Military Industrial Complex
4.) As the 20th century goes on, the Soviet MIC becomes more and more bloated and assumes a greater and greater role over Soviet Politics
5.) Late 80s, USSR is in shambles, life is miserable for the average Soviet, meanwhile Soviet leaders working for the MIC are rolling in money and power, Soviet Union STILL hasn't transitioned to a peacetime economy
6.) Soviet Leaders decide to remove the facade, formerly declare an end to the USSR, the former Soviet MIC now fully controls the country, The Russian Federation is now an Oligarchy ran by military leaders

All of the USSRs problems stem from Stalin being a poor leader, if Stalin had accepted American aid in the postwar era, they likely would've been able to transition to a peacetime economy, and the Soviet economy would've ended up operating more similar to China instead of allowing themselves to devolve into an Oligarchy

>>17915930 (OP)
So, Why Did the USSR Collapse?

Not because they were poor. Not because of protests. Not because of the CIA.
They collapsed because the Soviet system stopped working, the elites lost faith, and no one was willing to hold it together by force anymore.

It wasn’t about a decisive surrender — it was a slow internal implosion. Like an old machine that finally stopped running.

If you're interested, I can go deeper into the economic mismanagement, military burden, or the nationalist politics that splintered the union. But your intuition is good: don’t settle for the one-line answers — and yes, powerful regimes don’t fall just because people are unhappy. They fall when the people with the power stop believing in it.

>>17915930 (OP)
They wasted their money on stupid shit like trying to contain and control their people and tried to keep up with the US. Also, you can be communist, but at the global level, everything is capitalist.

>>17915930 (OP)
The USSR never "collapsed" it was dismantled on purpose due to a comedy of errors and bad luck that occured that allowed Neoliberals to seize power after Andropov's death, and institute a program of destroying socialism ideologically, while dismantling the USSR, it's economy and pawning it off to their Bratva, Israeli, City of London and US handlers.
Basically, Andropov wants to reform the USSR, but more like China, centralizing social power within the CPSU, mass targeting corruption, while allowing some measure of economic reforms. To do this he brings in a lot of people of all pursuasions, he returns FROM EXILE supposed traitors, to get their insight on possible reforms, the big name here is Yakovlev. Yakovlev along with a clique called the Leningrad Law clique, basically push for liberalism at the table and become some of the more influential voices on the economic reform stage. Andropov dies from diabetes almost immediately, a fucking RETARD westaboo is put into power basically as a puppet, and Andropov/neolibs basically shove their hand up his ass and start puppeting his mouth. The entire media and ideological apparatus of the USSR is basically handed over to a guy called Yegor Gaidar a turbo ayn rand libertarian, and the two teaming of the USSR starts with Glasnost and Perestroika. Glasnost is basically just a giant turbo smear campaign against the USSR, it's history, Socialism and the CPSU. Outlets are given orders to attack even Marx and Lenin and Social Democracy with Neoliberalism. On the economic front just mass sabotage occurs to the Soviet economy, trains and port shipments are left to rot, workers in storage facilities are attacked by bratva etc. The USSR economy fell FORTY FIVE FUCKING PERCENT IN GDP. Imagine any country today where you wake up and GDP is negative 45%
Yeltsin comes in, runs a referendum on dismantling the USSR, the public disagrees, yeltisn then bans the fucking Communist party and removes Russia from the USSR.

>>17915930 (OP)
It was another society destroyed by nationalism.

>>17919738
Also btw, the Gaidar forum is a turbo Neolib forum like Davos, shows the types of fuckheads that controlled the USSR during Gorbachev and Yeltsin's leadership.

>>17915951
In other words, and to answer the OP's question more directly, the Soviet Union could not manage capital. End of discussion.

>>17919243
>Raisa Gorbachev asked her husband the painful question why "they" had more than Russians did.
She is dumb, America wasn't devastated by two world wars. Being less rich than America was absolutely totally fine. It sounds like Slavs just got too greedy.

>>17919828
>during a trip to Western Europe

>>17915930 (OP)
COMMUNISM IS THE WORST
2284 pages answering that question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

>>17919738
>runs a referendum on dismantling the USSR, the public disagrees,
Commie falsification of teh history.
Question on this referendum was
>Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?[
>RENEWED federation of EQUAL SOVEREIGN republics
Does it sound like Kremlin Tsardom of USSR? Not it all.
Its sounds like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States
Therefore reformation of USSR to CIS was exactly ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLES WILL!
Commies BTFO!

Other part of you post is just seething commies shizo blabbering.

>>17915930 (OP)
It was a bad idea and it run its course. It happens to all ideas sooner or later. It happened to fascism, it will happen to capitalism and it will happen to whatever comes afterwards.

>calorie intake was similar to the West
For future reference, don't bring this up. It's an absolute meme.

>If they really wanted to they obviously could have kept the whole thing going.
A big "if". People were getting disillusioned and even the cronies were realizing the gig isn't what it used to be.

>>17915930 (OP)
They couldn't even spell "USSR" properly what else do you expect?

>>17915930 (OP)
>calorie intake
Keke this is such a meme

USSR should have been much more aggressive in Russifying the Warsaw Pact countries. Imagine if languages like Polish, Hungarian, Romanian would be just some local folk memory like the Irish language today, and everybody was speaking Russian. It would have been a giant Russian speaking bloc and probably not have broken up.

>>17921470
>We are already having problem with some nationalist movements
>Lets make even more people angry!

>>17921519
You can keep your national identity while speaking Russian. The Irish are very fiercely nationalistic despite speaking English.

>>17921526
>The Irish are very fiercely nationalistic
It's not 1916 any more, there's Indians in Dublin now

>>17921526
If soviet union tried to enforce russian on other satellite states they all would rebel in less than 3 months
the only case where it would work is on balts, idk why russia was so dogshit at russifying that region when it has like few million people and is super important stratetigcally

>>17921530
Try calling an Irishman, English, and see how many teeth you have left

>>17921537
>they all would rebel in less than 3 months
What's lil Pawel gonna do?

>>17915930 (OP)
glasnost was a big mistake, they gave a little bit freedom and all the suppressed nationalism were released, lithuania's independence basically made a domino effect on other countries of ussr

>>17915930 (OP)
>calorie intake was similar to the West
This was based on some very flawed data. Anyway, it collapsed because socialism doesn't work. A class of bureaucrats cannot rationally direct the production and distribution of millions of different goods.

>>17921539
Maybe in the era prior to mass-immigration. Nowadays, both the 'Irishman' and the 'Englishman' might well both be from the same city in India or Pakistan or Africa. Those distinctions simply don't matter anymore in modern, post-racial Europe.

>>17921562
Why did they allow Lithuania to go? Couldn't they suppress their non-Russian population of 500k people?

>>17915930 (OP)
>But seriously, why did they collapse?
Communism doesn’t work

>>17921635
it could work in western country, russians are just too retarded at every system they attempt

>>17921519
The idea the USSR "Russified" regions is turbo nationalist cope, the USSR policies were the exact fucking opposite, soviet policy was always around developing the national character of the regions. It's like claiming England is "Frenchified" because you learn French as a second language in school.

>>17921575
Gorbachev was a retarded westaboo literally controlled by actual Neoliberal Western traitors.
see
>>17919738

>>17921870
Gorbachev economically was turbo Stalinist.
See >>17917671 >>17917702

>>17921575
>>17921562
Russians should've just stop gay rape.
But they couldn't for a single stop to think about men's asses and that was last straw that broke camels back
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дeлo_Caкaлaycкaca

The soviet elites wanted capitalism, there was nothing that could stop the collapse.

>>17915930 (OP)
>>17919738 is right, the USSR got dismantled because of a top-down coup. They could've clung on but the combination of Yeltsin and Gorbachev/Yakovlev was too much.

>>17916028
Apparently Xi has a fascination for the dissolution of the USSR. Desu it's quite interesting how the chinese model managed to survive while the USSR failed. Good post anon.

>>17921993
No he wasn't. Just because someone doesn't immediatly end the kolkhoz doesn't mean they're a stalinist. Gorby was a social democrat by the end of his career, largely due to the influence he recieved by his peers.

>>17920353
It was in essence the question of whether or not different soviet republics wanted to keep a soviet-style geopolitical model. And the people said yes. Even gorbachev was surprised when Yeltsin went behind his back with the ukrainian case and dismantled the country.

>>17922255
>Just because someone doesn't immediatly end the kolkhoz doesn't mean they're a stalinist.
But it does.
Its all brings soviet union back to the Great Crossroad, to the Genesis again. Should we collectivize peasant scum by state force or let petite bourgeoisie family farms strive as they do?
Stalin choose state force and holodomor etc genocide. That is principle question.
Gorbachev took side of teh Stalin.
Deng Xiaoping took side of the kulaks.
Results? Witnessed!

>It was in essence the question of whether or not different soviet republics wanted to keep a soviet-style geopolitical model.
And they DIDN'T!
They voted for sovereignty! Independence from the Kremlin! Soviet republics weren't i sovereign. And they voted "give us sovereignty " Fuck Muscovites!
>muscovites are seething till this very day

>>17922255
>is right, the USSR got dismantled because of a top-down coup
That is all commie propaganda.
Gorbachev didn't give peasants an inch of space
All capitalist reforms in Russia were hastily started when economy was in free fall January 1992. AFTER Gorbachev was kicked out of power.
because HE ABSOLUTELY REFUSED ANY CAPITALISM AND MARKET REFORMS REGARDING PEASANTS AND AGRARIAN PRODUCTION!
Political wise he as on the liberals side (big mistake), But economical wise he was Stalin 2.0. NO MERCY FOR KULAKS!

>>17922480
>>17922461
>allowing foreign investment, private property, and liberalizing enterprises is "stalinism"
>allowing free press, lithuania to opt out of the soviet union, and critics of the regime to emerge is "stalinism"

This is the quintessential issue with /his/, you get retards like this who will have the insane takes in the same thread of people sharing good insights.

>>17922548
>>allowing foreign investment in agrarian sector
nope

>private property in agrarian sector
nope

>liberalizing enterprises in agrarian sector
nope

Its all done by Yeltsin January 1992. After total economy crash when kolkhozes refused to send grain Moscow and Yeltsin stepped on his pride and allowed prices to go market.

FUCK KULAKS FUCK THEM SIDEWAYS!
Pure Stalinism by Gorbachev.

>>17915930 (OP)
Stalin died and nobody else had the shear psychopathic will he had to keep the party from decaying into corruption and complacency.

>>17922595
>another /his/ poster who doesn't know anything about history

at least look up the economic reforms made by gorbachev, this is becoming tiring, especially considering that you spam this in every USSR post...

>>17915930 (OP)
The whole society, including all party members, had not believed in communism for 10-15 years.

>>17922711
>at least look up the economic reforms made by gorbachev, this is becoming tiring, especially considering that you spam this in every USSR post...
Go ahead post Gorbachev degrees that released soviet peasants from Stalinist yoke.
ill wait.

>>17922928
retard do you realize that the economy isn't solely focused on the peasantry ?

>>17916028
Anyone can see that the problems began with Stalin.

>>17922978
Thing is USSR collapsed over food supply. Shortages of other goods could be tolerated for a long long time but not food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords
Initially this meeting was about food prices. Belarus and Ukraine leaders were meeting Russian leader to make prices agreement. How much they would pay for Russian gas and oil and how much Russia would pay for potatos and grain. But they didn't came to agreement and argument hit deadlock. So they went "fuck this we are going independent and you will pay us market price in dollars". Soviets started with bread riote in S. Petersburg and ended the same. As Yegor Gaidar mentioned in his memoirs in December 1991 Moscow had literally just 2 weeks (unironically ) of bread supply and kholhozes refused to send any grain to Moscow at state prices. So he and Yeltsin made a big and urgent leap of freeing prices in January 1992. Alternative would be sending military to confiscate grain like Stalin did. But Yeltsin had no taste for spilling Russian blood and military proved themselves disloyal and ineffective during August 1991 cope. Military stance was to stand aside and do nothing.

I posted in another thread: in 1981 Soviet state sold beef in retail at 80% loss, in 1985 at 400% loss. Soviet food industry was completely disbalanced and in a free fall. That is key question that needed solution immediately and Gorbachev adamantely kept standing on his Stalinists dogmas.
Now compare this again and again to Deng Xiaoping who started modernisation if China with agrarian reform that cancelled Stalinism-Maoim.
Your position "lol filthy peasants who care we have more important questions" reeks of city liberal hipster who think that food grows in supermarket. Than liberal dream hits "no food left" iceberg.

>>17919738
Sad!

>>17915930 (OP)
The soviet elite didn't believe in the myth of communism anymore. The last leader to give a definite date for when it'll be achieved was Khrushchev in 1960 and he thought they're 20 years away, by 1980 any talk about communism(the myth) was gone all that was left was just the system.
Then during the Azeri-Armenian clashes the system showed itself to be useless. The soviet democracy was basically all about many convoluted structures all having strings that the central leadership could pull ay any time at any level. Gorbachev instead of sending the KGB to pacify it entered delirium and pretended nothing was happening - it was hard to admit ethnic tensions didn't dissipate over the 60 years reign of the Soviets(that supposedly would alleviate them) after all. The KGB moved in on their own, pacifying the region and since nobody trusted Gorbachev from there on they started doing things behind his back. Even as the country was being split into pieces Gorbachev did send decrees and the like, but nobody was listening.

>>17916084
Well said, amateur historian here and also have heard this theory echoed by leading researchers.

>>17919657
Would be interested in more details yes.

If they somehow have managed to get all of Europe will they be alive today?

>>17921635
it's weird how bulgaria had the highest life expectancy

>>17922001
this rape was committed by muslims at least read what you post about you imbecile

>>17923750
>be gorbachev
>be convinced of social democracy
>permit the soviet industries et fix prices while having a minimum to sell
>allows peasants in kolkhoz to produce some food too as "extra" they can sell on markets
>allows for land to be leased to peasants for 50 years
>allows for rural cooperatives to be created
>economic reforms don't work because feedback loops are fucked
>kolkhozs don't want to send grains to moscow because they're at a loss and can't make money doing so
>ffw 35 years later some retard claims"this is stalinism"

Not only did Gorbachev liberalize the economy which is contrary to Stalinism, he also had many reforms for the peasantry who worked in collective farms.
If "adamantly standing on stalinist dogmas" means essentially allowing peasants to own land, farm their own extras using state ressources, form cooperative and set their own prices, then stalin was a social democrat.

>>17915930 (OP)
They overstretched themselves trying to keep parity with a sphere simply too large to compete with. If they'd remained internally focused they would've been better off. Also Gorbachev. This may seem like a copout but he was genuinely such a huge cuck that he basically singlehandedly collapsed the whole thing. There's a good book called Mikhail Gorbachev and the Collapse of The Soviet Union that explains this.

>>17921541
Not much, but if the USSR would attempt it, the other Warsaw Pact countries would also get uppity. Sure the USSR was by far the most powerful, but if all you can/have to do is play whack-a-mole with your supposed allies, you're spreading yourself thin, burn resources, all the while NATO can comfortably get ahead

>>17918083
>Moving to capitalist economy is quantum leap in countries capabilities.

Which is why Russia has been doing so great these past 30 years.

>>17924553
Yes

>>17915930 (OP)
It was a scheme to force the status quo we are experimenting now, this is attested on investigations by authors such as Antony Sutton proving nazism and communism were useful tools for oligarchs and great capitalists

>>17919738
Reminder that Gorbachev was Andropov's protege.

>>17923750
It wasn't food supply in a physical sense, it was mismanagement.

Soviet politicians developed a deadly habit of subsidizing meat to make it cheaper in order to gain popularity. So-called "food populism". This led to workers being able to buy way more meat than they should have been able to when you compare how long they worked and how long it took to produce the meat. This lead to the first people in line buying all the meat and people last in line left with none, even though there was no actual shortage of meat on a per capita basis.

This highlights the fact that if you are going to have a socialist state based on central planning, subsidizing things when its not realistic will buy politicians votes in the short term, but it isn't sustainable.