The answer to that is going to depend a great deal on
which area you have in mind.
Well in the beginning of the new soviet government, there was a lot of anarchy, their was still fighting going on between the Tsars nationalists, and the Soviet bolsheviks. So with this there was little work done on the economy and more work put on other needs. with this there was little to no government control over the economy rendering it obsolete.
Soviet rule transformed the Caucasus through the implementation of centralized economic policies, which aimed to industrialize the region and integrate it into the broader Soviet economy. This often involved the suppression of local cultures and national identities, as the Soviet government promoted a unified Soviet identity. Additionally, the redrawing of borders and the establishment of new administrative divisions led to ethnic tensions and conflicts that persist today. Overall, Soviet policies significantly altered the social, political, and economic landscape of the Caucasus.
Stalin wanted to change soviet policys to help the people of Russie live happy and healthy and industrialization played a huge part in creating jobs then the economy improved
Yes
In Khrushchev's time discussion of fundamental issues like the merits of Marxism-Leninism and single-party rule-was off-limits.
Well in the beginning of the new soviet government, there was a lot of anarchy, their was still fighting going on between the Tsars nationalists, and the Soviet bolsheviks. So with this there was little work done on the economy and more work put on other needs. with this there was little to no government control over the economy rendering it obsolete.
Yes; after the end of the communist rule the economy (industry, agriculture, transport) of Romania was systematically destroyed.
Soviet rule transformed the Caucasus through the implementation of centralized economic policies, which aimed to industrialize the region and integrate it into the broader Soviet economy. This often involved the suppression of local cultures and national identities, as the Soviet government promoted a unified Soviet identity. Additionally, the redrawing of borders and the establishment of new administrative divisions led to ethnic tensions and conflicts that persist today. Overall, Soviet policies significantly altered the social, political, and economic landscape of the Caucasus.
cuz of the economy how there was nothing and the deep south was comitted to cotton, and, in some areas, to rice and sugarcane
Stalin wanted to change soviet policys to help the people of Russie live happy and healthy and industrialization played a huge part in creating jobs then the economy improved
1.California's economy grew. 2.Because the economy grew there were areas to ranch. 3.Ships came in to the harbors from all over the world and they started trading with California.
Yes
In Khrushchev's time discussion of fundamental issues like the merits of Marxism-Leninism and single-party rule-was off-limits.
In Khrushchev's time discussion of fundamental issues like the merits of Marxism-Leninism and single-party rule-was off-limits.
Mikhail Gorbachev ruled the Soviet Union through a combination of reformist policies aimed at revitalizing the economy and political structure. His initiatives, such as glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), sought to increase transparency and decentralize the economy. However, these reforms inadvertently weakened the central authority and fueled nationalist movements within various Soviet republics, ultimately contributing to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Gorbachev's leadership marked a significant shift from traditional Soviet governance, emphasizing the need for reform in a rapidly changing world.
Hi
Stalin's control of the Soviet economy led to famine, disunity and poor economic growth. Socialism will always help destroy an economy unless its a democratic socialism, where the people can vote and force certain economic improvements, such as making some industries private corporations. There is a need for a degree of competition even in the democratic socialist governments in Europe as an example. The head of France, Hollande, is a socialist, however, he does not plan to have the French government own the means of production.