What do you think?
Rate this book
An Economic History of the USSR
A concise and objective study of the growth of a country, tracing the economy of the USSR throughout the 20th-century. From War Communism, to the new economic policy of the early 1920s and to the economy under Stalin's coercion. This included the Soviet "great leap forward" of five-year- plans, collectivization and Stakhanovism. The author's account of these years of terror reveal not only his close acquaintance with the Soviet sources, but also his ability to divine the historical facts through a mist of propaganda. After a brief survey of the distorted economy of the Second World War and of Malenkov and Krushchev, with their well-intentioned but often hare-brained schemes to expand the economy, he concludes with a notably fair-minded assessment of Russian achievement to date.
448 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1969
31 people are currently reading
1427 people want to read
About the author
Alec Nove
65 books17 followersAfter service in the British Army during the second world war Nove worked as a civil servant mainly at the Board of Trade before teaching Economics ultimately becoming Professor of Economics at Glasgow University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
Read
August 4, 2017Long ago I heard a lecturer tell us that The Financial Times was the best newspaper (in the UK at least), but it had an angle on the world that was particular to itself - the day after a school bus crashed on the motorway their headline was that the share-price of the company which had manufactured the brakes on that bus had dipped, rather than tragedy of dead children common to the rest of the media.
In the same way Alec Nove's economic history of the USSR comes at the history of the Soviet Union from a very particular angle, yet illuminates the whole period from 1917 down to 1991 in a comprehensive way.
The starting point is shortly after where Falkus' The Industrialisation of Russia leaves off, in the wake of the First World War and the following civil war. Imperial Russia had a period of rapid economic growth down to WWI but the country was nonetheless overwhelmingly agricultural and dependant on the sale of raw materials for foreign currency. Some industrial enterprises were very large, but technically unsophisticated . However coming from a very low base naturally the percentage of growth had been very fast. To rebuild the war damaged economy the Bolsheviks adopted the New Economic Policy (NEP) but the success of the policy created a political dilemma whether to have economic development driven by consumer demand or economic development driven by the state.
The subtext here is that this was the defining debate of developmental economics for much of the twentieth century and the crucial factor in the discussion was not one of economics as such but of the country's political place in the world.
There is a joke that goes like this, all the leaders of the Soviet Union are travelling on a train across the Soviet Union when the train suddenly stops. 'Why has the train stopped! Lets shoot the driver to get the train moving again' says Stalin. So the driver is dragged out of the cab and shot. However the train does not begin to move. After a while Khrushchev says 'Why don't we rehabilitate the driver, that will get the train moving'. So they rehabilitate the driver, who is buried in a proper little grave. However the train still does not begin to move. Then Brezhnev leans forward and says 'lets draw the curtains and pretend the train is still moving'.
Such was the economic history of the Soviet Union. The achievement of a late nineteenth century vision of economic power by means of violence ossified into a profoundly conservative system that became the foundation of social stability. The idea of change became the reality of no change. The attempts of Khrushchev to introduce change, whether maize growing (because as the story goes, he saw it in the USA and thought it looked good) or the virgin soil initiative (putting steppe pasture lands to the plough, worked well for a couple of years - then the soil was exhausted), itself became a threat in a system in which every five year plan had to seen to be be over-completed within four years .
The end result we see in the contemporary Russian economy, dependant again on the sale of raw materials, now largely hydro-carbons, to make ends meet instead of grain as in Imperial times, plus ca change...
Nove's book has a light, easy to read style (relatively speaking as books on economic history go) and is a good book to read if you are interested in the question of collectivisation and forced industrialisation, but it also works well as an introductory history to the Soviet Union as a whole because of the centrality of creating first economic growth and later economic stability to the entire Soviet system.
The lasting impression is that Russia and then the Soviet Union were and remain giants with feet of clay, determined to project an illusion of great power status off a poor agricultural base and latterly of course the sale of natural resources.
In the same way Alec Nove's economic history of the USSR comes at the history of the Soviet Union from a very particular angle, yet illuminates the whole period from 1917 down to 1991 in a comprehensive way.
The starting point is shortly after where Falkus' The Industrialisation of Russia leaves off, in the wake of the First World War and the following civil war. Imperial Russia had a period of rapid economic growth down to WWI but the country was nonetheless overwhelmingly agricultural and dependant on the sale of raw materials for foreign currency. Some industrial enterprises were very large, but technically unsophisticated . However coming from a very low base naturally the percentage of growth had been very fast. To rebuild the war damaged economy the Bolsheviks adopted the New Economic Policy (NEP) but the success of the policy created a political dilemma whether to have economic development driven by consumer demand or economic development driven by the state.
The subtext here is that this was the defining debate of developmental economics for much of the twentieth century and the crucial factor in the discussion was not one of economics as such but of the country's political place in the world.
There is a joke that goes like this, all the leaders of the Soviet Union are travelling on a train across the Soviet Union when the train suddenly stops. 'Why has the train stopped! Lets shoot the driver to get the train moving again' says Stalin. So the driver is dragged out of the cab and shot. However the train does not begin to move. After a while Khrushchev says 'Why don't we rehabilitate the driver, that will get the train moving'. So they rehabilitate the driver, who is buried in a proper little grave. However the train still does not begin to move. Then Brezhnev leans forward and says 'lets draw the curtains and pretend the train is still moving'.
Such was the economic history of the Soviet Union. The achievement of a late nineteenth century vision of economic power by means of violence ossified into a profoundly conservative system that became the foundation of social stability. The idea of change became the reality of no change. The attempts of Khrushchev to introduce change, whether maize growing (because as the story goes, he saw it in the USA and thought it looked good) or the virgin soil initiative (putting steppe pasture lands to the plough, worked well for a couple of years - then the soil was exhausted), itself became a threat in a system in which every five year plan had to seen to be be over-completed within four years .
The end result we see in the contemporary Russian economy, dependant again on the sale of raw materials, now largely hydro-carbons, to make ends meet instead of grain as in Imperial times, plus ca change...
Nove's book has a light, easy to read style (relatively speaking as books on economic history go) and is a good book to read if you are interested in the question of collectivisation and forced industrialisation, but it also works well as an introductory history to the Soviet Union as a whole because of the centrality of creating first economic growth and later economic stability to the entire Soviet system.
The lasting impression is that Russia and then the Soviet Union were and remain giants with feet of clay, determined to project an illusion of great power status off a poor agricultural base and latterly of course the sale of natural resources.
February 26, 2018
I picked this up after reading Vivek Chibber’s article in the new Jacobin where he argued that socialists have not done enough to study centralized planning.
I learned a lot. Here are a few highlights:
* the classical “command economy” did not develop immediately. It was put in place by Stalin during the period of the first five year plan. During the NEP period, planning was less rigid, there was of course a large private market, and nationalized enterprises had more leeway to determine production targets and buy inputs.
* from the first five year plan on, Soviet leaders maintained a confusing pricing system for food and consumer goods. A certain amount of goods would be sold at a ration-price below the cost of production. And another set would be sold at much higher prices. It encouraged black markets, hoarding, and distorted any chance that prices could be used to signal useful information. Pricing policy worsened inflation and shortages without making life better for workers - but Soviet leaders could brag about lower prices.
* Nove makes the point that the particular form of Soviet planning - where Gosplan would say “if we want to increase tractor production by x %, then we’ll y additional tons of steel, and to make that z tons of coal ... “ and so on - worked well to expand existing sectors of industry. But broke down when you wanted to create new products or industries. The Soviet chemical industry lagged for example.
* Production targets for furniture were measured in tons. Furniture makers made heavier couches.
* For a time in the 30s, each Machine Tractor Station had its own secret policeman. Stalin’s brutal deportation of the kulaks and forced collectivization couldn’t have happened without the vast expansion of the police system.
* 630,000 civilians died of freezing or starvation in Leningrad during the winter of 1941-42. The Soviet defeat of the Nazis was a remarkable achievement won at a huge cost.
This book didn’t make me a market socialist. If anything it made me want to study more the different varieties of socialist planning that started to develop in the 20s before Stalin assumed complete control. A good read.
I learned a lot. Here are a few highlights:
* the classical “command economy” did not develop immediately. It was put in place by Stalin during the period of the first five year plan. During the NEP period, planning was less rigid, there was of course a large private market, and nationalized enterprises had more leeway to determine production targets and buy inputs.
* from the first five year plan on, Soviet leaders maintained a confusing pricing system for food and consumer goods. A certain amount of goods would be sold at a ration-price below the cost of production. And another set would be sold at much higher prices. It encouraged black markets, hoarding, and distorted any chance that prices could be used to signal useful information. Pricing policy worsened inflation and shortages without making life better for workers - but Soviet leaders could brag about lower prices.
* Nove makes the point that the particular form of Soviet planning - where Gosplan would say “if we want to increase tractor production by x %, then we’ll y additional tons of steel, and to make that z tons of coal ... “ and so on - worked well to expand existing sectors of industry. But broke down when you wanted to create new products or industries. The Soviet chemical industry lagged for example.
* Production targets for furniture were measured in tons. Furniture makers made heavier couches.
* For a time in the 30s, each Machine Tractor Station had its own secret policeman. Stalin’s brutal deportation of the kulaks and forced collectivization couldn’t have happened without the vast expansion of the police system.
* 630,000 civilians died of freezing or starvation in Leningrad during the winter of 1941-42. The Soviet defeat of the Nazis was a remarkable achievement won at a huge cost.
This book didn’t make me a market socialist. If anything it made me want to study more the different varieties of socialist planning that started to develop in the 20s before Stalin assumed complete control. A good read.
July 29, 2025
A good comprehensive economic history of the Ussr - it does end in about 1970 and is a little outdated. The author’s own political views are also quite clearly anti-Marxist, and he is also characterises the introduction of women into the working industry as something negative, as wives being brought out from the home.
Was a good introduction for me anyway.. Relatively easy to read. The sources were also quite good, just a little outdated, and the author frequently mentions things ‘said privately’ (unverifiable + therefore speculation) in conjunction with his political opinions.
Was a good introduction for me anyway.. Relatively easy to read. The sources were also quite good, just a little outdated, and the author frequently mentions things ‘said privately’ (unverifiable + therefore speculation) in conjunction with his political opinions.
February 26, 2019
An excellent history about the side of which was the most important and least known aspect of Soviet experiment: the economy. From begining to end, nep to Gorbachev this book by a Soviet expert brings facts critically studied to the reader. Basic knowledge of Soviet history is recomended before reading but not economics expertise.
November 11, 2024
Toto bol absolútny banger, výborná analýza systému z dosť neutrálnej perspektívy, veľmi sa mi páčili sassy poznámky autora, all in all odporúčam každému koho zaujíma vývoj ekonomického systému Zssr od 1917 do 1965
November 12, 2017
Informative and easy book to read
February 18, 2020
Interesting but a bit outdated (finishing with Krushchev's fall). I bought the older edition rather than the updated one by accident :(
October 22, 2024
Nii kaua venis, aga kokkuvõttev osa tegelikult väga hea. NSVLi majandus toimiski täiesti teisel alusel, mis pole kohandatav Lääne-Euroopa riikide ajaloolisele alusele ja seega on igasugune spekuleerimine pseudo.
"We could perhaps agree that the U.S.S.R. did industrialize rapidly after 1928, that in doing so it had to overcome grave difficulties of a kind which the United States did not have to face (social, political, geographic, very different historical traditions, etc.) and that the word 'rapidly' cannot, from our present information, be given precision...Each country's growth path and development potential are a function of many factors unique to them, and copying is frequently quite impracticable, or would lead to very different results in an uncongenial environment."
"We could perhaps agree that the U.S.S.R. did industrialize rapidly after 1928, that in doing so it had to overcome grave difficulties of a kind which the United States did not have to face (social, political, geographic, very different historical traditions, etc.) and that the word 'rapidly' cannot, from our present information, be given precision...Each country's growth path and development potential are a function of many factors unique to them, and copying is frequently quite impracticable, or would lead to very different results in an uncongenial environment."
July 11, 2024
A slightly opinionated account of a massive chunk of events.
The author does a good job of reporting different points of view in his summary.
I find the book a good starting point for understanding economic events throughout the history of the USSR. One can move to the many references provided for deeper explanations, but the book is useful for getting an idea of the macro trends characterizing different periods between 1917 and 1991.
The author does a good job of reporting different points of view in his summary.
I find the book a good starting point for understanding economic events throughout the history of the USSR. One can move to the many references provided for deeper explanations, but the book is useful for getting an idea of the macro trends characterizing different periods between 1917 and 1991.
September 24, 2023
Interesting and easy to read. Obviously it does not get into too much detail (especially after Stalin's period) so it mainly serves as a light introduction to the topic. Nove's engagement with soviet authors is cool.
September 23, 2013
گرچه بعد از بن بست نظام به اصطلاح سوسیالیستی و فروپاشی شوروی سابق و شکست مارکسیسم ممکنه خوندن چنین کتابی اتلاف وقت به نظر برسه ولی تا وقتی که هنوز هم آدمهای به ظاهر معقول ولی عملا خیال پردازی از این نظام شکست خورده یا مشابه اون دفاع می کنند ، به نظرم باز هم خوندن این جور کتابها بی فایده نیست.
April 24, 2025
A pretty decent, if short, history of the USSR's economy from 1918-1968. While the author was obviously interested in pointing out the many flaws in the Industrialization process from above, I found the haughtiness of the criticism annoying.
This is due to the fact of never really thinking about what Industrialization meant in places like the UK and USA: tens of millions of murdered, enslaved, or colonized foreigners, as well as millions of lives here at home ground into dust and fed into the machine of a capitalist economy. What of the millions who were never even made literate by their "democratic" governments, and at the mere whim of the market made to beg on the streets and send their 6 year old children into the mines.
This is due to the fact of never really thinking about what Industrialization meant in places like the UK and USA: tens of millions of murdered, enslaved, or colonized foreigners, as well as millions of lives here at home ground into dust and fed into the machine of a capitalist economy. What of the millions who were never even made literate by their "democratic" governments, and at the mere whim of the market made to beg on the streets and send their 6 year old children into the mines.
August 24, 2018
I read this in 1993, and am writing these words in 2018, twenty-five years later, so I am not really reviewing the book, but rather describing how I remember it. That is to say, I read it expecting it to be the most crashing bore (but perhaps enlightening), and found that it was surprisingly interesting - and also enlightening, so BONUS!
I have found that I cite this book whenever I want to give an example of a title that sounds really off-putting yet should be read for the pleasant surprise that awaits.
I have found that I cite this book whenever I want to give an example of a title that sounds really off-putting yet should be read for the pleasant surprise that awaits.
September 10, 2025
It's a good synopsis of the Soviet economy through the years. Nove is able to keep it tight but informative throughout the whole book and it functions as a great introductory point into a general understanding of Soviet economics, both the good and the bad. Definitely recommend for those who don't know much about the Soviet economy and want a complex, but not arcane, explanation.
The only criticism I have for it is that you can feel Alec Nove's bias for 'market socialism' in this book at multiple points. It lacks a clear objectivity most other works have. Regardless, it is very valuable.
The only criticism I have for it is that you can feel Alec Nove's bias for 'market socialism' in this book at multiple points. It lacks a clear objectivity most other works have. Regardless, it is very valuable.
October 9, 2025
Excellent introduction to soviet economics. It is true that Nove is not exactly "neutral" when he talks about subjects like the horrible famines caused by mismanagement (how could one be?), however his personal interjections and vivid accounts help to draw the reader into a subject that is somewhat justifiably regarded as otherwise boring. Nove also uses wit and humor at various occasions to pretty decent effect.
In addition, book offers a wide range of statistics which help visualize (or make graspable) his observations and arguments.
In addition, book offers a wide range of statistics which help visualize (or make graspable) his observations and arguments.
May 24, 2021
An excellent read and very insightful. I really enjoyed Nove’s writing style and the plethora of stats is extremely impressive, especially given the date of publication.
I did, however, find the economic analysis rather lacking. Nove makes little attempt to go beyond basic analysis and evaluation, and I would’ve enjoyed a greater insight into the planners’ methods and innovations. This is my reasoning for the deduction of one star.
Overall, a really enjoyable read.
I did, however, find the economic analysis rather lacking. Nove makes little attempt to go beyond basic analysis and evaluation, and I would’ve enjoyed a greater insight into the planners’ methods and innovations. This is my reasoning for the deduction of one star.
Overall, a really enjoyable read.
November 16, 2021
The misleading propaganda of yet another useful idiot. Sure, the output figures were true because ”they were used in planning”. Only the people who care about the subject should know there were three official statistics: the ones used by people like Nove, the secret ones for the party leaders, and the top secret ones for top party leaders.
February 15, 2021
Really struggled to get into this book
February 26, 2021
A very informative analysis the USSR's economy from the revolution to the Gorbachev era.
July 20, 2021
Thrilling stuff. Highly recommend to anyone who is interested in reading about the Bolsheviks and their botching of agriculture for 70 years.
December 29, 2022
A few nuggets about Russian economic development post 1928, but booked is largely dated. Some good statistical references.
August 3, 2023
Its an economic History of an incredibly depressing history and period of time.
April 25, 2024
Authorative but with poor prose.
November 16, 2024
4,25 ⭐
January 26, 2025
Very good, I recommend!
March 31, 2023
Despite the author's Anti-Stalin sentiments, an excellent detail of the entirety of the economy in the greatest nation in history is made quite well.
April 15, 2024
Dense, but a text which is absolutely essential for those studying Soviet economic history.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews