It couldn't feed people on its own, except by manufacturing goods and trading them for food? That's hardly damning of the USSR (though it certainly is worthy of damnation, for other reasons); other countries do the same thing now, for both agricultural and manufactured goods. The point is, people had enough food to survive, which is the point I was addressing. Similarly, you could avoid state violence by accepting the system without complaint. A terrible way to eke out an existence, but not a difficult one if you have low expectations of human dignity.
It couldn't feed people on its own, except by manufacturing goods and trading them for food?
Where did I say it got food from the US (and other countries) by trading manufactured goods? How many Soviet manufactured goods do you remember seeing in Western countries?
What the Soviet Union actually "traded" for food was concessions on treaty issues like nuclear weapons. Which was particularly convenient for them since most of what they conceded was not actually verifiable, so the "concessions" amounted to making promises they had no intention of keeping, in exchange for actual stuff.
The point is, people had enough food to survive, which is the point I was addressing.
No, the point you were addressing was that the system in which the people lived was able to provide for them, which was not true of the Soviet Union. If the West had not agreed to play the USSR's con game of trading non-verifiable concessions for actual stuff for decades, the USSR would have collapsed a lot sooner than it did.
You have a very mistaken view of Soviet trade, if you think "we promise not to develop nuclear weapons, if you give us grain!" It's wishful thinking, akin to a leftist claims that the USA gets all its manufactured goods by enslaving developing countries.
The Soviet Union imported large amounts of grain due to a deeply broken agricultural system, which I believe we're in full agreement on. But this wasn't in exchange for merely making unverifiable promises to the West (why would the United States have agreed to that, even?). Much trade was with other socialist countries, for one. And although Western countries received few Soviet manufactured goods, they, then as now, imported large quantities of Soviet commodities, particularly oil and natural gas.
Indeed, its reliance on oil for hard cash is what led in part to its downfall, as oil prices collapsed in the 80s, putting significant strains on the system as the pie got much smaller while more and more resources were needed to satisfy rising consumer demands and ill-conceived land wars in Asia.
I'll admit such a view is simplistic, yes. However, I think it played more of a role than you appear to believe it did.
Much trade was with other socialist countries, for one.
I'm not sure this makes much difference, since those other countries were just as messed up. (I also have a hard time taking any numbers that can be found for this at face value anyway, just as I am skeptical of pretty much any numbers that were internally generated by Eastern Bloc countries. Not that Western countries' numbers are miracles of accuracy either, but at least they get a lot more independent checking because the underlying data is more easily available.)
And although Western countries received few Soviet manufactured goods
In other words, you agree with me that this was not a significant factor. Ok.
they, then as now, imported large quantities of Soviet commodities, particularly oil and natural gas
I agree that the West got large quantities of oil and natural gas from the USSR; the question is, at what prices? And at what prices did we sell them grain and other foodstuffs in return? I suspect that the respective answers are "high prices" and "low prices"; the trades were not ordinary free market trades because of the political factors involved.
