1. It was just impossible, and any workers' councils and soviet super OGAS computers could not help in that regard (but, but that was not THE real communism,

)
Ok, the integration workers councils are a very complex topic. But OGAS, was not just a method of more efficient planning, but of automatization. The Soviets had the potential to automize a lot of their productions, but some conservative party cadres prevented this, to save their power. If it was implemeted, it would give the USSR an immense economic boom, and would free a large part of workforce, which could be used in other parts of the economy. So it would have helped. Oh and by the way, this 'It wasn't real communism' is only an argument brought up by a few left communists. Most commies dont bring this up, but rather analyse what really went right or wrong in those states.
No, no, no.
There wasn't a thing like the one, homonegous third world, which only dreamt about being liberated from evil white american neocolonial imperialists.
There were huge areas of the world, which had diffrent interests, allies, and cultural views. What you wrote is inderectly repeating a typical communist "liberation" propaganda from Africa or whatever.
Of course there is no homogenous third world. But all third world nations have some things in common. They are mostly poor, and are in risk of becoming a victim of capitalist neo-collonialism.
Neo-collonialism is an act, where capitalist corporations invest into a third world country and sell their products there a lot cheaper than regional market prices. With that, they destroy the whole national economy and make this nation completely dependent on them. Then they can exploit the nations resourches, exploit its workforce, use it as market and build military bases there.
Because if this government doesnt allow this to happen, the capitalists can easily withdraw their investment and destroy the national economy. And if you ask 'Well, why does'nt this country then invite others to invest in its economy?', there were examples where this happened, or where the government wanted to end neo-collonialism as a whole in this nation. Chile, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, Vietnam, China, etc.
The list is very long. And in everyone of thos e cases, the capitalists and capitalist states have sponsored coups, invaded or backed a reactionary government. Cause there are allways people who would like to have power, regardless who funded them.
Capitalism is an economic system based on profit. And reality shows that slave labour and cheap resources are allways profitable
The USSR and the other communist bloc nations actively funded anti-neo-collonialist movements.
Also if I can agree about crucial spots and ressources, I cannot agree about markets and oceans of cheal labour. Markets - they are important when you could sell anything on them, and very poor areas don't provide much consumers, and economy and international trade during that period was much smaller than now. Cheap labour? And why did they need it? They have enough workers home, yet even still wast "oceans" of human resources in those countries of cheap labour are unused. Well, the US if really needed cheap labour during that period had Mexico, not need for "oceans".
OK, about markets. Third world markets, then and today, still play an important role in international economics. Products, which were not bought in the first world
(Which are quite a lot), are then shipped to the third world , where they are sold at very low prices. This serves two reasons:
1. To gain at least some profits from those products and
2. To undercut the local prices (which, again, makes the countries dependent , and forces the into neo-colonial exploitation).
And on the question of 'why did'nt they just use their workers at home'? Because americans would not work under slavery-like relations. Why do you think its called 'cheap' labour? And about the Mexico example, of course each nation has its national circumstances (not every nation is arable, not every nation has oil or gas), so different corporations operate in different countries (or at least have their focus there). Also there is a relation between, how jobs are payed, and how people in those jobs are educated. Because if you are educated AND this education is needed (if its not needed, than you have to work in worse paid jobs), then you will be of value.
In Mexico people were not educates that well, but also not as bad as in other third world nations (on average), and they had better living conditions than other poor states. Because they served another use. And if you have a lot of cheap labour, you can treat your workers very badly, and they cant do anything about it, cause if they do, you have an mass of unemployed or small farmers, who can barely survive, who would take their place. Umemployment or at least underemployment are a key thing inherent in capitalism, as they serve a specific use.
On your claim that international trade wasn't that important back then, well, thats not really true. Sums of money from the trade were not as large, but economies were smaller, too. Foreign trade in this time served the same use, and followed the same rules, which it does today (at least between capitalist nations).
The Soviet Empire didn't fought for gaining more trade partners, just to spread their ideology, and by the way also for gaining better geostrategic position (so example supporting Egypt, interests in Yemen and the Horn of Africa), but the ideology was the primarly motive for them. It wasn't a normal state, which had interests and promote them and defeats its positions. It was an ideological jugenerault, which operated fueled by its sick ideology, which ideology's inherit economical flaws finally lead to its demise.
Oh yeas it did. They Soviet Union suffered badly from western economic sanctions, by being not able to use ressources or trade with nations freely (only with US dollars, which the ruble was not freely exchangeable into). The main reason why people in the eastern bloc didnt have some things like tropical fruits, special Cheese, western consumer goods, etc, was because the west didnt allow them to buy those goods (hm due to a miracle, Cuban tropical fruits COULD be bought in the communist bloc).
And do you really think, all the the communist leadership belived in the ideology? Or that most of the Nazis did? Or that the elites in the west today do today? Ideology is the perfect tool to legitimize your power. Or the power of your clique.
Of course there were some in the leadership, which belived what they said, but many just used it as a tool.
And on the trading partners, the USSRs imports only accounted for 4% of its GNP, just like its exports. But these 4% were important, especially for certain consuler products and ressources. And every country that used rubles as its trading curency, helped strenghen the soviet economic influence on the worlds stage.
Oh, and on the Communist system. I will talk about this later, but I want to say this: The USSR and the communist bloc had a higher economic growth than the US and the west, and they had faster growing living standarts (yes they had and the people saw this. The problem is, that the communist bloc had a completely different historical backround than the west. Western europe had its industrial revolution in the late 1700s. The US around 1800. The USSR had its own in the 1930, much of the other eastern bloc had their industrialisation in the 1950s. The USA and Western European nations were major imperialist powers, while ALL of the eastern bloc nations (except for the Russian SFSR) were collonies of foreign nations). In the 80s many of the communist nations faced economic crissis (not all). The USSR and Poland faced a serious agricultural crissis due to mistakes and bad harvests, while Romanis and Hungary faced crisis because of the state debts. Living standarts in some parts decreasd, but increased in others aswell.
And the communist bloc would have come out of that crisis a few years later. Every crisis ends, state debts are paid off and pollicy errors reversed (the last point is difficult, but the Soviets had a lot of technocracy integrated into their system).
And, why should a planned economy not work? In todays China, 350 million people work in the state sector, and the state owns the larger part in many joint ventures. Still, the PR. China has the largest economy in the world and an economic growth, three tumes higher than that of the US and Germany.
The Soviet Union was not unlikely to the Third Reich...
The Soviet Union had rational, socio-economic interests like any other nation.
And the USSR was in no regard like Nazi Germany. The USSR had a completely different socio-economic system, a different ethical code, and a different historical backround and culture.
Comparing the Soviets to the Nazis was a tool of American cold war propaganda (just like the Soviets compared the US to Nazi Germany).
The SU drowe a lot of money in supporting "liberation", when the USA also lost a lot of money there, but at least the US had sources of money, and their population had a high living standard. When in the SU population lived in bad conditions (yes, yes, I know about so super soviet callorites equal to american consumption ). I know how looked that in Poland, and living conditions in the Soviet Union were worse, really, really worse. Even in the richest european republics. Do you know what was the biggest economical succes of socialist economy in Poland? A development of rural areas. Why did it happen? Thanks to socialism? Partialy, yes, partliany no. Yes, because in a planed economy prices of agricultural products were just as anything else totally crazy and set by the state, so they were high and allowed peasants to live earn relativly good even from small plots of land, like 4 hectars, and having two or three cows, and adding to that some work in a real economy, they had even enough money to built brick/airbrick houses and barns. But it was against socialism, why? Because the commies here wanted to collectivize agriculture, but they failed and after 1956 the polish version of kolkhozes dissolved, yes independent peasants were salt in wounds for the Party still, and to the nearly very end, the Party declared the need of collectivization, but luckily they didn't had will to do it.
Yes, the USSR spent a lot of money on proxy wars in the third world. But not nearly as much as the US.
As someone once said 'Supporting a revolution is not nearly as difficult as putting it down'.
This is of course oversimplified, and the USSR was not allways the great freedom fighter, but they didnt engage in neo-collonialism', and funded freedon fighters accross the third world.
Actually I myself have multiple friends and colleagues from Poland, Russia, Romania, and I have family in the former DDR. No, of course this alone doesnt legitimize my points, but I have talked to those people a lot and I know how live in the communist bloc was. Im not just 'Some Soviet Fanboy from the US', like you said.
I also have read a lot about those topics, out of interest. No, the communist bloc wasnt all good.
But those points about faster growth, allmost full employment (the DDR had 0,2% employment, mostly alcoholics and mentally ill), no homelessnes, free education, free and good healthcare (except for the late 90s after Gorbatchevs wild mass privazisation), cheap necessities, cheap cultural activities, etc.
It was not all bad, actually the Soviets used their potential much better than the US.
Ok, now to Poland. Poland had massive growth in the 50s, during the industrialisation. Living standarts grew at a slower but steady rate. Then after Bierut's death, Gomulka took over. The focus shifted towards so called 'Goulash communism', which focused more on consumer goods and implemented some market reforms (economic growth slowed down a little after that, but still was higher than the western average). After Gomulka was deposed and Gierek took over, the course again changed. Poland took massive debts from the west, to import consumer goods (which among other things, led to the immense rise in meat consumption. The average pole consumed more meet than the average american. Oh, and if you want sources for anything, I can deliver). This focus on consumer goods imports, and not so much on economic growth, of course backfired and stare debts grew ro a point, where no more loans were given. Poland had to pay back, and the austerity course, together with bad harvests, caused the rise of the Solidarnosc trade union, which further hurt the national economy. The crisis peaked at a point, where state owned shops had a shortage of food and other necessities (the state shops, NOT the free markets, and the state stores mostly had shortages, because they still sold at ridiculously low prices. Rationing is bad, but better than risking that people wouldnt get the cheap stuff, and maybe couldnt pay the market prices). Riots became bad and there was a risk of civil war between Beton and Solidarnosc (at least according to some historians). In 1981, the Soviet backed military coup, led by Jaruzlski, which increased stabiliy somewhat, but couldnt end the crisis. In 1989, Jaruszelski stepped down, amd capitalism was restored, causing the economy to collapse completely . It recovered during the 90s.
The reality is that the Soviet Union didn't have anything to offer, except propaganda babling about bad imperialists. It is only for you if you believe in that. If in the Third World they wanted to be rich, they needed to work hard, have a good organization, instead of blaming all on imperialists. Be like asian tigers, not like India, which after the independence had a failled economical policy, which only changes in 1990, and this country started to grow.
The Soviets had a lot to offer. To name some examples, the Soviets exported oil, gas, heavy indutrial goods, and some special consumer goods to the west. But as its imports, the exports only accounted for 4% of their GNP.
And people in the third world work a LOOOOT harder and longer than people in the first world. This 'Oh those lazy children in India, making shoes under slave relations 12 hours a day' is just bullshit and ignorance (I dont mean you are ignorant, I dont know you, and I dont want to insult you. I just wanted to say that). They are poor, because they are kept poor, as this is profitable for large corporations (you know, neo-collonialism and stuff).
Ok, the good old 'But, but what about the Tigers?' argument. The Tigers grew that much because of massive western investment, to use the as anti-communist Bulwarks in key locations (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Macau against the PRC ; Sinagpor against south east asian communism, etc.), and because they had a relatively small population. And also because it was more profitable to capitalism as a whole to de-stabilize asian communism, than to exploit those small nations.
So, the only option for the tiger model is, if your country is small, close to a communist superpower, of geopollitical importance, and if a new cold war between communism aand capitalism breaks out. Otherwise, no. India had a large economic growth, sometimes larger than china (and china sometimes reached an average of 10% during the cold war). After the cold war ended, massive investment flowed in. For a short time, the economy grew faster than before, but after that strongly decreased again (that happens, when investment flows in).
I could go on for much longer, but I am tired. If you have criticism or questions, or want any sources, ask me.
Oh and, this was in my opinion neccessary to understand this discussion properly. So it had to do with this threat.