The Economics of the Soviet Union

[RedStar]

Disclaimer: this is strictly an economics thread. If you're replying with idealism or moralism, you're unwelcome. I don't want to get into a "Which was more evil - USA or USSR" debate again.


There are many indicators that can be measured in order to determine economic growth. Literacy, industrial production, life expectancy, caloric consumption, healthcare availability, and many more, are all examples of indicators that can be measured. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was founded in 1922 and dissolved in 1991. In order to acquire the fullest understanding of the economics of the Soviet Union, we must take into consideration the economic condition of Imperial Russia before the establishment of the Soviet Union; and it is generally helpful to examine the economic condition of the Russian Federation following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union can generally be divided into two economic periods: Stalin, and post-Stalin. The Stalin era saw the introduction of Five-Year-Plans, industrial quotas, emphasis on war goods production, and emphasis on infrastructure and capital expansion over consumer goods expansion. The post-Stalin era saw the introduction of "market reforms".

Food

Contrary to misguided public opinion, famines existed before the Soviet Union, too. The Imperial Russian Famine of 1891-1892 affected millions of Russians and led to hundreds of thousands dead; by all measures, a mild famine. Major famines in 1906 and 1911 also afflicted Imperial Russia. The notion that the Bolsheviks could have ended hunger overnight is, therefore, erroneous. Famines occurred periodically throughout the history of Imperial Russia.
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1994-5/Lilly.htm

The first famine to afflict the Soviet Union was the famine of 1922-1923, which occurred during the Soviet collectivization of agriculture. It was, markedly, a time of great of upheaval. The Russian Civil War had just about ended, and the Russian people were still recovering from the devastating loses they incurred during World War I. 76.3% of all deployed Russian forces during the Great War were casualties of war, with 1.7 million killed and another 4.7 million wounded. This is not including the damage to the already-limited Russian infrastructure at the time
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html

This presented many problems. The young men sent out to the battlefields of World War I were themselves the next generation of laborers, by and large. The sheer slaughter of Russians during the war presented the country with a shortage of able-bodied laborers, farmers, and the sort. The collectivization of Soviet agriculture was an unprecedented event. The Bolsheviks were truly the first to attempt to institute socialism, in a country which was largely underdeveloped.

Generally, Russia was economically backward; and by 1880 an industrial revolution had not taken place. The Urals did have iron industries and textiles were manufactured in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Russia was too big and her road and rail network not sufficiently developed.

Although [Imperial] Russian industrialisation was a success story, Russian industry was by no means firmly established by 1914, when the war struck.

http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3753.html

To be sure, Imperial Russia had undergone some level of industrialization by the time of the Russian Revolution, but it woefully lagged behind the industrial output of the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and virtually all the other major countries at play in the Great War.

The Famine of 1922-1923 was largely due to the poor planning of the confiscation of grain by the Bolsheviks. The other major Soviet famine, the Famine of 1932-1933, occurred after the collectivization of agriculture under Stalin; again, largely an unprecedented event with no previous historical examples to follow. The death tolls of the famines combined is, assuredly, in the millions and is the main constituent of the oft-quoted "death toll of the Soviet Union". Nevertheless, after these tumultuous times, Soviet food production stabilized and no other major shortages of food occurred post-1933.

Industry

The Soviet Union is considered by some historians, such as Robert C. Allen, to be the most rapidly industrialized country in history. Here are some estimates for the rate of growth in net industrial production from 1928-1940:

Official Soviet: 21.7%
Hodgman (not including armaments): 12.9%
Nutter (not including armaments, 1928 prices): 9.2%
Nutter (including armaments, 1928 prices): 10%
Kaplan-Moorsteen: (not including armaments): 8.4%
Unofficial Soviet estimate (in 1980 prices): 9%

(From Davies, The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union)

In addition:

The Soviet development model implies that allocating capital to the producer goods sector should lead to higher consumption growth than would otherwise have been possible. Bergson and Chapman called the pertinence of this model into question by propounding the view that consumption per head declined in the 1930's. The history of wages, prices, food production and mortality do not support that pessimism. Consumption did, indeed, languish during the First Five-Year Plan. The explanation has nothing to do with the logic of accumulation-collectivisation was the culprit. Once farm production rebounded from that catastrophe, consumption rose rapidly. By the late 1930's, the production of manufactured consumer goods had increased almost 80 percent.
While this increase is important in understanding the growth of the economy in the 1930's, it also has important implications for the study of politics. The totalitarian model views the state as exclusively oppressive and the population as disaffected and controlled through terror. Historians are questioning this monolithic model. Fitzpatrick (1979) has suggested that the upwardly mobile workers and peasants who formed the new intelligentsia and administrative hierarchy supported Stalinism since they were its beneficiaries. Siegelbaum (1988) has suggested that Stakhanovites also gained from the system and, therefore had a reason to support it. Thurston (1996) has gone furthest in suggesting that Stalinism enjoyed wide support among urban workers. The formation of political attitudes is complex and not immediately reducible to economics, but the standard of living does matter. What we have shown in this chapter is that many people did benefit materially from the economic development of the 1930's. The gainers included the new administrative elite and the Stakhanovites. The millions who migrated to the industrial cities were a much bigger group of beneficiaries. By the late 1930's, urban residents and industrial workers, teachers and bureaucrats had economic reasons for supporting the Soviet state.

- Robert C. Allen, Farm to Factory

It can easily argued that the entire course of history would be different had the Soviet Union not rapidly industrialized and therefore developed a military capable of defeating Nazi Germany. Indeed, unlike the United States, the Soviet Union suffered enormous casualties and entire Soviet cities were leveled from years of gruel fighting.

The Soviet Union lost approximately 24 million men (at least) during World War 2. That's a significant segment of the able-bodied population, devastated within a generation after establishing the Soviet Union. Despite this, the Soviet Union went on to directly challenge the United States after World War II.
http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.asp


Medicine and Education

Soviet health care achieved many breakthroughs in the course of its development. By 1931, the Soviet Union had tripled its supply of medical doctors. Life expectancy increased; literacy was reduced to virtually nil within a decade, and healthcare was generally available to even the poorest provinces (e.g. Kyrgyzstan)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7318385.stm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/news...cine/index.htm

The above source provides an excellent overview of the successes and failures of the Soviet health care model, all with documented analysis.

Soviet education in science and mathematics was on par with the United States, and in many cases superior. In addition, the Soviet Union had a more uniform distribution of literacy and basic skills competency (no doubt due to the fact that segregation and racism were, and continue to be, problematic in the United States)
www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199102_steen.pdf

--------------

All that being established and sourced, how has the Russian Federation fared today?

In Russia, free-market reform resulted in

GDP falling by by 54%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Industrial Production falling by 60%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Consumer Spending falling by 38% in one year.
(Parenti 1997, "Blackshirts & Reds")

Poverty increased from 2% in 1989 to 23% in 1998.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Child poverty increased to 50%.
(Stiglitz 2002, "Globalisation and its discontents")

Life Expectancy:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...im=country:RUS

 

[quadraphonics]

I don't want to get into a "Which was more evil - USA or USSR" debate again.

I find that very difficult to believe.

All that being established and sourced, how has the Russian Federation fared today?

It is intellectually dishonest to exclude the effects of the implosion of the USSR from an accounting of its effects. Pretty much all of the chaos and decline in the decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union should be rightfully attributed to the Soviet system. That stuff is a direct effect of pursuing an unsustainable system to the breaking point.

 

[RedStar]

It is intellectually dishonest to exclude the effects of the implosion of the USSR from an accounting of its effects. Pretty much all of the chaos and decline in the decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union should be rightfully attributed to the Soviet system. That stuff is a direct effect of pursuing an unsustainable system to the breaking point.

It is a fair conclusion to suggest that the dissolution of the Soviet Union left an atmosphere of political and economic "chaos" which negatively impacted the Russian Federation, but if you are claiming that it is, in fact, a lingering effect of "unsustainable Soviet policy", then I'll expect you to back it up. As it is, I've provided evidence that the Soviet Union in fact outperformed many of her competitors and did rather well considering the hurdles it overcame.

 

[Tiassa]

Not really

I find that very difficult to believe.

No, the point of it is to divert attention from the state's role. Note the line, "Contrary to misguided public opinion, famines existed before the Soviet Union, too." This is true enough, but the 1932-33 famine was largely the result of collectivization, and an infamous quote from Stalin's regime is that the famine reminded peasants who was in charge. Note that our neighbor's examination of Soviet famine says nothing of increasing the Ukranian procurement quota by over forty percent.

Enforcing that against a starving populace? It is no wonder that another infamous line suggests that "before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings".

Remember that our neighbor operates from the presupposition that the Soviet failure is everyone else's fault.

 

[quadraphonics]

It is a fair conclusion to suggest that the dissolution of the Soviet Union left an atmosphere of political and economic "chaos" which negatively impacted the Russian Federation, but if you are claiming that it is, in fact, a lingering effect of "unsustainable Soviet policy", then I'll expect you to back it up.

I feel no particular need to "back up" statements of obvious, uncontroversial fact. You can go ahead and refuse to accept them, but all that will accomplish is to further damage your credibility.

 

[RedStar]

No, the point of it is to divert attention from the state's role. Note the line, "Contrary to misguided public opinion, famines existed before the Soviet Union, too." This is true enough, but the 1932-33 famine was largely the result of collectivization, and an infamous quote from Stalin's regime is that the famine reminded peasants who was in charge. Note that our neighbor's examination of Soviet famine says nothing of increasing the Ukranian procurement quota by over forty percent.

Enforcing that against a starving populace? It is no wonder that another infamous line suggests that "before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings".

Remember that our neighbor operates from the presupposition that the Soviet failure is everyone else's fault.

No, I operate from the supposition that famine was never going to magically disappear overnight. If famine is a measure of the failure of an economic system, then capitalism has been discredited ages ago.

I feel no particular need to "back up" statements of obvious, uncontroversial fact. You can go ahead and refuse to accept them, but all that will accomplish is to further damage your credibility.

No, I'm agreeing that the rather sudden dissolution of the Soviet bloc left the people in a state of confusion and turmoil, but that's not because of "Soviet economics". Soviet economics built all the infrastructure and means of production they had to begin with.

 

[quadraphonics]

No, I'm agreeing that the rather sudden dissolution of the Soviet bloc left the people in a state of confusion and turmoil, but that's not because of "Soviet economics". Soviet economics built all the infrastructure and means of production they had to begin with.

And Soviet economics resulted in the political crisis and subsequent dissolution of the USSR.

I know, of course, that you are going to pretend that it was some other cause, but it was not. And nobody is going to take your protestations to the contrary seriously. This is a settled issue, and you signal yourself as a crank by insisting on dieing on this hill.

 

[RedStar]

And Soviet economics resulted in the political crisis and subsequent dissolution of the USSR.

Perhaps, but the Soviet Union changed many of their policies with Kruschev and the following decades. "Socialism" actually worked pretty well before Kruschev, from a purely economical standpoint. And a great deal of why there was unrest in the U.S.S.R was nationalism rearing its ugly head.

I know, of course, that you are going to pretend that it was some other cause, but it was not. And nobody is going to take your protestations to the contrary seriously. This is a settled issue, and you signal yourself as a crank by insisting on dieing on this hill.

Except all the people that do, like educated academics and fellow leftists. Quit pretending to speak for everybody.

 

[quadraphonics]

Perhaps, but the Soviet Union changed many of their policies with Kruschev and the following decades. "Socialism" actually worked pretty well before Kruschev, from a purely economical standpoint.

The reason they changed those policies was that they were no longer appropriate and so no longer working. As we discussed in our very first interaction on SciForums, in your very first thread here, central planning was pretty effective at the basic stages of industrialization. Once that was accomplished, it could no longer cope with the complexity of the markets that resulted and it failed. That said system worked pretty well in early industrialization and then crashed is just that.

Except all the people that do, like educated academics and fellow leftists.

Go ahead and cite some noteworthy support for your position, if you can.

Quit pretending to speak for everybody.

Quit pretending that the consensus is anything other than what I describe.

 

[RedStar]

The reason they changed those policies was that they were no longer appropriate and so no longer working. As we discussed in our very first interaction on SciForums, in your very first thread here, central planning was pretty effective at the basic stages of industrialization. Once that was accomplished, it could no longer cope with the complexity of the markets that resulted and it failed. That said system worked pretty well in early industrialization and then crashed is just that.

No, we never established that. Only a fool would ignore this thing called World War II utterly decimating the Soviet Union. And Kruschev did not introduce "market reforms" out of necessity, but ideology. Refer to his 1956 "Secret Speech". In fact, it seems to be the case that the more "market reforms" they instituted, the worse the economy declined. Obviously there is some merit, however, to the programs of the Soviet union considering their jump from a semifeudal backwater in 1917 to a world superpower in 30 years. Like I said, we (Marxists) are not seeking to replicate the U.S.S.R, but to look at its history and learn about what worked and what didn't.

Go ahead and cite some noteworthy support for your position, if you can.

"My position"? You mean, as a Marxist? Just look up any Marxist academic. Obviously, people will disagree, like Keynesians and Austrians (schools of thought, although both are capitalists). Or you can look at the various left-wing parties around the world.

Quit pretending that the consensus is anything other than what I describe.

Hardly. If it was, socialist and communist parties in Europe wouldn't be as large as they are. Or in India. Or Nepal, or Latin America.

Most Americans can't even demonstrate a basic understanding of Marxist thought, and will label Obama a communist. I don't really care what the consensus among them is.

 

[quadraphonics]

No, we never established that.

I didn't say that we "established" anything. What I did was remind you of the conversations we've already had that detailed my views on the subject - which also happen to be the overwhelming consensus views - and which you seem to keep forgetting about.

We are not, in point of fact, ever going to "establish" anything. You aren't engaging in the sort of intellectually honest way implied by such. I have no expectation of ever "establishing" anything with you, and you should not interpret my responses to you as indicating open intellectual engagement (nor the endorsement of your pretense of seriousness that such would imply). It is established that you are a rigid ideologue out to relitigate settled issues, with zero room for honest consideration of any input.

Only a fool would ignore this thing called World War II utterly decimating the Soviet Union.

Well, then, since nobody has ignored such one wonders what sort of foolishness would motivate you to imply as much.

And Kruschev did not introduce "market reforms" out of necessity, but ideology.

False dilemma.

And the economic reforms were more a Brezhnev thing than a Kruschev thing.

In fact, it seems to be the case that the more "market reforms" they instituted, the worse the economy declined.

Correlation is not causation.

Obviously there is some merit, however, to the programs of the Soviet union considering their jump from a semifeudal backwater in 1917 to a world superpower in 30 years.

Nobody has disagreed that central planning can work in the early stages of industrialization. The point is that it doesn't work for more developed economies, and so is irrelevant to Russia (and many other places) today.

Like I said, we (Marxists) are not seeking to replicate the U.S.S.R, but to look at its history and learn about what worked and what didn't.

Your ideological predisposition and the anti-scientific approach to history it demands, prevent you from making heads or tails of such an issue. You're spending all your time on propaganda exercises, trumpetting the successes of the early phases of the Soviet economy while signally failing to even accept - let alone, deal with - the later issues. This is incompatible with genuine scientific analysis of the economic history of the USSR. Which is to say that you are not looking to learn anything, but to sell something.

"My position"? You mean, as a Marxist? Just look up any Marxist academic. Obviously, people will disagree, like Keynesians and Austrians (schools of thought, although both are capitalists). Or you can look at the various left-wing parties around the world.

Weak cop-out. If you aren't going to defend your own position substantively, I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you.

Hardly. If it was, socialist and communist parties in Europe wouldn't be as large as they are. Or in India. Or Nepal, or Latin America.

Your conflation of "socialist" and "communist" politics misleads. Almost all of those "socialists" are, according to you, nothing more than capitalists. The remaining genuine communists are a marginal phenomenon that goes to my point.

Most Americans can't even demonstrate a basic understanding of Marxist thought, and will label Obama a communist.
I don't really care what the consensus among them is.

You clearly care very much about that, as you've made it your entire mission here to constantly tilt at that windmill. And we note, again, your self-serving, anecdotal strawmanning of an entire nationality.

The fact of the matter is that your understanding of Marxism and Soviet history has been repeatedly, routinely upstaged by Americans here at SciForums and this drives you nuts, and so you retreat into these silly strawman ideations to attempt to shore up your little drama. Your bluster impresses exactly nobody.

 

[RedStar]

It is established that you are a rigid ideologue out to relitigate settled issues, with zero room for honest consideration of any input.

You are the one engaging in personal attacks and accusations, not me.

Correlation is not causation.

Agreed. This little rule can be applied in oh so many situations, however.

Nobody has disagreed that central planning can work in the early stages of industrialization. The point is that it doesn't work for more developed economies, and so is irrelevant to Russia (and many other places) today.

You haven't demonstrated that. What makes you think advanced Marxist academics haven't addressed these concerns? Or that there is no analysis of Soviet economics that does? You're getting ahead of yourself.

Your ideological predisposition and the anti-scientific approach to history it demands, prevent you from making heads or tails of such an issue. You're spending all your time on propaganda exercises, trumpeting the successes of the early phases of the Soviet economy while signally failing to even accept - let alone, deal with - the later issues. This is incompatible with genuine scientific analysis of the economic history of the USSR. Which is to say that you are not looking to learn anything, but to sell something.

Nay. My ideology came from my lessons in history and economics and not the other way around. I didn't just declare myself a communist and suddenly adapt my views on history, but in fact, as my understanding of history and economy developed, I declared myself a communist. I'm eager to criticize the Soviet Union because I want to learn about what we can do in the future. On communist forums, I can do this with detail since I am debating among peers, but on this rather anti-communist forum, I'm stuck defending the Soviet Union because otherwise everybody would dismiss it without a second thought.

Your conflation of "socialist" and "communist" politics misleads. Almost all of those "socialists" are, according to you, nothing more than capitalists. The remaining genuine communists are a marginal phenomenon that goes to my point.

No, I mean genuinely Marxian socialists and communists. Some examples include the KKE and SYRIZA; the PCP (Portuguese communists); the PCF (French communists); the PCE (Spanish communists); KPRF (Russian communists); the German Left (various left-wing parties with a Communist Youth); the Progressive Party of Working People (Cyprus); the Party of Communists of the Republic (Moldova); the Naxalites of India (but one faction of a larger communist movement), who are in fact quite militant; and many more.

All of the above parties are rather substantial on the political scenes of their respective countries. And that's not to mention the socialist parties. And that's not even beginning to address Latin America or the rest of the world. I'm not pretending like we are a majority, but in most of the world, we are an active political group. Only in America is there such fear-tactics and ignorance regarding Marxist thought.

And we will grow. When the world gets fed up with the status quo, and the standard of living deteriorates, we will grow. People will begin thinking about a better way.

You clearly care very much about that, as you've made it your entire mission here to constantly tilt at that windmill. And we note, again, your self-serving, anecdotal strawmanning of an entire nationality.

You spend more time attacking me than addressing my points.

The fact of the matter is that your understanding of Marxism and Soviet history has been repeatedly, routinely upstaged by Americans here at SciForums and this drives you nuts, and so you retreat into these silly strawman ideations to attempt to shore up your little drama. Your bluster impresses exactly nobody.

Like I said above.

 

[quadraphonics]

You are the one engaging in personal attacks and accusations, not me.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that little bit of self-serving nonsense?

You haven't demonstrated that.

I thought I'd made it clear that I am not in the business of "demonstrating" or "establishing" anything to you. We are not epistemic peers, and I would be a fool to play into your game by treating you as if we are. I am simply stating well-understood, uncontroversial facts that you have an ideological resistance to.

What makes you think advanced Marxist academics haven't addressed these concerns? Or that there is no analysis of Soviet economics that does?

Again, you can go ahead and cite any such analyses that you think are pertinent. I doubt that you will even bother, and doubt furthermore that any of them would be compelling if you did. The fact that there are ideologues who write papers that agree with your views is just that. The serious, respectable scholars - including the Marxists - don't break that way.

Nay. My ideology came from my lessons in history and economics and not the other way around.

Of course you would say that, and probably even believe it as well. But your anti-scientific approach speaks for itself.

I'm eager to criticize the Soviet Union because I want to learn about what we can do in the future.

Except you spend all your time apologizing for the Soviet Union and trying to ignore, deny or re-attribute its obvious failures. This putative program of scientific criticism is nowhere to be found.

On communist forums, I can do this with detail since I am debating among peers, but on this rather anti-communist forum, I'm stuck defending the Soviet Union because otherwise everybody would dismiss it without a second thought.

Except, again, I have consistently and openly aknowledged the successful aspects of the USSR from our very first interaction with you. Which fact you keep trying to suppress and dismiss, in favor of your strawman about some conspiracy of capitalist ideologues.

But, yes, it is indeed clear that you are pretty much totally incapable of substantively, honestly engaging with anyone who isn't already an ideological ally.

No, I mean genuinely Marxian socialists and communists. Some examples include the KKE and SYRIZA; the PCP (Portuguese communists); the PCF (French communists); the PCE (Spanish communists); KPRF (Russian communists); the German Left (various left-wing parties with a Communist Youth); the Progressive Party of Working People (Cyprus); the Party of Communists of the Republic (Moldova); the Naxalites of India (but one faction of a larger communist movement), who are in fact quite militant; and many more.

Like I said: marginal groups which go to my point.

All of the above parties are rather substantial on the political scenes of their respective countries.

In the sense that, what? They merely exist?

I'm not pretending like we are a majority, but in most of the world, we are an active political group.

There are lots of "active political groups" of all stripes. That fact doesn't imply that any particular one of them is on the march or enjoys serious credibility. Everything you assert about your activities and the interest of people in "a new way" applies as much to the Nazis as to the Communists. And there's nothing "new" about your suggestions - quite the opposite.

You spend more time attacking me than addressing my points.

You don't make serious, honest "points," and so the only rational responses are either to address your behavior as such, or ignore you. To attempt to engage you seriously would simply feed into your troll game, as I observed quite quickly when I tried to engage you seriously in your first thread here.

 

[RedStar]

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that little bit of self-serving nonsense?

*Sigh* can you just address the points and quit with the ad hominems?

I am simply stating well-understood, uncontroversial facts that you have an ideological resistance to.

What are the "well-understood, uncontroversial facts" you keep referring to?

Again, you can go ahead and cite any such analyses that you think are pertinent. I doubt that you will even bother, and doubt furthermore that any of them would be compelling if you did. The fact that there are ideologues who write papers that agree with your views is just that. The serious, respectable scholars - including the Marxists - don't break that way.

I see; so, if somebody writes papers that supports my position, they are ideologues, but analyses which paint a grim picture of the Soviet Union are unbiased and objective. I smell double standards.

And, again, nobody is trying to replicate the U.S.S.R, but to understand it in context.

Except you spend all your time apologizing for the Soviet Union and trying to ignore, deny or re-attribute its obvious failures. This putative program of scientific criticism is nowhere to be found.

It seems like the only way I would not be apologizing for the Soviet Union is if I agree with you that it's just a dismal failure and that it discredited Marxism. I don't know what else you want me to do. Providing economic statistics and explainations is not "apology".

But, yes, it is indeed clear that you are pretty much totally incapable of substantively, honestly engaging with anyone who isn't already an ideological ally.

*Yawn*

Like I said: marginal groups which go to my point.

Did you even bother to look them up? They are not "marginal groups". Several of them are, in fact, leading parties (Moldova, Cyprus, and Greece); or in the top three parties (France, Spain, Russia); or significant militant movements (Naxalites in India).

Perhaps you have heard of the Red Corridor:

There are lots of "active political groups" of all stripes. That fact doesn't imply that any particular one of them is on the march or enjoys serious credibility. Everything you assert about your activities and the interest of people in "a new way" applies as much to the Nazis as to the Communists. And there's nothing "new" about your suggestions - quite the opposite.

See above. I see you didn't even bother to look up the parties. I wouldn't have used them as examples if they weren't more than a handful of skinhead thugs like the neo-Nazi movements.

And what's more, socialism is more viable now than ever before. Not only do we have historical references (which the Bolsheviks sorely lacked), but we also have information and computer technology (the internet will be a powerful tool for socialism), robotics, et cetera

 

[kmguru]

Just a simple thought - when I was in China teaching the Industrial Ecosystem strategies, I met a few Russians in Beijing hotel. They just said hello and wanted to know what I am doing there. But nothing else moved anywhere....did not learn the Chinese progress....in 1983...now we know what happened...

 

[Billy T]

I was many years ago riding on train in Hungry (to go swim in the largest lake in Europe) and sat next to a very pretty Russian lady. She was a student of economics, not very pleased by the USSR´s central planning. (Although then I could speak Russian, her English was perfect so my poor Russian had little use.) She told me of her three summers working at a tomato canning plant, each an economic disaster, but I´ll just tell two:

(1) There was something called "comicon" (or something like that) that gave extra credit to factories that exported. So her factory just steam blanched tomatoes as they arrived from the state farm and canned them whole in large cans for export to Bulgaria. There the cans were opened, the skins removed and the tomatoes were recanned for shipment back to her factory gaining comicon export credits for both factories. Those tomatoes made many round trips between the two factories before eventually be coming catsup (The tomatoes soup concentrate cans returned with last border crossing were opened and boiled some more to finally make catsup, but the same tomatoes had been across the border getting comicon credits 10 times.)

(2) Another summer she sat at her work station and read 5 classical books in English because the central planners had forgotten to tell the can making plant to make and send can lids to her factory. The tomatoes came by the truck loads every day and the factory manager signed for them but bribed the drivers to take them straight to the town dump.

I let casually slip that I worked for APL on projects for the US Navy, hoping she was a KGB "honey pot" agent, but she was not. She did not take this bait and get off with me at Lake Balaton. It is a popular resort and after my swim, there were several topless German tourist ladies in the sauna that made me forget about her for a while.

China has learned from the USSR´s economic collapse and does not try to centrally manage the entire economy. The invisible hand of Adam Smith determines what is for sale in the market place.