He's got Seumas Milne as his spin doctor! :laugh4:
Oh my giddy aunt. Labour, the gift that keeps on giving!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...apologist.html
Printable View
He's got Seumas Milne as his spin doctor! :laugh4:
Oh my giddy aunt. Labour, the gift that keeps on giving!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...apologist.html
I read that angry drivel, for my sins.
Er.. And? That's all demonstrably true. The Soviet system wasn't some factory of evil thought control and violence. It had those two features, but fundamentally it was a successful attempt to turn an illiterate feudal country into a modern industrial one. No serious historian would contest this - only political dilettantes with little historical education - enter your man.Quote:
“communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality.” And besides, the Soviet bloc “encompassed genuine idealism and commitment”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
:laugh4: Now you're just trolling you naughty boy!
I guess the main complaint would be 'Er, so what?' You might as well say the same about capitalism. The post-Stalin USSR was not a hellhole or Evil Empire, but it is quite right to criticize such strident nostalgia.Quote:
communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality.
Lol what?Quote:
And besides, the Soviet bloc “encompassed genuine idealism and commitment”
"Full" employment was achieved through the criminalization of unemployment, and served primarily as a tool for organizing and tracking the population while at the same time maintaining networks of patronage in a feudal-like system. Individual variation in globally-defined net worth may have been very low, but this ignores the vast inequality that existed in terms of privilege and prestige. It surprises many individuals to learn that the Soviet domestic economy operated mostly in kind rather than coin, in exchange of favors and services. Indeed, to speak of social equality in the Soviet Union while criticizing the West's lack thereof is just silly.Quote:
it was also a country of full employment, social equality, cheap housing, transport and culture, one of the best childcare systems in the world, and greater freedom in the workplace than most employees enjoy in today’s Germany.”
Housing: Always atrocious in terms of both space and utilities, but there were some bright spots in the various attempts at reform (particularly in the Khruschev era).
Transport: Fairly good, but as usual for industrial countries the emphasis was on expediting long-range travel of goods, commodities, equipment, and military units. And even then, Soviet road infrastructure was notoriously-bad throughout the century, and the capacities for rail and air transport of civilian passengers were limited.
Culture: Culture (not in the sociological but the classic sense) has always been a point of both pride and sensitivity for Russians, but it's not exactly relevant to - wait, what exactly is the question anyway?
Childcare: :laugh4: There were always places to drop off young kids while you went to work, I'll grant him that.
Freedom in the workplace: Hard to even respond to this one as it's not clear what this is supposed to mean or refer to.
Just seems like another contrarian pinko, peevishly detracting his own society and blindly celebrating whatever alternatives he can latch onto without giving consideration to what his own principles are or should be, and how to accordingly compare various system by them.
As for comparisons to Islamist Iran, well, it's no surprise that the language of shame and blame and sin carries over quite well.
Quote:
As the 1980 Moscow Olympics approached, a Soviet official was asked whether his country would host that year’s Paralympics for the first time.
“There are no invalids in the U.S.S.R.!” he thundered back, a phrase that went down in history.
Russia, in 30 years, went from being a country of illiterate peasants and feudal lords, with a thoroughly pre modern concept of time, law, manufacturing, etc. To a country that defeated the greatest military power of the age (Germany) and was the first to send an astronaut to space.
I would be the first to list the downsides, drawbacks, tyranny and lunacy of the Soviet system. But credit where credits due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
How about:
recently praised “the innate humanity of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s legacy.” Since 1959, the rancid dictatorship in Cuba has consistently forgotten to hold free elections, but don’t allow ideas of democratic pluralism to undermine “the historical importance of Cuba’s struggle for social justice and sovereignty and its creative social mobilisation [which] will continue to echo beyond its time and place.”
He's a Communist Apologist, of the type which was prevalent on the Left in the 60's and 70's.
It all sound to me like communism had an great and strong initial push but later began to stall in terms of development.
Except it really wasn't - the Communist project started with the Bolsheviks overthrowing Russia's first elected government and murdering the Tsar and his family, including his daughters who were so far down the line of succession due to Salic Law that killing them was basically just vindictive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Fruit of the poisoned tree.
Didnt it take 20 years for the USSR to get its gear together? China didnt do too well either.Quote:
It all sound to me like communism had an great and strong initial push but later began to stall in terms of development.
My understanding was that the USSR was strong relatively quick after the revolution, until Stalin purged the ranks in the late 30s. That purge removed most of the leadership Stalin needed to fend off Hitler a few years later. If Hitler had attacked later, the ranks would have been filled again and the USSR would not have lost so much ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I don't know anything about China except that Mao was just totally incompetent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
There, in a nutshell, you have the leftist point of view. No matter how many people die for the 'greater good' it's the end of those meanie capitalists that counts!
....that they have the absolute gall to accuse the rest of us 'lumpen-proletariat' of having a false conscientious is breathtaking with it's hubris.
So no one has died for the greater good in Capitalism?
Each system has a cost/benefit associated with it and all of them are abused by the ruling class.
That's not what he said. He said despite the numerous downsides it also did a few things right, that's completely different from saying the ends justify the means.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Don't argue. It perfectly acceptable to negotiate with murderers regimes and dictators when it is about money. We welcome the Chinese in UK now, thanks not to the horrible letfist Corbin but the nice righteous D. Cameron.
And Pinochet was a personal friend of Thatcher.
It's an endless fascination to me that those on the right spend so much time digging through opinion pieces or speeches for such paltry evidence - while simultaneously ignoring the ACTUAL deals and actions of right wing politicians. The propping up and arming of Saddam, Pinochet, etc. The pushing of a militaristic foreign policy that kills millions in order to fund their arms dealer backers (Mark Thatcher for goodness sake!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It's like comparing murderers and thieves with people who muse aloud awkwardly about abstract concepts.
You forget, it is their murderers and thieves, not that smelly lefty!Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
That was easy to find, it required almost no effort, I merely skimmed the piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I find your selective memory disappointing.
Please, go back through the forum and read me on Thatcher and the Falklands War (largely her fault) or Thatcher and the North (cure that killed the patient) or Thatcher and society (responsible for much of our modern malaise).
Aside from that, one should note that there is a profound difference between working with Tyrants during the paranoia of the Cold War and praising some of the 20th Century's greatest monsters today.
And yet you subscribe to the narrative set up during the paranoia of the Cold War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
As the examples of Catherine and Elizabeth indicate, the girls were perfectly acceptable candidates to the throne. If they were permitted to live, then the Kolchak would turn them into a symbol of his struggle against the Soviets. Killing them was a politically necessary move. Also, Kerenski government was not elected, but on the contrary, they insisted on refusing to hold elections, until the revolution finally overthrew them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Well, it was a step forward, compared to Fulgencio and his gang of pimps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What? It was not a blooming democracy before Castro?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Would you care to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
That particular narrative comes mostly from a period of Red Scare. It has been thoroughly debunked in the last few decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
People mentioned massive industrialization and modernisation of eastern European countries during communism. That is a fact. Mentioning it doesn't mean people aren't aware of lack of civil liberties and human rights abuses during communism, which are also facts.
You ignored that and entered into a McCarthy mode and screamed OMG MONSTER PRAISING!!!
Not really, anyone who talks of the "humanity" of Fidel Castro or "workers' rights" in Soviet Russia is engaging in revisionism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
People talk about the industrialisation of Soviet States whilst neglecting the fact that this industrialisation, as rapid as it was, did not translate into comparably improved living standards vs the West. Put simply, Soviet industrialisation was done poorly and with less care or basic humanity even than the industrialisation that produce Britain's "Satanic Mills".
In fact, I would argue that Industrialisation of Soviet States was inevitable and was probably as likely under the Tsar as Stalin, and the Tsar was a far more relaxed and benevolent ruler - which is really saying something.
"Tsar was a far more relaxed and benevolent ruler" Really? You should read a little bit of history books... If so, why a Revolution? he was a bloody dictator, selfish leech, stupid and incompetent ruler.
I suggest you check what autocrat means as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
You think the Tsar ordered the Imperial Guard to fire?
No - if you read your own wikipedia link you would know that the ultimate cause of the massacre was poor Russian disciple and a lack of central command and control.
I think the Tsar was a fool lacking all the skills necessary of an Autocrat, but I do not think he was bloodthirsty or any more selfish than anyone else.
In fact, if you look at the 1905 revolution, you can see he was very pliable and inclined to give concessions - he tried to establish an inquiry into the discontent in St Petersberg but it fell apart when the Socialists prevented the working class from participating.
Russia was inching towards reform in 1905 and had it now been for the Russian Revolution I think it's likely that the reforms would have progressed and within 20 years Russia would have caught up with much of the West. Remember that the Tsars were westward looking, they had family in Scandinavia and England as well as Germany and the natural inclination of the £Great Houses of Europe" during this period was to look at who was doing well and copy them.
So Nicki looks as cousin George in Britain, who is generally popular and has a huge Empire and comes to the conclusion that "democracy" is working for him and might be worth trying in Russia. Hence the Constitution of 1906, and had that not been repeatedly undermined by both the aristocracy and the communists I imagine there would have been further reform.
The Tsar was by no means a "Good King" but he was not a rabid monster, that was Lenin, and he was not a cold blooded autocrat, that was Stalin.
Dunno man, regularly instigating pogroms sounds pretty evil.
Not to mention that the regime was as despotic as it used to be before 1905, with the Duma not having any actual political role. However, there was indeed a movement towards a more progressive governing way, which found its expression on the revolutions of February and October.
If you insist on whitewashing the Czar, please consider that the restoration of the imperial regime was never advocated by Kolchak, Denikin and the Black Baron. The Romanovs that much despised. Only some green peasant armies cried some embarrassing slogans in favour of the monarchy, the most known being that of the Siberian rebels against the Admiral:
"Down with Kolchak, fight for Grand Duke Nicolaus Nikolayevitch and his appointed ministers, Lenin and Trotzky!"
Hmmm...
"The Tsar was by no means a "Good King" but he was not a rabid monster, that was Lenin, and he was not a cold blooded autocrat, that was Stalin." See Crandar's answer.
Your benevolent Tsar just went in two war he lost just to keep power.
The reform in 1905 were forced on him, and he did all want he could to take them back. He was a bloody, selfish autocrat.
I even can't imagine why you trying to tell differently.
Instigating? What bunk have you been reading?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
WikipediaQuote:
The pogroms are generally thought to have been either organized or at least condoned by the authorities.[19][20][21][22][23] This view was challenged by Hans Rogger, I. Michael Aronson and John Klier, who couldn't find such sanctions documented in the state archives.[24][25] However, the antisemitic policy that was carried out from 1881 to 1917 made them possible. Official persecution and harassment of Jews influenced numerous antisemites to presume that their violence was legitimate, and this sentiment was reinforced by the active participation of a few high and many minor officials in fomenting attacks, as well as by the reluctance of the government to stop pogroms and to punish those responsible for them.
The worst thing nicolas did personally against the jews was:
Which at the time was practically to be expected from all but the most moral statesmen.
Perhaps you should read my original comment again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"In fact, I would argue that Industrialisation of Soviet States was inevitable and was probably as likely under the Tsar as Stalin, and the Tsar was a far more relaxed and benevolent ruler - which is really saying something."
As you're incapable of textual analysis please - allow me to be explicit.
The Tsar was a terrible ruler, terrible things were allowed to happen under his autocracy. However, he was still more "relaxed and benevolent" than Stalin. As I said, Nicholas was a fool and a man badly out of touch with his people but he was still better than Lenin or Stalin, who could have remade Russia as a Liberal western-looking democracy and instead grabbed it by the throat and stamped on it harder than the most conservative member of the Tsar's court.
Well yeah, Stalin was a total monster, but I would disagree with that assessment of Lenin. Lenin was a brilliant man who truly cared about the plight of the commoners. His only problem was that he died too soon without being able to fully implement his vision. Modern capitalism largely owes its more humane approach towards economy to Lenin, because we have seen what happens when the common man gets pushed too far. As much as I dislike communism, I have to admin that Lenin was a great man who had changed the world for the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If the ranks had been filled Stalin would have attacked first.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I'm afarid you are under a delusion of a bad Stalin who perverted the ideas of good Lenin. The massacres (including those of the commoners, who started to rebel against severe economic measures imposed by him, and priests) that Lenin sanctioned don't reflect a great credit on him. I would say that being well-meaning at the outset he got into the usual practice of violence to keep the power. Far too often have we witnessed that (for more details refer to "The Lord of the Rings").Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Lenin started the Cheka and they were up to their antics almost from the start.
Unless we use the "hard times call for hard measures", Lenin was as bad as the rest of them.
~:smoking:
Not really, Stalin was the opposite of Trotsky, absolutely terrified by the prospect of a foreign war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You mean the Red Terror? Yeah, things usually go wrong, during civil wars, but still not even close to Okhrana's pogroms. Or Petlura's...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
And that is why Stalin invaded Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, China... Or was it Trotsky (who since 1928 lived abroad) that directed this policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
And that is the excuse for a nice guy Lenin is thought to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Can a mod move the off topic discussion of the Soviet union to its own thread?
The first paragraph is marvelously ahistorical. British industrialisation was built on the foundation of empire, conquest, slavery and brutal urbanisation over the space of 100 years or more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Russian industrialisation was inevitable? I have no idea how you could substantiate that.
Um, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Industrialisation came before the Empire, really, it allowed the mass-production of weapons, notably muskets and cannon, that facilitated Imperial Expansion, the Empire then used their industrialised military capacity to subdue new territories in order to sell them good produced in Britain's factories.
Blake made reference to the "Satanic Mills" in the first decade of the 19th Century, before the British Empire as we usually imagine it really got going.
One should note, in fact, that slavery had relatively little to do with British Industrialisation, which began with steam engines hauling coal and pumping out mines. In so far as slavery made a contribution it would be in providing raw cotton.
Also, the term "brutal urbanisation" is miss-leading because it implies that people were rounded up and forced to work in factories, when in fact it was economic change that pulled people towards cities looking for work.
Like Brenus you seem to skip over the nuances in my posts though -
"Put simply, Soviet industrialisation was done poorly and with less care or basic humanity even than the industrialisation that produce Britain's "Satanic Mills"."
Get it?
British Industrialisation produced what were considered, at the time, to be "Satanic Mills" and Russian industrialisation was still worse.
Why?
Well, because British Industrialisation was not conducted according to a deliberate government "five year plan" that quite literally put people through mills and saw them as nothing more than input to generate output despite the very same government claiming to be Socialist. There were no objections from the middle class or intelligentsia because they were purged and there were no benevolent factory owners because religion was effectively banned and everything was run by the state.
So, despite the government being run by allegedly intelligent people and allegedly for the masses of the downtrodden they managed to outdo Britain's Industrial "race to the bottom" and in half the time, to boot.
In Britain the brutality of Industrialisation was the result of greedy and grasping individuals and was mitigated by more benevolent industrialists, notably Quakers and Methodists. In Russia brutality was a matter od State policy - and it reached heights not seen under the Tsar.
Industrialisation had already begun - it is part of what caused the revolution. Industrial workers were the foundation of the Soviets.Quote:
Russian industrialisation was inevitable? I have no idea how you could substantiate that.
There's nothing more predictable than a self-hating Englishman.Quote:
The first paragraph is marvelously ahistorical. British industrialisation was built on the foundation of empire, conquest, slavery and brutal urbanisation over the space of 100 years or more.
I should have said that he was terrified by the prospect of a war against a state that mattered politically and diplomatically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
No, but it helps us to evaluate him under the specific circumstances, as he compared Nicholas' peaceful rule with military operations. To use my previous reference, it wouldn't be very just to evaluate the morality of the Ukrainian Independence Movement by its actions in the Denikin Front, would it be? Because Ukrainian nationalists would make Hitler blush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
If that's how you interpret the term of industrialisation, then Russia, with her mass production of weapons, was already completely industrialised, long before the revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
But that's a weird way of defining industrialisation, we usually prefer the importance of industry in relation with the rest of financial activities.
Well, there's "Industrialisation" where you have moved from a craft economy to mass-production and there's the Urbanisation that comes along with it. In the UK Urbanisation really kicks in between the World Wars but by that point a lot of what we used in day-to-day life was mass-produced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
By the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II Russia already had significant industrial capacity but many things were still made by hand.
The Soviets moved everything to pass production, with often disastrous results. The Destruction of the Ural Sea being the most obvious example - the lack of a Liberal Elite means a lack of sentiment.
That's what fascists call it when someone merely acknowledges the faults of his forefathers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If by "acknowledge" you mean "is incapable of seeing anything other than".
*cough*Aral*cough*. Oh, and it was still okay by the end of 1991. The catastrophy came after 1994 or so, once the local khans, I mean presidents, decided to drain the two rivers that the Aral Sea to the point that the rivers no longer reached the lake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
"In Britain the brutality of Industrialisation was the result of greedy and grasping individuals and was mitigated by more benevolent industrialists, notably Quakers and Methodists. In Russia brutality was a matter od State policy - and it reached heights not seen under the Tsar." Yeah, sure see Irish Famine and Indian Famines, every benevolent, they were. Now if you really want to speak about nice benevolent capitalist exploitation, you have to refer to the Belgium Congo.
Nice Czar:
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1994-5/Lilly.htm
First sentence: "Famine is one of the worst, if not the worst of the disasters that afflict humankind" in The Russian Famine of 1891-92. Who was the Czar? Alexander III, with his son as helper to the help effort... With a helper so much benevolent.
Ural Sea: Aral. Aral See. Ecological disaster, can be compare to the Dust Bowl in USA in term of absolute ecological disaster.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...mpletely-dried
How would you know that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Or are you just incapable of seeing anything else?
¿Que?
There was a world war in preparation. Britain planned to invade Norway (even before German invasion) and then Sweden, to deprive Germany of Swedish ore. Niceties in general go out the window in those cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
And there's the always popular good ole empire building. USA in South America and Asia, Japan in Asia, Soviets in Europe and Asia, Italy in Africa, Germany in Europe and Africa, China in Asia sometime later and so on... Doesn't really prove that Stalin was an evil warmonger anymore than, let's say, Roosevelt was.
Not Empire, just empire. Even though British Empire refers usually to a specific time period, British imperialism is much older. Colonies in the America and elsewhere, served similar purpose even though they predate the period of British Empire. Queen Victoria didn't have to be crowned Empress of India for that to be in effect. Huge population density in several urban centers, cheap raw material and a rather big market forced to buy British industrial products - those factors were in effect already. Thinking they had absolutely no effect on industrialization is laughable really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That's why there was mass poverty in London in the mid 19th century? 16 hour work days? Child labour? They weren't forced at gun point, no, but as the economic paradigm of the world changed, they were forced to move to cities to look for work.Quote:
Also, the term "brutal urbanisation" is miss-leading because it implies that people were rounded up and forced to work in factories, when in fact it was economic change that pulled people towards cities looking for work.
Bollocks. There were only traces of the middle class in Russia in those years. Middle class was created during Soviet times, and religion never stopped factory owners to overwork their employees and use children.Quote:
Well, because British Industrialisation was not conducted according to a deliberate government "five year plan" that quite literally put people through mills and saw them as nothing more than input to generate output despite the very same government claiming to be Socialist. There were no objections from the middle class or intelligentsia because they were purged and there were no benevolent factory owners because religion was effectively banned and everything was run by the state.
Again, bollocks.Quote:
So, despite the government being run by allegedly intelligent people and allegedly for the masses of the downtrodden they managed to outdo Britain's Industrial "race to the bottom" and in half the time, to boot.
In Britain the brutality of Industrialisation was the result of greedy and grasping individuals and was mitigated by more benevolent industrialists, notably Quakers and Methodists. In Russia brutality was a matter od State policy - and it reached heights not seen under the Tsar.
First off, it took decades for Britain and other western countries to industrialize. SU did it in 5-10 years. Brutal, but effective.
And it is not just a matter of factory building. The modern society was created in a very short time. Basically everything was built, and all over the country, not just Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev. It was basically building a modern country from scratch. It's not just building 10 factories that were gonna build a 100 hospitals. You have to have staff for those hospital and there weren't nearly enough. So, you have to educate them, but you don't have enough universities. So you have to build universities and learning centers. You have to build them all over the country, so you need a railroad network. After that is in place, you need a road network, for civilian travel and other transports. That's not always practical and of course you need to import and export stuff, so you need ports and airports in addition to roads and railroads. Now there are issues with raw materials, so you need to expand existing mines and create new ones. More railroads connecting them to cities, but it goes slowly as the very materials you need to build railroad are extracted in the Urals, and they can't be transported quickly and cheaply because, get this, there are no railroads. And to power it all, you need a huge amount of energy. Coal, oil, electricity...
Then you have to reorganize agriculture as you need to feed all those people who are leaving their farms, and, of course, houses and apartments for them to live in.
All that with keeping up in military stuff, as the world war is looming.
After communists consolidated power in the early thirties, Soviet Union was basically a feudal country in everything but name. Just 30 years after, in the 1960, it was a fully industrialized modern country.
You can choose a parameter at random, not just industrial production, but any parameter, like literacy rate, university education, infant mortality rate... Really anything. You'd find a massive improvement in every single one. In the span of 30 years, a single generation, the entire country was transformed. With all the destruction suffered in the war.
The effectiveness of it all can not be over emphasized, really. Neither can the brutality, really, but the results were there for all to see.
No. Communists were aware that there weren't enough of them, so they included the farmers, which weren't give much attention in the communist theories so far. That's why there was that sickle in the flag.Quote:
Industrialisation had already begun - it is part of what caused the revolution. Industrial workers were the foundation of the Soviets.
Yeap. Marx thought the Revolution would start in Germany. And in fact, the 2 main successful "communist" revolutions started in Russia and China, both countries hardly industrialised at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
That's why they failed obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It surprises me to hear it, me who have lived for twenty years in the Soviet Union. If there was exchange of services on a barter basis (like moving furniture for a bottle of vodka) that was certainly NOT the modus opreandi of the ECONOMY as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
All of those wars were preceded by political and diplomatic manouvers, which testifies to the fact that they DID matter bothwise. Still more so if we consider all of those "small invasions" taken together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
So you claim that Hitler killed less people than Ukrainian independence zealots in 1917-1920 and that the latter were notorious for creating KZ-lagers and gas chambers and medical tests on children? Then you evidently have reliable sources of information to prove your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Sometimes, humans and regimes have nothing (or little) to do with natural disasters. Like Kara Bogaz Gol lagoon - its level fluctuates with the level of the Caspian Sea, so sometimes it can go almost completely dry and then fill with water again. The Soviets interfered with the process building a dam to stop the advance of water from the Sea, yet in some years the rise of water level destroyed the dam and both basins are now in the natural state.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Although, with the Aral Sea it was definitely not the case.
It doesn't matter how we qualify the invader - a war monger or an empire builder. Invader he stays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Moreover, planning and doing are two different things. Stalin planned AND acted while others just planned.
What I said is entirely correct. The internal Soviet economy below the level of Gosplan and inter-republic balancing was extremely underdeveloped in terms of the role of monetary currency.Quote:
It surprises me to hear it, me who have lived for twenty years in the Soviet Union. If there was exchange of services on a barter basis (like moving furniture for a bottle of vodka) that was certainly NOT the modus opreandi of the ECONOMY as a whole.
Also, do not confuse "in kind" with "informal".
Sarmation - I'm not arguing with your characterisation of Soviet Industrialisation - what I'm saying is that they could have done it in 20 years without destroying Russia's soul. Having said that, I suspect that was the point - Communists don't like anything but Marxism and hard figures.
As far as a pre-existing Russian middle clas, it was developing and so was industrialisation but Russia had developed an "upside down" middle class where the lesser sons of minor nobility went to university, studied, and joined the professions. This contrasts sharply with the traditional Western European model where professionals were the sons of wealthy merchants or non-noble farmers.
As far as Britain goes - I didn't say colonialism had nothing to do with it, far from it, I said that the foundations of British industrialisation were internal to Britain, they had their roots in mining and not in industrial production of goods, that came later and it did indeed feed off Empire, but it also drove it as British merchants sought new markets for their goods and new sources of raw materials.
The interrelationship between trade, political Empire and British industrialisation was very complex, but Idaho would almost like you to believe that we used black slaves to haul the coal that powered the engines and Indians to make the cloth on our mass-looms.
In reality we only really used slaves to grow cotton and sugar, and we broke the thumbs of all the Indians so they couldn't weave and compete with our mass-produced product.
He's essentially describing Soviet corruption, which was endemic, and the fact that to get anything done you often had to do a favour for someone else, or pay a bribe which might be a "gift" in kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
All of which goes back to the fact that the "cover" price" of anything in Soviet Russia was less than it actually cost economically.
And we "only" gassed the communists and other troublemakers for national security. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It's fun to explain why things weren't evil.
First we had the steel beams/jet fuel thread, then the Author of the universe, then Shiara democracy, now we have a thread about Victorian industrialization and Tsardom being "pretty good".
Guys, this place is a stone's throw away from 4chan's /news/ before it was scuttled. Ease it up.
The mercantile era, the colonisation of America, the triangle trade, etc were all pre-requisites for the British industrial revolution. It doesn't matter how much coal you have, how many navigable rivers, how many clever engineers you have. If we didn't have a supply of raw materials, large amounts of investment capital and ready access to foreign markets, we would have had no industrial revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You are thinking of empire in very formal Victorian terms. But the American colonies, the Caribbean, the British East India company, the Asiento trade of west Africa - these all predate industrialisation by a hundred years or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
You claim to be true what you (unlike me) didn't experience personally. Money ran EVERYWHERE and it was as ubiquitous as it is now in any Western (or other) country.
Corruption =/= underdeveloped monetary system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Your personal experience seems to be 'money existed, therefore it was the dominant form of exchange'. If only you were as quick to check your own personal experiences as you are with those of others.Quote:
You claim to be true what you (unlike me) didn't experience personally. Money ran EVERYWHERE and it was as ubiquitous as it is now in any Western (or other) country.
If you have a similar experience be my guest and share it. But what I see is you confidently speaking of things you can know as a heresay denying my experience and showing no proof of your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Here's some on the intra-government use of "money":
Quote:
Money in the Soviet Union
In developed market economies, the fundamental types of money are cash (coin and currency) and the private checks of households and businesses. In the Soviet Union (as in most other STEs), there were few private checking accounts. Nevertheless, there was something like a checking account in the enterprise sector, and that was "bookkeeping money" on account with Gosbank.
Indeed, these bookkeeping accounts were the only type of money used between one enterprise and another. Whenever one enterprise shipped its output to another enterprise which used it as input, the Gosbank account of the "output-enterprise" would be credited, while that of the "input-enterprise" would be debited. In this way, goods made their way through the production process without occasioning any exchange of cash.
Besides this "bookkeeping money," there was cash, which was used for only two purposes. First, enterprises paid their workers with cash provided by Gosbank (the account of the enterprise would be debited). Second, households purchased goods with cash, which was then turned over to Gosbank (the account of the store would be credited).
The participation of Gosbank in virtually every financial transaction not only provided the financial clearing operations for these transactions to take place, but also enabled Gosbank to closely monitor adherence to the production plan. This monitoring function of Gosbank was known as control by the ruble.
Control by the Ruble
Let us take a simple example of consumer goods production in the Soviet Union: a milk farm produces milk and ships it to a cheese factory, which turns it into cheese and ships it to a State store. Finally, the State store sells the cheese to a household. How would Gosbank be involved in each of these transactions?
When farm delivered its milk output, it would obtain a document from the cheese factory verifying that the latter had received its milk input. The document was then turned over to Gosbank, which credited the farm's account according to the value of the milk delivered, and debited the cheese factory's account by the same value.
Likewise, after the cheese was produced and shipped to the State food store, the cheese factory obtained a document verifying its delivery of cheese. Again, the document was turned over to Gosbank, which this time credited the cheese factory's account and debited the store's account. Finally, when households purchased the cheese with cash, the State store deposited its cash receipts with Gosbank and was given a credit of equal value.
With this simple example, we can see how every transfer of physical output from one location to another, and every bit of value added in production, was mirrored by an associated financial transfer through Gosbank. If less than the planned amount was delivered on any given day, Gosbank would know. If delivery were late, Gosbank would know. If inputs or outputs were stolen and diverted to the black market, Gosbank would know. Of course, this did not mean that everything went according to plan. Shortages, time delays, and diversion to the black market were notorious problems of Soviet central planning. But control by the ruble did mean that glitches were discovered, investigated, and dealt with in some manner.
Control by the ruble was strengthened by severe restrictions on the use of money and credit in the Soviet Union. As for bookkeeping money, inter-enterprise credit was simply not allowed; one enterprise could not "lend" bookkeeping money to another by permitting late payment for goods received. Also, enterprise accounts with Gosbank were "blocked," that is, they could only be used to pay for the type and quantities of inputs that were specified in the plan. Otherwise, Gosbank would refuse to release them.
As for cash, enterprises were virtually forbidden to hold it for any purpose other than payment of wages. Even the cash receipts of State stores had to be deposited with Gosbank, and then withdrawn again to pay the wages of the store workers.
Finally, control by the ruble extended to imports and exports as well. All goods produced for export were "sold" to Vneshtorgbank, which credited the producer's account with bookkeeping rubles. Vneshtorgbank would then sell the goods abroad for foreign currency. In turn, the foreign currency was used to pay for imports into the Soviet Union, which were then sold to a Soviet enterprise whose bookkeeping rubles would be debited. In this way, the authorities could carefully monitor foreign currency exchange, and ensure that scarce "hard currency" (i.e., freely convertible currency like U.S. dollars or German marks) was used only for "desired purposes."
In general, control by the ruble was designed to prevent deviations from the central production plan. But since the plan itself was often inconsistent, providing an enterprise with too little of one input and too much of another, managers in order to meet their output requirements were forced to develop sources of supply that could bypass Gosbank's clearing operations, i.e., sources that required neither bookkeeping money nor cash. Hence, the immense amount of interfirm bartering that took place in the Soviet Union. An enterprise with excess coal might be lucky enough to trade it for some desperately needed steel. More likely, it would trade its excess coal for some rubber that it didn't need, and would then go about finding an enterprise that had excess steel but needed rubber. Or, worse still: it would trade coal for rubber, then trade rubber for steel knives, and finally melt down the knives to obtain raw steel.
Of course, barter requires human resources that could otherwise be used productively. In this way, control by the ruble was another cause of economic inefficiency in the Soviet Union, above and beyond that caused by inconsistencies in the plan itself.
Next, from The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Economy:
On the use of Soviet monetary currency for international markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by p. 36-7
On money in the consumer economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by p. 82-3
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.89-90
Quote:
Originally Posted by p. 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by p. 207
If cash money were the primary means of exchange and consumption for everyday Soviet life, then we would expect living standards to have been much lower than they actually were. You see, most of an individual Soviet citizen's "net worth" (in a manner of speaking) came from position, connections, the black market, informal exchange, and most importantly direct transfers in kind from the central government, not from their salaries and what they could buy with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by p. 209
What you may be remembering is the shift in the '80s in which foreign (i.e. Western) hard-currency became increasingly important to the Soviet economy at all levels.
That was an interesting read, thanks.
Still I don't see how it invalidates what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
My parents (as well as many others) had a check account (which in tangible form was represented by the "savings book"). Yet it was considered as something to be kept "for a rainy day", so normally people didn't use the money from it unless some big purchase was imminent (a car, TV set, a furniture set and the like). But even in such a case people tried not to draw money from this account, but bought the goods on hire purchase paying off the price in installments deducted from the monthly salary. The savings books could be involved if someone got married or received an apartment (free of charge) which had to be fully equipped and/or repaired.
But in any case there were no check payments, people just they went to the bank AND GOT THE CASH to be paid for services or goods.
The majority of people kept all the money on the savings account intact that is why when the USSR collapsed they (and my parents too) lost all their saved money.
So this part is all about the money which WAS there.
As for abscence (or limited character) of money circulation between enterprises - it is natural, because all of them were STATE-OWNED. Do you write yourself a check to take money from one pocket and place it to another? The same approach was applied in relations between the central government and its enterprises.
As for trudodni, it is true. Yet it was true till the 1950s-1960s. Later this idea was dropped, so you may say that the money superceded the kind.
International trade doesn't really come in here, as we were talking of the money role WITHIN the USSR (and that was the experience I referred to and the one I can rely on). The only thing that I can add here is the existence of specialized shops (called "berezka" - A Birch tree) where one could buy goods (usually big ticket items - furniture, VCRs, TV-sets of foreign make, carpets, chrystal vases) for special coupons which were available only for those who went abroad. One could get those coupons at the black market, of course (1 coupon cost 3 roubles), but it was illegal (as well as posessing foreign currency) so you could get a prison sentence for it. That is why foreign currency was never an issue for average Soviet citizens.
On subsidized goods: the fact that they were never occured to people. We genuinely believed (and my parents still do) that gasoline cost cheaper than bottled water, that the rent could amount to 3 percent of your family income and that a loaf of bread was 14 kopecks. Yet people still PAID MONEY (however little it may seem) to get those goods and services.
As for connections, black market and informal exchange (which symptomatically were not mentioned in the sources so I assume deemed fabulously important by you):
Let me take my family's example.
My mother worked as a merchandise manager (tovaroved) at a footwear depot where shoes were brought to be distrubuted later to retail outlets around the region. It is natural that the staff of the depot had an access to shoes before they went elsewhere (the best ones - that were limited in number and of higher quality, usually of foreign make - never left the premises of the depot). So she could get better shoes than average Soviet citizens - but SHE PAID FOR THEM THEIR PRICE.
Since there was general shortage of some foodstuffs (especially of higher quality) similar privileges accrued to other employees who worked at grocery stores, electronics depots, railway station booking offices and so on. We had some "neccessary acquaintances" (as they were called), so we could get better meat, butter or sour cream from Uncle Zhenya or Aunt Tonya (the terms of kinship here have nothing to do with family relations - they were and are used by children (like me back then) to refer to familiar adults who are not related). And in return they could have better shoes from my mother. But in either case we (and they alike) PAID FOR THE GOODS IN CASH. There was NO exchange in kind (say, shoes for sausage). Of course such situation gave rise to corruption when those with privileged access paid for the goods their official price and sold them for a greater price later. It was not the case of my mother, though, whose fault was in being "pathologically honest", as some people said to her.
The bottomline: in the life of an average Soviet citizen money was an impotant factor which gauged his position in life to a great extent. But usually there was a ceiling that they couldn't surmount. Higher than the ceiling were the elites, for who money really didn't matter that much.
Check again, but that isn't even the crux of my argument since the black market and blatnost component is already acknowledged - you gave examples yourself.Quote:
As for connections, black market and informal exchange (which symptomatically were not mentioned in the sources so I assume deemed fabulously important by you):
You seem to still be confused about my point, which isn't that money did not play a role in the exchange of basic goods for individual citizens, but that its usage and function was very limited compared to Western economies outside of the exchange of hard cash for immediate transactions, and that even there living standards and actual consumption were predicated much less on the exchange of cash but on direct transfers from the government to the citizen in the form of goods, services, accomodations, and so on.
As an aside, I didn't quote much about the economies of collective farm communities and suchlike (post-Stalin), but an interesting inversion from what we usually expect when comparing urban and rural folk is that even though this demographic was substantially poorer than urban Soviets, going by commercial exchange and holdings in terms of banked savings and private (hard cash) stockpiling, we see that the average collective-farm household had substantially more money than the average urban household.
But the urban households were 'richer', and enjoyed better standards due to their location in the networks of infrastructure (and of course political value). On the other hand, often when we think more generally of rural vs. urban we observe that rural people have very little money but can have a considerable amount of commodity production and stock enabling fair subsistence (the main downsides being in terms of high technology, education, and emergency/health services), while urban dwellers have more money and better access to goods and services but may live by lower standards due to long-term risks in health and community safety (as potential examples).
For a relevant bit, recall a few months ago when you were comparing the virtues of American and Ukrainian lifestyles by noting that Ukrainian people had a stronger connection with the agricultural and ecological substrate enabling their own (often urban) lives, while Americans seemed to only know 'farm -> food at the store'.
Can Russians not do anything right? This much ink spilled over how not to get your checking account stolen. :laugh4: Life is rough when you're trying to buy knock off blue jeans and moldy potatoes.
I'm afraid my confusion may be explained by your previous posts on the topic, namely:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
and:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
In those you said nothing of comparison to Western economies (although I'm not sure Western economies had such an intense money flow BACK THEN as they do NOW - but I wouldn't claim the opposite either) and direct transfers (instead you said of EXCHANGE OF FAVORS). The bolded parts were the ones I objected to. With the corrections (or explanations) you have just made it now sounds sensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency