how could the soviet union have been a success?

[ViolentPanda]

My point being that top-down diktat is a very good way to quickly eliminate illiteracy. It worked in Cuba in the early 1960s.

Only in tandem with the utilisation at local level, though.
Look at what Chavez did in Ven. Decided literacy needed to be boosted, passed down the diktat to the regions, they trained locals to teach literacy, et voila, one hand washes the other, and it worked because BOTH parties to the equation recognised the need.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But it's a bad way to decide how much corn to grow, or how many tractors to make this year.

Tell that to the poor on the periphery of capitalism in, say, Chad or Guatemala.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Only in tandem with the utilisation at local level, though.
Look at what Chavez did in Ven. Decided literacy needed to be boosted, passed down the diktat to the regions, they trained locals to teach literacy, et voila, one hand washes the other, and it worked because BOTH parties to the equation recognised the need.

No disagreement here. I'm no fan of centralised tyranny. I just think it it isn't so easy to dismiss centralised economics when laissee faire capitalism has left billions in a state of perilous subsistence with no sign that their lot will improve.

 

[butchersapron]

Ahhh, the fabled levity of this sub-forum, it gives me a warm feeling.


Not really irrelevant, no. The Soviet Union spent lots of money keeping up with the US (and vice versa) in terms of military and technological might. Given a situation in which two powers in opposition to one-another become committed to a strategy of self-preservation by continued military expenditure, it seems likely that one will run out of money/means of production before the other does. At which point it will have "failed". I'm not sure why this is irrelevant.

Clearly the reasons why one should buckle before the other are a lot more involved, and will include such things as the relative quality of management of natural resources, infrastructure and trade.

Sorry, why is this relevent to a point about having suplus money to spend and distribute to the poor. This *was* the surplus money and it was spent on this shit. This was the choices they made. Yeah they they were there to help the people if only the US had kept out.

Levity?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No disagreement here. I'm no fan of centralised tyranny. I just think it it isn't so easy to dismiss centralised economics when laissee faire capitalism has left billions in a state of perilous subsistence with no sign that their lot will improve.

Oh, I agree. There's certainly arguments for a mixed economy, the problem being that as capitalism has been allowed to mutate so the ability and the means to run a mixed or a centralised economy have become more tenuous. You'd have to close down quite a few avenues that speculative capital are used to frequenting, in order to be able to centralise some factors of an economy without the fear that some red-braced twit and his friends wouldn't decide to manipulate the market to give you a kicking and teach you that "the market is the only game in town".

 

[Spion]

My 2 Kopek's worth - the USSR got rid of capitalism but there was no democratic control of the planned economy that replaced it.

In such circumstances you can bureaucratically (ie, top down) plan for the big things the economy needs - X number of steelworks, X miles of railway etc - but then gauging the more precise needs of individuals needs a mechanism that can give more detailed feedback, and that means either democratic mechanisms or the market. And seeing as the Stalinist bureaucracies were never going to allow the former they ended up moving towards the latter.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Tell that to the poor on the periphery of capitalism in, say, Chad or Guatemala.

So capitalism is to blame in Chad and not civil war, climate etc?.

 

[Spion]

So capitalism is to blame in Chad and not civil war, climate etc?.

Those things could probably be fixed if it were not for the fact that resources only go where they can gain a profit in this world

 

[mk12]

Or perhaps, what were the biggest contributing factors to its failure? Could it have worked with different leaders, or are isolated communist states doomed to failure due to the pressures of being in constant opposition to the system of government in other states?

Not sure how it would have worked out better, but keeping power in the hands of democratically elected organisations would have meant keeping a check on bureaucratisation. And obviously, the success of workers' struggles against the whites and the Bolsheviks would have given the country a genuine soviet power.

the USSR got rid of capitalism

Did it?! When?! When did they abolish the wage labour-capital relationship?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Oh, I agree. There's certainly arguments for a mixed economy, the problem being that as capitalism has been allowed to mutate so the ability and the means to run a mixed or a centralised economy have become more tenuous. You'd have to close down quite a few avenues that speculative capital are used to frequenting, in order to be able to centralise some factors of an economy without the fear that some red-braced twit and his friends wouldn't decide to manipulate the market to give you a kicking and teach you that "the market is the only game in town".

Agree that the mixed economy is the way to go.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

My 2 Kopek's worth - the USSR got rid of capitalism but there was no democratic control of the planned economy that replaced it.

In such circumstances you can bureaucratically (ie, top down) plan for the big things the economy needs - X number of steelworks, X miles of railway etc - but then gauging the more precise needs of individuals needs a mechanism that can give more detailed feedback, and that means either democratic mechanisms or the market. And seeing as the Stalinist bureaucracies were never going to allow the former they ended up moving towards the latter.

Also a point I agree with.

 

[dylanredefined]

Not killing a lot of people would have been a good start .Stalin killed off his officer corp and nearly lost the war .Not signing a non aggresion pact with nazi germany .How pissed must the nazis had to get them to sign that one ?
Not enslaving eastern europe at the end of the war so kicking off the cold war .America could spend lots on weapons and all the consumer desirables
its population wanted .Russia couldn't even feed its population .
Good idea but doomed to failure anyway .

 

[Spion]

Did it?! When?! When did they abolish the wage labour-capital relationship?

Not sure of the exact date - you'd have to date it from when the bulk of the large-scale means of production was collectivised.

There was no labour capital relationship after then because there was no capital - ie, no private property and no market in commodities or labour power. The economy was planned, bureaucratically and therefore blindly

 

[mk12]

So you can get rid of the labour-capital relationship simply by decree, overnight.

 

[butchersapron]

The economy was planned, bureaucratically and therefore blindly

Ooh just like the market!

 

[butchersapron]

My 2 Kopek's worth - the USSR got rid of capitalism but there was no democratic control of the planned economy that replaced it.

What's capitalism?

 

[dylanredefined]

Ooh just like the market!

but the market responds to change something soviet union couldn't or wouldnt do .
Make crap cars in the west go bust
Make crap cars in russia keep on going

 

[butchersapron]

but the market responds to change something soviet union couldn't or wouldnt do .
Make crap cars in the west go bust
Make crap cars in russia keep on going

Why wouldn't it respond to the external market in that fashion?

It doesen't have to be the world beater to react to the same pressures.

 

[butchersapron]

but the market responds to change something soviet union couldn't or wouldnt do .
Make crap cars in the west go bust
Make crap cars in russia keep on going

Make crap cars in the west got bust.
Make crap cars in russia go bust if they're for sale on the market, they're not so remove that sector from the argument.

 

[dylanredefined]

It didnt though did it .Considering it had a wealth of talent and highly educated and by all accounts motivated workforce .Its products were shoddy
even its weapons where it poured its major resources into were rubbish

 

[butchersapron]

It didnt though did it .Considering it had a wealth of talent and highly educated and by all accounts motivated workforce .Its products were shoddy
even its weapons where it poured its major resources into were rubbish

It didn't what?

 

[dylanredefined]

Work .

It had its inflexible state planned controlled economy .Which didn't work
couldnt even feed itself in the end .Let alone provide a standard of living
that could please its citizens .

 

[butchersapron]

Of course it didn't work, capitalism never does.

 

[mauvais]

I was wondering the other day - suppose you went back to just prior to Gorbachev's reforms, so before perestroika and glasnost. If you had the opportunity to do it again, with the insight we have now, could the USSR as it was have been saved?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is it? Central top-down government is actually a very good way of organising a drive to eliminate illiteracy, for instance. It's also rather good for ensuring universal innoculation.

What good is being literate and vaccinated if you get shot in the head by the NKVD?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It should be a priority for every state.
Unfortunately, it's part of what makes a state a state (that old saw about a "monopoly on the use of violence in maintenance of the state"). Some states apply the use of violence more indiscriminately than others, or through proxies, that's all.

Maybe, but when it comes to murdering its own citizens, the USSR was right up there near the top.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

BF says life was better under soviet rule for them?

*shrugs*

What went wrong?

Ask him if he was ever in a gulag.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My point being that top-down diktat is a very good way to quickly eliminate illiteracy. It worked in Cuba in the early 1960s.

People in US, Canada, Britain etc are pretty literate, and it was accomplished without the use of jackboots.

 

[Gmart]

It was a success!!

Absolutely, it was strong enough to last for 70 years, and then it's own people broke it down, sick to death with the corruption and the harshness of their lives.

 

[Spion]

So you can get rid of the labour-capital relationship simply by decree, overnight.

The existence of capitalism is dependent for any degree of stability on the ability in law to own private property, so yes, legally it can be done away with. That doesn't remove the existence of those who may hold property and want to turn it into private holdings by creating a state that defends that right in law.

Incidentally, do you ever say what you think? In months of noticing your posts you rarely do anything other than ask short questions. It doesn't really make for easy dialogue