tpkq@charm.UUCP (Timothy Kerwin) (04/12/84)
$<-- >> Timothy Kerwin writes: >> >> >This results ... in the lowering of wages toward the minimum >> >necessary to maintain the life of the worker... >> > >> >The point is that if you want to find solutions to the problems of >> >recession, unemployment, inflation, etc., you have to look beyond >> >the capitalist system. >> >> Well, looking beyond, to, say, the communist system, we see >> (i) almost full employment--however, this means that you might have >> 4 or 5 clerks working in a bakery shop that has goods only part of >> the day, and could be sufficiently staffed part-time by one >> person. The wages, I suspect, are less (in terms of buying power) >> than one might receive in the U.S. in welfare. By "the communist system," I assume the author means the economic system of the Soviet Union. As I pointed out in an earlier article, stories about the "failure" of the Soviet economic system and predictions of its imminent collapse have been appearing in the capitalist press ever since the Bolshevik Revolution. But the facts certainly indicate otherwise, and a report on the Soviet economy from the CIA (certainly no friend of the USSR!), released in December 1982, agrees. According to the CIA report, in the past 30 years the Soviet gross national product grew at an average rate of 4.6 percent. The official figure for the US economy during the same period averaged 3.4 percent. The CIA report concludes that "an accurate, balanced assessment" shows that the Soviet economy will continue to experience "positive growth for the forseeable future," and that "an economic collapse in the USSR is not considered even a remote possibility." (I wonder if they would say the same of the US economy!) I don't know if the bakery shop described was seen by the author during a trip to the Soviet Union, or if it exists only in his head, but the fact is that one of the main factors holding back the Soviet economy is a severe *shortage* of labor. It's clearly in nobody's interest to have idle workers in a planned economy. Bureaucratic waste and bottlenecks are probably inevitable in an undertaking as big as planning a modern industrial economy, and these are made much worse by the existence of a parasitic bureaucratic layer, which managed to usurp political power in the mid-1920s, and maintains its grip by totalitarian methods. However, the planned economy was not overthrown, and except for the periods when the Soviet Union was being blockaded or invaded by its capitalist neighbors, the standard of living of Soviet workers has risen steadily. Rather than compare it to the imperialist American economy, which began industrializing in the first half of the 19th century, which didn't suffer the devastation of a massive invasion during either of the World Wars, and which saps wealth from every corner of the world, why not compare the Soviet Union to a country like India, which was at roughly the same level of economic development in 1917 as the USSR? >> (ii) no recessions?--it could be argued that the average state of >> the economy is one long recession, measured in terms of output. >> Clearly, I think, the poor production in the farm sector in the >> U.S.S.R. has not been due to every year since 1917 being a bad winter. In 1917, hunger was widespread in the Soviet Union, and starvation was not uncommon; today, the Soviet Union is the world's largest producer of wheat. Indeed, it would take some EXTREMELY GOOD WEATHER to account for this, if weather were the deciding factor! In the Soviet economy, production is for use, not profit. Instead of capitalist firms competing with each other for profit, production in the Soviet Union is carried out according to an overall state plan. Production is limited primarily by the economy's physical capacity to produce (that is, by the supply of labor power, raw materials, machines, factories, and other means of production). Periodic crises of overproduction -- where needed products pile up in warehouses because they cannot be sold at a profit, and production is brought to a standstill -- do not occur in the Soviet economic system. >> (iii)no inflation--rationing is a method of controlling legal >> prices, but a side-effect is that there are often shortages. Also, >> black markets may be affected by inflation. Inflation is not an >> implied defect of the capitalistic system. Throughout most of the >> history of the U.S., at least, inflation has been mild. >> Rationing does not cause shortages, it is a result of shortages. The shortages themselves are caused by a combination of bureaucratic mismanagement (which, again, is primarily a result of an undemocratic, top-heavy decision making process), and the real need to devote a large part of the social surplus to modernizing industry and agriculture. Nevertheless, in recent years a much greater emphasis has been laid on consumer goods, and the cost of necessities continues to be extremely low. The price of bread in the USSR (about 10 cents per loaf) hasn't risen since 1955. And, of course, all health care and education is free. >> Moreover, the systems with the least economic freedom often are the >> ones with the least political freedom. >> >> Sam Hall >> decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap >> On the contrary, the "economic freedom" you speak of is only available to the rich, and the ruling class is a very tiny minority. Today, under capitalism, political freedom is a luxury which is only tolerated in the wealthiest capitalist countries, where relative class peace prevails. As soon as a capitalist country starts to fall on hard times, democratic rights begin to disappear. Capitalist countries where the economy is on the brink of collapse have produced some of the most brutal dictatorships the world has seen. Socialism, despite the abuses carried out in its name, lays the foundation for building a world in which social classes no longer exist, where production is geared toward meeting human needs, and poverty, exploitation, racism, sexism, political repression, and war are but dim memories of a barbaric past.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/12/84)
{}
Probably the major reason for the Soviet economy not failing is the
tremendous amount of export goods the Soviets are producing. In order
to maintain a high export economy, the Soviets have had to export
their philosophy and subjugate other nations. The Soviets will sell
anything to anybody in order to maintain the necessary production
levels to maintain their economy. If changing the political system
of a potential customer fails, outright invasion becomes a part of
their economic system. Each time the Soviet economy has become
weakened, we see the inevitable subjugation of another nation
beginning to unfold. The Soviet economy requires a huge export
base in order to survive. The Soviet merchant fleet is the largest
in the world and can be seen in nearly every port in the world.
Most of these ships return to their home ports empty, or with
only strategic materials which the Soviets need to supply their
production capacity.
Any economy based on the subjugation of nations in order to
preserve an export base is eventually going to collapse. Just
give it time. The Soviets saw the subjugation of its neighbors
as a twofold benefit during the forties. First, they provided
a buffer zone against Europe against invasion, but, they also
provided a huge and important customer base for exporting
surpluses and other goods to offset the disasters of the
previous twenty years. Since that time, due to the rising
importance of exports from their subjugated neighbors, the
Soviets have had to look further and further away for their
export base. Thus we see the results of their economic plans
in Central America and Africa.
China, at one time, tried to compete with the Soviets on their
own terms, but found the countries they were trying to export
to to poor to sustain an export base. This was the main thrust
of the problems between China and Russia. China has since found
that it can build an export base without relying on a gigantic
military base to support it. Examples are the new open trade
agreements with Japan, the US, and dozens of other nations.
The Soviets were miffed that China was refusing to become
another export dumping ground for their products and at
the same time attempting to build their own export base in
the Far East.
As someone said on the net last week, the world's problems are
not ones of requiring more territory to subjugate just because
it is there, the problem is economic. The desire to be able
to export goods to maintain a higher economy. All of the claptrap
about the poor worker being better off in a Communist society
is just eyewash for the masses. Socialism is nothing more than
a economic system that masks itself in phrases and cliches as
a social betterment system. If true socialism worked to raise
the workers standard of living, instead of maintaining it at
some artificial level, then everyone would be doing it. The
constant scrambling for export markets, by fair or foul means,
is the only thing that keeps the Soviet economy from going
down the tubes.
Now, for you defenders of the faith, the difference between
Capitalism and Socialism is in the approach to the worker.
The worker in a Capitalist system has the opportunity to choose
his/her work, lifestyle, and many other factors which affect
his/her life. A Capitalist worker may even choose NOT to
work. A person cannot choose Not to work under the Soviet
system. A worker under the Soviet system has only very narrow
choices as to job, housing, location, and a dozen other
restrictions. If I want to quit tommorrow and move to Oregon,
I can do just that without getting government approval. Try
that under the Soviet system and see how far you get.
I won't even try to excuse the excesses of the Capitalistic
system, but I find it far less represive than the Soviet
system. As to the numerous skirmishes the US is involved in
around the world, they are prime examples of the Soviets
trying to expand their export base at the expense of the US.
We too depend on an export base to continually expand our
economy. Whenever our balance of trade gets out of whack,
we see unemployment lines begin to grow. Therefore, it is
small wonder that our government steps into those countries
where our export base is about to be erroded by the Soviets.
Wake up and smell the coffee folks, economics is what its
all about. I don't like the thought of being tied to this
one job, one house, one community for the rest of my life.
I kind of like being able to choose where I go. Sitting
back and accepting Soviet style socialism would put a crimp
in my lifestyle. It saddens me that the US has to rattle
the saber all the time, but what is the answer? Seeing
our export markets dry up with an inevitable lowering of
our standards? Countering the moves against our export
base with words? Becoming the export base for the Soviets,
thus losing our markets? Or perhaps using the same methods
used by the Soviets to subvert other nations and force them
to become our markets? I don't know the answer, but it is
not as simple as some folks on net would have us think.
The whole Soviet/US relationship is an economic war
with the two diverse economic systems vying for the world
markets. That shooting at one another comes into play is
just another sign of how important these world markets
have become over the past forty years.
Go ahead, make my day.
T. C. Wheelerbitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (04/14/84)
<...> A long reply to a long reply: Mr. Kerwin's latest statements are indicated by "]", the others should be clear from context. >> Timothy Kerwin writes: >> >> >This results ... in the lowering of wages toward the minimum >> >necessary to maintain the life of the worker... >> > >> >The point is that if you want to find solutions to the problems of >> >recession, unemployment, inflation, etc., you have to look beyond >> >the capitalist system. >> >> Well, looking beyond, to, say, the communist system, we see >> (i) almost full employment--however, this means that you might have >> 4 or 5 clerks working in a bakery shop that has goods only part of >> the day, and could be sufficiently staffed part-time by one >> person. The wages, I suspect, are less (in terms of buying power) >> than one might receive in the U.S. in welfare. ] By "the communist system," I assume the author means the ] economic system of the Soviet Union. As I pointed out in an earlier ] article, stories about the "failure" of the Soviet economic system and ] predictions of its imminent collapse have been appearing in the ] capitalist press ever since the Bolshevik Revolution. But the facts ] certainly indicate otherwise, and a report on the Soviet economy from ] the CIA (certainly no friend of the USSR!), released in December 1982, ] agrees. According to the CIA report, in the past 30 years ] the Soviet gross national product grew at an average rate of 4.6 ] percent. The official figure for the US economy during the same ] period averaged 3.4 percent. The CIA report concludes that "an ] accurate, balanced assessment" shows that the Soviet economy will ] continue to experience "positive growth for the forseeable future," ] and that "an economic collapse in the USSR is not considered even a ] remote possibility." (I wonder if they would say the same of the US ] economy!) ] I don't know if the bakery shop described was seen by the ] author during a trip to the Soviet Union, or if it exists only in his ] head, but the fact is that one of the main factors holding back the ] Soviet economy is a severe *shortage* of labor. It's clearly in ] nobody's interest to have idle workers in a planned economy. ] Bureaucratic waste and bottlenecks are probably inevitable in ] an undertaking as big as planning a modern industrial economy, and ] these are made much worse by the existence of a parasitic bureaucratic ] layer, which managed to usurp political power in the mid-1920s, and ] maintains its grip by totalitarian methods. However, the planned ] economy was not overthrown, and except for the periods when the Soviet ] Union was being blockaded or invaded by its capitalist neighbors, the ] standard of living of Soviet workers has risen steadily. ] Rather than compare it to the imperialist American economy, ] which began industrializing in the first half of the 19th century, ] which didn't suffer the devastation of a massive invasion during ] either of the World Wars, and which saps wealth from every corner of ] the world, why not compare the Soviet Union to a country like India, ] which was at roughly the same level of economic development in 1917 as ] the USSR? No, I'm willing to apply the statements to just about any communist country. The anecdote about the bakery shop comes from some friends who visited Czechoslovakia last fall. I will address the Soviet Union in particular, though, as you have chosen it. Please note that I didn't try to claim that the Soviet system is in danger of crumbling, nor do I think that most people would seriously consider the US system as in danger of crumbling. I agree that systems which encourage bureaucrats are inherently less efficient: I think that this is one of the major problems of the day-to-day working of the Soviet system. To address your statements about growth and the historical economic status of the Soviet Union, I will quote from an article in "The Encyclopedia of Delusions" (E.O.D.), which discusses opinions such as yours. "...Russia enjoyed a fantastic rate of growth before 1914...Out of the last 25 years before 1914, Russia's growth rate led the world in 18 of them. Her average rise in industrial output from 1894 to 1914 was about eight per cent per year. ...by 1913 Russia was the world's fifth industrial power, just ahead of Austro-Hungary and behind only the United States, Germany, Britain and France, the last of which she must have overtaken during the war, despite the loss of Polish industry." India of 1917 is hardly a fair comparison, eh? Modern India, I think, is not a bastion of capitalism in any case. "In real terms, the pre-revolutionary Russian industrial worker earned about half as much as his British counterpart; he now probably earns about a third." An interesting comparison would be with Japan, who, although not invaded, was certainly bombed, and suffered many casualties. As I understand it, the Japanese constitution, modeled after the US constitution, was essentially forced upon Japan at the time of surrender. Compare modern Japan, with remarkably few natural resources, with the Soviet Union, which has perhaps the most natural resources of any country. I say that it is largely the system of government/economics that makes the difference. >> (ii) no recessions?--it could be argued that the average state of >> the economy is one long recession, measured in terms of output. >> Clearly, I think, the poor production in the farm sector in the >> U.S.S.R. has not been due to every year since 1917 being a bad winter. ] In 1917, hunger was widespread in the Soviet Union, and ] starvation was not uncommon; today, the Soviet Union is the world's ] largest producer of wheat. Indeed, it would take some EXTREMELY GOOD ] WEATHER to account for this, if weather were the deciding factor! Of course, by 1917, Russia was largely overrun by Germans (at least the western part was), and the country was losing a war. However, this point is also addressed in E.O.D. "Harvests in the war, as before it, were abundant. Why then did the cities 'starve'? Katkov, in his fascinating 'February 1917' doubts whether they did: he finds evidence of food enough in or available to Petrograd in early 1917. The huge angry queues present us with a riddle--one of so many. The answer to this one lies, I suspect, not in mechanical breakdowns of 'backwardness' but rather in a thoroughly modern combination of hideous inflation (336 per cent from 1914 to the end of 1916) and idiotic price controls, two factors which can always be relied upon to produce want amidst plenty. These phenomena were by no means unique to Russia at that time..." My World Almanac failed me in trying to find the figures for world wheat production. Are you including the loss due to spoilage and poor harvesting techniques in your figure? Why has the S.U. had to buy grain in recent years, if its harvests have been so good? After all, its population is greater than that of the US by only about 1/4, and the US has lots of wheat to export (and pays its farmers not to grow it), so why this discrepancy with your statements? ] In the Soviet economy, production is for use, not profit. ] Instead of capitalist firms competing with each other for profit, ] production in the Soviet Union is carried out according to an overall ] state plan. Production is limited primarily by the economy's physical ] capacity to produce (that is, by the supply of labor power, raw ] materials, machines, factories, and other means of production). ] Periodic crises of overproduction -- where needed products pile up in ] warehouses because they cannot be sold at a profit, and production is ] brought to a standstill -- do not occur in the Soviet economic ] system. Well, in this bright, shining monument to the Soviet economy that you seem to have built, I will agree that overproduction is unlikely to occur. >> (iii)no inflation--rationing is a method of controlling legal >> prices, but a side-effect is that there are often shortages. Also, >> black markets may be affected by inflation. Inflation is not an >> implied defect of the capitalistic system. Throughout most of the >> history of the U.S., at least, inflation has been mild. >> ] Rationing does not cause shortages, it is a result of ] shortages. The shortages themselves are caused by a combination of ] bureaucratic mismanagement (which, again, is primarily a result of an ] undemocratic, top-heavy decision making process), and the real need to ] devote a large part of the social surplus to modernizing industry and ] agriculture. Nevertheless, in recent years a much greater emphasis ] has been laid on consumer goods, and the cost of necessities ] continues to be extremely low. The price of bread in the USSR (about ] 10 cents per loaf) hasn't risen since 1955. And, of course, all ] health care and education is free. Yes, you're partially correct. I should have said that rationing goes along with shortages, but is most usually produced by artificially low pricing. >> Moreover, the systems with the least economic freedom often are the >> ones with the least political freedom. >> >> Sam Hall >> decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap >> ] On the contrary, the "economic freedom" you speak of is only ] available to the rich, and the ruling class is a very tiny minority. In the S.U., as I understand it, membership in the communist party is restricted to about 8% of the population (does anyone know the exact number?). Of this, the ruling class, i.e., those who have wealth such as "dachas", is a very very tiny minority. ] Today, under capitalism, political freedom is a luxury which is ] only tolerated in the wealthiest capitalist countries, where relative ] class peace prevails. As soon as a capitalist country starts to fall ] on hard times, democratic rights begin to disappear. Capitalist ] countries where the economy is on the brink of collapse have produced ] some of the most brutal dictatorships the world has seen. True. Nazi Germany compares closely, in many respects, with the Soviet Union. Of course Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state, not a capitalistic one. It is indeed a sad fact that capitalistic countries can change into brutal dictatorships: as far as I know, this is true of any country or economic system. ] Socialism, despite the abuses carried out in its name, lays the ] foundation for building a world in which social classes no longer ] exist, where production is geared toward meeting human needs, and ] poverty, exploitation, racism, sexism, political repression, and war ] are but dim memories of a barbaric past. Tawdry and ingenuous, as well as trite. So how do minorities fare in the S.U.? Would someone else care to talk about this? Sam Hall decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
kunda@uicsg.UUCP (04/15/84)
#R:charm:-32100:uicsg:17600017:000:1055 uicsg!kunda Apr 15 12:21:00 1984 I agree with T.C. Wheeler's argument about Soviet Union. I think he pointed out the differences between the Socialist and Capitalist societies. But he forgot to mention that US will screw any country if they see any kind of trouble to the US economy. Whatever he said about Soviet Union are done by US and vice versa. Of course if US wants expand it's power in Central America, then it is friendship and democracy, if Soviet Union wants to do the same in Afghanistan it's called Communism and Barbarism. Both US and Soviet Union have double standard's on what they do. US condemns the Soviet presence in Afghanistan and Soviets condemn US presence in Central America. If these are related to economy and trade of the respective countries then is it possible to create the proper conditions within the country so that they don't have to depend on other countries and kill their own children, so that some big company makes a huge profit or in case of Soviet Union their goods can be sold. Certainly I am not suggesting either one is better or worse.
david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak) (04/18/84)
Not a criticism, just an observation...T.C. Wheeler's your distinctly non-
complimentary analysis of the Soviet Union was one of the most Marxist
commentaries I've encountered in a long time!
Cheers.
--- das