Soviet Standard of Living

[maya]

Twenty years ago I remember reading a whole bunch on the fall of communism.

One bit in particular that stuck was a report that the CIA had made economic projections of the socialists economies, predicting at one stage that the USSR would overtake the West in standard of living sometime in the 1980s. Apparently, the CIA did not expect communism to collapse but instead rival the west.

The only book of Soviet economics that I could find dealing with this was the 'Economic History of the USSR (final edition)' by Alec Nove. 3/4 of the book is dedicated to pre-WWII, and a scant 10 pages for the whole of the 1980s.

Was the CIA just plain wrong about the levels of economic growth in the Soviet Union? Were they right, but the Afghan war + 80s reforms that killed growth and sent the economy into a tailspin? Has this period of history gone down the memory hole?

[Drace]

During Stalin's industrialization, the Soviet Union's industry was growing at a rate of 16.4% or so a year. I think this was when the US economists made the estimate that the Soviet Union would surpass the United States.

Things went downhill later though

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Brezhnev did not do an awful lot for economic growth, in all honesty.

The problem was that, despite the industrialisation occurring at rapid pace under Stalin, a lot of what was done was focused on bringing people out of poverty, which was obviously successful, whatever some of us think about Stalin.

However, post-WW2 this industrialisation slowed and there was not much success in producing more 'consumer goods', because of the centralised, bureaucratic nature of the USSR, something which was initiated by Stalin.

[maya]

The problem I am still grappling with if the collapse of living standards, esp. in the soviet union during the 1980s was the inevitable result of central planning, or if it was the result of external forces i.e. Party reforms, discontent with communism in general.

Even in the 1960s communist countries were outperforming their capitalist peers. Even the DPRK was by all objective measures outperforming South Korea well into the 1960s. USSR the standard of living stayed level until the end of the Brezhnev era AFAIK.

Even Alec Nove admits that Soviet central planning eliminated the regular famines that used to plague Russia for hundreds of years. It seemed that for a time soviet communism was largely successful at, if not increasing, then at least stabilizing the standard of living for most folks.

[FSL]

The problem I am still grappling with if the collapse of living standards, esp. in the soviet union during the 1980s was the inevitable result of central planning, or if it was the result of external forces i.e. Party reforms, discontent with communism in general.

Even in the 1960s communist countries were outperforming their capitalist peers. Even the DPRK was by all objective measures outperforming South Korea well into the 1960s. USSR the standard of living stayed level until the end of the Brezhnev era AFAIK.

Even Alec Nove admits that Soviet central planning eliminated the regular famines that used to plague Russia for hundreds of years. It seemed that for a time soviet communism was largely successful at, if not increasing, then at least stabilizing the standard of living for most folks.



What central planning did was eliminate the causes of slow growth or recession in capitalism. That is wasting resourses (for example unemployment), anarchy in production, companies trying to get each other out of business, the fact that at many cases profit can be maximized if you reduce supply (like let oranges rot instead of selling them) etc.
What it did, wasn't unique in socialism. It generally is, but the possibility of the bourgeoisie working together to get past capitalism's weakness was given by Marxists early on and was seen in east asian economies that can be described as "authoritarian capitalism". Main example would be the japanese economy from the early 50s and up to the 70s when the economy had a continuous high rate of growth. Owners of companies at that time produced according to the goals set by the government. This allowed them to achieve the improved standing in the world economy they have today. Of course, when they were able to compete with the bourgeoisie of other countries they stopped making any such concessions. Also, needless to say, they were the ones that benefited the most from that growth.

The soviet economy kept expanding at a very high rate until the mid/late 50s and would at that pace easily overcome the us economy. The reasons that slowed growth are, in my opinion, not inherent weaknesses in central planning but the reforms that started after the party's 20th congress, which were intesified during perestroika bringing growth to a halt (in fact by the 1980s, central planning played a much smaller role, businesses were pretty much independent). It is worth noting that despite claims made on how these reforms were necessary, calls for them started to appear in the 1940s, long before the soviet economy showed any signs of weakening. Also,with each wave of reforms came a further slowdown in growth. The next reforms were then planned with "hopes" they'd fix whatever was wrong but resulting in an economy that was much closer to stagnation.

[maya]

What central planning did was eliminate the causes of slow growth or recession in capitalism. That is wasting resourses (for example unemployment), anarchy in production, companies trying to get each other out of business, the fact that at many cases profit can be maximized if you reduce supply (like let oranges rot instead of selling them) etc.
What it did, wasn't unique in socialism. It generally is, but the possibility of the bourgeoisie working together to get past capitalism's weakness was given by Marxists early on and was seen in east asian economies that can be described as "authoritarian capitalism". Main example would be the japanese economy from the early 50s and up to the 70s when the economy had a continuous high rate of growth. Owners of companies at that time produced according to the goals set by the government. This allowed them to achieve the improved standing in the world economy they have today. Of course, when they were able to compete with the bourgeoisie of other countries they stopped making any such concessions. Also, needless to say, they were the ones that benefited the most from that growth.

Not to mention that their planning contained no social safety net and very little state services. And being prohibited from having an army would have been a huge cost saver. Central planning in capitalist states necessarily needs to be brutal.


The soviet economy kept expanding at a very high rate until the mid/late 50s and would at that pace easily overcome the us economy. The reasons that slowed growth are, in my opinion, not inherent weaknesses in central planning but the reforms that started after the party's 20th congress, which were intesified during perestroika bringing growth to a halt (in fact by the 1980s, central planning played a much smaller role, businesses were pretty much independent). It is worth noting that despite claims made on how these reforms were necessary, calls for them started to appear in the 1940s, long before the soviet economy showed any signs of weakening. Also,with each wave of reforms came a further slowdown in growth. The next reforms were then planned with "hopes" they'd fix whatever was wrong but resulting in an economy that was much closer to stagnation.

From what little information I've been able to source about the Soviet economy in the 1980s, Gosplan seems to have just rubber-stamped everything given to them from below.

You are spot on about businesses being independent - collective farms seemed to be pretty much privately run by the 80s, with most of the produce being sold privately. The more I read about perestroika the more it seems like the leadership were just not interested in the interests of the people.

Does anyone have any online resources or book suggestions about 1980s soviet economy?

[pranabjyoti]

In my opinion, the collapse of the post WWII period was due to terrible losses in WWII. USA, so far, haven't suffered not much loss in WWII and moreover, it always had and still having a good boost of human resource from the third world countries. During the WWII, a huge lot of scientists and technocrats, a big lot from Germany, who were German Jews and others from the Nazi occupied Europe fled to USA. When the WWII stopped, the flow of brains from Europe ended, but that gap was and is still being filled by human resource from the third world countries. In my opinion, this is the greatest reason, which is responsible for the advancement of USA and imperialism.
In contrary, USSR had to depend solely on its own human resources, which had been terribly lowered after WWII. So, the progress in the scientific and technical research had been slowed bitterly after WWII.
The imperialist countries, specially UK had and huge empire, where science and technology had been and still being taught in English. So, those good brains, which hadn't and haven't found a proper platform for scientific and technical research in their own countries, which are third world countries, had and have very naturally taken USA and UK as their destination.
But, so far, there is no such countries outside USSR, where higher studies and science and technology had been done in Russian language and so, very naturally, the USSR wouldn't have such flow of human resources from other countries of the world.
But, with sorrow, I am still observing that there is still little awareness among the countries, which called themselves "socialist" or inclined towards socialism regarding this matter.

[ComradeOm]

I've made the point before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-economy-t121565/index.html?t=121565) that assuming that living standards automatically rise with economic growth is false. Particularly so in the USSR. In reality, the economic growth during the Stalin years was not accompanied by a similar rise in living standards. This was especially the case during the 1930s when the most intense phase of industrialisation saw a decided fall in living standards

It was not until the Khrushchev years that living standards began to rise in any meaningful way


One bit in particular that stuck was a report that the CIA had made economic projections of the socialists economies, predicting at one stage that the USSR would overtake the West in standard of living sometime in the 1980s. Apparently, the CIA did not expect communism to collapse but instead rival the west.Which really says all you need to know about the accuracy of CIA predictions. They were still making such assertions in the late eighties when the entire Soviet edifice was, with hindsight, clearly tottering

[bailey_187]

Even in the 1970s and 1980s the Soviet Economy was growing at an acceptable level.

Between1975-84 it grew at an average of 4.1% while the USA grew at an average of 2.5%. In 1985 it slowed to 1.7& but by 1986 had increased to 3.6%, 1987 2.8%, 1988 5.3%, 1989 3% but then the Market reforms made the economy fall (for the first time since the start of the 5 year plans) by -2.3%

The avergae acceptable growth rate of developed economies in about 2 or 3%.

Source: IMF, quoted from Austin Murphy - The Triumph of Evil

[Intelligitimate]

Engles once said of the Paris Commune; "Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Marx also once said the Paris Commune "will be for ever celebrated as the glorious harbringer of a new society." I think these same sentiments apply to the Soviet Union.

Michael Parenti does a great job summarizing the huge costs associated with the restoration of capitalism to the people of the world and the former socialist countries in his "Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism," but so far Keeran and Kenny have done one of the better jobs I've seen of detailing exactly what it was that the people lost. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the introduction of their book "Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union." Any typos are probably my own, as a copied it manually from the book.

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

A brief review of the Soviet Union's accomplishments underscores what was lost. The Soviet Union not only eliminated the exploiting classes of the old order, but also ended inflation, unemployment, racial and national discrimination, grinding poverty, and glaring inequalities of wealth, income, education, and opportunity. In fifty years, the country went from an industrial production that was only 12 percent of that in the United States to industrial production that was 80 percent and an agricultural output of 85 of the U.S. Though Soviet per capita consumption remained lower than in the U.S., no society had ever increased living standards and consumption so rapidly in such a short period of time for all its people. Employment was guaranteed. Free education was available for all, from kindergarten through secondary schools (general, technical and vocational), universities, and after-work schools. Besides free tuition, post-secondary students received living stipends. Free health care existed for all, with about twice as many doctors per person as in the Unites States. Workers who were injured or ill had job guarantees and sick pay. In the mid-1970s, workers averaged 21.2 working days of vacation (a month's vacation), and sanitariums, resorts, and children's camps were either free or subsidized. Trade unions had the power to veto firings and recall managers. The state regulated all prices and subsidized the cost of basic food and housing. Rents constituted only 2-3 percent of the family budget; water and utilities only 4-5 percent. No segregated housing by income existed. Though some neighborhoods were reserved for high officials, elsewhere plant managers, nurses, professors and janitors lived side by side.

The government included cultural and intellectual growth as part of the effort to enhance living standards. State subsidies kept the price of books, periodicals, and cultural events at a minimum. As a result, workers often owned their own libraries, and the average family subscribed to four periodicals. UNESCO reported that soviet citizens read more books and saw more films than any other people in the world. Every year the number of people visiting museums equaled nearly half the entire population, and attendance at theaters, concerts, and other performances surpassed the total population. The government made a concerted effort to raise the literacy and living standards of the most backward areas and to encourage the cultural expression of the more than a hundred nationality groups that constituted the Soviet Union. In Kirghizia, for example, only one out of every five hundred people could read and write in 1917, but fifty years later nearly everyone could.

In 1983, American sociologist Albert Szymanski reviewed a variety of Western studies of Soviet income distribution and living standards. He found that the highest paid people in the Soviet Union were prominent artists, writers, professors, administrators, and scientists, who earned as high as 1,200 to 1,500 rubles a month. Leading government officials earned about 600 rubles a month; entreprise directors from 190 to 400 rubles a month, and workers about 150 rubles a month. Consequently, the highest incomes amount to only 10 times the average worker's wages, while in the United States the highest paid corporate heads made 115 times the wages of workers. Privileges that come with high office, such as special stores and official automobiles, remained small and limited and did not offset a continuous, forty-year trend toward greater egalitarianism. (The opposite trend occurred in the Unites States, where by the late 1990s, corporate heads were making 480 times the wages of the average worker.) Though the tendency to level wages and incomes created problems (discussed later), the overall equalization of living conditions in the Soviet Union represented an unprecedented feat in human history. The equalization was furthered by a pricing policy that fixed the cost of luxuries above their value and of necessities below their value. It was also furthered by a steadily increasing “social wage,” that is, the provision of an increasing number of free or subsidized social benefits. Besides those already mentioned, the benefits included, paid maternity leave, inexpensive child care and generous pensions. Szymanski concluded, “While the Soviet social structure may not match the Communist or socialist ideal, it is both qualitatively different from, and more equalitarian than, that of Western capitalist countries. Socialism has made a radical difference in favor of the working class.”

[Kayser_Soso]

In my long time in Russia I have met many honest non-political and pro-Communist individuals who were young people in the early 90s. What I have gathered from their descriptions of life is that for people in places like Moscow, they had it too good. You have to remember these people never worried about being fed, putting their kids through college, or paying the rent. They did not have debts. They worked, they had dachas and recreation facilities provided for them, and they practiced sports and other pursuits in their free time. During perestroika propaganda from the West was being published even in the pages of Pravda. The people began to fantasize about having all the benefits of their socialist system, with all the consumer goods of the West- this was what was pitched to them. They bought it, and now they have buyer's remorse.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Even in the 1970s and 1980s the Soviet Economy was growing at an acceptable level.

Between1975-84 it grew at an average of 4.1% while the USA grew at an average of 2.5%. In 1985 it slowed to 1.7& but by 1986 had increased to 3.6%, 1987 2.8%, 1988 5.3%, 1989 3% but then the Market reforms made the economy fall (for the first time since the start of the 5 year plans) by -2.3%

The avergae acceptable growth rate of developed economies in about 2 or 3%.

Source: IMF, quoted from Austin Murphy - The Triumph of Evil

Of course, there is the problem of complacency with regards to living standards, in that many assume that positive economic growth always leads to an increase in living standards. We know that in capitalist economies, this is most definitely not the case. There are many extra-mural factors which one must take into account - which sectors does this growth come from, what is the wealth distribution like, and so on.

Because of Gorbachev's reforms in the 1980s, it is likely that for many people, living standards started to fall from the time of his ascent, and that the economy first contracted as late as 1990 was a product of the lagging nature of growth. In fact, due to this latency, one can fundamentally question the extent to which growth correlates to living standards. Obviously, negative growth = fall in living standards (for the majority). However, when talking of an economy based on planning, where negative growth is virtually unheard of (using the USSR as an example), one must understand that in order to assess living standards, growth is but one of a number of factors to be assessed. I would place more importance on studies of consumption, income/wealth inequality and the production of luxuries as opposed to the production of normal goods.

[bailey_187]

"I would place more importance on studies of consumption, income/wealth inequality and the production of luxuries as opposed to the production of normal goods. "

I dont have any figures on this, but if anyone does it would be much appreciated.

"Statistics demonstrate that during the post-war period,the country's national production increaesed 24 times and national income 16 times. I remember very clearly in the early years of Perestroika, the level of production in agriculture and industry reached its highest level. Housing construction also showed similar growth.
During those years people enjoyed their highest standard of living" - Lygachev , quoted from Bahman Azad - Heroic Struggle, bitter defeat

Also, whereas economic growth in Capitalism can simply mean more people have had car accidents or less people decided to do DIY (as these count to GDP), IIRC in the Socialist country's they measured their Economy not by exchange but industrial production.
Also, whereas an increase in growth in Capitalism may just mean more profits for the capitalists, in Socialism the increased surplus for growth is used for either reinvestment or is used for the populations benefit

[ComradeOm]

"Statistics demonstrate that during the post-war period,the country's national production increaesed 24 times and national income 16 times. I remember very clearly in the early years of Perestroika, the level of production in agriculture and industry reached its highest level. Housing construction also showed similar growth.
During those years people enjoyed their highest standard of living" - Lygachev , quoted from Bahman Azad - Heroic Struggle, bitter defeatDavies' The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union has an execllent chapter on the "crooked mirror" of Soviet statistics. Fitzpatrick's Everyday Stalinism paints a vivid picture of Stainist Russia during the 1930s (particularly the housing crisis). Unfortunately I don't have these works on hand but try Google books, Davies in particular has a wealth of figures

Needless to say the image painted in your above quote is almost entirely wrong. To quote from a previous post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1589311&postcount=3), "even the most optimistic estimates quoted for consumption growth during Stalin's reign are no more than 11% from 1928 to 1953". This compares unfavourably to the 44% increase seen during the following decade. The housing crisis in particular was a noted feature of Stalin's USSR


Also, whereas economic growth in Capitalism can simply mean more people have had car accidents or less people decided to do DIY (as these count to GDP), IIRC in the Socialist country's they measured their Economy not by exchange but industrial production.
Also, whereas an increase in growth in Capitalism may just mean more profits for the capitalists, in Socialism the increased surplus for growth is used for either reinvestment or is used for the populations benefitYou don't see the contradiction there? Measuring output solely, or even largely, in terms of industrial production (which in reality meant heavy industry) leads to the neglection of the consumer sector. Soviet citizens did not have to worry about increased car accidents because the car industry was woefully underdeveloped when compared to Western nations. Its hard to argue, on the basis of statistical or testamonial evidence, that the Soviet consimer goods sector (ie, those industries that produced goods for consumption by the average Soviet citizen) did not consistenly lag heavy industry in terms of growth and prioritisation

Ellman's Socialist Planning is good on the gap that arose between the allocation of resources to these different sectors

[FSL]

Growth in GDP doesn't always lead to an improvement in standards of living. For example, during the previous years when growth was strong one could argue that living standards got worse for the majority of the people. However, now that the economy is in recession it's without a doubt that living standards for the working class have worsen. Therefore, it's rational to say that growth is generally a good thing in every type of economy.

But how important is growth in the long run? Very.

Two identical economies both producing what equals 100 billion dollars. One economy grows by 10%, the other one by 5%.
The first economy in 20 years will produce a value of 738 billion dollars.
The second one a value of 271 billion dollars. The difference is not something you can easily disregard.

But people are right when they claim that it's the consumption that tells us how well people are living.

Consumption in 1928 Soviet Union was at 69.8 of the GDP. There came a quite steep decline during the first two 5 year plans, consumption was at 63% of the GDP in 1937.
But, it was 63% of something much, much bigger. A slightly smaller fraction of a much bigger economy. Even then, consumption significantly rose.
It continued to decrease but at a much slower pace, going just below 60% during the late 50s. During all this time there was an effort to keep investments at roughly 25% with some small ups and downs. This trend was reversed in the 70s and 80s and consumption reached again 68% just a bit before ussr's dissolution. With growth being much slower this meant a smaller annual increase in consumption, feel free to do the math. Also, during the 80s it was mostly government consumption that increased, I 'd guess as a result of the war in Afghanistan and increased defence spending.


Modern developed economies are thought to be driven by consumption and this is what some people would want socialism to be like.
In 2008 the US and UK economies were as follows:

In the US, investments represented 14.3% of the GDP while net exports were at -5.8%. This means consumption was at 91.5% of GDP for 2008
In the UK, investments made up 16.7% of GDP. Net exports -7.7%. So consumption for the UK was at 91% of the GDP.

This seems indeed very nice to look at. Rich countries with high domestic product, and using most of it to satisfy their needs. But that is the wrong way to look at it. Because these economies go hand in hand with economies like those of China and India. In China investments made up 40% of the gdp, in India 39%.

To argue that the Soviet Union should have developed a "consumer economy" is to argue one of two things:

a) That Soviet Union does the impossible and produces without really bothering to invest.
b) That Soviet Union instead of building its factories in Moscow, it builds them in India and pays the local workers let's say a ruble per day. That way it's India's GDP that is made up largely by investments while the Soviet Union's can be dedicated solely to consumption.
However, I see no reason for Soviet Union to do so.
(This isn't some pro third-worldist argument, it's the assertion of the fact that people in some countries have it a bit better)


Today most of the economically developed countries have a general mortality index of between 7 and 12. This has also for many years been the stable index of general mortality in the Soviet Union. Moreover, general mortality figures in the Soviet Union during the last few decades reveal a clear tendency towards a decrease. For example, in 1940 the general mortality index was 18, in 1950 it was 9.7, in 1955 it went down to 8.2, while today it is about 7.9. Admittedly, of late (since about 1960) there has been no appreciable decrease in this index, which seems to be due to the influence of various factors, including the process of ageing of the population which is also observed in most economically developed countries.


Regarding, life reaching its best during the 80s. I can imagine this being true in some ways as people had more cars/TVs then than they did in1950 for obvious reasons. But as shown above, there were periods of great improvement and periods of relative stagnation (the study is from the early 70s)

[FSL]

...



First of all, no.
Second of all, I won't argue with you since I clearly remember you denouncing as an apology for stalinism not only any sourse that wasn't from a western professor with books like "The screams of the dead! Stalin's victims revisited", but even the mentioning of basic economic theory when it didn't suit your claims.

[Random Precision]

First of all, no.
Second of all, I won't argue with you since I clearly remember you denouncing as an apology for stalinism not only any sourse that wasn't from a western professor with books like "The screams of the dead! Stalin's victims revisited", but even the mentioning of basic economic theory when it didn't suit your claims.

Hi FSL

This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss, then please don't post. :)

[Intelligitimate]

Davies' The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union has an execllent chapter on the "crooked mirror" of Soviet statistics. Fitzpatrick's Everyday Stalinism paints a vivid picture of Stainist Russia during the 1930s (particularly the housing crisis). Unfortunately I don't have these works on hand but try Google books, Davies in particular has a wealth of figures

I do have the works on hand. What the hell does this have to do with Lygachev's claims? Even Western statistics for economic growth of the Soviet Union are incredibly high, which Davies most certainly does discuss and show. The claim doesn't even seem fantastic when taken into account Lygachev is talking about the growth of the USSR after the horrific devastation of the war.


Which is only true for a very selective reading of the facts. The reality is that the real wages and living standards of the Soviets workers were deliberately suppressed during the Stalin era as such a curtailment of consumption was considered necessary for rapid industrialisation.

Production of consumer goods and their consumption doesn't equal an increased standard of living. You can have a society devoted to producing shitty consumer goods that doesn't provide for jobs, healthcare, education, etc.

[FSL]

Hi FSL

This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss, then please don't post. :)


Oh, please.

[Glenn Beck]

The standard story is that the Soviet economy grew rapidly in leaps and bounds is it industrialized under Stalin and consolidated under Kruschev but was unable to successfully transition from the production of capital goods to consumer goods leading to stagnation from diminishing returns on investment into capital as the economy completed its industrialization. I have also heard anti-revisionist accounts that cite a decrease in investment in capital under Kruschev's administration that damaged agriculture and other industries. I'm not sure of the veracity of these arguments but they both seem pretty relevant as to why the economy of the Soviet Union reversed from rapid growth to total stagnation in two decades.

[Andropov]

Theres not much more I can add to this thread that has not been said already, I see one of my favourite books "Socialism Betrayed" has already been quoted.
But it must be noted that the defficiencys in producing consumerist goods which were very hard to centrally manage would be a totally different story in this day and age with the computer technology now available to society.

[Random Precision]

Oh, please.

Saying "I'm not going to discuss this with you, because..." and then proceed to insult the user is trolling.

[FSL]

The standard story is that the Soviet economy grew rapidly in leaps and bounds is it industrialized under Stalin and consolidated under Kruschev but was unable to successfully transition from the production of capital goods to consumer goods leading to stagnation from diminishing returns on investment into capital as the economy completed its industrialization. I have also heard anti-revisionist accounts that cite a decrease in investment in capital under Kruschev's administration that damaged agriculture and other industries. I'm not sure of the veracity of these arguments but they both seem pretty relevant as to why the economy of the Soviet Union reversed from rapid growth to total stagnation in two decades.



Since the people at the UN can hardly be called anti-revisionists, them saying the same should do the trick and convince you.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/Introduction.asp

You can choose basic data selection, look up former USSR and see the negative trend in investment. Sadly, it only holds statistics starting from 1970 but it should be enough.


Regarding the other points raised, why make a transition from capital goods to consumer goods?

I mean, obviously, people don't drink oil or eat steel or drive around in tractors etc but these things are used as input in production (in production of consumer goods as well).
So, were there huge warehouses filled with unused steel, barrels full of oil and tractors that never saw a farm? Because if there weren't warehouses like these, then those products did indeed find their use in production. The soviet union could stop producing them alltogether but what would the point be? It would still need to import oil, steel and tractors in that case. Some other country would increase its production to meet the new demand. Is the argument simply saying that Soviet Union should depend more on the international markets for the basic functioning of its economy? (objectively speaking, it's way less dangerous to "depend" on imports of clothes) That is what went wrong?
Production of consumer goods increases -and it did increase in the Soviet Union, Moscow got its subway in the 30s even if it didn't have the most progressed automobile industry- as the production of capital goods meets the demand for necessary input. You can't run around that.


Also, diminishing returns from capital would mean a very high stock of capital per worker. I doubt that the Soviet Union reached that point in 25 years and when WW2 meant a huge distraction in infastructrure. For example, the marginal product of capital in the United States today is such that an increase in the rate of savings would bring an increase in product big enough to improve long-term consumption. Was the ratio of capital to workers bigger in 1960s USSR?
And even if that was true, the USSR was a centrally planned economy (until 1956 at least, less so later on). No one could stop it from shifting resourses away from investment in capital and to investment in research. Though it's hard to accurately calculate the marginal product of R&D, efforts that have been made put it at a much higher level than that of capital. If workers did have a more than sufficient amount of capital at their disposal, then they could try to find ways of making it "better" instead of simply more. This wasn't what happened though. It wasn't even the aim of the policies adopted.



Saying "I'm not going to discuss this with you, because..." and then proceed to insult the user is trolling.


Elaborate on my insulting. I proceeded to provide 2 very good reasons on why I didn't want to argue. Hardly a reason for a warning, no? I 've seen worse things thrown around in a casual manner.

[maya]

Could the general consensus be that the 1980s were a disaster economically due to the reforms, and not due to some limitations builtin to socialism, like the mainstream like to portray?

[Intelligitimate]

I think pretty much all serious Leftist analysis says exactly that. I highly recommend the Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Keeran and Kenny as the best book on the subject. Bahman Azad's Heroic Struggle, Bitter Defeat: Factors Contributing to the Dismantling of the Socialist State in the Soviet Union is older, and in my view, inferior in its analysis, but it basically says the samething, as does Revolution from Above: Demise of the Soviet System by Kotz and Weir (which is even worse in many ways). I also recommend Ludo Martens USSR: The Velvet Counter Revolution and the International Communist Seminar's The Collapse of the Soviet Union: Causes and Lessons (with contributions by many of the major socialist parties in the world). Harpal Brar's Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism is also good.

The fact that it was the policies of Gorbachev that lead to the destruction of the USSR is beyond doubt, and confirmed by anyone worth taking seriously. The question of what lead to the rise of Gorbo is a matter I think Keeran and Kenny have answered in the most satisfactory way, based on a sound Marxist analysis, without simply resorting to slogans, Left or Right (screaming "revisionism" doesn't necessarily help us to understand the issues of political economy that underlined the destruction of socialism in the USSR).

[maya]

I think pretty much all serious Leftist analysis says exactly that. I highly recommend the Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Keeran and Kenny as the best book on the subject. Bahman Azad's Heroic Struggle, Bitter Defeat: Factors Contributing to the Dismantling of the Socialist State in the Soviet Union is older, and in my view, inferior in its analysis, but it basically says the samething, as does Revolution from Above: Demise of the Soviet System by Kotz and Weir (which is even worse in many ways). I also recommend Ludo Martens USSR: The Velvet Counter Revolution and the International Communist Seminar's The Collapse of the Soviet Union: Causes and Lessons (with contributions by many of the major socialist parties in the world). Harpal Brar's Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism is also good.

The fact that it was the policies of Gorbachev that lead to the destruction of the USSR is beyond doubt, and confirmed by anyone worth taking seriously. The question of what lead to the rise of Gorbo is a matter I think Keeran and Kenny have answered in the most satisfactory way, based on a sound Marxist analysis, without simply resorting to slogans, Left or Right (screaming "revisionism" doesn't necessarily help us to understand the issues of political economy that underlined the destruction of socialism in the USSR).

Thanks for the book recommendations! The arguments I have had with Ron Paul supporters have been generally about the USSR's collapse being 'inevitable' because socalism doesn't work etc. all the old arguments.

What I'm hearing in this thread is what I've suspected for a while, that there is nothing about socialism that dooms it to economic collapse. Gorbachev preferred pizza hut and prada bags to sound socalist economic policy.

[Kayser_Soso]

Thanks for the book recommendations! The arguments I have had with Ron Paul supporters have been generally about the USSR's collapse being 'inevitable' because socalism doesn't work etc. all the old arguments.

What I'm hearing in this thread is what I've suspected for a while, that there is nothing about socialism that dooms it to economic collapse. Gorbachev preferred pizza hut and prada bags to sound socalist economic policy.

People that make this argument can be compared to the following analogy. Imagine you have a car, and you and someone else smash the car to bits with various implements of destruction. After it is nothing but a pile of scrap, you loudly proclaim- "CARS DON'T WORK!!!"

[pranabjyoti]

Could the general consensus be that the 1980s were a disaster economically due to the reforms, and not due to some limitations builtin to socialism, like the mainstream like to portray?
The limitations of Socialism so far is that, it is still bounded by nation and national limits. While the imperialism so far has been able to make it much more international. In my opinion, for survival and progress, any country, where the working class has taken power, should spread it support base to the working class and other such kind of likely minded peoples worldwide, so that, when it come under any kind of attack from imperialism, the imperialism should face a worldwide resistance. And on the other part, it should welcome anyone anywhere from the world and should take measures so that it can utilize such kind of support and active participation up to highest level.
Actually, as I have said before on another thread, the problem of imperialism is that it can not take the load of progress, while the problem of socialism is that it can not have sufficient boost of development. Socialism is comparatively new and it is still flourishing. It is our, who believe in socialism, duty to help it flourish.
I have given my opinion on the way of flourishing socialism here. I hope everybody will agree that this isn't a cliche type suggestion like "making it more democratic, more open" etc kind of BS. I now want to know about the suggestions and proposals of others regarding this matter.

[ComradeOm]

Could the general consensus be that the 1980s were a disaster economically due to the reforms, and not due to some limitations builtin to socialism, like the mainstream like to portray?The alternative view, shared by Moshe Lewin and (IIRC) Ellman, was that it was the lack of reforms in the post-Khrushchev years - alternatively the failure of these reforms - that led to the stagnant mess of the 1980s. Its important to note that many mainstays of the Stalinist economy (particularly the coercive industrial empire of the MVD) were already showing strain by 1953 and were largely dismantled in the following years

Davies' Soviet Economic Development from Lenin to Khrushchev is an excellent introduction to early Soviet economic development. Its concise and should be accessible to someone new to the field. He also notes the marked rise in living standards and re-orientation of economic priorities. In fact, Google Books (my own copy currently being in another country) reminds me that "the 1950s and the early 1960s were the golden years of the Soviet administrative economy"

[maya]

Davies' Soviet Economic Development from Lenin to Khrushchev is an excellent introduction to early Soviet economic development.

Thanks for the reference!

I would like to see a book about the period after, maybe Destruction of the Soviet Economy from Brezhnev to Yeltsin :-|

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The problem I am still grappling with if the collapse of living standards, esp. in the soviet union during the 1980s was the inevitable result of central planning, or if it was the result of external forces i.e. Party reforms, discontent with communism in general.
The problem with all arguments that blame central planning itself for the economic decline of the USSR in the 1980s is that they cannot answer this question:

If central planning is inherently flawed, why did it take 50 years (1929-1979, roughly) for this flaw to manifest itself in the Soviet economy?

Every time I ask this question, capitalists respond by saying "well, umm, the Soviet economy never really worked at all, ever" or some variation thereof - which is simply denying reality.

[ComradeRed22'91]

it's discussions like these that make this board enjoyable. *drinks beer*