Could Industrialisation in the SU been done differently but still been achieved?

[Connolly Was There1916]

Following on from what I was reading in the thread about Stalin's industrialisation policies, and how brutal it was for many workers, It got me thinking. Could they have got to the same levels of production through the use of policies/methods that at the same time created a good standard of living for the workers?

Enlightenment on this topic would be gratefully received, thanks! :thumbup1:

[Leftsolidarity]

Following on from what I was reading in the thread about Stalin's industrialisation policies, and how brutal it was for many workers, It got me thinking. Could they have got to the same levels of production through the use of policies/methods that at the same time created a good standard of living for the workers?

Enlightenment on this topic would be gratefully received, thanks! :thumbup1:

There are always different possibilities. If anyone says that that was the only possible way they are either purposefully lying or are just foolish.

This isn't to say I agree or disagree with Stalin's policies. This is just saying that there are always options.

[Nox]

and how brutal it was for many workers

Yeah capitalism tends to be like that...



To answer your question: Not in the same time period, no.

[Connolly Was There1916]

Yeah capitalism tends to be like that...



To answer your question: Not in the same time period, no.

Are you making a point about Stalinism here?

[Nox]

Are you making a point about Stalinism here?

Well, I'm simply stating that the USSR was never Socialist. Certainly not under Stalin.

[Connolly Was There1916]

Well, I'm simply stating that the USSR was never Socialist. Certainly not under Stalin.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Omsk]

There are no experiments,no second chances,no adventures,the things that happened in the 30' were not some kind of a game,some 'adventure' ,it was a process which required the iron determination of the people and the Soviets,and the complete creation of a new and better country,something improved,and something which will go down into the history book's as the huge leap and the greatest advance in modern history,numbers,on the other hand,speak for themselves:

- The adventure led from the illiteracy to literacy, from the NEP to socialism, from archaic agriculture to collective cultivation, from a rural society to a predominately urban community, from general ignorance of the machine to social mastery of modern technology.
Between the poverty stricken year of 1924, when Lenin died, and the relatively abundant year of 1940, the cultivated area of USSR expanded by 74 percent; grain crops increased 11 percent; coal production was multiplied by 10; steel output by 18; engineering and metal industries by 150; total national income by 10; industrial output by 24; annual capital investment by 57. During the First Five-year Plan, 51 billion rubles were invested; during the Second, 114; and during the Third, 192. Factory and office workers grew from 7,300,000 to 30,800,000 and school and college students from 7,900,000 to 36,600,000. Between 1913 and 1940, oil production increased from nine to 35 million tons; coal from 29 to 164; pig iron from 4 to 15; steel from 4 to 18; machine tools from 1000 to 48,000 units, tractors from 0 to over 500,000; harvestor combines from 0 to 153,500; electrical power output from two billion kWh to 50 billion; and the value of industrial output from 11 billion rubles to more than 100 billion by 1938. If the estimated volume of total industrial production in 1913 be taken as 100, the corresponding indices for 1938 are 93.2 for France; 113.3 for England, 120 United States; 131.6 for Germany, and 908.8 for the Soviet Union.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 212

The hard period of the 1927-1930' made the people of iron,and prepared the country for the onslaught of the Fascists invaders,some years later.

What is also noticeable is that life really did improve after the harsh time period between the death of Lenin and to about 1938. -(Medvedev notes this ,you might take notice of it:

The second five-year plan brought unprecedentedly high rates of industrial growth. In 1934 gross industrial output rose by 19 percent, in 1935 by 23 percent, and in 1936 by 29 percent. The majority of people's commissars and obkom secretaries in1935-1936 were awarded the Order of Lenin, which at that time was a rare and very high honor. In 1936 no more than two or three hundred persons bore this honor....
After several years of stagnation, agricultural production also began to increase: in 1935 gross industrial output was 20 percent higher than in 1933. Soon after rationing was ended, collective farms were permitted to sell grain on the open market, which stimulated farmers' interest in his increasing grain production. (The system of grain procurements did not create such a stimulus because of low procurement prices.) Consumer goods prices began to drop. The acute food crisis of the early 30s was apparently over. The standard of living, both urban and rural, rose appreciably. It was at this time that Stalin uttered his famous phrase: "Life has become better, comrades; life has become more joyful."
Life really did become a bit "more joyful," and this atmosphere engendered a certain enthusiasm.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 352

Everything was onward and upward in that period,everything.
And it was also much wiser than the 'super-industrialisation' plan.

[l'Enfermé]

To have achieved collectivization and industrialization in such a short time the peasantry had to be brutally crushed(Bukharin criticized it as military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry), you think Trotsky would have been so nice about it if he wasn't defeated? Though, Stalin opposed collectivization and industrialization until the grain shortage in 28, and left wing of the party have been calling for it for so long...if it happened earlier than the famines probably wouldn't have happened but the peasantry had to be mowed down with machine guns if you wanted any results.

This has me thinking sometimes that it would have been so much better if the Bolsheviks were defeated and executed during the Civil War/Foreign Interventions, then the degeneration of the USSR and the destruction of international socialism by the Comintern under Stalin would never have happened, the Bolsheviks would have gone down in history as those heroes that were massacred and martyred by the enemies of the working people, like the Communards of Paris in 1871.

[Ostrinski]

No. Only through the bourgeois mode of production could industrialization happen that rapidly.

[Bostana]

Following on from what I was reading in the thread about Stalin's industrialisation policies,

Posted By Me. :cool:


and how brutal it was for many workers, It got me thinking. Could they have got to the same levels of production through the use of policies/methods that at the same time created a good standard of living for the workers?

Enlightenment on this topic would be gratefully received, thanks! :thumbup1:

Here read this article that I found about the Five Year Plan:

The Five Year Plans:

Stalin introduced the Five Year Plans. This brought all industry under state control and all industrial development was planned by the state. The state would decide what would be produced, how much would be produced and where it should be produced. An organisation called Gosplan was created to plan all this out.

The first five year plan was from 1928 to 1932.

The second five year plan was from 1933 to 1937.

The third five year plan was from 1938 to 1941 when the war interrupted it.

Each plan set a target which industries had to meet. Each factory was set a target which it had to meet. The targets were completely unrealistic and could not be met but vast improvements were made. The emphasis was on heavy industries such as coal, oil, iron and steel and electricity.

The following table gives some idea of what progress was made when the base line figure is 1927 - before the five year plans. The target for both plans is in brackets.



1927 1932 1937
Coal
35 million tons

64 mt (75 mt target)

128 mt (152 mt target)
Oil
12 million tons

21 mt (22 mt target) 29 mt (47 mt target)
Iron Ore
5 million tons

12 mt (19 mt target) unknown
Pig Iron
3 million tons

6 mt (10 mt target) 15 mt (16 mt target)
Steel
4 million tons

6 mt (10 mt target) 18 mt (17 mt target)
mt = millions of tons

Though these appear excellent results, it must be remembered that the base line for 1927 was small by west European standards. However, the improvements did represent a massive jump forward.

The second five year plan continued to emphasise heavy industries but there was also a commitment to communication systems such as railways and new industries such as the chemical industry.

The third five year plan put an emphasis on weapons production (which required an input from heavy industries) as war did seem to be approaching.

Stalin brought in experts from foreign countries to help them, and he introduced single managers to run factories whereas one of the main beliefs of Lenin had been the running of factories by soviets (workers councils who would come to a joint decision on how things should be done). These managers were directly responsible for fulfilling the targets set for their factory. Good managers were well rewarded. Unsuccessful managers could pay a severe price for failure.

For all the apparent success of the five year plans, there were serious flaws. Parts for industrial machinery were hard to get and some factories were kept idle for weeks on end simply because they did not have parts to repair worn out machines. Ex-peasants were used as skilled workers. This simply did not add up. Despite their valiant efforts, many machines were damaged because those using them had no idea on how to correctly use these machines. There were also no parts to repair this damage.

Factories took to inflating their production figures and the products produced were frequently so poor that they could not be used - even if the factory producing those goods appeared to be meeting its target. The punishment for failure was severe. A manager could be executed as an "enemy of the people". Workers could be sent to a prison camp in Siberia. Nobody was allowed to condemn or criticise the five year plans as they were Stalin’s idea.

Life for the workers:

Life was very hard for industrial workers. Their pay was poor and there was barely anything they could spend their money on even if they had any. Consumer goods were simply not produced. Working conditions were very dangerous and the hours were long. The homes that were provided were poor. So why did they work so hard?

• the young were still idealistic. The whole concept of communism was still intoxicating. Stalin was known as ‘"Uncle Joe" and they were willing to suffer a few years of hardship if they were going to get to the promised land of a better society.

• people were encouraged to work hard by propaganda which bombarded the workers in all directions. This played on the belief that if most did it, the rest would follow on as they did not want to be seen as different.

• rewards were given to the best workers. Groups of workers were encouraged to compete against each other. The most famous worker was Alexei Stakhanov. He was said to have mined 102 tons of coal in one shift. This was fourteen times the amount expected from one person. Logically if he could do it, so could others. To be rewarded for hard work meant that you were a Stakhanovite. In fact, Stakhanov was not a popular man with the workers - for very good reasons, as this put the burden on them of working harder. Stakhanov, in fact, was frequently not mining after this record. He was allowed to tour Russia to be greeted as a hero and to give lectures on how to work hard and there is no clear evidence that he did what was claimed.

• another way of persuading the workers to work hard was to pay by results. Successful managers were also paid more though whether this extra money was shared by the workers in a factory or mine is unknown.

• punishment was also used by those who did not work hard. The fear of the labour camps was usually enough to get people working hard. Absenteeism from work was punishable by being fined or having your ration book taken from you. In 1940, it carried a prison sentence. All workers had to carry labour books which stated whether you had worked hard or not. Bad comments from your manager could also lead to prison

• a lot of hard physical labour was done by prisoners. It did not matter if they died - only that the task was completed. The fact that these people were in prison, was enough for the government to use them as it saw fit.

For all the problems and hardship caused by the Five Year Plans, by 1941, Stalin had transformed Russia into a world class industrial power. This was to be vital for Russia as the war was about to test her to the extreme.

[pluckedflowers]

Frankly, I don't know what to make of the Stalinist fetishization of rapid industrialization. Capitalism also brings industry, literacy, etc. I don't really see what distinguishes the Stalinist project from a successful Tzarist attempt at capitalist modernization.

[Omsk]

Hello,pluckedflowers,i will answer some of your basic questions.



Frankly, I don't know what to make of the Stalinist fetishization of rapid industrialization


Wrong,the 'early,fast and premature industrialization' or - super-industrialization was a Trotskyist concept.And there is no fetishization,just the ability to recognise such advances.


I don't really see what distinguishes the Stalinist project from a successful Tzarist attempt at capitalist modernization.

The CCCP did not industrialize on the expense of others,for instance,Tzarist Russia tried to improve its situation trough huge foreign loans ,secret deals at the expense of the workers and many peasants.England,passed trough its process of industry build up - thanks to the brutal colonial system.

[pluckedflowers]

The CCCP did not industrialize on the expense of others,for instance,Tzarist Russia tried to improve its situation trough huge foreign loans ,secret deals at the expense of the workers and many peasants.England,passed trough its process of industry build up - thanks to the brutal colonial system.

Oh, please, the USSR didn't industrialize at the expense of the peasantry?

[Rooster]

Well, yes, it could have been better. I can't really be bothered to provide big long quotes and to dig out references but you could try Sheila Fitzpatrick's The Russian Revolution and Alec Nove's An Economic History of the USSR for a good understanding of it. But, to give a brief run down, the myth that it was "planned" in any comprehensive way should be put down. Plans were constantly revised throughout the period, usually upwards whilst quotas where generally not filled at all. Some aspects of the planning, if I remember correctly, only came about half way through the "plan", never mind that whole thing about completing the first plan in four years, etc. The statistical departments and the planning departments were also at this time being ruthlessly purged (point in fact, the gathering of some statistics were entirely suspended during this period). Some sectors of the economy were bargaining with each other or with the guys at the top to try to fulfil the plan by trying to get resources that weren't really available (there's a story of some workers holding up trains with resources and stealing them etc). Some aspects of the planning process weren't greatly thought out, mostly to do with how things were measured, leading to waste. Such as sheet steel output being measured in weight so you ended up with sheets too thick to be of any use. The overall impression that one gets is of a mad frenzy that not many people were in control of. Anyway, ComradeOm is really the man you should be speaking to about this and he has made numerous posts on this subject.

[Omsk]

Oh, please, the USSR didn't industrialize at the expense of the peasantry?

One of the main purposes of the socialist modernisation was the growth of the proleteriat,and it certainly did grow,from some 10% in 1928,to a one thrid of the entire population after 49'.If someone got a lot from the modernisation,it was the working layers who's rights were neglected during the Tzarist years.

[Bostana]

Oh, please, the USSR didn't industrialize at the expense of the peasantry?

Expense of the Peasantry?

The Soviet Union did not industrialize on the expense of others The modernization was for the Soviet economy and the Proletariat of the USSR, which in the time of Stalin, was at it's best.
In fact it didn't even start growing until Stalin took charge.

[pluckedflowers]

One of the main purposes of the socialist modernisation was the growth of the proleteriat,and it certainly did grow,from some 10% in 1928,to a one thrid of the entire population after 49'.If someone got a lot from the modernisation,it was the working layers who's rights were neglected during the Tzarist years.

Yes, well obviously rapid industrialization entails the growth of the proletariat. The question I asked was whether you were seriously claiming that this didn't take place at the expense of the peasantry.

[Omsk]

The question I asked was whether you were seriously claiming that this didn't take place at the expense of the peasantry.


Nowhere did i say such a thing.This is what my message precisely contained:


secret deals at the expense of the workers and many peasants


In the USSR,the Proleteriat was the class with the future,the kulaks,on the other hand,(the rich peasants) were combated.

[pluckedflowers]

The Soviet Union did not industrialize on the expense of others

Ok, so how did it happen, then? Factory fairies? And the peasants, did they, like, starve themselves out of sheer love for the fatherland?

[Bostana]

Ok, so how did it happen, then? Factory fairies? And the peasants, did they, like, starve themselves out of sheer love for the fatherland?

What are you saying?

Well the initial Five Year Plans were created to serve the rapid industrialization of the CCCP, and it did take a major focus on heavy industry workers.

[Amal]

Oh, please, the USSR didn't industrialize at the expense of the peasantry?
Most capitalist country industrializes itself at the expense of the people of third world. At least Russia is better to them in this regard that IT SPENT ITS PEASANTRY.
Problem is most here are just unable to see that industrialization has to be done at the expense of some people and "peasantry" IMO is the most viable option.

[daft punk]

Following on from what I was reading in the thread about Stalin's industrialisation policies, and how brutal it was for many workers, It got me thinking. Could they have got to the same levels of production through the use of policies/methods that at the same time created a good standard of living for the workers?

Enlightenment on this topic would be gratefully received, thanks! :thumbup1:


Yes of course, they could have followed Lenin and Trotsky's plan:

1. Tax the rich

2. Use the money to build state industries

3. Also use the money to subsidise co-operatives for the poor peasants.

4. Spread the revolution internationally.

Unfortunately Stalin did the opposite. For more info see Platform of the Opposition by Trotsky.

[daft punk]

Life really did become a bit "more joyful"

Was this before, during or after Stalin killed every communist he could?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Yes of course, they could have followed Lenin and Trotsky's plan:

1. Tax the rich

2. Use the money to build state industries

3. Also use the money to subsidise co-operatives for the poor peasants.

4. Spread the revolution internationally.

Unfortunately Stalin did the opposite. For more info see Platform of the Opposition by Trotsky.

I think this is how all third world countries, whether Marxist or not, can develop. Back in the 50's 60's 70's and 80's there was a big movement for these types of policies to industrialize fast in South America, but was put to an end through neo-liberal policies, right-wing dictatorships, and imperialist intervention. Though recently this movement has taken ground again in South America in places like Ecuador, Venezuela, etc.

Also, I think Stalin did do some of those things (such as building state industries). Either way, you are right.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, I'm simply stating that the USSR was never Socialist. Certainly not under Stalin.

Actually i disagree with you on that. The only time that the relation between the worker and his production, or rather the workplace appropriator and producer of the production, was not a capitalist one, was under Stalin's time. Although in a relatively small sector, there were peasant co-ops during Stalin's rule from 1924-1938 until some peasants had a bad crop and were forced to work for another peasant who then became the "Kulaks"... so, from a marxist class analysis, the only time that the USSR really changed the organisation of production was under Stalin. Wage labor had to occur in the Soviet Union though at the time, because they needed to industrialise, going over to a council communist worker controlled planning would have been really difficult and unstable in an underdeveloped society that cannot provide for the basic needs of their people. Sustainable "socialist revolution must be in the most highly advanced captitalist societies" Marx. I recommend reading "Revolutionary Dreams" by Richard Stites which deals with the revolutionary social experiments in the early USSR, it is by far the best book on social experimentation and an account of the early USSR that i have read.

[daft punk]

I think this is how all third world countries, whether Marxist or not, can develop. Back in the 50's 60's 70's and 80's there was a big movement for these types of policies to industrialize fast in South America, but was put to an end through neo-liberal policies, right-wing dictatorships, and imperialist intervention. Though recently this movement has taken ground again in South America in places like Ecuador, Venezuela, etc.

Also, I think Stalin did do some of those things (such as building state industries). Either way, you are right.

Stalin didnt do much to build industry in the critical period from 1924-8. He did some. But he didnt tax the rich. He kept direct taxes low and direct taxes high, and this benefits the rich and hurts the poor. He did nothing to encourage poor peasants into coops. All in all, he did the opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advocated.

[A Marxist Historian]

Frankly, I don't know what to make of the Stalinist fetishization of rapid industrialization. Capitalism also brings industry, literacy, etc. I don't really see what distinguishes the Stalinist project from a successful Tzarist attempt at capitalist modernization.

That the Tsarist attempt was a miserable failure, and the whole country exploded into revolution after WWI proved what a miserable failure it was?

-M.H.-