The Success of Industry in the Soviet Union

[Jason]

In "Marx - Key Ideas", it said that Soviet industry reached western levels in 10 years, but consumption was depressed (so that hurt the economy). However, the Soviet industrial leap was impressive, because it had took the west two centuries to achieve it.

So, anyhow, can somebody elborate on consumption and it's powerful negative effect on the Soviet economy?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

On this subject, I would recommend that you read this paper.

http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

[Jason]

http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf)

Converted into English, this is basically saying the post 1953 Soviet economy was actually a hybird of socialism and capitalism. That explains why it didn't work.



We will find that, after 1953, the means of production in the Soviet Union
were sold at their prices of production, like capitalist commodities. This was in
opposition to Stalin’s line. Stalin was clear that the means of production should not be
regarded as capitalist commodities.

Stalin stated that the means of production should
be distributed according to decisions made in the course of economic planning and
they should be sold at subsidised prices to facilitate this. Consumer goods, unlike
means of production, were sold as commodities in the Soviet Union, prior to 1953,
but Stalin understood the importance of this practice being brought to an end as
socialism developed.

Soviet leaders after Stalin, however, changed this system as they
favoured the distribution of the means of production among the various branches of
the economy by means of semi-spontaneous market forces. In effect, capitalist profit
criteria rather than central planning decisions were to determine the way in which the
Soviet economy developed.

Rather than struggling to restrict commodity production,
the new leaders of the Soviet Union deliberately expanded it to the entire economy.
These leaders wanted to create a market socialist system where state owned
enterprises would behave just like capitalist enterprises. However, what emerged was
a dysfunctional hybrid system, neither effectively planned from the center nor
regulated by economic competition.

Subsidies for purchasing new means of
production had been used to facilitate the planned introduction of innovation up to
1953. Once this system of planning and subsidies was swept away, the incentive to
innovate was largely eliminated, as economic competition did not exist to provide an
alternative system of incentives. Progressive economic stagnation set in and there
was the rapid growth of rent-seeking behaviour (seeking rewards unrelated to effort or
quality of work) by enterprise managers and industrial ministries.






Stalin in his work Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, published in
1952, explained that commodity production in the Soviet Union was confined mainly
to the production of items of personal consumption.
5
Stalin explained that
the sphere of operation of the law of value in our country is strictly limited,
and . . . the law of value cannot under our system function as the regulator of
production.
6
However, the leaders who took over the Soviet Union after 1953 chose to expand
capitalist commodity production to all sectors of the economy. As well as consumer
goods, the means of production became capitalist commodities. The hybrid, state
capitalist system that these policies created led directly to the economic stagnation of
the Soviet Union.


Again the hybird economy (post 1853) extended capitalist methods to the means of production, not just consumer goods.

The paragraph below sums it up nicely.



The leaders who took over after Stalin’s death undermined the role of
conscious planning in the economy. They created an economy where the profit
motive, not human consciousness, was the principal force behind economic
development.

However, in the society they created, the pressure exerted by
competition did not yet exist, due to the partial nature of the economic transition to
capitalism in this still nominally socialist society. If a society is to progress
economically people must be either motivated by a dynamic system of planning or the
pressure of economic competition.

The system the post-Stalin leadership created
possessed neither of these characteristics. Thus they created a perfect recipe for the
economic stagnation that followed.

[hetz]

We will find that, after 1953, the means of production in the Soviet Union
were sold at their prices of production, like capitalist commodities. This was in
opposition to Stalin’s line. Stalin was clear that the means of production should not be
regarded as capitalist commodities.
Where did you get that from?
To whom were the means of production sold in the USSR?
Commodities are one thing, MoP are the other.

[Jason]

Where did you get that from?
To whom were the means of production sold in the USSR?
Commodities are one thing, MoP are the other.

This link posted on the 2nd post of the thread:

http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

Why did the Soviet Union seek to introduce capitalism in 1953?



Socialism and Imperialism

The main question then must be: why was it that Soviet leaders after 1953
abandoned socialism and started trying to copy capitalism? This is a hugely complex
subject and only a brief attempt at an explanation for it can be given here. Probably
one of the most significant reasons was the desire of the post-Stalin Soviet leadership
to catch up with western living standards. Khruschev once famously said that the
USSR would “bury” the USA in terms of living standards. After this statement, the
world judged the success of “socialism” on the basis of whether it could match the
living standards of the western world. This would have very far-reaching
consequences for the fate of socialism.

It seems likely that the desire to catch up with Western living standards led the
Soviet leaders to attempt to copy the Western capitalist economic model, as they may
well have been influenced by the idea that market economics, rather than the West’s
dominant position in the world imperial order, was the source of western prosperity.


So the author is arguing that imperalism, not market economics determined the west's superior economic position. So the author is arguing that imperalism, not market economics determined the west's superior economic position. The Soviet Union adopted a "half ass" capitalism to catch up with the west, but it didn't work. Because it thought the west's affluence came from market economics.

[Baseball]

This link posted on the 2nd post of the thread:

http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

Why did the Soviet Union seek to introduce capitalism in 1953?



So the author is arguing that imperalism, not market economics determined the west's superior economic position. So the author is arguing that imperalism, not market economics determined the west's superior economic position. The Soviet Union adopted a "half ass" capitalism to catch up with the west, but it didn't work. Because it thought the west's affluence came from market economics.

The author is arguing that the objective to raise living standards above and beyond those of the West had "far reaching consequences" for the building of socialism in the USSR. Indeed it did.

But of course it had no choice. Socialism can hardly claim to represent the interest of the workers if the standard of living of the workers are chronically less than fellow workers in capitalist ones.

Assuming the author is correct in the analysis of pre- and post 1953 USSR economics, the probable reason for such a change would have been the Cold War. The build-up of the USSR was bankrolled by the West during the 30s, and Stalin easily found slave labor. Such options were closed to it, for economic and political reasons, during the cold war. Post Stalin leadership was then confronted with an inability to utilize outside capitalism to subsidize, mask and to solve the inherent contradictions of socialism.

[prolcon]

A socialist mode of production occurs concurrently with the abolition of class, and class persists during the socialist endeavor until the final overthrow of bourgeois hegemony on a global scale. While capitalism as a stage of human societal development persists, this isn't to say that historically socialist revolutions were insincere in their pursuit of a more just society.

[Jason]

The author is arguing that the objective to raise living standards above and beyond those of the West had "far reaching consequences" for the building of socialism in the USSR. Indeed it did.

But of course it had no choice. Socialism can hardly claim to represent the interest of the workers if the standard of living of the workers are chronically less than fellow workers in capitalist ones.

Assuming the author is correct in the analysis of pre- and post 1953 USSR economics, the probable reason for such a change would have been the Cold War. The build-up of the USSR was bankrolled by the West during the 30s, and Stalin easily found slave labor. Such options were closed to it, for economic and political reasons, during the cold war. Post Stalin leadership was then confronted with an inability to utilize outside capitalism to subsidize, mask and to solve the inherent contradictions of socialism.

The west bankrolled Stalin? Do you have any proof? The west hated Stalin and the Soviets. I didn't serve the interests of Wall Street to support the Soviets (a group bent on the destruction of free markets).

Now, the west did support Stalin during World War II, but it was very reluctantly.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The west bankrolled Stalin? Do you have any proof? The west hated Stalin and the Soviets. I didn't serve the interests of Wall Street to support the Soviets (a group bent on the destruction of free markets).

Now, the west did support Stalin during World War II, but it was very reluctantly.

I think he was referring to the time during the industrialisation where the Soviet Union would purchase large development and technology packages from the West, complete with various workers to train local ones, purchases made with national funds. Either that or some conspiracy theories grown out of it.

[Jason]

I think he was referring to the time during the industrialisation where the Soviet Union would purchase large development and technology packages from the West, complete with various workers to train local ones, purchases made with national funds. Either that or some conspiracy theories grown out of it.

I guess the question now is: "Who is correct, the article or Baseball?".

[GoddessCleoLover]

I guess the question now is: "Who is correct, the article or Baseball?".

Perhaps neither are "correct".

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Nah, I'd say the article is correct. Because it contains, you know, factual information. While Baseball is just BSing

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Jason;2545562]I guess the question now is: "Who is correct, the article or Baseball?".[/QUOTE


yes, perhaps neither are "correct." however the author is incorrect lf he or she discount the impact and influence of capitalism on the development of the USSR during the 1930s.