Regarding "War Communism"

[Etular]

As someone who frequently attempts to challenge my own political beliefs, I recently came across an article by the infamous Murray Rothbard attempting to refute the left-wing, particularly Anarcho-Communists and those supporting a Stateless Communist Society (I would link the article, but I lack the post-count, and it's mostly pointless right-wing rhetoric anyway).

Although I was happy to come up with statements in my own mind to counter his own, I hit a snag regarding the concept of Russian "War Communism". Researching it, in the Leninist state, it mentioned about the attempts of the Bolsheviks to abolish money (also known as a key aim in both Anarcho-Communist and regular Communist ideology, once the Communist state has been achieved). This was, allegedly, met with failure - as farmers would only produce the food to sustain their own needs, and were happy to let their countrymen starve, regardless of alternative incentives.

My question is, how could a leftist argue against that claim? Or, otherwise, how could they ensure this wouldn't occur in a post-capitalist society?

[tuwix]

First of all, you don't have to be anarcho-communist to support stateless communist society.
Secondly, as Marx wrote, there must be certain conditions when communism can be introduced. As I believe the level of automation have to be so high to erase the most of unwanted and unpleasant jobs. If there are only pleasant jobs, there is no need to any other incentive to work than pleasure.
Thirdly, Lenin's try to introduce communism was to fast and improper. If he stimulated production by higher money supply allowing self-employed and cooperatives to freely work instead of central planning, after few decades he could develop Russian economy to level where communism could be introduced and money would become obsolete.

[Tim Cornelis]

It is a bogus claim. A new rubble was introduced in 1919. Rothbard mistakes the inflationary collapse of the Rubble and the increase of barter as a result with the conscious and purposeful abolition of money.

Additionally, money cannot be abolished from above, so we would expect it to fail in any case.

[Blake's Baby]

I think we're missing the point of what Etular is getting at here.


...as farmers would only produce the food to sustain their own needs, and were happy to let their countrymen starve, regardless of alternative incentives.

My question is, how could a leftist argue against that claim? Or, otherwise, how could they ensure this wouldn't occur in a post-capitalist society?

It may be that farmers were only producing enough for themselves. However, this was hardly communism we're talking about, it wasn't even the economy run by the producing classes, is was a party dictatorship in one state in the middle of a war (caused by 14 capitalist nations invading and supporting pro-monarchist military groups inside the revolutionary territory - let's leave aside the Bolshevik/SR/Anarchist/Menshevik rigmaorole for a moment).

That's hardly a circumstance on which to base an assessment of the possibility of communism. If one was, for example, to claim that capitalism was impossible because loads of people died in the Anabaptist rising in Munster in 1534, then I'm surry Rothbard and his supporters would disagree vehemently. It's not a valid point to extrapolate a case from.

Capitalism must be abolished as a world system, not locally, so attempts to do without money totally are likely to be a failure if they only exist in a limited area (even a big limited area, like Russia). Also, for the construction of socialist society, people need to know what they're doing. The reciprocity between town and country, between different branches of production, needs to be firmly established. If agricultural workers don't produce food for other workers (let's not get in the whole peasantry thing here) then power workers don't produce elctricity, transport workers don't run the railways, medical workers don't staff the health centres, the water and sewage workers don't manage the water-infrastructure, and everyone dies cold, starving and sick with cholera. The more production beyond what is necessary for the individual, the more society can function. It's working for everyone (not just one's own needs) that allows the rest of society to get on with doing what it needs to do. If one sector of the production process fails to do that (especially in a crucial sector like food production) everyone suffers - whether in socialist society, or under capitalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Military Communism was not, and could not be, an attempt to force Russia into the lower stages of communism, as some members seem to think. With apologies to the comrades in the PLP, communism can not be constructed in a year or two, particularly not in conditions of widespread industrial collapse, and the predominance of petty commodity production and individual agriculture.

And the Bolshevik party was aware of this. Only Bukharin insisted that MC was an attempt to construct communism, but this is no different from his other ultra-left pronouncements during that period, all of which had, at best, a hyperbolic character, and at worst demonstrated an incredible incomprehension of the material conditions in Russia.

(The name, by the way, was probably a very dark joke; a play on the term "consumer communism", which is to say expropriation of producers and state-mandated redistribution.)

Military Communism was simply an attempt to feed the cities and the army; as such, it is similar to policies of requisition adopted in most states that had participated in the imperialist war, but due to the civil war and the collapse of the economy, it assumed a particularly brutal character. But it should be noted that this policy, more often than not, helped save the peasantry from the Whites, and from their self-appointed representatives, the Esers (the entire episode of the KomUch would be hilarious if it had not resulted in so much death and destruction).


Thirdly, Lenin's try to introduce communism was to fast and improper. If he stimulated production by higher money supply allowing self-employed and cooperatives to freely work instead of central planning, after few decades he could develop Russian economy to level where communism could be introduced and money would become obsolete.

Leaving aside the fact that this proposal is essentially syndicalist, where on Earth could the Soviet government have obtained the money required? And there was very little central planning in the period of Military Communism; some plans were made on the level of the Soviet of Labour and Defence, but they were mostly military in character (though the later VeSeNKha would start as a commission of the STO, and I believe the GoElRo as well? but the latter might have been under the SovNarKom). And the efficiency of the centrally planned economy was demonstrated in the period of the first few Five-Year Plans.

[tuwix]

Leaving aside the fact that this proposal is essentially syndicalist, where on Earth could the Soviet government have obtained the money required?

In printing machine. Just the same way as all government get money in times of war and printed money. And this would be beneficial in terms of propaganda. When there is hyperinflation, the government says: 'You see! It's all because of money!'



And the efficiency of the centrally planned economy was demonstrated in the period of the first few Five-Year Plans.


And the lack of efficiency of the centrally planned economy was demonstrated in the period of 70s and 80s.

[Tim Cornelis]

Military Communism was not, and could not be, an attempt to force Russia into the lower stages of communism, as some members seem to think. With apologies to the comrades in the PLP, communism can not be constructed in a year or two, particularly not in conditions of widespread industrial collapse, and the predominance of petty commodity production and individual agriculture.

And the Bolshevik party was aware of this. Only Bukharin insisted that MC was an attempt to construct communism, but this is no different from his other ultra-left pronouncements during that period, all of which had, at best, a hyperbolic character, and at worst demonstrated an incredible incomprehension of the material conditions in Russia.

Bukharin and Lenin and Trotsky. It seems these three comprehend the utter failure of war communism better than you do.

Vladimir Lenin:


On the economic front, in our attempt to pass over to Communism, we had suffered, by the spring of 1921, a more serious defeat than any previously inflicted on us by Kolchak, Denikin, or Pilsudsky. Compulsory requisition in the villages and the direct Communist approach to the problems of reconstruction in towns—this was the policy which . . . proved to be the main cause of a profound economic and political crisis. (Baykov 1947, p. 48)


Leon Trotsky:


The Soviet government hoped and strove to develop these methods of regimentation directly into a system of planned economy in distribution as well as production. In other words, from "war communism" it hoped gradually, but without destroying the system, to arrive at a genuine communism . . . . Reality however came into increasing conflict with the program of war communism.

[Ravachol]

I believe Gilles Dauve's assesment of one of the weaknesses of the Spanish revolution is relevant here:



One of the main weaknesses was the attitude towards money. The "disappearance of money" is meaningful only if it entails more than the replacement of one instrument for measuring value with another one (such as labor coupons). But, like the majority of radical groups, whether they call themselves Marxist or anarchist, Spanish proletarians did not see money as the expression and abstraction of real relationships, but as a tool of measurement, an accounting device, and they thereby reduced socialism to a different management of the same categories and fundamental components of capitalism.

[Tim Cornelis]

I believe Gilles Dauve's assesment of one of the weaknesses of the Spanish revolution is relevant here:

What same categories and components though?

[Ravachol]

What same categories and components though?

You know: wage labor, commodity production, alienation, the social division of labor, the mediation of social relationships through the value-form and, well, capital.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In printing machine. Just the same way as all government get money in times of war and printed money. And this would be beneficial in terms of propaganda. When there is hyperinflation, the government says: 'You see! It's all because of money!'

And when the peasants received their shiny new chervontsy, and realised they can't actually buy anything with them, what do you think would have happened? Printing presses can not magically create commodities that the Russian peasant needed; at best, your proposal amounts to swindling the peasantry, but the Russian muzhik was not that gullible.


And the lack of efficiency of the centrally planned economy was demonstrated in the period of 70s and 80s.

The lack of efficiency of a partially decentralised planned economy in a state infected with revisionism, perhaps. And even then one must be careful; late Soviet economic plans often "failed" but came extremely close to meeting the goal.


Bukharin and Lenin and Trotsky. It seems these three comprehend the utter failure of war communism better than you do.

I have not been able to trace either quote to a reliable source; but even assuming that they are authentic, they do not demonstrate that Military Communism was anything but an emergency requisitioning policy. Lenin mentions "our attempts to pass to communism" - which in all probability does not refer to Military Communism but the earlier system of workers' self management, that had survived somewhat during the early stages of MC, and to the attempts to organise consumer cooperatives as distribution centres.

Trotsky, on the other hands, talks about using certain methods peculiar to Military Communism (here he seems to be talking about militarisation; in connection to his rather questionable proposals about the militarisation of trade unions etc.) to achieve communism. Nowhere does he imply that MC was intended to lead to communism in short notice.

As for the successes of Military Communism, it fed the cities and the army. Therefore, it succeeded in the main, and in the late NEP period, methods of grain requisition needed to be reinstated - that is how inefficient market procurement of grain is.

[Tim Cornelis]

I have not been able to trace either quote to a reliable source;

Trotsky's 'The Revolution Betrayed' isn't reliable?

The other source is Baykov, Alexander. The Development of the Soviet Economic System. New York: Macmillan, 1947.


but even assuming that they are authentic, they do not demonstrate that Military Communism was anything but an emergency requisitioning policy.

Well let's look at the full quote then:


The economic problems of the Soviet government in those years came down chiefly to supporting the war industries, and using the scanty resources left from the past for military purposes and to keep the city population alive. Military communism was, in essence, the systematic regimentation of consumption in a besieged fortress.

It is necessary to acknowledge, however, that in its original conception it pursued broader aims. The Soviet government hoped and strove to develop these methods of regimentation directly into a system of planned economy in distribution as well as production. In other words, from “military communism” it hoped gradually, but without destroying the system, to arrive at genuine communism.

This explicitly and undeniably contradicts your claim.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch02.htm


Lenin mentions "our attempts to pass to communism" - which in all probability does not refer to Military Communism but the earlier system of workers' self management, that had survived somewhat during the early stages of MC, and to the attempts to organise consumer cooperatives as distribution centres.

They explicitly state that they intended to immediately implement communism. In Leninist terminology, this referred to higher-phase communism. You said they didn't even intent to pass over to lower-phase communism.

They 'integrated' (that is, disestablished) cooperatives because the Bolsheviks considered it a "remnant of the old bourgeois cooperative ideology." (source: The Economics of Communism, by Pasvolsky).


Trotsky, on the other hands, talks about using certain methods peculiar to Military Communism (here he seems to be talking about militarisation; in connection to his rather questionable proposals about the militarisation of trade unions etc.) to achieve communism. Nowhere does he imply that MC was intended to lead to communism in short notice.

He believed that communism (higher-phase presumably) would follow from war communism, in Russia. Which contradicts your claim.


As for the successes of Military Communism, it fed the cities and the army. Therefore, it succeeded in the main, and in the late NEP period, methods of grain requisition needed to be reinstated - that is how inefficient market procurement of grain is.

If the aim of war communism was feeding the cities and armies, it was a success. Nevertheless:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTh8GNFSNnmaq0PnWXeFxcOsdyMNymHw NQug2gF2eDdJy_afUgoiA
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8ZdRNeElLPU/SQf4iVDsaNI/AAAAAAAAABk/K2eu6zLyxng/s400/Starving+Russian+children+in+the+Volga+region+circ a+1921+to+1922.jpg

Reportedly, five million deaths.


You know: wage labor, commodity production, alienation, the social division of labor, the mediation of social relationships through the value-form and, well, capital.

I'm pretty sure most anarchists opposed wage-labour relations. Moreover, if they opposed money, wage-labour, commodity production, and capital can't exist. I don't see how Dauvés comments make sense in this regard.

[Ravachol]

I'm pretty sure most anarchists opposed wage-labour relations. Moreover, if they opposed money, wage-labour, commodity production, and capital can't exist. I don't see how Dauvés comments make sense in this regard.

I'm pretty sure most Bolsheviks also opposed those verbally. Doesn't change the historical fact that these relations weren't abolished, and neither does it change the fact that opting for something like labor vouchers (or any other instrument or measure that seeks to 'do away with money' without doing away with the fundamental underlying social relationships) means the perpetuation of the wage-relation. Also, you seem to understand the world upside down, as if wage-labour, commodity production and capital flow from money, instead of money being the expression of the social relationships that animate the former elements. Besides, you'd be surprised about the actual opinions of large sections of the CNT officialdom (esp. the Treintistas, to name an example) on matters relating to wage-labour, commodity production and productivism. There's a reason why, during the Barcelona maydays of '37 the CNT officials clashed with the rank&file and deployed disciplinary measures against insurgent workers... (There's some good reading material here: endnotes.org.uk/texts/endnotes_1/when-insurrections-die.xhtml and in the book 'Anarchism and the City' by Chris Eelham).

I suggest checking out the following text as well:

http://libcom.org/library/1-capitalism-communism

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Trotsky's 'The Revolution Betrayed' isn't reliable?

The other source is Baykov, Alexander. The Development of the Soviet Economic System. New York: Macmillan, 1947.

The paragraph you cite is phrased somewhat differently in the translation of "The Revolution Betrayed" that I usually reference; as for Baykov's book, I have not been able to find it. I still consider the alleged quote by Lenin to be suspicious; it does not seem to appear in the Collected Works.


Well let's look at the full quote then[...]

Let us. I think the citation for the Party programme, that you have left out, is key here:

«The line of development of the Soviet economy is far from an uninterrupted and evenly rising curve. In the first 18 years of the new regime you can clearly distinguish several stages marked by sharp crises. A short outline of the economic history of the Soviet Union in connection with the policy of the government is absolutely necessary both for diagnosis and prognosis.

The first three years after the revolution were a period of overt and cruel civil war. Economic life was wholly subjected to the needs of the front. Cultural life lurked in corners and was characterized by a bold range of creative thought, above all the personal thought of Lenin, with an extraordinary scarcity of material means. That was the period of so-called “military communism” (1918-21), which forms a heroic parallel to the “military socialism” of the capitalist countries. The economic problems of the Soviet government in those years came down chiefly to supporting the war industries, and using the scanty resources left from the past for military purposes and to keep the city population alive. Military communism was, in essence, the systematic regimentation of consumption in a besieged fortress.


It is necessary to acknowledge, however, that in its original conception it pursued broader aims. The Soviet government hoped and strove to develop these methods of regimentation directly into a system of planned economy in distribution as well as production. In other words, from “military communism” it hoped gradually, but without destroying the system, to arrive at genuine communism. The program of the Bolshevik party adopted in March 1919 said:


“In the sphere of distribution the present task of the Soviet Government is unwaveringly to continue on a planned, organized and state-wide scale to replace trade by the distribution of products.”»

Trotsky is indulging in metonymy here; calling every economic characteristic of the period "Military Communism", although strictly speaking "Military Communism" only refers to the procurement of grain, materiel etc.

This is how Lenin puts it:

«Wrong ideas on this point are widespread. They are due mainly to the fact that no attempt is being made to study the meaning of the transition or to determine its implications, it being assumed that the change is from communism in general to the bourgeois system in general. To counteract this mistake, one has to refer to what was said in May 1918. The tax in kind is one of the forms of transition from that peculiar War Communism, which was forced on us by extreme want, ruin and war, to regular socialist exchange of products. The latter, in its turn, is one of the forms of transition from socialism, with the peculiar features due to the predominantly small-peasant population, to communism.


Under this peculiar War Communism we actually took from the peasant all his surpluses—and sometimes even a part of his necessaries—to meet the requirements of the army and sustain the workers. Most of it we took on loan, for paper money. But for that, we would not have beaten the landowners and capitalists in a ruined small-peasant country. The fact that we did (in spite of the help our exploiters got from the most powerful countries of the world) shows not only the miracles of heroism the workers and peasants can perform in the struggle for their emancipation; it also shows that when the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Kautsky and Co. blamed us for this War Communism they were acting as lackeys of the bourgeoisie. We deserve credit for it.


Just how much credit is a fact of equal importance. It was the war and the ruin that forced us into War Communism. It was not, and could not be, a policy that corresponded to the economic tasks of the proletariat. It was a makeshift. The correct policy of the proletariat exercising its dictatorship in a small-peasant country is to obtain grain in exchange for the manufactured goods the peasant needs. That is the only kind of food policy that corresponds to the tasks of the proletariat, and can strengthen the foundations of socialism and lead to its complete victory.

The tax in kind is a transition to this policy. We are still so ruined and crushed by the burden of war (which was on but yesterday and could break out anew tomorrow, owing to the rapacity and malice of the capitalists) that we cannot give the peasant manufactured goods in return for all the grain we need. Being aware of this, we are introducing the tax in kind, that is, we shall take the minimum of grain we require (for the army and the workers) in the form of a tax and obtain the rest in exchange for manufactured goods.»

(The Tax in Kind (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm))


They explicitly state that they intended to immediately implement communism. In Leninist terminology, this referred to higher-phase communism. You said they didn't even intent to pass over to lower-phase communism.

There was no fixed usage in the period; note that Lenin, in "The State and Revolution", calls both the political movement, the lower stages of communist society, and the entire period after the overthrow of capitalism "socialism". Preobrazhensky and Bukharin use the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably in the ABC.

Which is more credible? That Lenin or Trotsky resorted to nonstandard usage at times, or that, contrary to the explicit programme of the Bolshevik Party and the notion of the transitional democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, contrary to Lenin's insistence that Russia was not yet a dictatorship of the proletariat alone, that it had not yet reached a state capitalist stage, the Soviet government tried to reach the communist phase of social development in a year or two?


They 'integrated' (that is, disestablished) cooperatives because the Bolsheviks considered it a "remnant of the old bourgeois cooperative ideology." (source: The Economics of Communism, by Pasvolsky).

They considered the existing cooperatives to be bourgeois remnants, and Lenin explains this in the following manner:

«Let us imagine co-operatives embrace 98 per cent of the population. This happens in the countryside.


Does this make them communes?


No, if the co-operative (1) gives advantages (dividends on shares, etc.) to a group of special shareholders; (2) preserves its own special apparatus which shuts out the population at large, in particular the proletariat and semi-proletariat; (3) does not give preference in produce distribution to the semi-proletariat over the middle peasants, to the middle peasants over the rich; (4) does not confiscate the surplus produce first from the rich, then from the middle peasants, and does not rely on the proletariat and semi-proletariat. And so on and so forth.»

(Measures Governing the Transition from Bourgeois-Cooperative to Proletarian-Communist Supply and Distribution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/feb/02.htm))


If the aim of war communism was feeding the cities and armies, it was a success. Nevertheless:

Reportedly, five million deaths.

Nevertheless nothing, even if that Curtoisite figure was at all credible. I regret that the Bolsheviks could not wave a magic wand and fulfill your expectations. But such is life. Perhaps the Bolsheviks should have allowed speculation and profiteering - then they would be free of famine like bourgeois Poland.

(Except that Poland experienced a famine in the same period. Fancy that.)

[tuwix]

And when the peasants received their shiny new chervontsy, and realised they can't actually buy anything with them, what do you think would have happened? Printing presses can not magically create commodities that the Russian peasant needed; at best, your proposal amounts to swindling the peasantry, but the Russian muzhik was not that gullible.


Peasants wanted money and would have gotten them. And they could buy for them but less. I think you don't have much knowledge about an influence of money supply on production...



The lack of efficiency of a partially decentralised planned economy in a state infected with revisionism, perhaps. And even then one must be careful; late Soviet economic plans often "failed" but came extremely close to meeting the goal.


Decentralized economy in the Soviet Union? :D That's quite funny, but not true.
Besides you're saying about plans and I about efficiency. And the GDP growth in late Brezhniev era was about 0%. The permanent stagnation. This shows how centralized economy was “efficient”...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Peasants wanted money and would have gotten them.

Peasants wanted commodities and tools. And since an inflationary policy can not magically conjure industrial production out of thin air, the peasants would have been able to buy precisely the same amount of commodities and tools they received from the central government; perhaps even less, since perceptions of speculation and swindling would undoubtedly have worked against them.


And they could buy for them but less. I think you don't have much knowledge about an influence of money supply on production...

I realise that certain bourgeois economist endow money with a magical quality; but we are materialists, we can not rely on such fetishisation.


Decentralized economy in the Soviet Union? :D That's quite funny, but not true.

It is true; the revisionist regime decentralised the economy almost immediately, abolishing several central ministries and introducing around a hundred sovnarkhozy in the economic regions.


Besides you're saying about plans and I about efficiency. And the GDP growth in late Brezhniev era was about 0%. The permanent stagnation. This shows how centralized economy was “efficient”...

Bourgeois economic thought of the time considered stagnation to be the mark of a mature economy, and the revisionist regime accepted that without criticism. That demonstrates the inefficiency of revisionism and attempts to parrot bourgeois theory, not a centralised economy.

[Rurkel]

If the Bolsheviks thought that War Communism could be a stepping stone to "Real" Communism, it was just a hopeful delusion. Like I said in the "authoritarian" thread, I doubt that they could prevent a famine in either case.

[tuwix]

Peasants wanted commodities and tools. And since an inflationary policy can not magically conjure industrial production out of thin air, the peasants would have been able to buy precisely the same amount of commodities and tools they received from the central government; perhaps even less, since perceptions of speculation and swindling would undoubtedly have worked against them.


And peasants could buy for a money, and as I said government could say: "It's because of money". Besides we aren't talking about market economy. The government could order an only one proper way of payment. And whether peasant liked or not they had to get paid in currency they didn't like




It is true; the revisionist regime decentralised the economy almost immediately, abolishing several central ministries and introducing around a hundred sovnarkhozy in the economic regions.


Ahh, do you mean abolishing central ministries in Moscow and giving a power to the regions a decentralization? Well, I must disappoint you because it wasn't decentralization. It was just passing a central power from Moscow to Minsk, Kiev, Tbilisi, etc. Decentralization was, if only the factory would decided what to produce and not the ministry on republican level.

Besides Brezhniev abolished sovnarkhozy and get country int economic stagnation.

[Lenin_J]

War communism was not an attempt to introduce communism in Russia but rather a temporary policy of wartime aimed to help the Bolsheviks to win the civil war.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And peasants could buy for a money, and as I said government could say: "It's because of money". Besides we aren't talking about market economy. The government could order an only one proper way of payment. And whether peasant liked or not they had to get paid in currency they didn't like

That amounts to Military Communism slowed down to a crawl in order to swindle the peasantry by - what? Blaming "the money"? How would that even work, and why do you think the muzhik would fall for it?


Ahh, do you mean abolishing central ministries in Moscow and giving a power to the regions a decentralization? Well, I must disappoint you because it wasn't decentralization. It was just passing a central power from Moscow to Minsk, Kiev, Tbilisi, etc. Decentralization was, if only the factory would decided what to produce and not the ministry on republican level.

That would be syndicalism, not decentralisation. Decentralisation simply implies that the central authorities have been weakened in favour of regional ones, which is precisely what happened under the revisionist regime.


Besides Brezhniev abolished sovnarkhozy and get country int economic stagnation.

Brezhnev abolished the system of the sovnarkhozy but allowed local Party secretaries to experiment with the economy as they liked. Reforms initiated by Kosygin and Liberman eroded the system of targets; as far as I am aware, this reduction in targets remained even after the rest of the reforms were rejected.

[o well this is ok I guess]

This was, allegedly, met with failure - as farmers would only produce the food to sustain their own needs, and were happy to let their countrymen starve, regardless of alternative incentives. If I recall correctly, this was also true in Europe; peasants would produce surplus, but no more than necessary for their traditional way of life.

[tuwix]

That amounts to Military Communism slowed down to a crawl in order to swindle the peasantry by - what? Blaming "the money"? How would that even work, and why do you think the muzhik would fall for it?


Due to economical and historical knowledge





Brezhnev abolished the system of the sovnarkhozy but allowed local Party secretaries to experiment with the economy as they liked. Reforms initiated by Kosygin and Liberman eroded the system of targets; as far as I am aware, this reduction in targets remained even after the rest of the reforms were rejected.


Which doesn't change the fact that Brzehniev has restored a centralism in slightly different form. And the efect is known - the permanent economic stagnation. And this implicated that the system collapsed because the authorities started to look someone to reform it. A they've found - Gorbachev...

[Rafiq]

5 million deaths in the civil war, all of them due to war communism. Makes perfect sense. I doubt even 1 million is accurate in that regard.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Skyhilist]

Wait, so let me get this straight. Rothbard was trying to refute Anarcho-communism by criticizing the actions of Lenin (a man who supported the suppression of anarcho-communism)? Yeah, makes total sense.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Due to economical and historical knowledge

Knowledge of what? Do you think every peasant was not only illiterate but crushingly stupid? This swindle you propose relies on the muzhik being a God's fool, someone that would simply accept their shiny chervontsy and not question anything.


Which doesn't change the fact that Brzehniev has restored a centralism in slightly different form. And the efect is known - the permanent economic stagnation. And this implicated that the system collapsed because the authorities started to look someone to reform it. A they've found - Gorbachev...

Centralism implies that most decisions are made at the broadest level and that organisations with a more limited scope follow the instructions of the centre. If party secretaries can disregard the policy of the centre, and the authority of the centre has been weakened in any case, that is not centralism.

[tuwix]

Knowledge of what?


Economics, history and sociology. There are some patterns of human behavior no matter are they Russians, Poles, Croatians, etc.





Centralism implies that most decisions are made at the broadest level and that organisations with a more limited scope follow the instructions of the centre. If party secretaries can disregard the policy of the centre, and the authority of the centre has been weakened in any case, that is not centralism.

It was centralism, but only center has changed from Moscow to a republican capital. As I said, decentralization would be, if the power what to produce was to be in factory and not any other center. And you can call it Syndicalism. I'm comfortable with that because I'm not doctrinaire. Despite to be Syndicalism there must be syndicate and I don't remind mentioning it...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Economics, history and sociology. There are some patterns of human behavior no matter are they Russians, Poles, Croatians, etc.

These patterns being what? That the peasants are illiterate and gullible? But you ignore that a large percentage of the Russian intelligentsia came from the peasant strata. And even if the muzhik could, somehow, not see through your little scheme, how long do you think it would take for a passing Esser to explain the entire thing to him?


It was centralism, but only center has changed from Moscow to a republican capital. As I said, decentralization would be, if the power what to produce was to be in factory and not any other center.

That is not how the word "decentralisation" is commonly used.

[tuwix]

These patterns being what?


The patterns of human behavior.



That the peasants are illiterate and gullible?


No. It has nothing to do with that. The same patterns work today in literate societies as well as illiterate ones.



That is not how the word "decentralisation" is commonly used.

Decentralization (or decentralisation) is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The patterns of human behavior.

What specific bloody patterns? I have asked you the same thing several times and, like most people that sell immutable universal human natures, you couldn't bother being specific.


No. It has nothing to do with that. The same patterns work today in literate societies as well as illiterate ones.

What, then? Peasants are magpies attracted to shiny objects?


Decentralization (or decentralisation) is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization

Even though that definition is extremely poor, it obviously includes giving greater authority to the regional secretaries and to the economic executives.

[tuwix]

What specific bloody patterns?


For example, if one want to pay for something in some that is only lawful mean of payment, people sell to him.



What, then? Peasants are magpies attracted to shiny objects?


Not shiny objects but money and not only peasant by majority of people under environment with property end money.



Even though that definition is extremely poor, it obviously includes giving greater authority to the regional secretaries and to the economic executives.

Yeah, and it is poor because you don't like it because it doesn't fit to your ideas...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For example, if one want to pay for something in some that is only lawful mean of payment, people sell to him.

Not necessarily. People can and will refuse to make a transaction if they consider the price to be too low - and the price is not determined by the quantity of currency, but on the quantity of the commodities it can buy. Of course, one can always institute compulsory purchase, but in the context of the civil war, that would have been the same as Military Communism, only not as efficient.


Not shiny objects but money and not only peasant by majority of people under environment with property end money.

I doubt many people are attracted to money as such, rather than the commodities it can buy; in normal circumstances people tend not to notice the difference, and the admiration of money reaches fetishistic levels, but in conditions of hyperinflation, I think most people would rather have a loaf of bread than a cartwheel of money.


Yeah, and it is poor because you don't like it because it doesn't fit to your ideas...

I have already demonstrated that it "fits", that Brezhnev's policies amounted to decentralisation even under this definition. And the definition is bad because it implies that decentralisation occurs every time commodities ("things" as Wikipedia says) are sent from the centre to other locations.

[tuwix]

Not necessarily.


But usually.



but in conditions of hyperinflation, I think most people would rather have a loaf of bread than a cartwheel of money.


And there is no need to go into hyperinflation. Infalation to 20% annually would be sufficient enough.



I have already demonstrated that it "fits", that Brezhnev's policies amounted to decentralisation even under this definition. And the definition is bad because it implies that decentralisation occurs every time commodities ("things" as Wikipedia says) are sent from the centre to other locations.

No. Under that definition neither Khrushchev nor Brezhniev has done any decentralization of economy. They have only changed the centers.
But definition stands. And I don't see any reason to use your understanding of decentralization instead of Wikipedia's one.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But usually.

Good grief, did you even read the rest of my post? Conditions that prevailed in the civil war were not usual; and unless the muzhik was colossally stupid, he would ask for the amount of money necessary to buy the commodities he needed. That is precisely what the peasants did during the end of the NEP period; and why the Ural-Siberian method needed to be introduced.


And there is no need to go into hyperinflation. Infalation to 20% annually would be sufficient enough.

Sufficient for what? For the peasants to think they are getting the commodities they can't get, or what?


No. Under that definition neither Khrushchev nor Brezhniev has done any decentralization of economy. They have only changed the centers.

They transferred economic authority from the centre to local secretaries. No amount of phrase-juggling will erase that; the authority that once inhered in one centre was dispersed to numerous subordinate organs. That is decentralisation.


But definition stands. And I don't see any reason to use your understanding of decentralization instead of Wikipedia's one.

The definition does not stand because the movement of commodities is not usually referred to as decentralisation!

[tuwix]

Good grief, did you even read the rest of my post?


Yes.



Sufficient for what?


To economy that is not centralized to grow to the level when communism could be introduced.



They transferred economic authority from the centre to local secretaries. No amount of phrase-juggling will erase that; the authority that once inhered in one centre was dispersed to numerous subordinate organs. That is decentralisation.


'Subordinate organs' as you say. That means the power has been centralised still. That implies it wasn't decentralisation at all.





The definition does not stand because the movement of commodities is not usually referred to as decentralisation!

You are not any authority to me to overrule a definition...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes.

And you simply "forgot" to respond to those parts of my post that present problems for your ICO position - like how the crisis in grain procurement at the end of the NEP period renders your psychological speculation moot?


To economy that is not centralized to grow to the level when communism could be introduced.

And how do you propose that communism be introduced? Do you think that market mechanisms magically disappear when the production of commodities has reached a certain level? But all of that is quite moot, because the inability of market mechanisms to develop the means of production beyond a certain point is a pretty bloody basic tenet of Marxism.

And apparently, you think the economy can grow by manipulating currency - why is it that liberals always place so much faith in currency manipulation? Inflation can not produce commodities, and factories won't run on money.


'Subordinate organs' as you say. That means the power has been centralised still. That implies it wasn't decentralisation at all.

This is tedious. You're using some private definition of "centralisation" that is of no interest to me. I will continue using the English language and the common usage of words; if you wish to join me, by all means do so, but drop the ridiculous redefinitions first.

[tuwix]

And I will continue using English according to definitions. For example of Wikipedia but not invented ones for someone's else needs....

Further discussions I find impossible as opponent has insufficient economical knowledge to understand what I mean.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You mean, I don't defer to Wikipedia over an understanding of how the word "centralism" is commonly used, and I don't defer to the money fetish of bourgeois economists over a materialist analysis of the means of production. Fair enough.