gorbachev

[comrade stalin guevara]

The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism.
Mikhail Gorbachev (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mikhailgor154652.html)




any thoughts...this is from the same man who said
,I am a Communist, a convinced Communist! For some that may be a fantasy. But to me it is my main goal.

[Yazman]

Mikhail Gorbachev is nothing but a reformist and a capitalist, this is pretty clear if you examine his actions. Although he probably did not realise what the market reforms to the soviet union would cause and we can see that he tried to hold the nation together even though it was quickly being deconstructed around him by the likes of Yeltsin et al.

[cyu]

The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism.
I don't see a fundamental contradiction.

Consider this: Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever. They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices.

Here's the rub: instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.

As long as everyone has an equal salary, that is similar to economic democracy. Everyone has an equal amount of "votes" as to what to produce next. The concept of a salary is no longer a "reward" for work (there are plenty of psychological studies that show "rewarding" work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal), but as just a method used so that everyone can help determine what goods and services are valuable.

[Sendo]

I don't see a fundamental contradiction.

Consider this: Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever. They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices.

Here's the rub: instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.

As long as everyone has an equal salary, that is similar to economic democracy. Everyone has an equal amount of "votes" as to what to produce next. The concept of a salary is no longer a "reward" for work (there are plenty of psychological studies that show "rewarding" work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal), but as just a method used so that everyone can help determine what goods and services are valuable.

with many industries though, having the side-by-side competition would cause a lot of waste and put strain on labor and on nature. Wouldn't it be easier to consolidate it all? Why should there have to be a market, complete with adverts and the like? Why not have people join economic planning councils or have community votes on what gets produced. I would like to have choice in whether I wear green cargoes or khaki cargoes of course, but I'm willing to sacrifice some that variety for a greater good.

What you propose is a nice transition to full socialism, but it reeks to much of the petit-bourgeois notions of a post-feudal society that wants to return to a world of artisans and set up co-ops. I just don't think it can be done in the modern context in terms of resources and population etc.

[Unicorn]

Gorby can go to hell. He singlehandedly undid decades of socialist construction.

[comrade stalin guevara]

yes unicorn that bastard did

[Comrade Vasilev]

I don't see a fundamental contradiction.

Consider this: Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever. They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices.

Here's the rub: instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.

As long as everyone has an equal salary, that is similar to economic democracy. Everyone has an equal amount of "votes" as to what to produce next. The concept of a salary is no longer a "reward" for work (there are plenty of psychological studies that show "rewarding" work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal), but as just a method used so that everyone can help determine what goods and services are valuable.
Coming from a petitebourgeois anarchists such as yourself, this isn't surprising.

[BIG BROTHER]

The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism.
Mikhail Gorbachev (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mikhailgor154652.html)




any thoughts...this is from the same man who said
,I am a Communist, a convinced Communist! For some that may be a fantasy. But to me it is my main goal.

hes a betrayer of the soviet union.:mad: The soviet union would have gone capitalist anyways though, at the stage that it was it was inevitable.

[Lost In Translation]

With the unveiling of perestroika and glasnost, I think Gorbachev pretty much sealed the USSR's fate then :(

[Dros]

Yes. Markets are inconsistent with socialist economic policy as they necessarily require private ownership over the means of production. I suggest you do a search as this topic has been dealt with exhaustively elsewhere and I don't feel like doing it all again right now.

[Sendo]

it's tough to assess, gorby, methinks. The USSR had descended into a Russian bureaucratic empire. I would have supported secession with "socialism with a human face" However, Russia and the Eastern bloc have been worse off with the neoliberal reforms caused by the new oligarchs. Additionally, how much of it was actually Gorby's fault? Is having the Soviet Union and its bad reputation for leftism gone good in the long run? Ithink it's too soon to assess everything. Objective living standards for Russia, the place is worse. But as far as leftism, subjectively, people are less propagandized against leftism with the end of the Cold War. Still, it's hard to put blame on individuals. I think the Soviet Union started to fail after Lenin died and we need to keep struggling, learning from past mistakes.

[DancingLarry]

Gorby can go to hell. He singlehandedly undid decades of socialist construction.

Really, that's how history works? It's all about "great men" (or nefarious ones) and their individual actions? It isn't driven by economic and social forces that eclipse the negligible impact of any specific individual? I always thought the latter was the case.

[Unicorn]

Is having the Soviet Union and its bad reputation for leftism gone good in the long run?
While the Soviet Union existed Communist parties actually had mass support (double-digit proportion of the people) in numerous Western nations. The collapse discredited Marxism in the eyes of many. The Soviet Union also had vast economical and military resources and with the backing of the USSR many newly liberated nations chose the non-capitalist path of development. The collapse was a horrible, horrible catasthrophe.

[Ismail]

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm


My ambition was to liquidate communism, the dictatorship over all the people. Supporting me and urging me on in this mission was my wife, who was of this opinion long before I was. I knew that I could only do this if I was the leading functionary. In this my wife urged me to climb to the top post. While I actually became acquainted with the West, my mind was made up forever. I decided that I must destroy the whole apparatus of the CPSU and the USSR. Also, I must do this in all of the other socialist countries. My ideal is the path of social democracy. Only this system shall benefit all the people. This quest I decided I must fulfill.

I found friends that had the same thoughts as I in Yakovlev and Shevernadze, they all deserve to be thanked for the break-up of the USSR and the defeat of Communism.

World without communism is going to be much better. After year 2000 the world will be much better, because it shall develop and prosper. But there are countries which shall try to struggle against this. China for one. I was in Peking during the time of the protests on Tienanmen Square, where I really thought that Communism in China is going to crash. I sternly demanded of the Chinese leadership that I want to speak to the protesters, but they did not allow me to do so. If Communism would fall in China, all the world would be better off, and on the road to peace.

I wanted to save the USSR, but only under social democracy rule. This I could not do. Yeltsin wanted power, he did not know anything about democracy or what I intended to do. We wanted the democratic USSR to have rights and freedom.

Then Yeltsin broke up the USSR and at that time I was not in the Kremlin, all the newspaper reporters asked me whether I shall cry? I did not cry, because I really managed to destroy Communism in the USSR, and also in all other European Socialist countries. I did not cry, because I knew that I fulfilled my main aim, that was the defeat of communism in Europe. But you must also know, that communism must be defeated in Asia also, to make the transition quicker to democracy and freedom in the whole world.

The liquidation of the USSR is not beneficial to the USA, since they have now no mighty democratic country (the former USSR) which I wanted to call the Union of Independent Sovereign Republics. I could not accomplish all of this. All the small countries now are thanking the USA for the help. I wanted the USA and the former USSR to be partners without the scourge of Communism, these could have been the ruling countries of the world. The road towards democracy will be a long one, but it is coming very quickly. The whole world must now defeat the last remnants of communism!

This is from an interview by newspapers with Gorbachev in Ankara, Turkey where he was a guest at a seminar at the American University. It was published in the 'Dialog' newspaper in the Czech Republic. Courtesy: 'Northstar Compass', Toronto, February, 2000.Thread over. And no, Gorbachev didn't single-handedly cause the fall of the USSR. Glasnost and perestroika were seen as great things at first, since Soviet citizens were like "Finally, all this corruption and such is going away!" Of course in reality things actually got worse mainly due to nationalism (due to glasnost) causing ethnic strife (such as between Armenians and Azeris) and the economy got worse. (Due to perestroika)

Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union by Bill Bland (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html) has an appendix made in later editions of the book. Tolerate the unnecessary beginning CAPSLOCK and you'll do fine in reading it: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/PS-USSR.html

[Comrade Vasilev]

Gorby can go to hell. He singlehandedly undid decades of socialist construction.
Socialism in the USSR ended about 1960 with Khrushchev's economic reforms and his famous declaration that the dictatorship of the proletariat 'no longer existed' and that he would build communism 'in 30 years'...:rolleyes:

What fell in 1991 was not socialism, it was a very a undemocratic and particularly corrupt form of capitalism akin to fascism.

[cyu]

with many industries though, having the side-by-side competition would cause a lot of waste and put strain on labor and on nature.

I agree competition among producers of the same or similar products may not always be the best use of resources. While this may benefit a third party in terms of what products they have available, competition hurts both the competitors. If resources weren't controlled by a capitalist class, one of the competitors could more easily move into a new industry and provide a new product or service that nobody else is currently providing.

However, competition isn't always bad. If there is a superior product and an inferior product, one would hope the superior product wins (assuming it's cost effective). Traditional competition prevents competing companies from sharing knowledge and research - that would just hurt their profits. However, if the employees of both companies got the same salary regardless, they wouldn't have to worry about that. They could cooperate in terms of sharing research and designs, but still let their products compete to determine which should continue to be produced.


Why should there have to be a market, complete with adverts and the like?

I wouldn't imagine too many traditional adverts. Ads are used because you want others to perceive your product or service as more useful than they currently think. The purpose of this is to increase profits. If you're going to be getting the same salary anyway, why bother with ads?


Why not have people join economic planning councils or have community votes on what gets produced.

That is fine by me too. However, the spending of equal salaries is like being able to prioritize your votes. If you think two things are both good, but one is slightly more important than the other, then you could spend more on the more important thing. Plus, you don't have to deal with showing up at the legislative assembly all the time :lol: ...still, I'd be fine living with the "normal" voting process on decisions as to what to produce next.