I decided to post these articles here first to learn about your opinion on them. I will probably post this later in the general forum but I know that the discussion there will probably end in debating other things not related with the subject. I translated the articles original written in spanish in Google so you might find some minor errors. The shortage in the USSR was created in an artificial way The shortage was created in a conscious, artificial, but not at the stage of production, but in the sphere of distribution. The aim was to create social tension in the country. Valentina Rushnikova | Pravda | 20/11/2011 at 7:25 | 1467 reads | 21 comments www.kaosenlared.net / news / shortages-USSR-think-so-artificial 20 years ago, the destroyers of the Land of the Soviets managed to complete the coup and begin the restoration of capitalism in our country. Long before 1991 and had created and was fully operational "fifth column", progressively instilled in the consciousness of people disrespect for the socialist way of life, often causing problems in an artificial way. Not only operated the anti-Soviet propaganda, which made use of certain difficulties of the socialist system, was also up sabotaging activity, hidden until now. One of the main directions to exacerbate the tension in society was the artificial creation of problems related to the supply of consumer goods, primarily food products. Since the mid-80's in many cities and towns became scarce food products in many windows of stores, not just the delicious, but also dairy products. It was a process that was growing from year to year, with the exception of the capital, where the variety of food products remained at a decent level. This bias in favor of Moscow on supplies of food items, generated many problems. Began arriving in the capital flows of people coming from regions near the capital, and even more remote regions of the country. The system travels to the capital to get stuffed, the endless queues at shops, exhausted and motivated people discontent with the situation, both among the Muscovites, and among those who came from outside. That was what they wanted the "foremen of perestroika." Thus, for the current critics of the Soviet period, the main argument against socialism ─ after the "Stalinist repression" ─ was the alleged widespread shortage of food products and other consumer goods. But those same critics fail to mention, on purpose, the real cause of that shortage. For example, in 1987 the volume of production of the food industry, in comparison with the indicators 1980, had grown to 130%. In the meat industry, this growth compared ─ ─ 1980 was 135%, in the dairy industry was 131% in the fish of 132% and the derivative of the flour, of a 123%. In that same period, the population growth was 6.7% while the average wage in the economy grew on average by 19%. Consequently, the production of food in our country was way ahead of population growth and purchasing power. All companies in the food industry working at full capacity, they were guaranteed supplies of agricultural products and other raw materials necessary for its operation and workforce. Mean that the development of food industry in any way could be the cause of the scarcity of gender in grocery stores. Therefore it should only take a deduction: the shortage was generated in a conscious, artificial, but not at the stage of production, but in the sphere of distribution. The aim was to create social tension in the country. By the way, that our generation remembers well the program "600 seconds". In it, in 1990, reports were quite eloquent on how you destroyed sausage, butter, oil and other products that were deficient in that time. In one of the publications of the time, the then mayor of Moscow and now adviser to the mayor (!), Gabriel Popov, recognized those cases where food products are destroyed in order to create scarcity in the city. The press reported how they had stopped in unison, to be repaired, all companies producing snuff, and detergent. In general we still do not know their names, still in shadow, the instigators, organizers and executors of that economic sabotage. It remains a mystery how and in what direction is no such huge amount of food products. The few publications that are available on the subject, only give rise to presuppose how the shortage was generated. The sabotage was successful and the capitalist mode came to replace the socialist mode of production. Bourgeois propaganda continuously deliberates on the windows full of products in stores and on the abundance of food products. One might think that the shortages are resolved. But how? Since then it has not been through the development of the agribusiness sector, but by the importation of foreign food products and ─ and this is the main ─ due to low purchasing power of the population. The shortage remains, only a hidden mode. Furthermore imports are from outside (except for those from Belarus) are of a more than doubtful, he would never have admitted to the USSR. Compared to the Soviet period, has worsened significantly the quality of domestic production. To replace natural materials arrived substitutes, additions and equivalents. The result has decreased product quality in taste. Often food production is not entirely safe for consumer health. The number of products that meet the quality requirements of the state has fallen dramatically. Have been replaced by technical conditions. The fall of the USSR: the myth of economic collapse Increasingly, scholars, experts in their fields, are rethinking many widespread views about the Soviet Union. One of the most widespread myths is that of economic collapse, and also one of those being most challenged ... David Kotz - Fred Weir | East Wind | 09.01.2011 at 8:44 | 2442 reads | 20 comments www.kaosenlared.net / news / drop-USSR-myth-economic collapse Increasingly, scholars, experts in their fields, are rethinking many widespread views about the Soviet Union. One of the most widespread myths is that of economic collapse, and also one of those being questioned. According to this myth, the fall of the USSR would have been the result primarily of a brutal economic crisis (for the inefficiency of the system). However, both in Russia and beyond, many think that the fall of the USSR was not much to do with a supposed economic crisis, but rather, it was a process initiated by the elite of the USSR itself, and economic crisis would not the cause of reform, but the consequence of them, even if used as an excuse. This is a fairly widespread in Russia (see for example studies of Kara-Murza and others, some of them even translated into Spanish), but is also shared by others. Here for example I present the summary of an article by David Kotz and Fred Wair, published in Hungarian "Eszmélet" left ("Conscience"). The article is a summary of his book "Revolution from above: the demise of the Soviet system" (read it partially on the Internet here in English, I have not done it yet). Regarding the article, I disagree with everything that both authors discuss but generally I find very interesting analysis. The authors start from the idea, trying to demonstrate in his text, that although the USSR had serious economic problems, no indication that there is danger of economic collapse, and indeed this did not occur until the country's elites destroyed the economic system existing. It was the country's undemocratic structure that caused the catastrophe, not the planned economy. They start talking about Soviet planning and its history: Since 1917 the Bolsheviks tests various ways in terms of economic structure. Only in the 20 arises what has been called "the Soviet system." Was characterized by all non-agricultural enterprises were socially owned and were led, ultimately, by a central institution in Moscow. Despite this, the Soviet economy achieved high growth and rapid development. Many think that this rapid growth was achieved by the measures Stalinist repression by certain sections of society, and the difficult living conditions. But the authors say it was quite the opposite, that the Stalinist regime slowed economic growth, which could have been much larger than it actually was. Between 1928 and 75 the Soviet economy grew at a rate of 5.1% per year. Between 1950 and 75, when the economy was already industrialized Soviet economic growth remained high, even more than the U.S.. The Soviet system had many advantages over capitalism: for example full employment, the possibility of using corporate profits massively in the development of education and training, and also was not affected by the periodic crises of capitalism. Not everything can be measured by GDP or economic growth, but by 1975, the country was behind the USSR had become an economic powerhouse in many ways competing with the U.S., and some even exceeded them (see for example the space race). In 1960 half of all Soviet families had radio, TV and 10% in 25 refrigerator, in 1985 families had all of these appliances. In 1980 the USSR had more doctors and hospital beds than the U.S.. On the 70 scientific, technological and economic of the USSR was followed with alarm the Western powers. Many thought the future would be the Soviet regime because of its great achievements, despite their negative traits. However, since 1975 the Soviet economy disrupts the rapid development that had until then. And technological progress also stops. For the first time in a decade, the U.S. economy is growing faster than the Soviet. In addition, the arms race, reinforced by the Reagan administration, severely affected the Soviet economy. In 1985 Gorbachev came to power, is the recognition of the elite led by the USSR, that reforms are needed. But his reforms did not bring an improvement of the situation and production continued to be subdued. Between 1985 and 1989 the average Soviet economic growth was 2.2% instead of 1.8% between 1975 and 1985. But since 1975 there has never been negative growth, while in the U.S. it was in three years. By the end of the 80 commodity shortage is accentuated. For Western analysts, this meant the first signs of collapse, but the explanation was another reason was that the family income had increased much more than the production of consumer goods, that were to blame for the economic reforms that had decentralized production and control were no longer income. Thus, if the mid-80's the family income grew by 3-4% annually in 1988 jumps to 9.1% in 1989 to 12.8%. But while prices, which had been set yet by the central institutions, did not change much of anything. So people found a lot of money in the hands that want to spend as soon as possible and then it turned out that the stores were completely empty. In fact consumption continued to grow. It is true that the Soviet economy did not get a remarkable growth in the 80's, but that image of economic collapse is false. However, in 1990 and 1991 is another matter. Gorbachev is losing power against Yeltsin. In May 1990, Yeltsin took power in the Russian Federation and tried to accumulate all the power in their hands and take him away from the Soviet authorities. This economic planning institutions were no real power and the Soviet economy, which was a homogeneous whole, began to decompose rapidly. This is important to highlight: the crisis did not come by the inability of the planned economy, but it was removed by the planned economy and the economy was no effective means of coordination. The elite choose capitalism: How is it possible that the Soviet regime fell without apparent internal opposition? Gorbachev and his circle believed that the main problem of the Soviet regime was the lack of democracy. Thus develops the perestroika (restructuring, reconstruction). In the country there are three focus groups (had more but they were minor): supporters of the reforms, in favor of keeping the system as such, and those who radically rejected communism. It imposed the anti-Communist, led by Yeltsin, especially since it won the support of the country's elites. Studies of Alec Nove, Farmer, Mathews and others show that after the Second World War was the Soviet elite social stratum defined ambitious and unprincipled. They cared only power and personal gain. In 1991 many members of this elite openly acknowledged that they were not Communists, but were in the Communist Party. This breed of opportunists assessed their options with the arrival of Gorbachev's reforms. Not benefited Gorbachev's democratic socialism and very few members of this elite supported the advocacy groups back the old system. Although this was the system that gave them power, while it limited, for example did not allow private ownership and therefore the accumulation of property. When in 1991 there is a coup attempt against the reforms, this fails because the elite positions in favor of Yeltsin. This elite was eager to get the position it enjoyed in the West. And he understood that his position as new capitalists in the country offered many advantages. For example happened with Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russian prime minister between 1992 and 1998, during the Soviet era had been minister of production and gas treatment. Today is one of the richest men in the world and major shareholder of Gazprom. According to an analysis of the 100 leading businessmen from Russia, 62 were members of the Communist elite, 38 come from the black economy and the world of crime. A June 1991 study of American politicóloga Judith Kullberg, shows that 77% of the upper classes favored Soviet capitalism, while 12% of democratic socialism and 10% of "communism or nationalism." According to a 1991 study by an American foundation in European Russia, 10% of the population wanted a return to pre-reform system, 36% were in favor of democratic socialism, 23% Swedish social democratic model, and only 17% wanted a system similar to American or German capitalism. Ie, 69% wanted some form of socialism. Other studies and surveys show even lower rate of support to Western capitalism. The reformists dominated the Soviet structures of power, the capitalists instead dominated the Russians, so his main goal was to somehow destroy the USSR. However, the referendum of 1991 showed that most of the population was against something. The article also mentions interesting facts about the economy of the USSR: Economic Growth 1928-1975: 1928-40: USSR-US-5.8% 1.7% 1940-50: USSR-US-2.2% 4.5% 1950-70: USSR-US-4.8% 2.9% 1975-85: USSR-US-1.8% 2.9% Source: The Real National Income of Soviet Russia since 1928, Abraham Bergson, 1961, Measures of Soviet National Product in 1982 Prices, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. Soviet economic growth between 1986-91 1986: 4.1% 1987: 1.3% 1988: 2.1% 1989: 1.5% 1990: -2.4% 1991: -12.8% Sources: Measures of Soviet National Product in 1982 Prices, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. Article Source: http://www.freeweb.hu/eszmelet/38/kotzweir38.html
thanks jam----wading thru!!!
