Zundy: Getting harder and harder to see why you like Coulter...

[RogueLeader]

That's kind of the point, fist. When they were able to grow, the economic growth rate skyrocketed. But no other country was able to get that kind of economic growth during their period of industrialization. The U.S. had industrialized after the British, so they had the advantage of industry already being discovered, yet did not achieve 250%. And this 250% increase was in spite of Russia not being unified, being attacked by the Mensheviks, being invaded by Britain and the United States, and suffering from devestation of World War I. They were handicapped and still shattered all records, precisely because they had a worker-led economy. If it was because of its late industrialization that Russia grew so fast, why don't third world countries industrializing now have such a great rate of growth? The state's expropriation of the bourgeoisie's property brings me to the point. When the bourgeois use their property to industrialize, clearly they don't do so well as when the workers do it.

 

[fist_mlrs]

totays third world country don't grow that fast because they don't have the money to buy their ladder, or are not willing to share it with their people

the problem is that industral growth is a extremly inacurate value. as is said most of the industry of russia was at medieval standarts. the technological jump when the industrialisation started was far bigger then for example in the usa, because there was allready some sort of base industry. the property of russi was concentrated in a few rich cities, they were the only parts of russia which were equipped with industry. under such conditions like these 250% industrial growth are far easier to achieve then by the step-by-step industrialation most other countrys had.

the next point is that there was war, most men were fighting. because of this the allready low industrial production was reduced even more. after the war some of them returned, so there were suddenly workers again and the industry was able to grow again.

another point is that in russia there was a extreme pauperism, so the russians were far more willing to work in the industry to earn enough money to survive.

i think it is to easy to just say the industrialation was that successful because it was done by the workers. it might have been a reason, but definitely not the only one.

if it was the reason wasn't because the workers were more motivated though. the workers of other countries during their industrialisation were motivated to work as hard as possible too, maybe by other reasons though: if they wouldn't have done their work right they would have lost their job to somebody else, which could have easiliy killed themself and their family. in russia the workers might be motivated in a more positive way, but the result is the same: they work harder. so motivation had no real influence on this

 

[RogueLeader]

The Russian economy was almost at that of most of the world at the time, it merely had leftover feudal class relations. The fact that Russia, unlike America, was able to jump immediatly from backwards to industrial is exactly the proof I am talking about. If capitalism worked half as good as socialism, the U.S. would have been industrialized the moment the British restrictions were done away with after the revolution. Instead it took 125 years for America to really industrialize.

 

[Zundfolge]

If capitalism worked half as good as socialism, the U.S. would have been industrialized the moment the British restrictions were done away with after the revolution. Instead it took 125 years for America to really industrialize.

The flaw in your reasoning is that before America "industrialized" there really where no "industrialized" nations (if there was, there was only one or two).

The Soviet Union was able to jump from bass akwards to industrialized because the Czars where so fuc<b></b>king rich they left the new Socialist state with a ton of capital to make the transition ... the Czars had so much wealth it took until the 1980s for the Soviets to use it all up (which is ultimately why they collapsed).

Thats always the problem with communism/socialism ... it requires the wealth built by capitalists to actualy do anything ... otherwise, left to it's own devices it will wither away and die.


If Socialism truely worked better then Capitalism ... they why are all the great Socialist states gone? (with the possible exception of China ... which dabbles in capitalism enough to stay afloat)

 

[RogueLeader]

The wealth of the Czars existed only in the form of property, and for that matter mostly property with no use-value. Property with no use-value can have no legitimate exchange value and can therefore make no actualized contribution to the economic growth of a nation.

The flaw in your reasoning is that only a capitalist nation COULD have used the Czar's property for economic growth (thus you are admitting that Stalinist Russia, which did use property to industrialize, was capitalist); Leninist Russia created its society from scratch. That was the point of the New Economic Policy, to create actual capitalism so that there could be a transition to socialism, since socialism is not meant to come from feudalism. Capital, by definition, is money that increases value through circulation. Because commodities are usually exchanged at their exchange value, they alone cannot increase value. The only commodity that exists that adds value is labor-power, which can only be exploited by capitalists if the worker is paid for the minimum work necessary for his life, but is forced to work longer. That is the basis of capitalism and the wage system. Therefore, for the goods of the Czars to have been used in industrialization, they would have to have been used to add value to the Soviet economy by exploiting labor, which would have made it capitalist and not socialist. That is why the Soviet Union is appropriatly referred to as state capitalist--because of the definition of capital.

Additionally, the U.S. possessed awesome wealth in its natural resources, which were incredibly rich on a relativly unexploited continent. Furthermore, because natural resources are as of yet undeveloped, it takes labor to make them useful, which means you not only get the economic growth of that wealth but also of adding value to it initially, which helps the present economy more. That is the reason why new settlements always have jobs for everyone (see Wealth of Nations, book 1). In spite of this wealth, the U.S. still lacked any sufficient economic growth.

Trotsky explained the basis of Soviet economics better than anyone in Ch. 1 of The Revolution Betrayed, which you should read.

Edit: The are very few socialist states in history. China was never socialist, always state capitalist. The Soviet Union proved Marxist theory in that socialism CAN be overturned and a counter-revolution can restore capitalism, but only with extremely brutal repression (hence Stalin). The Paris Commune was known to have died before it started, it came too early and the entire German and French armies marched on a single city, it had no hope. All revolutions are followed by counter-revolutions. The 1688 revolution in Britain was followed by Charles II gaining power, the French Revolution was followed by Thermidor and Napoleon, the American Revolution by the elimination of the confederacy and consolidation of central power in a federal government. The same goes for Russia, in the form of Stalin.

 

[fist_mlrs]

because the usa had not got the needed money by expropriations of the aristocracy

in russia you had extremly rich aristocratic familys, while the usa were only a relative unimportant colony when they revoluted against the british. i don't think you can define a systems efficiency by its industral growth during the industrialatin. this growth depends, as i said, on far to many conditions to be a vallue you can base anything off. it gets a important value once the country is industrialized, but during the industrialisation it says nothing. because of this you cant realy compare tghe industrial strenght of both systems. the only point would be the paris commune, but it last only 72 days before it was defeated by government troups, hardly enough to draw any conclusions on how effective it migh have been over a long time.

its the same with russia: the industrial growth was that high after the revolution because the country wasn't industrialized before (which btw means there was nearly no proletariat, marx and engels theories were made for a industrialized country like great britain or the german reich, but russia was a agrarian state back then). there are no dates of the of a industrial socialist country over a longer time (unless you count stalinist countrys, but im shure you don't do this).

 

[RogueLeader]

The U.S. was of tremendous importance economically. The U.S. had extremely rich aristocratic families, too, and furthermore families that came out of the industrializing British society. Yet even this was not enough. If you look at things dialectically (i.e. in their actual, concrete existance, rather than in abstract and unrealistic terms), then you will see that every society develops in similar terms. It is not always economics that determines this, because of unequal development. Spain had an industrial economy by the turn of the century but was still feudal, despite it being capitalism that is supposed to introduce industrialization.

What you still neglect is this: capitalist economies that develop from non-industrialized to industrialized experience nothing close to a 250% growth rate. Russia is not unlike many other nations. Many places were industrializing at the same time, yet only Russia was able to shatter all previous records. Most of your rebuttels only prove my point, such as saying that property was expropriated, equivalant to saying Russia's economic growth is only due to there being no private property, which is exactly the point.

You are right that Russia had few proletarians. That is why Stalin could take power. Totalitarian "communism" can only take place in backwards countries when the proletariat is the minority, because when it is the majority the state will die off.

 

[RogueLeader]

For one moment, I would just like to share how I marvel at the mere words of "Coming from the "World Socialist Press" lends the article about zero credibility" being able to so horribly warp the topic.

 

[fist_mlrs]

you just can't say which system is better because there are no facts to prove your point, whatever you say. if you say that the industrial potential of a capitalist state is better then in a socialist or even communist state you have no facts to compare it to, if you say the industry is stronger in socialism you don't have reliable facts either.

the czars were extremly rich, and as russia and later the soviet union has never realy been a non-capitalistic country, so this money could and has been used for the industrialisation of the country. a big number of it was sent to germany in exchange to help with the industrialisation and modernization of the military for example.

 

[fist_mlrs]

What you still neglect is this: capitalist economies that develop from non-industrialized to industrialized experience nothing close to a 250% growth rate. Russia is not unlike many other nations. Many places were industrializing at the same time, yet only Russia was able to shatter all previous records. Most of your rebuttels only prove my point, such as saying that property was expropriated, equivalant to saying Russia's economic growth is only due to there being no private property, which is exactly the point.

i never said i disagree with this

For one moment, I would just like to share how I marvel at the mere words of "Coming from the "World Socialist Press" lends the article about zero credibility" being able to so horribly warp the topic.

well, most ppl would find it more credibly if it would have been taken from a standart news source, but imho this doesn't abrogate the content of the text completely. anyway, sorry for taking this off topic

 

[RogueLeader]

It is true that the most a socialist society has existed is only for a few years, a decade at most, because like all early capitalist revolutions, counterrevolutions have destroyed them. However, you can compare it to the theoretical component of Marxism. Despite the common ignorant and desperate attempt to defend bourgeois society with the words, "communism works in theory", it is precisely because communism is dialectical that makes that its strength. Most bourgeois theories of government are metaphysical, i.e. abstractly. In order to simplift things, in bourgeois science you generally break things down into simple components.

Take for example the idea that democracy and dictatorship are two differenr kinds of government, but socialism and capitalism are two different kind of economies. We sometimes think because of this that we can have democratic capitalist societies, dictatorial capitalist societies, democratic socialist societies, and dictatorial socialist societies, depending on whatever is the choice of government. In reality, government and economics are intertwined. Metaphysics, which is our typical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle), is false logic, and reduces everything to a theory where everything works ideally. Dialectics, on the other hand, takes into account each and every possible factor. That is why Marx's predictions have been 99% true (I say 99% only because I don't want to make a universal statement). Using dialectics Marx predicted the existance of stagflation a century before it first appeared (which was one of many crises of capitalism). Earlier metaphysical studies of capitalism, e.g. Wealth of Nations, did not perdict any crises at all. What is eventually found dialectically is humans obey certain laws. Man's theories do not affect human development, human development affects man's theories. Hence we have no real choice of government. We always start with capitalist democracy (after feudalism). We always go to capitalist dictatorship when the bourgeois is threatened with socialism (which always happens). Man then always proceeds to socialist democracy, unless it is a backwards country, in which case, depending on other factors, it may become a socialist dictatorship. If the later happes, it will always return to a capitalist dictatorship, then to capitalist democracy, and then to socialist democracy. Marxism predicted all of the above, and so far, using Russia as an example, it has gone through capitalism, socialist dictatorshop, and all the way back to capitalist democracy. It was a perfect prediction. Damn I rambled on forever there didn't I?

So to compare things theoretically, which is identical to Marxism in practice, socialism is different in that all people participate in democracy instead of a few, and all workers are paid about what they work for instead of less than that. Economically, that is vastly superior, and allows for scientific management of the economy, which under capitalism cannot be done without ruining the market system on which capitalism is based. Thus the people have more ability to produce than in capitalism.