Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Stalin's Economic Policy: Problems and Impact

    Share

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 895
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Stalin's Economic Policy: Problems and Impact

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:17 pm

    I wanted to continue this topic - and as it fits the thread about Russian economy poorly, I decided to create a new one.
    flamming_python wrote:If Stalin hadn't collectivized the grain in 1932/1933 and sold it to the West in return for industrial equipment, the USSR might have been able to avoid the worst of the famine - but would also have gotten nowhere.
    And this proves my point just perfectly - that Stalinist/communist economies cannot achieve high levels of development in one area without cannibalizing some other part - if you have to subject sizable portions of your population to famine just to get industry, then your economic system IS NOT healthy - unless your vocabulary is upside-down.

    If you ask what I consider a successful case of industrialization - then Bismarck's Germany comes to mind - went from a largely rural country into an industrial powerhouse of Europe in ~30 years - with no famines and mass deaths.

    You have USA which had world's largest industry by 1890 and in 1941-45 managed to switch most of it's heavy industry to war production without much damage to consumer economy.

    Then you got Imperial Russia - which enjoyed some of the highest rates of economic growth before WW1 - with agriculture, light and  heavy industries developing ALONGSIDE each other - not antagonistically (as in USSR)

    Don't bother, he clearly thinks the West is above using forced labor, when the American and British economies financed and profiteered on the transatlantic slave trade, as well as their financial centers (Wallstreet, and the City of London) who financed and profiteered on the rise of fascism in the world

    Here's a highly recommended read, it's probably the the best book on the rise of fascism that's ever been written! It's 'Facts and Fascism' by George Seldes, one of the best journalists of the last century, who had support as high up in the U.S. govt. as the vice president of the United States (Henry Wallace under FDR). It was the first book of it's kind, which documented about how the the top robber barons...err I mean business moguls in the West (US, UK, mainland Europe) financed and profiteered on the rise of fascism, including the forced labor camps. It's free online to read, when you find free time read it, it's highly enlightening:
    I don't know what point you're trying to make.

    Your post is a tu quoque fallacy and a red herring - it does not even touch the subject of Stalin's economic policies - and thus, it's irrelevant.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3597
    Points : 3632
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Stalin's Economic Policy: Problems and Impact

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:40 am

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I wanted to continue this topic - and as it fits the thread about Russian economy poorly, I decided to create a new one.
    flamming_python wrote:If Stalin hadn't collectivized the grain in 1932/1933 and sold it to the West in return for industrial equipment, the USSR might have been able to avoid the worst of the famine - but would also have gotten nowhere.
    And this proves my point just perfectly - that Stalinist/communist economies cannot achieve high levels of development in one area without cannibalizing some other part - if you have to subject sizable portions of your population to famine just to get industry, then your economic system IS NOT healthy - unless your vocabulary is upside-down.

    If you ask what I consider a successful case of industrialization - then Bismarck's Germany comes to mind - went from a largely rural country into an industrial powerhouse of Europe in ~30 years - with no famines and mass deaths.

    You have USA which had world's largest industry by 1890 and in 1941-45 managed to switch most of it's heavy industry to war production without much damage to consumer economy.

    Then you got Imperial Russia - which enjoyed some of the highest rates of economic growth before WW1 - with agriculture, light and  heavy industries developing ALONGSIDE each other - not antagonistically (as in USSR)

    Don't bother, he clearly thinks the West is above using forced labor, when the American and British economies financed and profiteered on the transatlantic slave trade, as well as their financial centers (Wallstreet, and the City of London) who financed and profiteered on the rise of fascism in the world

    Here's a highly recommended read, it's probably the the best book on the rise of fascism that's ever been written! It's 'Facts and Fascism' by George Seldes, one of the best journalists of the last century, who had support as high up in the U.S. govt. as the vice president of the United States (Henry Wallace under FDR). It was the first book of it's kind, which documented about how the the top robber barons...err I mean business moguls in the West (US, UK, mainland Europe) financed and profiteered on the rise of fascism, including the forced labor camps. It's free online to read, when you find free time read it, it's highly enlightening:
    I don't know what point you're trying to make.

    Your post is a tu quoque fallacy and a red herring - it does not even touch the subject of Stalin's economic policies - and thus, it's irrelevant.

    ... Stalin's economic policies were litterally a copy paste of the solutions that were employed by Colonial powers until then, instead of foreign colonies, Stalin had inner colonies.

    Imperial Russia was the sick man of Europe, there was nothing there to keep Russia progressing, the fact is that Russia was slowly killing off its potential with archaic structures and foreign funds. If you didn't get the memo Russia was todays Greece on steroids. It borrowed money to such extent that its fragile economy couldn't repay it back in no freaking time. By 1913 half of the Russian public debt was foreign owned...

    It is always the same thing with the old Russian nationalists. There's nothing funny or great about Stalin, but to say that the Russian Empire was better, is not only vile revisionism, it is also a cause for concern for nowadays.

    One last time. The Imperial Rule was a corrupt and decaying structure that was holding Russia back. The agrarian state of the economy (about 46% of the population was in the fields) and the very important extraction sector (mines) deeply handicapped any Russian aspirations to create a viable middle class. Middle class means urbanization. Add to this poisonous mix a very important penetration of the Russian Orthodox Church and its backwards BS and you have a recipe for disaster...WW1 only made sure the system would die sooner than later.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Stalin's Economic Policy: Problems and Impact

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:04 am

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I wanted to continue this topic - and as it fits the thread about Russian economy poorly, I decided to create a new one.
    flamming_python wrote:If Stalin hadn't collectivized the grain in 1932/1933 and sold it to the West in return for industrial equipment, the USSR might have been able to avoid the worst of the famine - but would also have gotten nowhere.
    And this proves my point just perfectly - that Stalinist/communist economies cannot achieve high levels of development in one area without cannibalizing some other part - if you have to subject sizable portions of your population to famine just to get industry, then your economic system IS NOT healthy - unless your vocabulary is upside-down.

    If you ask what I consider a successful case of industrialization - then Bismarck's Germany comes to mind - went from a largely rural country into an industrial powerhouse of Europe in ~30 years - with no famines and mass deaths.

    You have USA which had world's largest industry by 1890 and in 1941-45 managed to switch most of it's heavy industry to war production without much damage to consumer economy.

    Then you got Imperial Russia - which enjoyed some of the highest rates of economic growth before WW1 - with agriculture, light and  heavy industries developing ALONGSIDE each other - not antagonistically (as in USSR)

    It's true that Imperial Russia did achieve a pretty fast rate of development by the beggining of the 20th century.

    Bismark's Germany, US, both good examples.

    But it's all neither here nor there.

    Stalin didn't have 40 years, nor even 30 - he had about 10. He had no way of knowing it at the time of course, but he knew that the USSR would soon face a new conflict and that the political climate in Europe was changing; he set very, very ambitious targets and timetables, and ran the USSR in such a way that it achieved them.

    Balancing consumer goods production, light and heavy industries and so on was always a challenge for heavily centrally-planned economies like the USSR's - but that has nothing to do with the deaths that you mention.
    The deaths were due to heavy industrial build-up being focussed on and rushed at an incredible speed. Something like this would not have been possible in a capitalist economy - and for all your talk, the fact is that the USSR made the right choice; had it adopted a 'balanced' and slower approach - it would not have industrialized in time.

    Yeah it wasn't healthy - but you still haven't given me an alternative as to how that amount of industrialization and economical development could have been achieved; moralization and sermons about human rights wouldn't have helped the USSR; industrial equipment/machinery from the West in return for grain, and running the country as a slave-ship however did help.

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 895
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Stalin's Economic Policy: Problems and Impact

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:08 pm

    flamming_python wrote:Yeah it wasn't healthy - but you still haven't given me an alternative as to how that amount of industrialization and economical development could have been achieved
    Pretty easy, just keep NEP - and slowly expand it's scope to all of light industry, using taxes to build heavy industry.

    NEP achieved some impressive results in a very short time - namely total recovery of agricultural production (back to 1913 levels at some time around 1927-Cool and threefold (3x) growth of industrial production between 1921 and 1926. If this policy was kept, then although it wouldn't be possible to avoid famine altogether, it's effects would be milder - sadly, ideological bias did not permit all of this.

    History of NEP also shows that under right conditions heavily devastated countries can make a quick recovery - and there is no reason to believe that high rates of economic growth wouldn't persist through the 1930s - and that post-ww2 growth rates wouldn't be higher.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3597
    Points : 3632
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Stalin's Economic Policy: Problems and Impact

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:13 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Yeah it wasn't healthy - but you still haven't given me an alternative as to how that amount of industrialization and economical development could have been achieved
    Pretty easy, just keep NEP - and slowly expand it's scope to all of light industry, using taxes to build heavy industry.

    NEP achieved some impressive results in a very short time - namely total recovery of agricultural production (back to 1913 levels at some time around 1927-Cool and threefold (3x) growth of industrial production between 1921 and 1926. If this policy was kept, then although it wouldn't be possible to avoid famine altogether, it's effects would be milder - sadly, ideological bias did not permit all of this.

    History of NEP also shows that under right conditions heavily devastated countries can make a quick recovery - and there is no reason to believe that high rates of economic growth wouldn't persist through the 1930s - and that post-ww2 growth rates wouldn't be higher.

    YOu can't keep NEP and Socialism...you simply can't. NEP was killing the country, prices rose like there was no tomorrow. What incentive do you have to give your crops, when you can sell them on the market (black or official). Two plane markets don't work. That's why you need to prioritize one of them. Given the USSR was aspiring to eradicate the market economy, I don't get your point.

    The productivity rose basically because the agro-sector had no more volatile costs for itself and had passed all costs to the Urban areas. That's not "healthy" development.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Stalin's Economic Policy: Problems and Impact

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:25 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:25 pm