More Important to Russian History

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Slavery was disappearing to make work force free for the factories n the city. There many employees would had gladly enslaved them again if political possible (and also did so in a practical sense as far as possible).
So I wonder who is ignorant here.

As if there was not a single urban slave.

First, through wages you pay for exactly that.

No, that is not enough to account for that. The wages of an average worker in the 19th century was not enough to care for a human being from cradle to grave. Wages then, due to lack of regulation, were often barely enough to subsist, leading to child labor.

And third: Just consider this: In the SU a Planned Economy was practiced, choking most possibilities of individual initiative. This means whatever happens with the economy is in the end a result of central planning, of which Stalin was the head of naturally.
For decades Russia was gravely getting outpaced by the West, so there does not seem the be a natural trend towards industrialization in Russia/SU at the time. Yet under Stalin industry grew even stronger than it did in most other countries.

Industrialization was certainly achieved, but at a huge cost in human lives, which seemed deliberate on Stalin's part. He didn't so much care about improving the economy of the nation for its own benefit as much as to consolidate and centralize his own power. All the better that his enemies, whether real or imagined, suffered death as Siberian slaves in doing so. Because Stalin was the state, industrialization was achieved.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Its obvious you don't understand basic economics. That's fine. But use some common sense because your position is ridiculous.

Ah it seems someone gets touchy when directed to an error of comprehension.
Besides: As long as I don't see my position refuted I have no fear of seeming ridiculous.

This has nothing to do with it. Best use of human capital does.

If you got more then enough of it due to a low level of industrialization a "best" use of human capital is irrelevant at least on the short run (say for the decade to come). Quantity is what stimulates growth at that stage, not quality. Because quantity can kick in right a way, quality needs time. You can worry about the efficiency when a solid circulation of goods is established.
Further on that this is a planned economy is relevant for the simple reason the industry does not require its workers demand to be stimulated. So slavery is also just fine from the stimulation-point of view. But not only that. It is actually beneficial in this regard because this way the industrial development can focus on the heavy industry, the backbone of every industrial economy, instead of worrying about tedious consumer goods for the workers.

What? That makes no sense.

You referred to more value generated by skilled and paid labour, I added the aspect of lower "payment" for the slave. This makes no sense? I got no idea what, but some misunderstanding must be at place here.

You have a skilled actuary. Dude under normal circumstances could value add $15 a day to his factory, equipped with a shovel he value adds only $5 a day. The net cost to the economy is $10 a day. Multiply these costs over a hundred and you can probably buy a bulldozer that replace all the slave labour. It makes almost no sense to use vast amounts of labour like that when it can be replaced by minimal amounts of capital.

Not in general, not in a good developed country, no. I never said that. On the long run slavery is a burden, not a blessing. You are right. Wouldn't argue that.
But not necessarily in the pre-WWII SU. You act like slavery being too costly were a basic economic constant. It is absolutely not. Only a developed industry providing means making the raw workforce of men obsolete does so.

Look up best use or opportunity cost. This is like the most basic economic principles imaginable. Even Marxist economics makes use of them.

The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently. -Wikipedia

There it is. Scarce resources... As I already pointed out: Soviet citizens were nothing of the sort at the time.

So, are you willing to come down from your high horse?

Edit: Dame Nanocyborgasm, where did your post come from? Anyway, I need to go to bed, reply follows tomorrow.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Is this really a factor of much importance?

Um, yes? When people are claiming that a country was built upon slave labor, its important to note that there were many more volunteer laborers than involuntary ones. These were people who truly believed in what they were doing; some were building socialism, but others were building a stronger Mother Russia, or helping protect their Belorussian home from those grasping Poles, or were seeking a better life for them or their families, and myriad other reasons. Others were emigres from America, who came seeking racial equality, or to participate in the great socialist experiment.

You really need to read Behind the Urals by John Scott.

I imagine that the fulfillment of plans was not based upon volunteering.
On the other hand I can see how this increased effectiveness. It is hard to measure something like that.

What does this statement even mean?

 

[LightSpectra]

or helping protect their Belorussian home from those grasping Poles,

If you're going to be obviously biased, you might as well go the whole way and call them "decadent imperial-capitalist tyrannopoles."

 

[red_elk]

If you're going to be obviously biased, you might as well go the whole way and call them "decadent imperial-capitalist tyrannopoles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Offensive_(1920)

 

[LightSpectra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Offensive_(1920)

Maybe you should point out that the war began with a Soviet invasion of Poland with the stated intent of occupying Poland to export communism. Just a thought. The original statement is also absurd given that the average Belarussian probably despised the Soviets far more than any of their other neighbors; may as well cite the extremely tiny amount of enthusiastic black slaves in the antebellum American South in order to justify the Confederate secession.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Maybe you should point out that the war began with a Soviet invasion of Poland with the stated intent of occupying Poland to export communism. Just a thought.

Oh, the one that happened two years before and everyone had stopped caring about?

Or maybe we should mention how Poland was at war with several of its neighbors from the very moment it was created, so hungry for territory as it was? Poland was by no means innocent, even if you play the "well they were still technically at war since 1918 so taking Kiev was okay blah blah blah" card.

If you're going to be obviously biased, you might as well go the whole way and call them "decadent imperial-capitalist tyrannopoles."

We were quite clearly talking about the 1930s period.

 

[Masada]

Ah it seems someone gets touchy when directed to an error of comprehension.

Its not an error of comprehension on my part its a fundamental lacuna in your thought processes.

Besides: As long as I don't see my position refuted I have no fear of seeming ridiculous.

Its been refuted thoroughly. Slave labour only works if you assume all the labour was best used as manual labour when it wasn't.

If you got more then enough of it due to a low level of industrialization a "best" use of human capital is irrelevant at least on the short run (say for the decade to come). Quantity is what stimulates growth at that stage, not quality. Because quantity can kick in right a way, quality needs time. You can worry about the efficiency when a solid circulation of goods is established.

Where to start. Okay. I've made the point that a farmer is better off farming than digging holes in Siberia. Or that an actuary is better of actuating. Both would generate more worth doing what they're good at than digging holes. You would be better off replacing our slave farmer and actuary either with a bulldozer or with an unskilled worker only good for digging holes. Its that simple.

Further on that this is a planned economy is relevant for the simple reason the industry does not require its workers demand to be stimulated. So slavery is also just fine from the stimulation-point of view. But not only that. It is actually beneficial in this regard because this way the industrial development can focus on the heavy industry, the backbone of every industrial economy, instead of worrying about tedious consumer goods for the workers.

That doesn't matter. Its not a matter of stimulation. Its a matter of generating the most worth. You could pay these guys the same nominal wages as the slaves. But whatever the circumstances they would be better off doing what it is they're good and not wasting that talent, whatever it may be, digging holes.

You referred to more value generated by skilled and paid labour, I added the aspect of lower "payment" for the slave. This makes no sense? I got no idea what, but some misunderstanding must be at place here.

Your not dealing in true cost. If that person is being paid less but generating proportionately less in value your costing the economy money.

Not in general, not in a good developed country, no. I never said that. On the long run slavery is a burden, not a blessing. You are right. Wouldn't argue that.

Why is it suddenly super effective now.

But not necessarily in the pre-WWII SU. You act like slavery being too costly were a basic economic constant. It is absolutely not. Only a developed industry providing means making the raw workforce of men obsolete does so.

Its costly relative to what these people could have otherwise been doing. A Ukrainian farmer not farming is a guy not at his full economic potential. Instead, he's digging holes in Siberia which is an inefficient use of his skills.

There it is. Scarce resources... As I already pointed out: Soviet citizens were nothing of the sort at the time.

EFFICIENTLY. WASTING A LAWYER DIGGING TRENCHES WHEN YOU COULD BE EMPLOYING A FREE UNSKILLED SOVIET WORKER MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE. IT COSTS THE ECONOMY MONEY. SOMETHING YOU'VE EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED. HELL USING A UKRAINIAN PEASANT ALSO MAKES LITTLE TO NO ECONOMIC SENSE EITHER.

So, are you willing to come down from your high horse?

No, because I'm right and like usual you don't know when your wrong.

 

[red_elk]

Maybe you should point out that the war began with a Soviet invasion of Poland with the stated intent of occupying Poland to export communism. Just a thought. The original statement is also absurd given that the average Belarussian probably despised the Soviets far more than any of their other neighbors; may as well cite the extremely tiny amount of enthusiastic black slaves in the antebellum American South in order to justify the Confederate secession.

Polish-Soviet war generally started with Polish Kiev offensive. Soviet unsuccessful invasion happened after that.

We were quite clearly talking about the 1930s period.

Yes, I misunderstood that you were talking about already occupied parts of Belorussia.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As if there was not a single urban slave.

This is your reply? Rich in content.
But for your information:If we are talking about freed slaves for the sake of economic wealth, we are mainly talking about th abolishment of serfdom in Europe. And cities were in deed free of serfdom. It was a concept merely applied on farming.

No, that is not enough to account for that. The wages of an average worker in the 19th century was not enough to care for a human being from cradle to grave. Wages then, due to lack of regulation, were often barely enough to subsist, leading to child labor.

That is no argument. So the slave child works too... The wage remains the one and only source of care for a worker.

Because Stalin was the state, industrialization was achieved.

So you agree?

Um, yes? When people are claiming that a country was built upon slave labor, its important to note that there were many more volunteer laborers than involuntary ones. These were people who truly believed in what they were doing; some were building socialism, but others were building a stronger Mother Russia, or helping protect their Belorussian home from those grasping Poles, or were seeking a better life for them or their families, and myriad other reasons. Others were emigres from America, who came seeking racial equality, or to participate in the great socialist experiment.

You really need to read Behind the Urals by John Scott.

Is this written in the same idealistic manner as this post?

What does this statement even mean?

Well you know, you may have heard of 5-years-plan an such. And as I grasp it those plans were quit ambitious to say the least. And they also did not work on a volunteer basis. They were demands for being part of a command economy. And if a demand on you is already very high there is not much space left for voluntary ambitions.
The second sentence means that I see however, how great enthusiasm gave the workers a greater ability to fulfill those plans, hence increased their effectiveness (though it had still only little to do with "volunteering").
The third sentence means that it is hard to measure a factor like enthusiasm and hence a conclusive statement is hard to find.

@Masade
You convinced me that slavery in the SU may not be called effective. I am still not feeling embarrassed, though.

And I still think that Stalin deserves credit for the industrialization @Nanocyborgasm .

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This is your reply? Rich in content.
But for your information:If we are talking about freed slaves for the sake of economic wealth, we are mainly talking about th abolishment of serfdom in Europe. And cities were in deed free of serfdom. It was a concept merely applied on farming.

No, only you are talking about European serfdom. I am talking about real slavery, which existed elsewhere until about the mid-19th century. You are obviously woefully ignorant, and selectively so, perhaps even deliberately, about certain facets of history. You have also not noticed a little problem we had in North America called the American Civil War, which was fought largely over the issue of slavery, which wasn't banned until 1863. You also fail to notice that serfdom had disappeared from Europe hundreds of years, in some countries, before the industrial revolution, with backwards Russia being the last to do so in 1861.

That is no argument. So the slave child works too... The wage remains the one and only source of care for a worker.

You're arguing philosophy, not economics.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Is this written in the same idealistic manner as this post?

Um, no? Its a statement of fact. Many people worked very hard voluntarily, and those were some of their reasons for doing so.

Well you know, you may have heard of 5-years-plan an such. And as I grasp it those plans were quit ambitious to say the least. And they also did not work on a volunteer basis. They were demands for being part of a command economy. And if a demand on you is already very high there is not much space left for voluntary ambitions.
The second sentence means that I see however, how great enthusiasm gave the workers a greater ability to fulfill those plans, hence increased their effectiveness (though it had still only little to do with "volunteering").
The third sentence means that it is hard to measure a factor like enthusiasm and hence a conclusive statement is hard to find.

Oh, so it meant virtually nothing then.

 

[innonimatu]

Which is it, the economics of slavery or Stalin's horrid mismanagement of the war that nearly cost the USSR the war?

If the latter, the Soviets only won the war despite Stalin, not because of him. He had already slaughtered most of the officer corps in a wave of paranoia and failed even to react promptly to the German attack. The Red Army only started winning when he let his generals actually do their job and plan campaigns. They were also fortunate to be facing an equally incompetent imbecile, Hitler, who simultaneously prevented his general staff from acting accordingly while Stalin allowed them.

I'm not saying that they were not incompetent military leaders, but... isn't it odd how that couple of imbeciles were still running their countries when the generals of France and many lesser countries had been defeated and those of Britain had fled home? Unless every country involved in WW2 (except Finland, I guess) was being run by imbeciles, of course - only then your explanation above would make sense.

That is you not having fully comprehending the context. I was replaying to the notion that the massive industrialization of the SU were possible despite Stalin. To support that argumentation slavery had been mentioned.
I merely argued and argue, that it is insubstantial to argue that without slavery the industrialization would have been even stronger in its progress by pointing that it could be actually beneficial to make use of salvery.
Especially regarding a planned economy, where the preferences of the consumer / single worker are of not much (if any) importance at that stage.

Those workers could very well also require a triple (or more) of the value a slaves becomes as wage (wage for the slave means basic food supply, housing etc.).

This whole slavery approach to the debate about the industrialization of the USSR is causing way too much confusion. I think that SiLL pointed out the real reason for its success above: the preferences of the consumer were ignored. Basically the USSR focused on developing the industry for productive ends, almost ignoring disposable consumer goods. This was something which a planned economy allows, because it can plan for the consumption of the industrial products by other industries, and guarantee that it is done even if the client industries do not possess investment capital to pay for those products. But a purely capitalist system cannot allow: capitalism requires consumers for goods and must produce for whatever consumers exist. Downstream industries must develop, create demand for its industrial product inputs and accumulate enough capital to pay for those, before production of those industrial products is ramped up.

The one situation in capitalist economies where quick industrial development happens without consumers within the system is when it is geared towards exports. Then it grows very much like a planned economy would.

Eventually both types of economy (planned industrial or heavily export-oriented capitalist) have political problems caused by dissatisfaction about a lack of consumer goods, and must be reoriented towards producing those. Arguably this was what happened in the USSR after Stalin's death, reducing the economic growth. Which was not a bad thing: after all the purpose of the economy is to address the needs of the people, not merely to "grow". Such needs cannot be postponed indefinitely...

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I'm not saying that they were not incompetent military leaders, but... isn't it odd how that couple of imbeciles were still running their countries when the generals of France and many lesser countries had been defeated and those of Britain had fled home? Unless every country involved in WW2 (except Finland, I guess) was being run by imbeciles, of course - only then your explanation above would make sense.

Running a country does not necessarily require intelligence in all things.

 

[Lord Baal]

Running a country does not necessarily require intelligence in all things.

Exactly. Hitler and Stalin were among the most skilful autocrats of all time, especially Stalin. That does not mean they were competent generals. Stalin had actually proven himself to be a failure as a general as long ago as the Russian Civil War, while Hitler showed his extreme lack of skill during the course of WWII.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It saddens me that I spent time writing that long post, and no one seems to care, even though the information was asked for.

 

[Lord Baal]

It saddens me that I spent time writing that long post, and no one seems to care, even though the information was asked for.

Hey, I read it. I just have nothing further to say on the subject. You seemed to echo what I'd previously heard on the subject in a lot of places, with significantly more info, and provide entirely new information in other areas. I just didn't see that there was any reason to post, except maybe to thank you for the info, but by the time I red it the thread had already degenerated into yet another argument. Why derail the fun?

 

[LightSpectra]

Polish-Soviet war generally started with Polish Kiev offensive. Soviet unsuccessful invasion happened after that.

Oh? And what do you call the Soviet westward offensive of 1918–1919? It only looks as if the Poles are the aggressors if you conveniently move the start date of the war to their first offensive.

Oh, the one that happened two years before and everyone had stopped caring about?

In what universe do you live in, where mid-powers being invaded by great powers is forgotten a short time after the war is over?

Or maybe we should mention how Poland was at war with several of its neighbors from the very moment it was created, so hungry for territory as it was?

You could arguably say the same thing about the Ukraine. I blame the Treaty of Versailles more than some hilarious Polish ultranationalism that you need in order to justify Soviet aggression in the first half of the 20th century; which, by the way, happened to unite most of Eastern Europe during the first wave of Soviet invasions. As for the case of Lithuania, it was a bit of a power vacuum. Poland attempted to spread its influence to Lithuania in order to support a pro-Western government before the Soviets could. (And if you think that this is a dirty trick or immoral in some manner, I remind you that in the other thread, you explicitly stated that you're against giving people the freedom to choose their own government.)

Poland was by no means innocent, even if you play the "well they were still technically at war since 1918 so taking Kiev was okay blah blah blah" card.

Poland made a few errors in judgment, which is a far cry against what the Soviets were doing. Even before Stalin.

 

[Masada]

You convinced me that slavery in the SU may not be called effective. I am still not feeling embarrassed, though.

I don't want you to feel embarrassed. I would just like you to acknowledge the first time around that I'm right, if indeed I am right, and adjust your argument accordingly. It save me an inordinate amount of time.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No, only you are talking about European serfdom. I am talking about real slavery, which existed elsewhere until about the mid-19th century. You are obviously woefully ignorant, and selectively so, perhaps even deliberately, about certain facets of history. You have also not noticed a little problem we had in North America called the American Civil War, which was fought largely over the issue of slavery, which wasn't banned until 1863. You also fail to notice that serfdom had disappeared from Europe hundreds of years, in some countries, before the industrial revolution, with backwards Russia being the last to do so in 1861.

While serfdom, with certainly is just as other forms of slavery "real", can be stated to be abolished for the sake of economic benefits (being your point), the slavery in the United States can not IMO. Wasn't the exploitation of the blacks a fundamental aspect of the South's wealth?
And yes, for instance France or England approached quit early the issue of serfdom. Now note that the countries which sticked to it until the 19th century, to which the majority of Central and Eastern Europe belongs, also experienced a delayed industrialization. One of the measures for it to finally get going was the emancipation of the serfs.

You're arguing philosophy, not economics.

Em no.. what other basic sources of goods except the wage existed before the development of the welfare state? Charity? Neglectable

Um, no? Its a statement of fact. Many people worked very hard voluntarily, and those were some of their reasons for doing so.

So what does this really mean? That a majority did not ask for payment?

isn't it odd how that couple of imbeciles were still running their countries when the generals of France and many lesser countries had been defeated and those of Britain had fled home? Unless every country involved in WW2 (except Finland, I guess) was being run by imbeciles, of course - only then your explanation above would make sense.

Well the military campaign against France still orientated on a strategy not dominated by Hitler, saying the "German imbeciles" still had not a decisive influence.
The same goes for North Africa, in which Hitler only did put little interest if I am not mistaken.
And well conquering Greece and such.. for that you did not need to be a genius.

So I don't think that Hitler and Stalin being military imbeciles necessarily suggests that other powers were lead by those, too (if I understood you correctly).

Regarding your post on the industrial revolution: Thanks, that's what I had in mind when saying Stalin was "reckless". To subordinate any human need (including the need to eat something) to industrialization is quit a description for being reckless IMO. But well, before I even realized it everything only was about slavery.

Eventually both types of economy (planned industrial or heavily export-oriented capitalist) have political problems caused by dissatisfaction about a lack of consumer goods, and must be reoriented towards producing those.

I never really got that to be honest.
If a country has a strong export surplus, it is more concerned with producing goods for other markets than for the own one, this is perfectly sound. But what happens to the money earned by doing that? If a strong export also pours a lot of money into the country, which is received by the people through wages / payments, shouldn't they be able to consume just as much as if the companies earned the money by producing for the domestic market?
Now obviously, if this were the case, you wouldn't have an export surplus anymore, because then the purchasing power of the domestic market would have to be satisfied by more imports which would eventually balance the export-import-relation again.
So I ask again: what happens to the money? How can such a imbalance form in the first place and why only in countries with high exports?

Or to summarize: Why does a strong export not stimulate an equally strong import?

I don't want you to feel embarrassed. I would just like you to acknowledge the first time around that I'm right, if indeed I am right, and adjust your argument accordingly. It save me an inordinate amount of time.

Well that presupposes that I see myself mistaken. Which can be a long way for me sometimes, I'll admit that.