babyfinland posted:are you saying that industrial development is some kind of universal stage of civilization that exists after agrarianism and that western states tend towards it naturally while the despotic east needs the kind of voluntarism and coercion that the bolsheviks provided
of course not, but what the soviet model provided was an alternative path to modernization, and one that was particularly attractive to less developed countries because it wasn't predicated on imperial expansion. of course, if you have some sort of adorno-style critique of modernity, (i've never read agamben), then this is a horrible thing because modernity is Dreadful, Just Dreadful.
catpee posted:getfiscal posted:catpee posted:
obviously planning worked pretty well for a while
{citation needed}World War 2, bIATCH
getfiscal posted:let's imagine the russian economy had the bolsheviks not risen to power. hmm first well we don't have the civil war which killed off the entire industrial working class and made stalinism necessary in the first place. then maybe we don't have the lost decade of terrible soviet management. then maybe not the huge decrease in real wages that made huge scale development possible. also maybe seven million ukrainians would still be alive which might help a bit with the ol' war effort in world war 2. if germany would have gone to the extreme right for fuck all reason if there werent' a bolshevik dictatorship anyway.
why do you think the nazis came to power because of ~*Stalin*~ rather than because of the German economy being fucked due to WW1 and the '30s crisis? Stalin didn't create or puppetmaster the German communists and the German people didn't vote for the KPD for no reason.
Hitler would've planned on conquering eastern europe anyway since they were dirty slavs and germany needed lebensraum to become a true superpower like the US. see: http://www.amazon.com/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336382466&sr=8-1
actually it is likely that Russia would have been able to secure the containing alliance with France and Britain, because the stately Romanovs would be in charge, with whom the European powers would naturally respect and regard as their proper peers . nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:are you saying that industrial development is some kind of universal stage of civilization that exists after agrarianism and that western states tend towards it naturally while the despotic east needs the kind of voluntarism and coercion that the bolsheviks provided
of course not, but what the soviet model provided was an alternative path to modernization, and one that was particularly attractive to less developed countries because it wasn't predicated on imperial expansion. of course, if you have some sort of adorno-style critique of modernity, (i've never read agamben), then this is a horrible thing because modernity is Dreadful, Just Dreadful.
industrial development in the soviet union was founded on primitive accumulation just the same as anywhere else, it was not any sort of real alternative except perhaps in the tangential realms crow has brought up; unfortunately i don't know much about those things. i do have something like an "adorno-style critique of modernity" but that's not really pertinent to this discussion
the soviet model did represent an alternative model to development however, whether or not it was a real alternative, and that was probably due to its cultural production more than anything else
Edited by babyfinland ()
babyfinland posted:industrial development in the soviet union was founded on primitive accumulation just the same as anywhere else, it was not any sort of real alternative except perhaps in the tangential realms crow has brought up; unfortunately i don't know much about those things. i do have something like an "adorno-style critique of modernity" but that's not really pertinent to this discussion
the soviet model did represent an alternative model to development however, whether or not it was a real alternative, and that was probably due to its cultural production more than anything else
it's absolutely an alternative development model in that the model of the british empire and the united states can't be repeated today, not even by those states let alone anyone else. i suppose you can argue that the morality of the destruction of the feudal system, including the massive dispossession of peasant property, was no better than that of colonialism but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. not to mention that the victims in this case were also ultimately the beneficiaries, which can't be said for the peoples of africa, southeast asia, india or the americas.
Edited by Lessons ()
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:industrial development in the soviet union was founded on primitive accumulation just the same as anywhere else, it was not any sort of real alternative except perhaps in the tangential realms crow has brought up; unfortunately i don't know much about those things. i do have something like an "adorno-style critique of modernity" but that's not really pertinent to this discussion
the soviet model did represent an alternative model to development however, whether or not it was a real alternative, and that was probably due to its cultural production more than anything elseit's absolutely an alternative development model in that the model of the british empire and the united states can't be repeated today, not even by those states let alone anyone else. i suppose you can argue that the morality of the destruction of the feudal system, including the massive dispossession of peasant property, was no better than that of colonialism but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. not to mention that the victims in this case were also ultimately the beneficiaries, which can't be said for the peoples of africa, southeast asia, india or the americas.
agreed.
getfiscal posted:it's sort of a weird marxist idea that somehow you can't teach people how to work in a factory unless you also terrorize a bunch of poor peasants or something.
well, when you put it that way, yes it is a weird marxist idea. thank god it seems to have only existed as a modern fantasy in the minds of westerners 
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:industrial development in the soviet union was founded on primitive accumulation just the same as anywhere else, it was not any sort of real alternative except perhaps in the tangential realms crow has brought up; unfortunately i don't know much about those things. i do have something like an "adorno-style critique of modernity" but that's not really pertinent to this discussion
the soviet model did represent an alternative model to development however, whether or not it was a real alternative, and that was probably due to its cultural production more than anything elseit's absolutely an alternative development model in that the model of the british empire and the united states can't be repeated today, not even by those states let alone anyone else. i suppose you can argue that the morality of the destruction of the feudal system, including the massive dispossession of peasant property, was no better than that of colonialism but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. not to mention that the victims in this case were also ultimately the beneficiaries, which can't be said for the peoples of africa, southeast asia, india or the americas.
i'd argue that whatever divergence the soviet union had from whatever generic model the united states and united kingdom established was due to the material peculiarities of russian society moreso than something inherent in the socialist program, at least in regards to industrial development. the differences you're citing are kind of irrelevant to me as they don't speak much to an alternative modelas to a different material reality which the government was faced with.
i don't think it's very significant that the soviet union was not dependent on (your definition of) imperialism simply because the exploited peoples were nationally / racially similar to the beneficiaries of the exploitative flows. i mean i think your argument could just as easily benefit nazism as an "alternate model of development" if you provided a superficially different definition of imperialism, since that seems to be the point the argument is hinging on. while the soviet union didn't depend on african slave labor or extra-national colonies, it did have it's own project of labor-discipline, dispossession and primitive accumulation, and to argue that it was signficantly different in it's trajectory to modernization because it differed in precisely how it implemented that project doesn't strike me as very useful, and a little self-serving towards the end of promoting uncritical utopianism. i think it's makes a lot more sense, and bears out more coherently historically, to view the 20th C socialist states as counterhegemonic but still within the stream of the dead-end modernity than as some kind of accidental messianic failure
Crow posted:getfiscal posted:it's sort of a weird marxist idea that somehow you can't teach people how to work in a factory unless you also terrorize a bunch of poor peasants or something.
well, when you put it that way, yes it is a weird marxist idea. thank god it seems to have only existed as a modern fantasy in the minds of westerners
on the contrary i think it's true in all instances of industrialization that state-terrorism is required to instill industrial labor discipline in the proletarianized peoples, the soviet union was no less brutal than any other example in this regard
gyrofry posted:what do y'all think about land reform
it's usually good, but it can be unimportant and also it can be botched up pretty badly. i think you have to take it on a case by case basis. in postcolonial societies its generally a good idea.
babyfinland posted:gyrofry posted:what do y'all think about land reform
it's usually good, but it can be unimportant and also it can be botched up pretty badly. i think you have to take it on a case by case basis. in postcolonial societies its generally a good idea.
what are some examples where you think it was done well
gyrofry posted:babyfinland posted:gyrofry posted:what do y'all think about land reform
it's usually good, but it can be unimportant and also it can be botched up pretty badly. i think you have to take it on a case by case basis. in postcolonial societies its generally a good idea.
what are some examples where you think it was done well
um i dont really remember the specifics but wasnt it done well in most of the early socialist states? i know studies recently came out about zimbabwe demonstrating it was done well
gyrofry posted:i want to know what Donald thinks about land reform
well "land reform" is a pretty broad topic and i don't know much about it.
basically though the soviets and chinese both thought that modern industry was completely based around economies of scale. so they built huge things and tried to force farmers into huge collectives. of course what happened is that the farmers just killed all their livestock rather than collectivizing it, for example. everywhere that collectivization was tried they abandoned it in favour of allowing sideline small plots for personal production, and those small plots were usually the thing that made things tolerable.
a related issue is that marxists tended to think of proletarians as the universal class, and therefore desirable, so they tried to turn peasants into proletarians, and were often successful in this (russia is sometimes called the "affirmative action empire" for its social mobility). but in reality most peasants, and people in informal sectors and other areas of the poor, probably aspire more, as roberto unger says, to be petty-bourgeois. that is, they want to own a small shop or restaurant, or if they are farmers they want to own some farm equipment and hire others to help with the work. maybe they want their kids to become an official or work for a large business. this petty bourgeois mentality was hated by socialists because it ran contrary to their dreams of massive economies of scale and of classless total proletarianization.
babyfinland posted:i don't think it's very significant that the soviet union was not dependent on (your definition of) imperialism simply because the exploited peoples were nationally / racially similar to the beneficiaries of the exploitative flows.
it's not a question of racial similarity or anything like that. the victims and beneficiaries of soviet industrialization were one and the same - an initial sacrifice on their part created a modern society in the soviet union, with all the benefits of education, health, sanitation, infrastructure and wealth that come with it. it was not a question of exploitive flows transferring wealth from one population to another, but a societal transformation. you can say this isn't particularly different from the capitalist model, (i suppose that depends on what criteria you're using), but it's certainly not identical to the western model, let alone nazism, and like you say is much more viable for countries under certain material circumstances.
i think it's makes a lot more sense, and bears out more coherently historically, to view the 20th C socialist states as counterhegemonic but still within the stream of the dead-end modernity than as some kind of accidental messianic failure
that seems like the core of the issue to me. if you're opposed to modernization that's fine, but i don't think you're ever going to sell anyone on it, at least unless you have a credible alternative that offers the benefits without the downsides. beyond that i agree though, the soviet union was a left-wing counterhegemony to western capitalism and imperialism and was most definitely a project of modernity, (like any socialist experiment inevitably would be).
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:i don't think it's very significant that the soviet union was not dependent on (your definition of) imperialism simply because the exploited peoples were nationally / racially similar to the beneficiaries of the exploitative flows.
it's not a question of racial similarity or anything like that. the victims and beneficiaries of soviet industrialization were one and the same - an initial sacrifice on their part created a modern society in the soviet union, with all the benefits of education, health, sanitation, infrastructure and wealth that come with it. it was not a question of exploitive flows transferring wealth from one population to another, but a societal transformation. you can say this isn't particularly different from the capitalist model, (i suppose that depends on what criteria you're using), but it's certainly not identical to the western model, let alone nazism, and like you say is much more viable for countries under certain material circumstances.
i think it's makes a lot more sense, and bears out more coherently historically, to view the 20th C socialist states as counterhegemonic but still within the stream of the dead-end modernity than as some kind of accidental messianic failure
that seems like the core of the issue to me. if you're opposed to modernization that's fine, but i don't think you're ever going to sell anyone on it, at least unless you have a credible alternative that offers the benefits without the downsides. beyond that i agree though, the soviet union was a left-wing counterhegemony to western capitalism and imperialism and was most definitely a project of modernity, (like any socialist experiment inevitably would be).
eh so we agree on the facts but you're still arguing this thing about soviet development being some sort of radical alternative development model and i don't really see it, i think it makes a lot more sense to simply view it in terms of historical circumstance and peculiarities rather than some kind of voluntarist break with what came before. your claims seem pretty flimsy and semantic on that point. this is the real question i think, because it determines whether or not we should be attempting to essentially replicate 20th C socialism, or pursuing a different line of critique and praxis.
i have no problem with the claim that socialist development is something distinct from capitalist development but the issue at hand for me is, within the paradigm of alleviating the poverty of our present circumstances, do they represent something worth pursuing (in their cosmology) or are they "historically obsolete". obviously there are lessons to be drawn from them, as with anything, but the question is whether one should ground a properly critical perspective on the socialist-capitalist dichotomy or propose something against extant modernity
Edited by babyfinland ()
babyfinland posted:eh so we agree on the facts but you're still arguing this thing about soviet development being some sort of radical alternative development model and i don't really see it, i think it makes a lot more sense to simply view it in terms of historical circumstance and peculiarities rather than some kind of voluntarist break with what came before. your claims seem pretty flimsy and semantic on that point. this is the real question i think, because it determines whether or not we should be attempting to essentially replicate 20th C socialism, or pursuing a different line of critique and praxis.
i've never described it as a radical alternative and i can't imagine anything less in keeping with historical materialism than to claim socialism is some sort of voluntaristic break with material circumstances. the reason i miss it, and wish it was still around, was more or less exactly what khamsek said initially, that it provided a leftist counterweight to liberal capitalism.
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:eh so we agree on the facts but you're still arguing this thing about soviet development being some sort of radical alternative development model and i don't really see it, i think it makes a lot more sense to simply view it in terms of historical circumstance and peculiarities rather than some kind of voluntarist break with what came before. your claims seem pretty flimsy and semantic on that point. this is the real question i think, because it determines whether or not we should be attempting to essentially replicate 20th C socialism, or pursuing a different line of critique and praxis.
i've never described it as a radical alternative and i can't imagine anything less in keeping with historical materialism than to claim socialism is some sort of voluntaristic break with material circumstances. the reason i miss it, and wish it was still around, was more or less exactly what khamsek said initially, that it provided a leftist counterweight to liberal capitalism.
ya thats not a controversial position, at least for me
babyfinland posted:i have no problem with the claim that socialist development is something distinct from capitalist development but the issue at hand for me is, within the paradigm of alleviating the poverty of our present circumstances, do they represent something worth pursuing (in their cosmology) or are they "historically obsolete". obviously there are lessons to be drawn from them, as with anything, but the question is whether one should ground a properly critical perspective on the socialist-capitalist dichotomy or propose something against extant modernity
whether elements of the soviet model can be adopted depends entirely on circumstances, (not just national/developmental but also in the context of how an opportunity for change arises), but in any case i'm open to, in fact positive towards, alternate models of progress.
bong_san_suu_kyi posted:perhaps modernity itself contains the seeds of brutality within itself
it does
Lessons posted:the reason i miss it, and wish it was still around, was more or less exactly what khamsek said initially, that it provided a leftist counterweight to liberal capitalism.
same but the axis powers
Marxists claim that Marxism is a science. It is not. It is a sort of pagan religious cult. It is a theology. It is a form of superstition.
Marxists claim that Karl Marx understood capitalism and economics. He did not. They also claim that the entire validity of Marx's set of theories on all subjects rests ultimately on how valid Marxist economic thought is. Marxist economic thought was completely wrong.
Marx claimed that all products contain value that is directly proportional to the amount of labor embodied within them. He was wrong. All the rest of Marxism is based entirely on this mistaken and falsifiable premise.
Marxists claim that the operations of markets have a natural tendency to spawn monopolies. They call this "monopoly capitalism." In reality, markets have a natural tendency to break up and undermine monopolies. Almost all monopolies under capitalism are those set up by governments stifling and interfering in the operations of markets.
The most harmful monopolies in modern economies are the labor unions.
Marxists claim that corporate monopolies are growing in importance and in power. In fact, monopolies have been losing power and strength under capitalism for well over a century.
Marxists think that large corporations collaborate and operate power-sharing arrangements among themselves. They do not and cannot. Large corporations compete, undercut, and threaten one another's market shares every day. As one of many proofs, just look at the number of inter-corporate law suits.
Marxism is based on conflict between "social classes." But social classes do not exist at all. This is not to say that there are not richer folk and poorer folk all about. It only means that all the richer folk share no collective common interests, and the same is true for all the poorer folk.
Marxists claim that people's ideas and ideals are dictated by property relations. They are wrong.
Marxists and socialists in general care a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But they have no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. They just assume it all gets produced all by itself. That is why people in communist regimes starve.
Marxists and socialists in general care a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But they have no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. They just assume it all gets produced all by itself. That is why people in communist regimes starve.
true.
commodiusvicus posted:why do people in capitalist regimes starve then
capitalism does not guarantee economic success, it simply makes it possible.
getfiscal posted:Marxists and socialists in general care a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But they have no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. They just assume it all gets produced all by itself. That is why people in communist regimes starve.
true.
that's antithetical to cmmon conception of marxism though: an authoritarian slave state where people are forced to labor and toil against their will. considering wealth is produced via labor input and in a communist country the populace is essentially a "slave labor pool" it would then stand that these two views are incongruent.
unless you mean in the sense that a command economy is less efficient because it doesn't have market signals informing output and input prices. but i fail to see how in reality this can be true when grocery stores have tonnes of food stock getting thrown out and bleached, massive crop failures due to monoculture of corn, for example. the rate of waste is extremely high in a capitalist system
getfiscal posted:commodiusvicus posted:why do people in capitalist regimes starve then
capitalism does not guarantee economic success, it simply makes it possible.
historically, that's incorrect and i would contend this, however, with microlending making big waves in the third world, i think the future is hopeful and this will be invariably correct.
Hahah it doesn't produce 'too much' food. It produces too much waste, 30%-50% of world's food gets thrown out
Crow posted:Hahah it doesn't produce 'too much' food. It produces too much waste, 30%-50% of world's food gets thrown out
All food scraps should be poured into a bag which is then shipped to Africa and dropped from a plane.
gyrofry posted:what do y'all think about land reform
dont let agricultural scientists do it