plus the soviet union was the first ever country in the world to have a qualified workforce that was nearly 50% women, and the first country that produced more female doctors than male.
Questions about the Soviet Union and its superior communist system
ImprovedLenin wrote:
How did the SU industrialiss in 5 short years as compared to the US in 200 years?
imagine all the violence and brutality of several centuries of western industrialisation condensed into a single generation.
ImprovedLenin wrote:
Does this mean the soviet system actually works?
State capitalism certainly "works," although the Japanese model seems more effective than the Russian, and the Chinese more effective than that. It has nothing to do with communism or workers power though.
Industrialisation had already taken some significant steps forward by the time of the Russian revolution, at least in the urban areas. In 1917 Petrograd already had some of the largest factories in the world at that time.
In some respects, Russia of that time was like China today - experiencing rapid industrialisation under the influx of foreign capital which created enormous social pressures between the urban areas and the still relatively feudal, peasant-based economy of the countryside.
The real advances in terms of industrialisation took place during Stalin's successive 5-year plans. The 30s in particular saw quite spectacular progress - and was accompanied by mass starvation, terror and progroms launched against "kulaks", and the Great Terror of the GULAG and NKVD.
This took place in a context of increasing state capitalist measures around the world. The "New Deal" in the US, the "corporate state" of Fascist Italy, the "Four-Year Plan" of Nazi Germany (they stole the name from the Stalinist version incidentally), etc. All these programmes managed to restart production in the central countries and the war economies of the period performed quite spectacularly.
The advances in the 50s and 60s were also impressive. Like everyone else, Russia was riding high on the effect of the "Thirty Glorious Years" of reconstruction following the war and their initial space efforts certainly shocked the West. But when the full industrial might of the US was brought to bear, the inability of the Russians to keep up was exposed. Raising the stakes with manned missions to the moon finally finished off the illusion of Russian technical and industrial superiority.
As for quality of life, by the 80s, the Russian economy was in total breakdown. I'd be incredibly surprised if 80s Russia had a higher life expectancy that the West (by 20 years, no less!) when much of the time there was no bread on supermarket shelves! Some friends of the family had Russian visitors in late 80s - I'm told they actually broke down in tears in an English supermarket, they couldn't believe the abundance of food.
Quote:
I'm told they actually broke down in tears in an English supermarket, they couldn't believe the abundance of food.
What "left" communists fail to appreciate though, is that the failure of the Soviet system is a consequence of the common ground they share with the Leninists. It is a prime example of the Logic of Collective Action applied to groups providing Public Goods.
Quote:
How did they achieve a better health and education system?
It wasn't better, it just conformed to a Marxist moral compass. If it was so good, how come they were so delighted to destroy it?
Quote:
What "left" communists fail to appreciate though, is that the failure of the Soviet system is a consequence of the common ground they share with the Leninists. It is a prime example of the Logic of Collective Action applied to groups providing Public Goods.
LR - explain. I'm interested.
Ok. When an individual consumes a public good, it does not reduce the amount of the good available for consumption by others. No one can be effectively excluded from using a public good. Fresh air is a canonical example of a “pure public good”, as is an unencrypted radio broadcast.
Communism and its various derivatives, including PARECON, Leninism, “left communism” and anarchist-communism, are all ideologically committed to the provision of food, health care, education, housing, you name it, as public goods.
As a matter of mathematical fact, assuming individuals act rationally (that is to say don’t deliberately starve to death) then large groups (where the costs of provision become diffuse) providing public goods are more-or-less incapable of taking meaningful collective action. Such groups will stagnate and collapse. The resources consumed in providing the goods will be greater than if the same goods where provided non-publicly. Further, in the absence of selective incentives, authoritarian coercion is the only way to make the group act. Indeed, a minority bound together by concentrated incentives will likely dominate the majority.
This is demonstrated, incidentally, by Local Government which provides public goods and is essentially a moribund bureaucracy funded by coercive taxation that requires regular external shake ups in order to just keep the streets clean.
The Soviet bureaucracy was another great example, creating a situation where housing was simultaneously cheap and scarce.
Lazy Riser wrote:
Ok. When an individual consumes a public good, it does not reduce the amount of the good available for consumption by others. No one can be effectively excluded from using a public good. Fresh air is a canonical example of a “pure public good”, as is an unencrypted radio broadcast.
Not to be a pedant here but surely a quick look at the housing market, or a city slum in south east asia would tell you that fresh air most definitely isn't a ''pure public good''.
Quote:
Communism and its various derivatives, including PARECON, Leninism, “left communism” and anarchist-communism, are all ideologically committed to the provision of food, health care, education, housing, you name it, as public goods.
The division of goods into public and private is reductionist nonsense. The point is everything is a commodity since everything si defined by the social relations of its consumption and production
Quote:
As a matter of mathematical fact, assuming individuals act rationally (that is to say don’t deliberately starve to death) then large groups (where the costs of provision become diffuse) providing public goods are more-or-less incapable of taking meaningful collective action.
ah so this weeks tube strikes were a collective hallucination, i see... 
Quote:
fresh air most definitely isn't a ''pure public good''.
Conceded. Though, it approximates well enough.
Quote:
The division of goods into public and private is reductionist nonsense.
May be, though the provision of public goods through the collective action of large groups remains central to left wing ideology. All left wing thought, from religious to anarchist, shares the communist tenet that the commodity is decadent.
Quote:
everything si defined by the social relations of its consumption and production
Like I was saying to this chap at work, society can be carved up into institutions in all sorts of configurations, expressing flows of action to varying degrees of specificity. If we place ourselves far above civilisation for a moment, as the individual organisations blur together, the three great generalised social institutions of production, consumption and the law emerge.
Quote:
ah so this weeks tube strikes were a collective hallucination, i see...
Well in a sense they were, each person has an interpretation of what they know. Like the posties, the tubes will stay out until the staff lose more money than they stand to gain by “winning”. Note how registered trade union membership provides a selective incentive to strike though the provision of immunity from discipline, although in the prison officers’ case it came down to the management’s unwillingness to further antagonise staff. Trade Unions are good examples of groups providing public goods and capable of taking effective action (given the union’s nefarious objectives), this is possible thanks to compulsory dues in exchange for membership. The coercions and incentives I was going on about earlier. I’ve just clocked you know all this already, but a closed shop really is the cherry on a union’s cake.
i reckon crowd's intensions are more rational that individuals; but have a tendency to mess it up more.
was thinking that crowds might be like a giant autistic the other day, but regardless; that means that you can factor out selfish rationality more in decsribing crowds than describing individuals, which is neet cos i used to look at them all the time...
eta: you might still see them in the desert.
9-)
eta2: now see the jungle scene was new and exciting; and no-one thought they were part of anything more than drug consumption and maybe "atmosphere" if you were a twastard. fuck i hate this new-fangled indie: i used to be able to go sleazy to relax fgs 
eta2: it's bastards like you who are killing the scene - not your's you can have that; i mean music that doesn't realistically sound it could have been made whenever you care to place it... and that's the last i have to say on the matter 
lem wrote:
i reckon crowd's intensions are more rational that individuals; but have a tendency to mess it up more....that means that you can factor out selfish rationality more in decsribing crowds than describing individuals
i don't know if that follows 
i will draw a diagram and decide.
Lazy Riser wrote:
May be, though the provision of public goods through the collective action of large groups remains central to left wing ideology. All left wing thought, from religious to anarchist, shares the communist tenet that the commodity is decadent.
A lot of people who call themselves communists do take a reductionist view of the commodity and certainly ''the left'' speaking broadly has picked up an anti-materilaist streak from lenin to the situs to the ahem ''british anarchist movement'', but its not automatically a communist tenet. I mean i equate communism with a world where anyone can literally just take any commodity they want off the shelves, thus in a communist society production of commodities would soar especially if you look at it globally. This interpretation sees the commodity form not as decadent, but simply as a fetter on human creativity and desire. Hence a chinese factory rker can't go into the local depot and take a huge art book, a nice dress, a copy of the revolution of everyday life, some amaretto coffee and a large chocolate cake, because their are fetters placed on the distribution of goods by the price and commodity form and of course by interrelated state intervention. The commodity form in this sense is the reduction of human creativity to a set of prices, the reduction of demand and the market to a simple case of ''who can or cannot pay'' and ''who has the time to do these things'',
Quote:
Like I was saying to this chap at work, society can be carved up into institutions in all sorts of configurations, expressing flows of action to varying degrees of specificity. If we place ourselves far above civilisation for a moment, as the individual organisations blur together, the three great generalised social institutions of production, consumption and the law emerge.
Firstly this sounds like a speech at a graduation ceremony or something. Secondly yeah consumption is largely driven by social relations and social interaction and always will be, nobody consumes goods as an individual utterly abstracted from society, also any legal attitudes are driven by social forms.
Quote:
]quote]ah so this weeks tube strikes were a collective hallucination, i see...
Well in a sense they were, each person has an interpretation of what they know.
ah right so your an existentialist now? jesus
Quote:
Like the posties, the tubes will stay out until the staff lose more money than they stand to gain by “winning”. Note how registered trade union membership provides a selective incentive to strike though the provision of immunity from discipline, although in the prison officers’ case it came down to the management’s unwillingness to further antagonise staff. Trade Unions are good examples of groups providing public goods and capable of taking effective action (given the union’s nefarious objectives), this is possible thanks to compulsory dues in exchange for membership. The coercions and incentives I was going on about earlier. I’ve just clocked you know all this already, but a closed shop really is the cherry on a union’s cake.
your point is?
LR:
Quote:
As a matter of mathematical fact, assuming individuals act rationally (that is to say don’t deliberately starve to death) then large groups (where the costs of provision become diffuse) providing public goods are more-or-less incapable of taking meaningful collective action. Such groups will stagnate and collapse.
Actually, is not the reverse true? That those who work in public services (fire fighters, power station workers, nurses, binmen) have got the biggest clout of all workers. This is why there were such concerted campaigns by the state and "ruling class" to undermine their power bases and move the site of conflict onto newer terrains (or, in the case of the miners, by getting rid of their industry altogehter).
Marshall wrote:
LR:Quote:
As a matter of mathematical fact, assuming individuals act rationally (that is to say don’t deliberately starve to death) then large groups (where the costs of provision become diffuse) providing public goods are more-or-less incapable of taking meaningful collective action. Such groups will stagnate and collapse.Actually, is not the reverse true? That those who work in public services (fire fighters, power station workers, nurses, binmen) have got the biggest clout of all workers. This is why there were such concerted campaigns by the state and "ruling class" to undermine their power bases and move the site of conflict onto newer terrains (or, in the case of the miners, by getting rid of their industry altogehter).
This is cause-and-effect as well: industries where workers are very powerful get nationalised, and then attacked.
LR is being characteristically utilitarian:
Quote:
Like the posties, the tubes will stay out until the staff lose more money than they stand to gain by “winning”.
There are a lot more factors than that. For example these workers striking in support of one of their co-workers who was suspended:
http://libcom.org/news/mental-health-workers-strike-support-colleague-30082007
Quote:
Actually, is not the reverse true?
It is counter intuitive, apparently, but nope. The mathematical treatment is given Olson’s 1965 book.
Quote:
those who work in public services (fire fighters, power station workers, nurses, binmen) have got the biggest clout of all workers.
Here as in France, what we’re witnessing there is the special effect of Trade Unions (effective organisations albeit with “contradictory” objectives) and tax funded concerns. The public sector, especially in its bureaucracy, is an example of how “workers” taking a free ride result in organisational stagnation. Not dissimilar to ideas in this recent Library addition...
http://libcom.org/library/workers-opposition-alexandra-kollontai/bureaucracy-self-activity-masses
Quote:
There are a lot more factors than that. For example these workers striking in support of one of their co-workers who was suspended
And we’ll see how that pans out in due course. I’m not even sure what point I’m trying to make, but as a matter of interest, put yourself in the place of the management there. What possible incentive would you have to unsuspend Karen? If the strikers “lose” then its a demoralising defeat, if they “win” management’s authority is legitimised as magnanimous benefactors who put their staff first.
Quote:
What possible incentive would you have to unsuspend Karen? If the strikers “lose” then its a demoralising defeat, if they “win” management’s authority is legitimised as magnanimous benefactors who put their staff first.
that might be how management spin it, but workers would see it as a victory for them, not their bosses.
Quote:
The public sector, especially in its bureaucracy, is an example of how “workers” taking a free ride result in organisational stagnation.
Er, but whose fault is that? And why are workers orgainsed in a bureaucracy?
"...bureaucracy binds the wings of self-activity and the creativeness of the working class; that it deadens thought, hinders initiative and experimenting in the sphere of finding new approaches to production ; in a word that it hinders the development of new forms for production and life."
I'm not sure I believe Improved Lenin is a tool - I'm starting to believe that LR has invented him to suck us all into discussions with him that we'd become less likely to enage in. Improved Lenin is basically a hook to get us to respond before LR comes in to devastating effect.
Thats what I'm starting to think anyway...
It's like once LR gets people engaging with him and he gets into his 'groove' IL disappears (course he'll make a brief return appearance cos I've said that now, same pattern on the patriarchy thread 'IL' started).
Quote:
but whose fault is that?
The working class’, as if it matters. Regardless, it’s the working class’ responsibility to put it right. Indeed, “It’s not my fault” is the mantra of the mediocre in both private and public sectors, but only in the public sector can the business afford paper chasers whose only occupation is to avoid blame.
Quote:
I'm starting to believe that LR has invented him to suck
Be assured, I post under one account only. These other people are “real”, but it does concern me that anarchism continues to attract them. The ideological flaws that fly in the face of the Logic of Collective Action attract such flakes. They perceive it as a haven away from the normal pressure to perform, a safe place where their incapacity and it’s “philosophical justification” will be celebrated rather than ridiculed.
Lazy Riser wrote:
but only in the public sector can the business afford paper chasers whose only occupation is to avoid blame.
simply wrong. half my job for a fortune 500 company involves producing charts for my boss which prove it's someone else's fault. usually marketing as they're on the other side of the building.
Quote:
Indeed, “It’s not my fault” is the mantra of the mediocre in both private and public sectors
I can forgive that - people are afraid to lose what they have already. Something about not chosing your circumstances ...
Agreed tho that it is the working class's responsibility to put it right.
Quote:
only in the public sector can the business afford paper chasers whose only occupation is to avoid blame.
It's an easy way to get unemployment down. You'd have lots of pissed of graduates with no jobs otherwise. Plus, bureaucratic jobs are great if you want to squeeze out the last drops of vitality out of someone.
Or maybe that kind of career already appeals to someone who folds their clothes before having sex ...
Fair enough JK, I've seen it myself so I can't contradict you. Large corporations with captive markets do behave like Local Authorities, this is true. An excellent example of how raw profit is not the motivation for “capitalist businesses”, and that they’re much more concerned about maintaining the status of their management than they are at making money.
Quote:
that might be how management spin it, but workers would see it as a victory for them, not their bosses.
Classic management technique, convince everyone they've won whilst consolidating your own power. Individual mileage may vary, but in general people are motivated by three things in order...
1. Symbolic Reward
2. Material Gain
3. Security and Protection
The trick to learn is to not be duped by symbolic rewards, but as you and JK point out, your own management are more concerned about passing the buck than they are in the bottom line. They’ll likely be in middle management until their dying days whilst I’ve found that the more willing one is to shoulder the blame for this-and-that then the more money and girls they accumulate. Of course, communists believe that money and girls are evil, this lies at the heart of the left’s incapacity for effective action.
.jpg "Up Against The Wall Motherfucker! - graphic, 1960s")
I've been told all my life that the soviet union was shit country, with a shit system, and people walking around in pvoerty and torn clothing, smelly, rude and overweight. That all the communists did were engage in mental masturbation and that there was not a single public project undertaken, no advances made, no new buildings, just an entire rotting country. I find this to be quite untrue. My interest was peaked when I was searching for armenia in the Atlas, and I noticed how statistics showed communist countries always had higher literacy rates. In my health and management class, part of the syllabus was a comparison between different health systems which indicated that communist countries when compared with western nations even in the 1980's had lower infant mortality, greater life expectancy (by as much as 20 years!), less diseases like obesity, which all translated to a significantly higher DALY, or higher average health and quality of life. There was also less depression and mental illnesses. In fact, social services in communist nations were often commended. I have more questions for anyone else who knows:
1. Why did space technology advance faster in the soviet union? Isn't communism supposed to be anti-creativity? For the entire period of time from the 1940's to the fall fo teh soviet union, the soviets made spacecraft that were more technologically superior (think of MIR as oppossed to many of america's failed space station projects etc.)
2. How did the SU industrialiss in 5 short years as compared to the US in 200 years?
3. How did they achieve a better health and education system?
4. Does this mean the soviet system actually works?