Economics, Maduro Style

Xelebes said:

We're not arguing that central planning has examples of success. We're arguing that socialism has examples of success. Don't move the goalposts.

Click to expand...

Pardon, but central planning is a key component of complete socialism. But it doesn't really matter.

When asked for an example of a country that rose "very high" under a "socialist derived system," you pointed to the Soviet Union. And when some threw admittedly poorly aimed stones at that glass house, you pointed back to the period before the Cold War. That's the period I'm talking about, that's the period when the Soviet economy was propelled forward primarily to prove how great a success communism was.

But all that growth was based on authoritarian/totalitarian mandates, on what was close to slave labor in the countrysides, under the aura of the communist revolution.

So perhaps you need to clarify, to be very specific: what do you mean when you say the Soviets "rose very high," and what socialist aspects of their system was responsible for this so-called rising?

robeiae said:

Ronald Hilton is not a Reagan hagiographer. That piece quoted at Stanford is from the WAIS forums, I think: http://waisworld.org/en/wais/home

Here's some more Hilton: http://wais.stanford.edu/Russia/demiseofsovietunion.htm

If that's a Reagan hagiographer, then I'm a pepperoni pizza...

That said, RobV should have sourced the bit properly, imo.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that would've helped. The actual link had nothing of substance. (eta: and I agree with the statement in your link that JP2 and Walesa had more to do with it than Reagan.)

Regardless, Hilton is--or was--a respected academic. And he would certainly not have agreed with the idea that Reagan caused the collapse. Just as surely he--nor any serious historian--would allow that Chernobyl caused it.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're qualified to speak for all serious historians on the subject, but between the costs and the political shifts the disaster caused, let's just say I disagree. Chernobyl *still* is a major drain on the economies of Ukraine, Belarus, and parts of Poland.

There were many causes, it is true, but I think it's fair to look back at the beginning, how things were set up and what directions they could possibly, consistent with the above piece. The people running the Soviet economy never actually knew what they were doing, imo. They knew what they wanted: industry and growth. And they knew what this was supposed to look like. So they built it, a hollow construct that mirrors those of other authoritarian-inspired public work projects, with production and distribution absolutely controlled and not allowed to respond to actual needs, actual conditions.

Click to expand...

This I mostly agree with.

It looked good. For a while. But it was always going to fall apart, imo.

Click to expand...

Here too.

FWIW, I was in the USSR around that time and still have family there. And trust me, I have no illusions about any economic 'successes' they lived under - food, clothing, medicines - they had nothing, and let's just say that trying to bring them a few things while I was there was... eye opening. In part, I'm basing my opinions on those experiences.

raburrell said:

Here too.

Click to expand...

Well, then.


As to Chernobyl, there's no doubt--imo--that it was a huge, important moment, that the Soviet Empire was seriously impacted by the event (and the remnants continue to be impacted, today). Making in one of many causes--using a general kind of causal relationship--is more than fair. And in that same light, it is also fair--imo--to look at the arms race that Reagan kicked into high gear. Trying to make one primary above the other--and above all other things--seems pointless, as there's simply no way to absolutely measure the impact.

And here's another thing, often ignored: the Soviet Union's economy was sputtering and was in danger of collapsing entirely at the end of the Fifities (after the supposed period of huge growth). What may have saved it--momentarily--was the Siberian oil boom of the Sixties, not only because it provided actual oil, but because it gave the Soviets a goal, a new target at which to direct their energies.

robeiae said:

Well, then.

Click to expand...

As to Chernobyl, there's no doubt--imo--that it was a huge, important moment, that the Soviet Empire was seriously impacted by the event (and the remnants continue to be impacted, today). Making in one of many causes--using a general kind of causal relationship--is more than fair. And in that same light, it is also fair--imo--to look at the arms race that Reagan kicked into high gear. Trying to make one primary above the other--and above all other things--seems pointless, as there's simply no way to absolutely measure the impact.

Click to expand...

In a quantifiable sense, I'd agree - I guess I'm trying to make a more intangible argument. Chernobyl engendered a huge loss of 'faith', insomuch as it ever existed, in the Soviet government, which was especially devastating given that the degree of control over the population they held was the only thing that kept the inherent fictions intact. In that vein, it's why I place very little of the 'credit' with Reagan, as he basically just did what he did best, which was to mug for the cameras while life went on around him.

And here's another thing, often ignored: the Soviet Union's economy was sputtering and was in danger of collapsing entirely at the end of the Fifities (after the supposed period of huge growth). What may have saved it--momentarily--was the Siberian oil boom of the Sixties, not only because it provided actual oil, but because it gave the Soviets a goal, a new target at which to direct their energies.

Click to expand...

Yep - Brezhnev pulled the country's collective bacon out of the fire for a while with oil, but so it goes.

robeiae said:

Trying to make one primary above the other--and above all other things--seems pointless, as there's simply no way to absolutely measure the impact.

Click to expand...

There were too many dynamics in action during the 1970's and 1980's.

I agree on trying to rank them one above the other. I am of the opinion that the collapse was essentially already in progress by the time the Chernobyl nuclear accident happened. But that's based on my own memory of how shaky things seemed to already be in the USSR at that time. Not on analysis. So I wouldn't push on that.

robeiae said:

...The people running the Soviet economy never actually knew what they were doing, imo. They knew what they wanted: industry and growth. And they knew what this was supposed to look like. So they built it, a hollow construct that mirrors those of other authoritarian-inspired public work projects, with production and distribution absolutely controlled and not allowed to respond to actual needs, actual conditions.

It looked good. For a while. But it was always going to fall apart, imo.

Click to expand...

even this is being too kind. it may have looked good from the outside, only because CCCP and its satellites were under lockdown, so to speak, and any info getting out was strictly controlled propaganda. it was all a sham, nothing preformed or lasted as touted.

bolshevism itself was nothing more than a coup d'etat disguised as a people's revolution, Lenin wanted nothing less than total power, which is why all intellectuals and resisters were promptly eliminated. he surrounded himself with a bunch of simple- (and often single-) minded eager-to-please lieutenants. they bread their own engineers from scratch, with hardly any of the previous knowledge base and skills surviving into their so called 'socialist greatness'.

consider today's North Korea. their leaders brag about nuclear power and military might. can we then call this a 'successful socialist economy'?

zarada said:

even this is being too kind. it may have looked good from the outside, only because CCCP and its satellites were under lockdown, so to speak, and any info getting out was strictly controlled propaganda. it was all a sham, nothing preformed or lasted as touted.

Click to expand...

Propaganda works the other direction as well - the situation was not locked down nearly as tightly as you're trying to claim here.

raburrell said:

Propaganda works the other direction as well - the situation was not locked down nearly as tightly as you're trying to claim here.

Click to expand...

i guess that would depend on the timeline you're referring to and at what level. of course secret services penetrated the iron curtain, but certainly not the populace -- some of the arguments in this very thread prove this.

zarada said:

i guess that would depend on the timeline you're referring to and at what level. of course secret services penetrated the iron curtain, but certainly not the populace -- some of the arguments in this very thread prove this.

Click to expand...

Even at the height of the Purges in the 30's, people were defecting, being kicked out, etc. Members of the artist community regularly showed up in Paris and other western cities. Among the general population, it still happened, certainly not in great numbers, but it happened - estimates are around 500,000 emigrated from the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1982. Many went to Israel, for example. Link

raburrell said:

Even at the height of the Purges in the 30's, people were defecting, being kicked out, etc. Members of the artist community regularly showed up in Paris and other western cities. Among the general population, it still happened, certainly not in great numbers, but it happened - estimates are around 500,000 emigrated from the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1982. Many went to Israel, for example. Link

Click to expand...

in that sense, i agree. there were intellectual circles comprising dissident writers and artist defectors in the major European cities. also Radio Free Europe and Voice of America for whoever cared to listen. i thought you meant the awareness of the American middle class.

zarada said:

in that sense, i agree. there were intellectual circles comprising dissident writers and artist defectors in the major European cities. also Radio Free Europe and Voice of America for whoever cared to listen. i thought you meant the awareness of the American middle class.

Click to expand...

Who were also subject to a fair bit of propaganda, a goodly portion of which persists to this day.

That said, I'm sorta losing the gist of whatever you're trying to argue here (and we've gotten a couple of continents away from the OP), so... yeah.

raburrell said:

That said, I'm sorta losing the gist of whatever you're trying to argue here (and we've gotten a couple of continents away from the OP), so... yeah.

Click to expand...

not arguing, only responding. i stated my point in #31.

The Right argues, The Left argues, Everyone argues and at the end of the day the supermarkets are empty, the banks have no money, airlines are leaving and people get arrested for booing at the president during a ball game.

That's life for me.

robjvargas said:

Reagan's policies provided the force that toppled an infrastructure that was already heavily stressed. It may have already been headed toward collapse. But many in the Soviet hierarchy at the time admitted it was the political, military, and economic policies of Reagan that provided the final impetus.

Click to expand...

The Soviets' disastrous misadventure in Afghanistan had a hell of a lot more to do with their downfall than either Chernobyl or anything Reagan did. Reagan blustered, and got a big increase in the U.S. defense budget. And beat up Grenada. And fumbled about in a stupid revolution in Nicaragua. And put Antonin Scalia and the Prince of Silence, Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. And got ketchup declared a vegetable in order to save some pennies on Fedfunded school lunches.

Meanwhile, Russian troops were being butchered in Afghanistan, and ultimately had to turn tail and get the hell out, having accomplished exactly nothing. No foreign nation should get involved for any length of time in Afghanistan . . . . oh . . . wait. Never mind.

caw

maxmordon said:

The Right argues, The Left argues, Everyone argues and at the end of the day the supermarkets are empty, the banks have no money, airlines are leaving and people get arrested for booing at the president during a ball game.

That's life for me.

Click to expand...

How do you get by, man?

blacbird said:

The Soviets' disastrous misadventure in Afghanistan had a hell of a lot more to do with their downfall than either Chernobyl or anything Reagan did. Reagan blustered, and got a big increase in the U.S. defense budget. And beat up Grenada. And fumbled about in a stupid revolution in Nicaragua. And put Antonin Scalia and the Prince of Silence, Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. And got ketchup declared a vegetable in order to save some pennies on Fedfunded school lunches.

Meanwhile, Russian troops were being butchered in Afghanistan, and ultimately had to turn tail and get the hell out, having accomplished exactly nothing. No foreign nation should get involved for any length of time in Afghanistan . . . . oh . . . wait. Never mind.

caw

Click to expand...

Back in the mid-1990's I recall a TV special with Gorbachev and a small number of others from the Politburo at the end. They all agreed. Reagan's insistence on SDI and his refusal to surrender it for a missile deal became a tipping point. The proverbial straw breaking the camel's back.

I wish I could locate a link to it. I believe it was a PBS documentary about the fall of The Berlin Wall. So it didn't dwell on this. Just a sentence or two from each person interviewed. They all basically said they realized it was over when Reagan wouldn't surrender SDI.

I don't think that contradicts what you said about Afghanistan, blacbird. Based on what I saw in that special, though, I think you're under-representing Reagan's foreign policy as regards The Cold War. But even I wouldn't call that Reagan "winning" the Cold War.

No - here's a link to the documentary in question (I think) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/reagan-gorbachev/

In the 1985 Geneva summit, progress on arms control had foundered over Gorbachev's insistence on scrapping SDI, and Reagan's commitment to its development. The October 1986 summit between Reagan and Gorbachev, in Reykjavik, Iceland, also ended in a stalemate. At this second summit, Reagan still refused to budge on SDI, and Gorbachev refused to make further concessions without compromise. But at the third summit, in Washington, DC, in December 1987, Gorbachev yielded to Reagan's terms. The USSR was in dire economic straits, and Gorbachev needed a respite from the arms race.

Click to expand...

The economic conditions in the Soviet Union led to Gorbachev's decisions, not Reagan's senile insistence on a fantasy slingshot that'd never work.

Kaiser-Kun said:

How do you get by, man?

Click to expand...

By being creative.

I travelled to Ecuador las year and we were all surprised foodstuff tends to be ten times cheaper there than here, while in the US I was surprised by variety and quantity. Most of the time I would leave some of the food since I wasn't used to portions being so big.

This is an opinion, nothing more, and not intended as fodder for an argument. But I've lived on this planet since Truman was President, became aware of the President during the second term of Eisenhower, and have paid a lot of attention to national politics ever since. From that perspective:

The most over-rated President in my lifetime has been Ronald Reagan.

Lest anyone think I'm being strictly partisan here, I also think the most under-rated President was Gerald Ford. In hindsight, I very much wish he had been re-elected in 1976. Jimmie Carter turned out not to be very good in the office. And an election of Ford quite possibly would have put a squash on any future election of Reagan.

caw

I don't think that was the special, raburrell. But I'm not certain. My recollection was more about the Cold War/Berlin Wall than about a biography of Gorbachev.

But I am going off recollection. I do not claim certainty in that.

So... There are these riots in Venezuela at the moment. Just to let you know.

maxmordon said:

So... There are these riots in Venezuela at the moment. Just to let you know.

Click to expand...

Reports are that after an anti-Maduro protest rally, three students were shot and killed.

It is being covered back here in the States.