Soviet Economics: Critique of Soviet economic reforms; 1965-1989

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by JohnT


Comrade Tribune posted to this thread?



I get it! You're CT's DL!!!! (or the other way around). That sure would explain a lot of things.

CT is a bit too extreme for me, though.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Propaganda


Damn right I do.

Emperor Stalin: Enemy of all the peoples of the world!!!

I'm done threadjacking. For now.

[Spiffor]

Propaganda :
Thanks for the info. I was unaware of the nature of Krushchev's economic reforms, and of its decentralization. I've heard however that the Gosplan gave unrealistic objectives on purpose, because they knew the directors purposefully gave unrealistic excuses to lower their production

But I have a question to you : who decides what should be produced ? Who decides to change production process (under Krushchev, I understand the director is taking part in the bureaucratic process, but it seems the decision is still taken in Moscow) ?

Besides, don't consider growth rates to be an undiscutable proofs of Stalin's superior methods. Stalin has modernized the USSR for it to be technologically on par with western powers, then he had to lead a reconstruction economy. These kind of occurences explain high growth rates (high growth rates in postwar European countries, high growth rates in current China which is making its modernization). Once such a period is over, it is normal the growth rate gets much smaller.

[Zevico]

My main criticism is that there was always a lack of bananas in the entire eastern block.

I experienced it first hand in eastern Germany before 91

Now, how did that song go again...
"Muscve banani defitzit, zanimi otcherit stayit,
chatshu banan! tabadabadam! chatshu banan! tabadabadam!"

In English-
In Moscow there's a deficit of bananas, people are standing in line for bananas, I want a banana! I want a banana!

[Plan Austral]

It looks interesting, I am posting to have this in my threads.

[Plan Austral]

When did the Soviet Union started be backwards in all related to electronics?

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Propaganda :
Thanks for the info. I was unaware of the nature of Krushchev's economic reforms, and of its decentralization. I've heard however that the Gosplan gave unrealistic objectives on purpose, because they knew the directors purposefully gave unrealistic excuses to lower their production

Yes, this was true, especially in the 80s. The directors pursposely gave low production figures to the State, while in fact, production was above average. These directors would then proceed the sell this "surplus" on the black market and make themselves a hefty profit.

The fact that they were able to get away with it speaks volumes about the Party in that time. The Party, itself became "bureaucratized" with millionaires and billionaires dictating Party policy.

But I have a question to you : who decides what should be produced ? Who decides to change production process (under Krushchev, I understand the director is taking part in the bureaucratic process, but it seems the decision is still taken in Moscow) ?

Here's an exerpt from the link I gave that should answer you questions:

"The state plan merely endorses the most essential indicators, ensuring balanced economic development, on the basis of which the enterprises independently organise economic activity".

(S. Khavina: "In the Crooked Mirror of Bourgeois Theories", in: "Ekonomicheskaya gazeta" (Economic Gazette), No 44, 1965, in: "The Soviet Economic Reform: Main Features and Aims"; Moscowl 1967; p.141).

"The essence of the reform consists in concentrating centralised planning on formulating the most general indicators of national economic development, extending the independence of enterprises".

(A.M. Rumyantsev: "Management of the Soviet Economy Today: Basic Principles", in: "Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and Problems"; Moscow; 1972; p.16).

"To extend the economic independence and initiative of enterprises the number of plan assignments set to enterprises by ministries and departments has been reduced to a minimum".

(A.N. Yefimov: "Long-term Plans and Scientific Forecasts", in: ibid.; p.72).

What was not made clear in these statements was that the "economic reform" did not merely reduce the number of "indices" handed down to enterprises by the state "planning authority": it transformed the remaining "indices" from directives, binding on the enterprises, to "guidelines" which the enterprises could follow or not, as they chose.

Thus, as enterprises were transferred to the "reformed" system of operation, they proceeded in practice to plan their own production -- even as to the types and qualities of commodities they they would produce.

"These enterprises (i.e., those working under the "reformed" system -- WBB) now draw up their production plans themselves"

(V. Sokolov, M. Nazarov and N. Kozlov: "The Firm and the Customer", in: "Ekonomicheskaya gazeta" (Economic Gazette), January 6th., 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 1; p251).

Since the "economic reform", therefore, the detailed central "economic plan" can only take the form of totalisation of the individual economic plans of all the enterprises.

But since the enterprises frequently change their economic plans during the course of a "planning period", prices fluctuate, and so on, the central "economic plan" produced at the beginning of this period bears little relation to the final economic result:

"The work of drawing up five-year plans from the enterprises up to the USSR Gosplan (State Planning Committee -- WBB) was not completed in the past five years". (N. Y. Grogichinsky: "The Economic Reform in Action", in: "Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and Problems", Moscow; 1072; p.211).

"It is practically impossible to compile a Five-Year Plan".

Komin: "Problems in the Methodology and Practice of Planned Price Formation", in:
"Planovoe khoziaistvo" (Planned Economy). No. 9, 1972, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 16, No. 1; May 1973; p.48).

"An objective assessment of the fulfilment of the plan is impossible... In fact, the planning of distribution never attains completed form.. It is completed only with the end of the planning period... It is impossible to compile a national economic plan that is substantiated and balanced for all value indices.. on the baisis of physical indices and prices... The five-year plan in terms of value indices essentially loses its meaning".

(V. Kotov: "Prices: The Instrument of National Economic Planning and the Basis of the Value Indices of the Plan". in: "Planovoe khoziaistvo" (Planned Economy), No. 9, 1972, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 16, No. 1; May 1973; p. 61, 62, 69).

Besides, don't consider growth rates to be an undiscutable proofs of Stalin's superior methods. Stalin has modernized the USSR for it to be technologically on par with western powers, then he had to lead a reconstruction economy. These kind of occurences explain high growth rates (high growth rates in postwar European countries, high growth rates in current China which is making its modernization). Once such a period is over, it is normal the growth rate gets much smaller.

While this is true, Western economists contest that if the USSR continued the economic policies of the 50s, they would have little to no fluctuations in growth, quite possibly, even see more growth as a result.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Plan Austral
When did the Soviet Union started be backwards in all related to electronics?

During the 70s.

[Propaganda]

These "reformists" asserted that it is impossible to draw up a 5-Year Plan. This is ludicruous, at best. Under Stalin, the 5-Year Plan was drawn up and saw little to no modifications during it's fulfillment. However, under Breznhev, concessions, modifications, etc were made every week, even every day to the national plan.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course, one of the main problems of running the state like Stalin did (which was definetly efficient), was that the state was brutal. Stalin employed fear to push up growth rates, and I'm sure that future leaders of the Soviet Union were morally opposed to that style of governance.

[Az]

so if the Soviets had of adopted TQM then the iron curtain wouldn't have fallen? interesting, but it does make sense

I can't see why not. total quality could be assured just the same way.

though communism problems still seems to come down to this, the state limits just how much one can achieve, and that takes away the motivation to achieve anything

not true. people still could achieve a lot, and be promoted. As my father did, actually. People could become famous scientists. The only way that was limited for them to grow is to become a capitalist. the managerial way was limited, but that's just because things didn't turn out to be the way they were supposed to be.

These "reformists" asserted that it is impossible to draw up a 5-Year Plan. This is ludicruous, at best. Under Stalin, the 5-Year Plan was drawn up and saw little to no modifications during it's fulfillment. However, under Breznhev, concessions, modifications, etc were made every week, even every day to the national plan.

Of course, one of the main problems of running the state like Stalin did (which was definetly efficient), was that the state was brutal. Stalin employed fear to push up growth rates, and I'm sure that future leaders of the Soviet Union were morally opposed to that style of governance.

you could use other methods rather than fear.


the SU was NOT socialist, since socialism means the workers controlling the means of production, and the government did not represent the workers since it was not democratically elected.
I believe though, that the SU could be reformed, at the time.

Khruschev seemed to be a good-natured man, but the new administration ( yes, administration, as the head never really runs things by more than supervisory role ) sucked. With Stalin, the completion of task was ensured by fear. There was no supervisory mechanism to replace Stalin's fear, so everything crumbled. slowly.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Azazel

you could use other methods rather than fear.

Can both of you please eloborate on how Stalin used "fear" to get people to work? I think there is a myth polluting peoples' minds that the bureaucracy entrusted to monitor and report production was somehow not paid or endorsed; not given incentives; that somehow they were forced to produce credible statistics by a barrel of gun pointed at their heads.

By the same token, I'd like to understand how you view monitoring the bureaucracy(directors, managers, etc) and arresting them for stealing, giving false statistics(which IS a serious crime considering how the system works), inciting those to commit sabotage "terror"? I guess I can call the US gov't a "terror" regime then because it has laws protecting private and public property, right? Or how about pubcly-owned corporations in the US where the staff is monitored for various reasons? They do this through "fear and intimidation," right? The fact is, the Soviet penal code states crimes not to be committed and the punishment for doing so. Those that did so, did so on their perogative, and should have expected to be punished.

the SU was NOT socialist, since socialism means the workers controlling the means of production.. and the government did not represent the workers since it was not democratically elected.
I believe though, that the SU could be reformed, at the time.

How did the workers NOT control the means of production? When the plan was drawn-up by the Party(workers' party; will explain later on), the production quotas for an individual firm was sent down to that individual firm. The director of this firm relayed this information to the workers, giving them specific quotas to fulfill, as according to the plan. The director had no real control over the workers, you must understand this. His job was to relay information; he could not fire, nor could he direct the workers in how to fulfill quotas. All was expected of them is to simply fulfill them, and if they were not fulfilled, the one usually "blamed" for this was the director(granted, workers were sometimes fined as well, but not in the sense some would have you believe). The director was expected (only) to teach the workers on how to become more efficient and maintain quality[It was, BTW, in the workers' best interests to listen, as the more they produce, the more they earned, and because production was above that of expectations, the director could also hope to receive more; he had, BTW, no power to assert himself, as it would mean him losing his job, possibly even a prison sentence].

...and the government did not represent the workers since it was not democratically elected.

Democratically elected? What are you, a Social-Democrat? As for not representing the workers, please explain what the Revolution was about. If the majority did not support it, why is it that they fought against the Whites? Common sense would tell me that there would not have been a Revolution had they not supported it.

BTW, Stalin, the Supreme Soviet and CC members were all elected by the rank-in-file in the Party and GOSPLAN was controlled and given input by the Party.



Khruschev seemed to be a good-natured man, but the new administration ( yes, administration, as the head never really runs things by more than supervisory role ) sucked.

For Khruschev(a former supporter of Trotsky), holding the State in his hands proved too much for him. He criticized Stalin for creating a "cult of personality"(which he himself had perpetrated; I can provide information if needed), but later created a cult of his own doing. Not to mention his political and economical reforms proved disastrous. On one hand, he exposed the Party to bureaucratic elements(by giving bureaucrats large incentives and bonuses; not to mention making them priviledged Party card-carrying members) in which suddenly, it had found newly(and only) crowned millionaires and billionaires in it's ranks. On the other hand, he created disastrous economic policies(Virgin Lands, anyone?), but I don't think I need to speak on this.

Lazar Kaganovich(who endorsed Khruschev; even had Stalin endorse him and had helped give him a career in the Ukraine) thought that it would be too big of an undertaking for Khruschev, and that he wouldn't wield his power sufficiently. Well, history in the end proved him right. Unfortunately, by exposing untruths about Stalin, he had destroyed the Communist movement and showed his own incompetence later in the end.

[Az]

Can both of you please eloborate on how Stalin used "fear" to get people to work? I think there is a myth polluting peoples' minds that the bureaucracy entrusted to monitor and report production was somehow not paid or endorsed; not given incentives; that somehow they were forced to produce credible statistics by a barrel of gun pointed at their heads.

By the same token, I'd like to understand how you view monitoring the bureaucracy(directors, managers, etc) and arresting them for stealing, giving false statistics(which IS a serious crime considering how the system works), inciting those to commit sabotage "terror"? I guess I can call the US gov't a "terror" regime then because it has laws protecting private and public property, right? Or how about pubcly-owned corporations in the US where the staff is monitored for various reasons? They do this through "fear and intimidation," right? The fact is, the Soviet penal code states crimes not to be committed and the punishment for doing so. Those that did so, did so on their perogative, and should have expected to be punished.

the lack of any chance to avoid persecution, and not because the policing system was perfect, but because there was a lack of any chance to recieve a fair trial, has left people fearing to commit mistakes. I realize that this is a good thing, but it was achieved at a terrible cost. My greatgrandfather went to the Gulags for 8 years for supposedly listening to zionist radio.

How did the workers NOT control the means of production? When the plan was drawn-up by the Party(workers' party; will explain later on), the production quotas for an individual firm was sent down to that individual firm. The director of this firm relayed this information to the workers, giving them specific quotas to fulfill, as according to the plan. The director had no real control over the workers, you must understand this. His job was to relay information; he could not fire, nor could he direct the workers in how to fulfill quotas. All was expected of them is to simply fulfill them, and if they were not fulfilled, the one usually "blamed" for this was the director(granted, workers were sometimes fined as well). The director was expected (only) to teach the workers on how to become more efficient and maintain quality[It was, BTW, in the workers' best interests to listen, as the more they produce, the more they earned, and because production was above that of expectations, the director could also hope to receive more; he had, BTW, no power to assert himself, as it would mean him losing his job, possibly even a prison sentence].

They didn't have any executive or legislative power in deciding the future of the country and the economy.

Democratically elected? What are you, a Social-Democrat?

Hey!

As for not representing the workers, please explain what the Revolution was about. If the majority did not support it, why is it that they fought against the Whites? Common sense would tell me that there would not have been a Revolution had they not supported it.

very correct, but the revolution occured in 17', and since then, there was a complete lack of the show of the will of the people, the consitution was worth as much a piece of toilet paper, and was repeatedly trampled.

BTW, Stalin, the Supreme Soviet and CC members were all elected by the rank-in-file in the Party and GOSPLAN was controlled and given input by the Party.

that is correct, I remember dad even running for office once. But at THOSE times, the Central Commitee was not an independent body at all, and later, it was stripped of any real power.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Azazel


the lack of any chance to avoid persecution, and not because the policing system was perfect, but because there was a lack of any chance to recieve a fair trial, has left people fearing to commit mistakes. I realize that this is a good thing, but it was achieved at a terrible cost. My greatgrandfather went to the Gulags for 8 years for supposedly listening to zionist radio.

I don't think this is true, but this depends on the timeframe. Civilian police and NKVD cases went through state courts(rarely through military tribunals); it was up to the judge to decide whether innocent or guilty and sentencing, based on the penal code. In NKVD archives(at least, after Yezhov), you'll find cases dismissed. Some were prosecuted and found guilty, while in fact being innocent. However, cases were reviewed more often than not(especially after Yezhov's reign and subsequent removal for commiting "excesses")and people were released. Those who commited excesses and sentenced people were actually found themselves being prosecuted, but anyway, it is much too confusing.

All I have to say is no judicial system is perfect; innocent people are sent to jail everyday, unfortunately.

They didn't have any executive or legislative power in deciding the future of the country and the economy.

The workers who worked in their respective enterprise didn't, no, but the working class in general did have control of the means of production.


Hey!




very correct, but the revolution occured in 17', and since then, there was a complete lack of the show of the will of the people, the consitution was worth as much a piece of toilet paper, and was repeatedly trampled.

I don't think there was a lack of will. Many people joined the Party after the Civil War, and I personally don't agree on your bit on Constitution. Those rights were available to people; the fact that people were "persecuted" was not because they spoke out against the government, or wrote an article criticizing it in Pravda, the majority was sent for criminal reasons. BTW, FYI, Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev up until their trials had plenty of articles printed in Pravda and Izvestia slandering the Soviet state, yet nothing was done to them up until years later.


that is correct, I remember dad even running for office once. But at THOSE times, the Central Commitee was not an independent body at all, and later, it was stripped of any real power.

That's not correct, as shown by the fact that the CC was the body that appointed Beria to his position, while Stalin preferred Malenkov in that post, the fact that the CC vetoed Stalin's idea to expand the kolkhoz in the early 50s, the fact that it vetoed Stalin's plan to remobilize the Red Army after demobilization, etc.

[Az]

I don't think this is true, but this depends on the timeframe. Civilian police and NKVD cases went through state courts(rarely through military tribunals); it was up to the judge to decide whether innocent or guilty and sentencing, based on the penal code. In NKVD archives(at least, after Yezhov), you'll find cases dismissed. Some were prosecuted and found guilty, while in fact being innocent. However, cases were reviewed more often than not(especially after Yezhov's reign and subsequent removal for commiting "excesses")and people were released. Those who commited excesses and sentenced people were actually found themselves being prosecuted, but anyway, it is much too confusing.

That's the whole point. The judicial system was under the direct control of the executive, and was used as an apparatus of repression. While the judge and the proscution are on the same side, the concept of fair trial cannot exist.

The workers who worked in their respective enterprise didn't, no, but the working class in general did have control of the means of production.

no it didn't since the effect of any electoral vote by the people on the bodies controlling the industry was marginal, at best.

I don't think there was a lack of will. Many people joined the Party after the Civil War, and I personally don't agree on your bit on Constitution. Those rights were available to people; the fact that people were "persecuted" was not because they spoke out against the government, or wrote an article criticizing it in Pravda, the majority was sent for criminal reasons. BTW, FYI, Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev up until their trials had plenty of articles printed in Pravda and Izvestia slandering the Soviet state, yet nothing was done to them up until years later.

When were these articles printed, in the 20s, right? And surpise, surpise, they were persecuted when Stalin consolidated his grip on power.

That's not correct, as shown by the fact that the CC was the body that appointed Beria to his position,while Stalin preferred Malenkov in that post,

an internal power play, I guess Beria the butcher has scared even more people.

the fact that the CC vetoed Stalin's idea to expand the kolkhoz in the early 50s, the fact that it vetoed Stalin's plan to remobilize the Red Army after demobilization, etc.

a couple of examples only pointing to the general rule of the marginalization of the power of the legislative, and we won't even talk about the complete lack of direct elections to the position of the top executive.