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

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Azazel

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.

It was not under the conrol of the executive; cases first had to pass through "troikas", once they reached the executive, it would either be approved or vetoed.

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

There were regional elections. Those elected gave their assesements on distribution, supplies, general production figures on the area. Plus, the Party was open to workers' criticism as I have stated in previous posts, in that the NKVD had it's own special organs dedicated to answering workers' critcism, input, etc. This data was sent to GOSPLAN.


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

Actually, early 30s. Stalin had already consolidated his "grip" by then, as you see it.


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

How could it be a power play when Beria only gained power AFTER he was put into that position?

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.

No where does it really guarantee elections, at least for the executive front. Not to mention that there was no support for any. Stalin was already elected twice, anyway. Lenin, BTW stayed in control for a good number of years. [/QUOTE]

[Saras]

This thread is HILARIOUS!

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Saras
This thread is HILARIOUS!

What is so hilarious about it?

[Propaganda]

Azazel, if you'd like to insist that Stalin was an absolute dictator, tell me, why would he bother(or even the NKVD, for that matter) to decide sentences for individuals, where to place them(i.e. a prison, labor colony, Gulag), etc..Don't you think it would have been much simpler and more cost effective to throw everyone into a Gulag for life(or even execute them), thus making the most out of free labor?

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Goodnight.

[Az]

I did insist he was an absolute dictator. He had a bunch of *******s and butchers around him that helped him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can both of you please eloborate on how Stalin used "fear" to get people to work?

*points to Siberia*

Azazel, if you'd like to insist that Stalin was an absolute dictator, tell me, why would he bother(or even the NKVD, for that matter) to decide sentences for individuals, where to place them(i.e. a prison, labor colony, Gulag), etc..Don't you think it would have been much simpler and more cost effective to throw everyone into a Gulag for life(or even execute them), thus making the most out of free labor?

What are you, nuts? Do you think that Hitler wasn't an absolute dictator because he didn't send everyone to the concentration camps? Of course Stalin was an absolute dictator and one of the worst people in history to boot.

[Az]

Imran, he was an absolute in terms of power, but he had people with him, that shared his "responsibilities".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, and Gobbels, Goering, Manstein, etc shared in Hitler's responsibilities .

[chequita guevara]

Azazel, I'm not going to participate in this thread because I don't know enough about the post-Stalin economy to make a worthwhile contribution.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Saras
This thread is HILARIOUS!

agreed the worst thing is though, the fact i was bored enough to read it in the first place :/

[Az]

Yeah, and Gobbels, Goering, Manstein, etc shared in Hitler's responsibilities

Azazel, I'm not going to participate in this thread because I don't know enough about the post-Stalin economy to make a worthwhile contribution.

You can always make worthwhile contribution on how it SHOULD be.

[raghar]

Let say some nice discustion was in Erik Hobsbawm's book. I think this discusion should get some historical materials.

[Saras]

I'll go and ask my mum how this all worked - she worked at the Ministry of Finance since she graduated uni/I was born, i.e. 1977.

[DuncanK]

Very interesting thread. I didn't know that things changed so much after Stalin. I've always been skeptical of decentralized socialist planning. I agree though that changes need to be able to happen from below when necessary. Stalin was efficient but too brutal and I think that the working class under him did not feel that they owned the means of production, but in fact they prospered.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Azazel
Imran, he was an absolute in terms of power, but he had people with him, that shared his "responsibilities".

By "shared his responsibilities", do you mean "took on his directives as ordered"? Because that's essentially how it was, as Hitler had to have his hands on almost everything. A true absolutist.

But in Stalin's USSR, that's not how it worked. Every organ of the Party had it's importance and say, as well every Party position. The CC had it's job, the Secretary of the CC had his, The Council of People's Commissars had its, etc.. Stalin's job, in particular was to assess, and organize. He had no power to appoint, not without CC and Poliburo consent first, anyway. He organized special comittees, Politburo meetings, etc. He also assessed people based on what he learned of them from talks with his ministers, CC members, etc, and that's how they went up in rank; that is, by endorsement. In certain circumstances, Stalin would be requested by a Politburo member(let's say, Kaganovich) to do a certain duty, like for example, aid certain parts of famine-stricken Ukraine after the war, and he would oblige, then pass a note to his Agricultural Minister to open up the gosfund, and send relief.

That's pretty much how it worked, really.