Neocolonialism

[HuzzButt]

Ok, at this point you've lost me.

I don't see how any of this is relevant to the point; that Marxist agricultural policies disincentivized production and thereby created shortages. Even your point about mechanization (which I have answered) doesn't really fit; a tractor certainly allows you to produce more food for less effort, it does not mean you use the tractor to its full potential. You still haven't in any way addressed the point; that a farmer in the Soviet bloc and chums tended to have little motivation to actually work to his full potential.



In regards to the Tsarist economy, you are exaggerating my claims in the opposite direction. I said the economy was not medieval, which it wasn't, not that it was a prosperous system in which all had a merry time. Conversely, you also exaggerate the achievements of the USSR. In actual fact the Soviet economy struggled to do all these things. There were frequent shortages and queues, and in some cases, simultaneous over-stocking with warehouses full of goods that could not be sold because noone wanted them; they were junk. The important point here is not the direct comparison of the two, rather it is that the Tsarist economy was going somewhere, and if things had continued as they did one would likely have seen a Russia better off than it is today, whilst the USSR's achievements are exaggerated and indeed, were almost certainly not the best course for the Russian economy.

Your point is completely bonkers, my fancy mathematics was meant to solve for the missing part of your point, well not yours: many share it with you. I agree that collectivization did disincentivize production, the USSR agreed with that point as did China. Both abandonded the early collectivization efforts for a multitude of approaches, again many of which have counterparts in the west. What my fancy mathematics does is to solve for the missing part of your (collective) argument which is to answer why the shortfalls of the Soviet and Chinese agricultural economy persisted.

The problem with your argument, aside from being counterfactual is that it simply does not make any economic sense once you take development into account. In a non-mechanized situation where a peasant works half the time on the state farm and half the time on his own it does hold up. When the peasant becomes a labourer and drives a tractor on the state farm we can entertain the idea that he can make some money on the side but his work on the mechanized state farm is magnitudes more productive than his side business. The black market effect of state set prices makes an incentive for the labourer to moonlight as a farmer but it fails to account for why the USSR agriculture was unable to make the USSR self sufficient or efficient.

The USSR solved its agricultural inability with imports, as did and does the UK and with few exceptions Australia among them: so does the rest of the world. Not being self sufficient is not a failure on it's own unless you have Juche aspirations. It is unlikely that the USSR even with a developed field of Agronomy would have avoided the issues that arose in Transoxania. It is likewise also unlikely that the USSR would have within its time had much direct gain from a well developed field of Agronomy. Ultimately the USSR succeeded in feeding in its population, clothing them, motorizing, educating and so forth.


The Tsarist economy had nothing at the time, the Bolsjevik economy had something at the time.

 

[DoomBunny]

Your point is completely bonkers, my fancy mathematics was meant to solve for the missing part of your point, well not yours: many share it with you. I agree that collectivization did disincentivize production, the USSR agreed with that point as did China. Both abandonded the early collectivization efforts for a multitude of approaches, again many of which have counterparts in the west. What my fancy mathematics does is to solve for the missing part of your (collective) argument which is to answer why the shortfalls of the Soviet and Chinese agricultural economy persisted.

The problem with your argument, aside from being counterfactual is that it simply does not make any economic sense once you take development into account. In a non-mechanized situation where a peasant works half the time on the state farm and half the time on his own it does hold up. When the peasant becomes a labourer and drives a tractor on the state farm we can entertain the idea that he can make some money on the side but his work on the mechanized state farm is magnitudes more productive than his side business. The black market effect of state set prices makes an incentive for the labourer to moonlight as a farmer but it fails to account for why the USSR agriculture was unable to make the USSR self sufficient or efficient.

The USSR solved its agricultural inability with imports, as did and does the UK and with few exceptions Australia among them: so does the rest of the world. Not being self sufficient is not a failure on it's own unless you have Juche aspirations. It is unlikely that the USSR even with a developed field of Agronomy would have avoided the issues that arose in Transoxania. It is likewise also unlikely that the USSR would have within its time had much direct gain from a well developed field of Agronomy. Ultimately the USSR succeeded in feeding in its population, clothing them, motorizing, educating and so forth.

This is only true if we suppose that the state farmed land benefits from improvements in ways the private land does not, if the profits are not distributed so many ways that they become negligible, and if there even are any extra profits in the first place (i.e., if the central plan doesn't simply dictate a higher target).

As regards your point with other nations, the issue is not that the USSR was not food self-sufficient, this was never my point. My point was that Soviet bloc agriculture in collective or state farms under-performed relative to that in private hands, and that the Soviet Union had frequent shortages. In other words, that Soviet agriculture would have performed better if land had been privately held.

I also fail to see the counter-factual element to my argument, I am not supposing things happen, rather relying on data about the Soviet bloc economies.

The Tsarist economy had nothing at the time, the Bolsjevik economy had something at the time.

Which, given they existed at different times, means nothing.

 

[HuzzButt]

This is only true if we suppose that the state farmed land benefits from improvements in ways the private land does not, if the profits are not distributed so many ways that they become negligible, and if there even are any extra profits in the first place (i.e., if the central plan doesn't simply dictate a higher target).
As regards your point with other nations, the issue is not that the USSR was not food self-sufficient, this was never my point. My point was that Soviet bloc agriculture in collective or state farms under-performed relative to that in private hands, and that the Soviet Union had frequent shortages. In other words, that Soviet agriculture would have performed better if land had been privately held.

I also fail to see the counter-factual element to my argument, I am not supposing things happen, rather relying on data about the Soviet bloc economies.



Which, given they existed at different times, means nothing.

We do assume that capital investments increases productivity regardless if the land is privately, state or collectively owned. Your position, the position you share with others fail to explain why state owned land differs in this regard.

Both the Tsarist regime and the current Russian regime have failed to reach efficiency on par with the west. Russian racial attributes is an explanation with a greater correlation and applicability than Communism.

The Tsarist regime did not happen, nor did private investments on a scale comparable to the west happen. It is of course possible to entertain the idea that the Tsarist regime during the 1920's would have copied the Sugar beet driven expansion of the rail network, yet one must of course muse on the fact that the Soviet peasants were illiterates and the efforts would have come 50 years later than in the west point being that the Tsar, for all his godly glory would have had the same underlying issue as the Bolsjeviks.


The Bolsjeviks something meant a whole lot more to the plebs than the Tsarists nothing.

 

[DoomBunny]

We do assume that capital investments increases productivity regardless if the land is privately, state or collectively owned. Your position, the position you share with others fail to explain why state owned land differs in this regard.

No, it really doesn't. I pointed out in the very post you replied to that this investment increases productivity. However, I also pointed out that someone still has to drive the tractor.

Both the Tsarist regime and the current Russian regime have failed to reach efficiency on par with the west. Russian racial attributes is an explanation with a greater correlation and applicability than Communism.

The Tsarist regime did not happen, nor did private investments on a scale comparable to the west happen. It is of course possible to entertain the idea that the Tsarist regime during the 1920's would have copied the Sugar beet driven expansion of the rail network, yet one must of course muse on the fact that the Soviet peasants were illiterates and the efforts would have come 50 years later than in the west point being that the Tsar, for all his godly glory would have had the same underlying issue as the Bolsjeviks.

The Bolsjeviks something meant a whole lot more to the plebs than the Tsarists nothing.

Except that this is a common feature of all the Soviet bloc economies, and that comparison of the Tsarist economy to the Bolshevik is naturally flawed because you are comparing an economy that was beginning to develop and come into its own during the 1900s to one that lasted until the 1980s; they do not share the same time frame.

 

[HuzzButt]

No, it really doesn't. I pointed out in the very post you replied to that this investment increases productivity. However, I also pointed out that someone still has to drive the tractor.


Except that this is a common feature of all the Soviet bloc economies, and that comparison of the Tsarist economy to the Bolshevik is naturally flawed because you are comparing an economy that was beginning to develop and come into its own during the 1900s to one that lasted until the 1980s; they do not share the same time frame.

And your reasoning has been, as noted before: perfectly valid to explain the issues that arose during the first wave of collectivization during the 1920's and 1950's respectively. It fails to function when the farmers have become laborers and the farms have become corporations. It also fails to explain the sudden rush in farming productivity that must have come, coincidentally at the time of the introduction of Daschas. I might be prejudice in preferring materialist explanations for economic issues, ideological hocus pocus is entertaining but the metaphysical ramblings that comes with it has long since had no scientific value what so ever.


Russia in 1917 was Russia in 1917 regardless if the regime was Bolsjevik, Menchevik, White or Tsarist. If you wish to entertain counter factual postulation you will still have to accept that Russia in 1917 was the basis for all potential fictitious exercises.


There's an question unanswered on your part that has yet to be brought up and that is the question if the USSR aspired to and made the relevant investments to achieve self sufficiency during the time frame.

 

[DoomBunny]

And your reasoning has been, as noted before: perfectly valid to explain the issues that arose during the first wave of collectivization during the 1920's and 1950's respectively. It fails to function when the farmers have become laborers and the farms have become corporations. It also fails to explain the sudden rush in farming productivity that must have come, coincidentally at the time of the introduction of Daschas. I might be prejudice in preferring materialist explanations for economic issues, ideological hocus pocus is entertaining but the metaphysical ramblings that comes with it has long since had no scientific value what so ever.

I'm not arguing from an ideological perspective, rather from a factual one. Again, you're ignoring the fact that I have clearly addressed these points.

Russia in 1917 was Russia in 1917 regardless if the regime was Bolsjevik, Menchevik, White or Tsarist. If you wish to entertain counter factual postulation you will still have to accept that Russia in 1917 was the basis for all potential fictitious exercises.

Which again, is irrelevant. The Tsarist economy of 1917 was naturally going to be less advanced than the Communist economy of 1980, even without accounting for the impact of the war.

There's an question unanswered on your part that has yet to be brought up and that is the question if the USSR aspired to and made the relevant investments to achieve self sufficiency during the time frame.

Irrelevant; as usual you're deliberately ignoring my point.

 

[HuzzButt]

I'm not arguing from an ideological perspective, rather from a factual one. Again, you're ignoring the fact that I have clearly addressed these points.
Which again, is irrelevant. The Tsarist economy of 1917 was naturally going to be less advanced than the Communist economy of 1980, even without accounting for the impact of the war.
Irrelevant; as usual you're deliberately ignoring my point.

You have not addressed anything beyond repeating the tautology "Collectivization = bad, because collectivization is bad". You've made no effort to discuss the different approaches undertaken by the USSR and the Chinese regime, You have failed to account for the introductions of Daschas, You have not taken any other policy into consideration.
Your argument is no different from the "Colonialism = Bad" argument presented in this thread.

I have not compared the Tsarist economy of 1917 with the communist economy of 1980. I have pointed out that regardless of which flight of counterfactual fantasy you choose: Russia in 1917 is Russia in 1917 and whether the proposed regime is Tsarist, Bolshevik, Menschevik or white: they would all have to deal with the Russian economy of 1917.

You have not made much of a point of anything.

 

[DoomBunny]

You have not addressed anything beyond repeating the tautology "Collectivization = bad, because collectivization is bad". You've made no effort to discuss the different approaches undertaken by the USSR and the Chinese regime, You have failed to account for the introductions of Daschas, You have not taken any other policy into consideration.
Your argument is no different from the "Colonialism = Bad" argument presented in this thread.

I have done all these things.

I have not compared the Tsarist economy of 1917 with the communist economy of 1980. I have pointed out that regardless of which flight of counterfactual fantasy you choose: Russia in 1917 is Russia in 1917 and whether the proposed regime is Tsarist, Bolshevik, Menschevik or white: they would all have to deal with the Russian economy of 1917.

Indeed so.

You have not made much of a point of anything.

In this case, I think it's better if we just stop this.

 

[HuzzButt]

In this case, I think it's better if we just stop this.

A point well made.

 

[DoomBunny]

A point well made.

How dare you call my well rounded argument a point!

 

[Arilou]

I do think it is notable with regards to the Soviet agricultural sector is that even though the Soviet authorities more or less ruined the agricultural production (it was never, AFAIK, sufficient after the collectivization attempts) it also managed to largely (with exceptions during the war and immediately after) avoid the kind of large-scale famine that happened in the 1930s.

Which IMHO suggests that the condition of famine has less to do with immediate grain shortages (which were chronic in the USSR) but rather with how the government reacted to these shortages.

 

[Fanstar1]

I do think it is notable with regards to the Soviet agricultural sector is that even though the Soviet authorities more or less ruined the agricultural production (it was never, AFAIK, sufficient after the collectivization attempts) it also managed to largely (with exceptions during the war and immediately after) avoid the kind of large-scale famine that happened in the 1930s.

Which IMHO suggests that the condition of famine has less to do with immediate grain shortages (which were chronic in the USSR) but rather with how the government reacted to these shortages.

from 1960s on, the USSR imported US grain. There was also a famine after wwii, but that one was more "natural"

 

[kaufenpreis]

Actually Afghanistan seems to have been several times poorer.

 

[Arilou]

from 1960s on, the USSR imported US grain. There was also a famine after wwii, but that one was more "natural"

Yes, that's my point.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Actually Afghanistan seems to have been several times poorer.

No, no. Afghanistan has one of the greatest, richest, resources in the world. There is a reason Britain, Russia and the United States have parked troops there for so long.

However, it is rare any of the profits flow back to the rank-and-file Afghanis.

 

[Fanstar1]

No, no. Afghanistan has one of the greatest, richest, resources in the world. There is a reason Britain, Russia and the United States have parked troops there for so long.

However, it is rare any of the profits flow back to the rank-and-file Afghanis.

Afganistan was modernizing in 1960s and early mid 1970s, with a republic being established in 1973 after a coup. a coup by communists in 1978, followed by the events of 1979, the Soviet-Afgan war, and the Afgan civil war have left the region devastated.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Afganistan was modernizing in 1960s and early mid 1970s, with a republic being established in 1973 after a coup. a coup by communists in 1978, followed by the events of 1979, the Soviet-Afgan war, and the Afgan civil war have left the region devastated.

Yes, I have some knowledge of the situation. One of my major thesis back in the day was on the Mujahadeen before and after Charlie Wilson took a personal interest. Like him, I completely agree the entire transition from Mujahadeen to Taliban could have been prevented with a modicum of aid from the US. And after that, well, the story is well known.

 

[Fanstar1]

Yes, I have some knowledge of the situation. One of my major thesis back in the day was on the Mujahadeen before and after Charlie Wilson took a personal interest. Like him, I completely agree the entire transition from Mujahadeen to Taliban could have been prevented with a modicum of aid from the US. And after that, well, the story is well known.

how about stopping Pakistan from massively intervening on side of Taliban?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

how about stopping Pakistan from massively intervening on side of Taliban?

Yeah. Pakistan is right next to North Korea on my list of countries most likely to start WWIII.

I'm not a big fan.

 

[Fanstar1]

Yeah. Pakistan is right next to North Korea on my list of countries most likely to start WWIII.

I'm not a big fan.

We allied Pakistan over india as part of the befriending china during cold war