The Official Youtubers Thread

[jwb]

No doubt that part of it was incompetence as well as natural factors and negative impacts collectivization had on the incentive structure that farmers operated under... But also on top of that they just continued to export grain even after it was abundantly clear they would starve people by doing so because industrialization took priority over everything including feeding the peasants who grew the crops. I'd say that was a fairly straight forward intentional act on the bolsheviks part. But even if you wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt richard wolff has the benefit of hindsight so he knows exactly what the consequences were and he still tries to sell this model as something we could look to in order to gauge the supposed efficiency of command economies.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by jwb

No doubt that part of it was incompetence as well as natural factors and negative impacts collectivization had on the incentive structure that farmers operated under... But also on top of that they just continued to export grain even after it was abundantly clear they would starve people by doing so because industrialization took priority over everything including feeding the peasants who grew the crops. I'd say that was a fairly straight forward intentional act on the bolsheviks part. But even if you wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt richard wolff has the benefit of hindsight so he knows exactly what the consequences were and he still tries to sell this model as something we could look to in order to gauge the supposed efficiency of command economies.

Yeah I don't actually want to give them the benefit of the doubt but incompetence is just as important as disregard for human life. It's the story of Russia in general tbh. And I say that as a fan.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by elphenor

again his only point is that if you look at economic growth it was a success

the least developed nations could suddenly compete with the most developed

I've already addressed this.

His point was that they grew fast. Specifically, his point was that they grew fast as a response to the charge that socialism hasn't worked when its been tried. In other words he's saying actually these planned economies did work well, based on said growth.

Now if you just take that statement on the surface, which you seem to do, it might sound like a good point. If you start to analyze the context and the history even the slightest amount it completely falls to shreds. He relies on the ignorance of his audience and opponent to make this point stand.

But if you analyze it in detail, you see clearly that the main innovation that sped up the growth was simply mass murder through stealing the crop yields. Yes you can argue this was the most efficient way to industrialize the ussr as rapidly as they did, and you can even argue that its what allowed them to build up their armaments in order to withstand WW2. But to make that argument to have to actually endorse the policy and the resulting genocide, which he and you are both unwilling to do so once again the rapid growth is a moot point.

The reason this frustrates me more than anything else is that if he just stuck to arguing for co ops I would more or less agree with me. When he talks about the tyranny of the workplace that resonates with me. When he starts using this soviet shell game to sell the idea that command economies have been a success story or added some sort of innovation we can learn from, he's selling snake oil. He needs to ditch that angle imo.

[jwb]

And once again I think it's actually more compelling to go full tankie and just say the ends justified the means. If you wanna go the route of portraying the soviets as a success that makes more sense to me.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by jwb

I would more or less agree with me.

Very open-minded of you.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by elphenor

https://youtu.be/W6QAqU2KpaY

here Chomsky makes more or less the same argument

maybe you can't wrap your head around it, but there is a more nuanced idea here about soviet socialism

more nuanced lol

He just compared it to slavery. In that analogy the argument he's making actually articulates exactly why the ends don't justify the means. Basically you can point to any society that saw growth and justify their genocidal policies. He's saying that's not appropriate to do for capitalism so once again why would it be appropriate for socialism? If anyone is missing the point here it's you.

And actually some of the rhetoric he gave there was pretty dishonest as well... The idea that the only threat the west saw in the soviet system was it's rapid growth... That's utterly false lol. I guess chomsky is full of **** too.

[jwb]

That's specifically the question chomsky was responding to lol

[jwb]

And you said that's not the point.. my question is what is your point? You don't seem to have one.

Are you just pointing out they grew fast under the 5 year plan as a piece of pointless trivia or does that fact actually have some implications regarding the efficacy of planned economies? If you want to argue that then you simply have to take the consequences of those policies into account. There's no way around it. Either you bite the bullet and say the ends justify the means or you accept that that method of rapid industrialization is not particularly useful or desirable if we're trying to construct a working alternative to the capitalist mode of production. It's really that simple.

[jwb]

lol

You keep saying "more nuanced" yet thus far you've provided very little detail or nuance to any of your arguments. It's starting to feel like you don't even really understand the topic in question you are just repeating talking points you heard from people you assume to be smart.

When people say planned economies don't work they are usually referring to the calculation problem which is basically a concept that refers to the inevitable misallocation of resources that happens when a centralized state power tries to step in and replace the market structure of supply and demand through centralized mechanisms. A clear example of said misallocation of resources would be the massive artificially caused famines that resulted from policies like the 5 year plan.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by elphenor

some government policies certainly have unintended consequences

once you know the consequences they are not longer unintended. We know the consequences of soviet style rapid industrialization.

...the nuance is in the prevalence of government planning in markets everywhere for the very reason that they're effective

another vague statement

Give me a specific example of said govt planning