Facts on Google and facts in the minds
CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Sat Dec 15 07:36:12 MST 2001
>>> mark.jones at tiscali.co.uk 12/14/01 06:10PM >>>
At 14/12/2001 21:59, Néstor wrote:
> > What are the material underpinnings, rather than psychological
> characteristics, of > this defeat. Why _materially_ can't the Russian
> working class overcome their new > oppressors ? What are the objective,
> not subjective , barriers to revival ?
>A good question. Whoever can answer it will have the clue to revolution in
Mark Harrison has suggested that the Soviet economy never recovered from
WW2, unlike those of its past and future adversaries; growth never got back
to the trendline of the 1930s. One reason for this was the economic costs
resulting from the relocation of heavy industry to the Urals, to keep it
out of harm's way during the war. see below.
CB: Mark, why was there an economic crisis if the annual growth remained 3.8% until the end ?
Some of what is below:
First, outside the Soviet official statistical apparatus there was much
less real disagreement over Soviet growth rates than is commonly
supposed. Thus the last CIA estimate for annual average growth in Soviet
real GDP from 1950 to 1987 was 3.8 per cent. The alternative figure
offered by Grigorii Khanin for material product growth over the same
period was also 3.8 per cent. Khanin's estimates of Soviet growth were
higher in earlier years and lower in later years (i.e. he suggested a more
dramatic deceleration). However, the basis of Khanin's figures remains
less transparent than that of the CIA's
The USSR finally collapsed when decades of overstrain produced irreversible
breakdown in the industrial base and above all, the Soviet energy complex.
This produced crises in the eastern bloc countries which could only be
dealt with militarily. The Gorbachev leadership was not prepared to face
down the west and was afraid to eliminate dissident movements in Poland,
the GDR and elsewhere. Once Poland and the GDR were lost, the entire Soviet
geostrategic position swiftly unravelled. Once the collapse penetrated
inside Soviet borders (the Baltic states were the first to go) an
unstoppable avalanche of change swept thru Soviet industry and society.
Only the most severe and brutal repression, and the complete, forced
mobilisation of society, might have stopped this accelerating collapse,
butg there was no Stalin around to impose such harsh disciplines. The
Soviet leadership simply gave up and with two years the country was swept
by anarchy and crime, and the Soviet state itself ceased to exist in 1991.
After this, there was no way back. It was impossible to unscramble the
omelette, and everybody knew it. Soviet agriculture collapsed and the
economy was ruined. There was literally nothing left to defend. The
population became dependent on western food handouts and loans. The
socialist project was clearly and comprehensively defeated, and the
population had lost faith in it decades before anyhow.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism