[Marxism] Scientiric planning not at stake.

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Mon May 17 08:37:28 MDT 2004

Louis Pr. wrote:

"Nestor Gorojovsky wrote:
> What I blame on Stalinism is not the path of development that 
> Stalinism chose (could it choose otherwise? Hmmmm). 

"Of course it could have been otherwise.

"The Soviet government announced the first five year plan in 1928. 
"Stalin loyalists, like Krzhizanovksy and Strumlin, who headed 
"Gosplan, the minister of planning, worried about the excess rigidity 
"of this plan. They noted that the success of the plan was based on 4 
factors: 1) five good consecutive crops, 2) more external trade and 
help than in 1928, 3) a "sharp improvement" in overall economic 
indicators, and 4) a smaller ration than before of military 
expenditures in the state's total expenditures.

"How could anybody predict five consecutive good crops in the USSR? 

[snip, the above question is enough to establish Lou Pr.'s point, 
which BTW I share]

"Stalin told Gosplan to forget about coming up with a new plan that 
"made sense. The main driving force now was speed. The slogan "tempos 
"decide everything" became policy. The overwhelming majority of 
"Gosplan, hand-picked by Stalin, viewed the new policy with shock. 
"Molotov said this was too bad, and cleaned house in the old Gosplan 
"with "all of its old-fashioned planners" as he delicately put it.

"When Stalin turned the whole nation into a work camp in order to 
"meet these unrealistic goals, he expanded the police force in order 
"that they may function as work gang bosses. Scientific planning 
"declined and command mechanisms took their place. As the command 
"mechanisms grew, so grew the administrative apparatus to implement 
"them. The more bottlenecks that showed up, the greater the need for 
"bureaucrats to step in and pull levers. This is the explanation of 
"the monstrous bureaucratic apparatus in the former Soviet Union, not 
"scientific planning."

The fact is, I was not arguing _against_ scientific planning, but 
_for_ it.  What I wanted to ask, and I honestly can't give an answer, 
is:  under conditions of siege and starvation, with the permanent 
menace from the West always looming across the borders (let us not 
forget that the immediate entourage of the fSU soon fell to Fascist 
or semi-Fascist regimes save for Chekoslovakia), _and the limited 
political abilities of the bureaucracy overlording the finer 
politicians of the party that had made the Revolution in every corner 
of the country_, what were the chances for scientific planning?

This is a question that my conversations with late Mark Jones brought 
to my mind many times.  When one sees what is happening in the fSU 
today, one is tempted to make the same question, again.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

More information about the Marxism mailing list