Is maximum economic efficiency always desirable?

Post Reply New Topic

I think a lot of that is just the focus of the USSR, as I think they focused upon rocketry to the exclusion of other things. The US clearly was much better at creating consumer goods, which is still a matter of technology but less flashy.

I don't see much evidence for your claim that the US is riding off of the back of these other nations.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/eco ... orts-to-us

I mean, a very small percent of our imports come from Africa, and although a somewhat larger part comes from Asia, the nations in Asia that these imports come from are considered to be developing or developed, so it does not seem likely that we are just ruthlessly riding on their back.

Not only that, but 1st World Nations tend not to have incredibly large percents of their economy put onto imports.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_i ... ts-per-gdp

The US is at a low 14%, of which a fraction of which is from the poorer nations, and the higher importers are in Europe, and a lot of those imports are likely from other European nations given free trade in the EU, and the fact that more EU nations are relatively export driven.

So, I don't know how the claim that the 1st World is just riding on the back of the 3rd world can reasonably be justified. There is only one commodity in other nations that is essential for the 1st world, and that is oil, and the region it is ascribed to is the Middle East, with the occasional nation elsewhere in the world. However, it seems to me that the truer story is that the 1st world living standards are mostly kept up by improvements in productivity, as I would argue that the Industrial Revolution created a greater economic boom than any efforts by European powers to colonize the world.

Soviet war hardware (planes, tanks, guns, rockets) were adequate to the task. In building their intercontinental missile rockets they had many more accidents than any of the Western nations, including NASA in the U.S. which had its mishaps as we all know. Soviet armor was and is excellent. They started their careers as tank builders with the T-34, cheaper, more reliable and better than the German Panzers. In a one to one battle the Abrams battle tank would probably beat its closest Russian counterpart but it would be a close fight. In firearms, the Kalishnikoff Assault rifle is probably the greatest fire arm ever produced. It is the icon "people's weapon". Cheap, reliable and accurate enough at close range to do the job it was supposed to do.

In sophisticated electronics the former Soviet Union came out second and in many respects second rate. In chemicals, pharmacuticals ditto. In medical technology third rate. Has anyone every heard of a world class Soviet or Russian MRI scanning machine?

Overall, the buying public in the late and unlamented Soviet Union came out ill served and wanting.

In academic science the pre-revolutionary Russia, the Soviet Union and post Soviet Russia has its share of Smart Guys. Their mathematicians are extremely well educated and their best mathematicians are world class. In things depending on blackboards, pen and paper, the Russians are second to none. I think I know why too. Many of their physicist types were denied a chance to make contributions in the commercial and applied sector (other than war stuff). That left them but one outlet, the blackboard, the pen and writing tablet. Brains will out, if brains their are. Also their engineers had to learn to do much with little or less material. Waste not, want not. Russian engineers have a MacGuyver type talent. If all they can get a hold of is Duck Tape and paper clips, watch out!

ruveyn

Which indicates there's nothing wrong with the Russian people. Their officials and politicians were and are thugs. The American politicians, as the daily reports of corruption indicate, are somewhat more sophisticated in their thuggery but equally as voracious.

The Russian people are as tough and sound as any people and even tougher when put to the test. I would not want to be part of any army trying to conquer Russia. But historically they have been ill served by their rulers. So much the sadder for them. The Russians have yet to know the light of less corrupt and more just government. Tsar Peter and Tsarina Katherine were their best shots and it did not work out very well. If Russia had been more "Western" the West would have been all the better for it. The great Sorrow of Russia was the Communist Experiment. It took just over a generation to fail and its results were miserable. One can not be toosurprised to see optimism in short supply in Russia. From Ivan the Terrible to Stalin The Even More Terrible. What a bad trip!

ruveyn

And they have a puppeteer named Putin atm, who has almost as much power as the president, no? <.< (i heard Putin has a cult dedicated to him so i wouldn'tbe suprised if he spent the following years as prime minister, then back to being president after Medvedev's term expires). I also think it's kinda sad, because the russians are pretty proud and smart people, but their leadership pretty much screws them over. =(

How did I miss this post
titus I tip my hat to you for your excellent single handed defence of the most democratic political ideology of which I am aware

Come on Orwell you more than most who post on this forum are well aware of the conditions that led to NEP. Titus is correct and you know it, the conditions that forced NEP were not of Russia or Lenin's making. They were the result of the invasion of 19 imperial armies coming to the aid of the czar . the civil war instigated by western imperialism pushed the fledgling socialist state into such an economic mess that Lenin had no choice.



Orwell I am shocked at you using such a strawman. One action was a desperate act to save the birth of socialism the other an imperialist invasion.


Re capitalism providing for the masses

Have you ever been to India, nepal, Burma, Brazil and how about the new 'hoovervilles' springing up on the outskirts of US cities. In the UK the homeless now camp around the country side, France bused all its homeless out of Paris at the point of a gun prior to the world cup and as to the rest of the world, well I have not been there. Marx stated that capitalism was necessary to push the wold forward with its ability to combine and concentrate resources, but that it had a finite use and he was correct. So whilst I do not even attempt to deny that capitalism has moved the general living standards forwards it is obvious that its ability to maintain this momentum is coming to an end

its amazing what answers statistics can produce when you feed in the correct data for your agenda




How about inviolate contracts of financiers that cannot be reversed against the shredded contracts of the auto workers


Yet another strawman . By your same argument Christians who follow the teachings of Christ should not deny the murderous quasi fascist groups that also claim to be his followers

The newly formed Soviet Union would have gone under even without the invasions in 1919 (which were brief). Lenin was a pragmatist and the NEP was he handiest way of saving the country. Strict egalitarian socialism is domed to economic failure. There is no incentive to risk, work hard or produce. Why try to produce maximally when everybody will get the same share except for the party bosses who are more "equal" than the workers.

Orwell the Author (Eric Blaire) exposed the essential fraud of the Communist Revolution in his roman a clef novel -Animal Farm-.

ruveyn

ruveyn

I really was wondering why you were missing. I thought you'd jump in on the questions I asked in the OP.


In large part, they were. Lenin was bankrolled by the Germans to destabilize Russia and take it out of the war, and he did a great job at that- you think it's a coincidence that he pushed so hard for immediate peace with Germany at any cost? And the invasions and civil wars would not have occurred if the provisional government had been left in place and the Bolsheviks did not perform their coup. You know as well as I that by Marxist theory the Bolshevik Revolution should never have occurred. Even if we accept socialist theory as valid, it was vastly premature, and Lenin knew that damn well. But he wanted to seize power.


The czar had already abdicated in favor of the provisional government, which was largely dominated by left-leaning moderates. Most people fighting against the Bolsheviks were fighting for a constitutional republic.


The Civil War instigated by the Petrograd Soviet attempting to usurp power, you mean.


In either case, it is the case of claiming a person is opposed to their own plans. Perhaps I could have picked a better example, like saying that Lincoln was opposed to the US Civil War.


Technological improvement drives progress. As long as we keep coming up with new ideas, the economy can keep growing.


It's a somewhat more complicated situation than that, and largely to do with a delayed public backlash against government bail-outs. That said, I'm not going to attempt to defend the handling of the current economic crisis, as I'm sure plenty of mistakes have been made and the policy decisions don't really represent a capitalist mentality anyways.


The thing is that I see this *universally* in socialists. Every single attempt to establish socialism has failed miserably, and so socialists disavow every socialist revolution in history. Within Christianity it is at least possible to point to different groups, some of whom I admire and some of which I dislike. Within the realm of socialist revolutionaries, pretty much all I see are butchers and sloppy administrators. I'll concede that, indeed, the typical socialist revolutionary leader has not done a good job of following Marxist theory. But why, out of all the socialist revolutions of the past century, has there never been a single one who did it right?

perhaps because being incomplete, as many defenders of the market so often point out, it is a 'living theory', so to speak, as opposed to rigid dogma. And i assume by "*cough Bolshevik Revolution cough* you are referring to your previous claim that this revolution ran contrary to marxist theory? Perhaps I could direct you to Trotsky's Permanent Revolution which draws on the very words of Marx and Engels given at a meeting of the communist party that a) capitalism is of a specifically international nature (crude example: how many enterprises or investors spanned dual or multiple nations in the day?) and b) the first revolution would come at the weakest point of the chain. this giving way would have a ripple effect spreading outward round the globe (note for example the risings to form the Hungarian Soviet and the German Revolution of 1919)



Not sure a US citizen should be so blasé about throwing that particular stone.



And my point is that not only do you display a clear lack of understanding of what some of the A B Cs of socialism are, but also my argument is coming round to the point that Socialism will be both more efficient and egalitarian than Capitalism. So no need for your generosity, if you'll actually stop to hear us socialists on a rational basis rather than dismissing us as irrelevant or resorting to the crude methods and emotionality (sp.?) which you a beginning to display then we are more than capable of defending our ideas.

The pertinent question is: are you?



What about global standards? Yes capitalism has done extremely well at, to paraphrase, breaking the feudal ties to the land and the tyranny of absolute monarchs. If you read the manifesto you will see he states his admiration for the achievements of capitalism quite explicitly, the point is though that it is exploitative of the majority and has completed its historic task, and, having taken us as far as it can, is now solely a burden.



Quite. Some of us more so than others I might say.



I'm glad to see you recognise the achievements of these workers. However it does sadden me that you do not appear to have read the article, which would have told that this is actually ****Flakho, in Brazil. Today. It would also show you the lengths to which the police, judiciary, bailiffs and the electric company have gone to disrupt the work done here, a workplace which is a member of FRETECO (organisation of worker controlled factories in essence). They're still going strong I believe.



Yes. And I beleive it is in Terrorism and Communism that Trotsky correctly states that this was necessary in order to that the new owners learn how best to run the factories etc. given the generally low level of education and culture. Then improve on it. Had they not done this then the process of rebuilding would have been vastly more difficult.



I'm not sure i said it was the only one, but it's pretty important, wouldn't you agree? The US is also not too great on provision of healthcare, not quality, you're pretty good at that, just the cost is a problem. I seem to remember hearing stories of US citizens crossing into Canada if they can to give birth (Michael Moore's Sicko I think, though in the words of the late Ron Silver "That obese man is a fake and a charlatan." I do agree to a certain extent). I also seem to remember reading somewhere about a correlation between standard of education and low crime rates (which I believe the US also doesn't fair particularly well on), though until i can find it that shall simply have to remain an assertion.



That is one hell of an understatement!

Also, tuition fees for one year on an undergraduate humanities course at Oxford University: £3,225 ($5,144)
One year on a humanities course at NYU (Tisch school of the arts): $38,722

Egalitarian; so long as you pass the property qualification?



May I note that you are cataloguing the failures of other capitalist countries there....though i do take your point.



hmmm. Do you want to take a second look before I point out that that is in fact what I was saying? Synthesise the Peasant revolt with my subsequent post and I think you will find I am pointing out the following - more workers than jobs=wages go down, more jobs than workers=wages go up; supply and demand.
I think AG might agree that as a crude summation the Peasant Revolt analogy and subsequent post is generally correct, otherwise he can feel free to correct me.

I shall have to press you on the apology and retraction here Orwell.



It's not a claim, nor are they trying, they are doing. I think DentArthurDent will support me in saying that the value of the labour a worker does is greater than the value of the wages they are paid. Thus being well and truly doinked with your pants on.



That's not what I said, I was questioning your claim to market efficiency, which i note you do not refute, instead starting down the path of 'freedom' and 'choice' (Ford - You can have any color you like so long as it's black). May I point out the body of work done on the role advertising plays in generating demand where it did not exist nor did it need meeting. I also understand that the cost of advertising forms a signifcant portion of the cost of an item in the market. I believe George Orwell said something akin to "Advertising is the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket".



For very specific reasons.



If you read my post again you will note that I have said "as much" rather than "so much", nor am I ignoring the human toll (though I think we've established you do this yourself regarding capitalism). if I have not already denounced the Castro regime (which I believe you noted I have) then consider this it.

If you ever visit Russia, for your own sake, refrain from praising the market's results. I know of too many billionaire oligarchs who have had to flee their homeland because they cannot stand the mess they have created in looting what was left after the corrupt, murderous and incompetent Stalinists. Perhaps it could be argued that one reason a former KGB agent now runs the country is because without such a 'strong man' (who it appears has people killed on a whim) the country would tear itself apart all over again.

And speaking of butchers - Pinochet, the Native American nations eradicated, the Atlantic Slave trade, the South Vietnamese government, the US armed forces and CIA in Vietnam, Latin America, South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, the Philippines in the 19th Century the list goes on (try Why do people hate America by Zardar and Wyn-Davies, there is a section which lists all the conflicts the US has engaged in some way in from, I think, the American Civil War, which I believe averages 1.2 per year upto around WW2 where, off the top of my head, it increases to 2.1 per year)

In the interests of balance and intellectual honesty I will remind you of the Red Army's invasion of Menshevik Georgia in 1921, where it seems Lenin gave the green light to the operation. My knowlede on this is a little sketchy at best but it may be that Lenin was not 'commander-in-chief' on this one, so to speak, but in fact one Josef Dzugashvili aka Stalin. May I also note that it appears Lenin made a complaint about the lack of information coming form the operation, and Trotsky opposed in favour of supporting the growth of a Bolshevik party there.

and on the subject of Revolutionary violence....

Last edited by TitusLucretiusCarus on 26 May 2009, 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

@ ruyven

before I respond to Orwell's outburst on Bloody Revolution (and some of AG's points) - correction for accuracy - the essential fraud of the Stalinist regime. Note how life on the farm begins to change with the rise of a certain pig....

I'm familiar with the Trotskyist "permanent revolution" idea. It was a further development of Lenin's claims in the April Theses that the incorrect revolution in Russia would be justified by later revolutions in more developed countries. Please note that this prediction turned out disastrously wrong, and resulted in a crisis of ideology in the 1920s that helped in part to facilitate Stalin's rise to dominance.


Because the US is known for political and social instability? We've kept the same government for over 200 years, with a tussle about 150 years ago. Our government has yet to collapse, and shows no real signs of doing so in the near future.


As I said, I regard the inefficiency of socialism as a given. I've already seen the economic arguments for why. If you want to describe the mechanisms of how a socialist state will outperform a capitalist one, be my guest.


I don't agree with Marx's idea that socialism is what comes next. Even if his historical analysis and dialectical ideas are somehow correct, I think capitalism can still take us a good deal further.


It just strikes me as expedience. The commies realized that they were actually pretty much incompetent when it came to managing the factories and other parts of the economy, and called in for the people who actually knew what they were doing- ie the capitalists.


Should education necessarily be valued in and of itself? Some people choose to value education, others don't. The failures of the US health system, while real, are grossly exaggerated. And citing a Michael Moore "documentary" is usually a prime indicator of willingness to blindly swallow propaganda. The movie was mostly a load of crap. Crime rates in the US are higher than in other parts of the world, but I would argue that that is not due to our economic system but rather other things such as cultural factors and a poorly-conceived justice system.


Odd, I was accepted to Oxford University but was unable to attend because tuition was (if I recall) something in the ballpark of $30,000, plus extremely high living costs. Meanwhile I was offered a full ride at University of Pennsylvania (Ivy League) and a friend of mine (who is a first-generation college student) went to Yale on the cheap because of their generous need-based financial aid.


Most universities have instituted need-blind admissions, and will help low-income students cover the costs. There are also numerous federal and private programs targeted explicitly at poorer college students. The way financial aid works in the US, it is actually often better to come from a poorer family.


If that is not what you meant, then I apologize for misinterpreting. But I don't see that type of mass exploitation occurring spontaneously. The way you phrased your post made it seem that the capital-holding class was deliberately keeping employment low in order to cut costs.

As far as the "surplus value of labor" you are assuming management and investors to be parasites who contribute nothing. This is false, you need the organizational talents of management, and you need the capital accumulation of investors in order to obtain the necessary resources to begin production.


Then why is it a general rule that socialist revolutions end badly? And they normally follow relatively similar paths, as well. I would be suspicious of claims that every single very similar case is purely a result of extraneous features specific to that particular attempt at socialism.

There is a lot of debate about the revolution in Russia. You're right many make excuses point to imperialist intervention, the rise of stalin etc. I tend to agree with you it should not have occured in what was primarily a agrarian peasant country, wether this was due to Lenin being power hungry or siezing the chance for change I am not sure although I suspect the latter. Had the Bolsheviks waited and thrown their support behind the German working class in 1918 or the British in 1926 the world might be a different place today.

How does a revolutionary leader determine if the time is right? It is rare for the convergence of influences to come together that make a revolution possible. A Socialist revolution requires an advanced working class to carry it out, and a large group of skilled leaders to guide it. This is why serious Trotskyist parties now spend a great deal of time and effort educating their members on Marxist / Trotskyist principles. The failure of Russia was followed by splits in the Marxist leadership most notably 1953 and again in the mid 80's. Throughout this the Fourth International set up by Trotsky has held fast to its principles. This principled and guarded approach is the best way to prepare for and defend a Socialist revolution, learning from the mistakes of the past and analyzing present policies and actions.

But Dent, you're falling into the same trap as the early twentieth-century Bolsheviks. They were a party of intellectuals, of educated debaters and highly intelligent, well-read men and women. Lenin then proceeded to perform all sorts of intellectual acrobatics to explain why Russia could be the first Marxist society without bother to follow Marxism, and everyone followed him. Trotsky did as well- he held fast to the "permanent revolution" that never came. Perhaps, perhaps had Stalin not come in with "Socialism in one country" then Trotsky could have led his astoundingly well-organized Red Army on a twentieth-century Napoleonic-style rampage across Europe, probably taking most of Central Europe and parts of Western Europe, perhaps even Germany and France. But, like Napoleon, he would have subverted the revolution in the process of preserving it. Very, very few revolutions in world history have come out badly. The main example I can think of is the American Revolution, and even in that case it is debatable whether it succeeded and had its aims achieved. An ideology that depends on revolution really just not seem feasible to me, as revolutions are messy businesses and never come out as planned.

The Russians had a tradition of excellence in the physical sciences and mathematics from before the Revolution (mostly thinks to Tsar Peter and Tsarina Katherine). It was Mendele'ev who produced the periodic table of the elements (and this without quantum theory!). The Russians have had excellent mathematicians (Tchebychef, for example). Even after the Revolution and with all the political interference the government could impose there were excellent physicists.There was Lev Landau. And Sacharoff for example. He and his team produced an H-bomb before Teller and his team in the U.S.A. When the culture closes off most avenues of material advantage, that leaves the mental paths, if they are open to tread upon. There are a load and a half of very smart people in Russia, and under the communists their excellence was not as well used as it could have been. The Russian people are a tough and energetic lot. They have missed out on the blessings of governments and rulers who are sometimes just. One wonders what kind of productivity the Russians might have shown if they had a freer political system.

ruveyn

It depends on the amount of support. As I have stated before I do not want a bloody revolution, and to avoid this a very large majority of the working classes would need to be in support of the change, to force a civil war where the majority are against your ideals can only result in a dictatorship and this will never work in the long run. When I talk of revolution I am referring to mass uprising in the sense of blockades, strikes, shutdowns etc designed to force the ruling elite from control. The idea of civil war is undesirable in the extreme and will only come about if the ruling elite and sections of the military attack the majority. This kind of action can only be achieved through principled and strong leadership, something the working classes have really never had.

I may be chasing after a lost cause, I hope not because I honestly see socialism as the only conceivable answer to the worlds problems. I

Fro mwhat a person that lived in communist russia had told me one olf the reasons for tis collapse was that they could not provide goods at the cost they had been and they became very expensive. Even pretzels were at an extremely high price. Thye could not make up the cost of the labor, etc.