10 ms·

>the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism Between 1917 and 1950 they grew at a s

>the failure of the Soviet Union had more to do with the inherent limitations of central planning than Marxist communism Between 1917 and 1950 they grew at a staggering pace. From agricultural backwater to first space power. That isn't an economic failure in any way. After the 1950s they tried to re-gear the economy to producing things like fridges and, of course, for consumer items it wasn't nearly as effective. In the end the thing that undid the Soviet project was the idealism of its president (Gorbachev) when faced with the results of his authoritarian predecessors. It wasn't really an economic failure. >by attempting to refine the designs of failed communist states risks going back on the same path If we attribute Stalin to a failure of communism surely we have to also attribute Hitler to a failure of capitalism? Or we could accept that both analyses are stupid and shallow. >Capitalism lends itself more towards authoritarianism I think economic systems are orthogonal to political systems.

adrienne 10y ago
It is so fucking predictable that you're getting downvoted to hell for your smart comments.
- kmicklas 10y ago
  Amen. If a comment on HN is controversial score is almost anti-correlated with insight.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kmicklas 10y ago
> Between 1917 and 1950 they grew at a staggering pace. From agricultural backwater to first space power. That isn't an economic failure in any way. > If we attribute Stalin to a failure of communism surely we have to also attribute Hitler to a failure of capitalism? I agree with everything you said but this seems ironically contradictory... > I think economic systems are orthogonal to political systems. Not entirely orthogonal. But yeah, HN seems to think communism is inherently authoritarian.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Maybe that's because for many people, the belief that communism=authoritarianism was propaganda, spoon-fed at an early age and whipped up by the government at regular intervals to keep people afraid of the other and from questioning their present authority. Same goes for terrorism these days. "If you're not with us you're against us," was the phrase I believe Bush the junior liked to tell us.
  - kmicklas 10y ago
    If I had a nickel for every time a HN poster said "socialism inevitably leads to communism" I could personally buy out the bourgeoisie and institute 100 years of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
The engineers that drew up the Tsar's plans for industrialization implemented them under Communism. There is nothing surprising about that. Likewise, it is predictable that a centrally planned economy would be able to develop industrial goods for industrial needs, but fail at producing consumer goods, which ultimately catalyzed far more economic growth in capitalist countries, both because of the market segmentation that a central plan could not predict or accommodate as well as a free market, and also because the incentives for the creator and access to the means of the production (primarily startup capital) were easier to come by in capitalist economies. I think your comparison with Hitler is lacking in depth, unless it was meant to be a dig at my comment, which I believe I have rebutted. I fundamentally disagree with your final statement. The accumulation of physical resources and political power is and will always be intertwined. If you can name one example in all of human history (from agriculturalization onwards), whereupon the political system did not depend on the economic system and the economic system did not depend on the political system, then I will concede my point. Until then, I find your argument lacking.

adrienne 10y ago

It is so fucking predictable that you're getting downvoted to hell for your smart comments.

kmicklas 10y ago
Amen. If a comment on HN is controversial score is almost anti-correlated with insight.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kmicklas 10y ago

> Between 1917 and 1950 they grew at a staggering pace. From agricultural backwater to first space power. That isn't an economic failure in any way. > If we attribute Stalin to a failure of communism surely we have to also attribute Hitler to a failure of capitalism? I agree with everything you said but this seems ironically contradictory... > I think economic systems are orthogonal to political systems. Not entirely orthogonal. But yeah, HN seems to think communism is inherently authoritarian.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Maybe that's because for many people, the belief that communism=authoritarianism was propaganda, spoon-fed at an early age and whipped up by the government at regular intervals to keep people afraid of the other and from questioning their present authority. Same goes for terrorism these days. "If you're not with us you're against us," was the phrase I believe Bush the junior liked to tell us.
- kmicklas 10y ago
  If I had a nickel for every time a HN poster said "socialism inevitably leads to communism" I could personally buy out the bourgeoisie and institute 100 years of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

The engineers that drew up the Tsar's plans for industrialization implemented them under Communism. There is nothing surprising about that. Likewise, it is predictable that a centrally planned economy would be able to develop industrial goods for industrial needs, but fail at producing consumer goods, which ultimately catalyzed far more economic growth in capitalist countries, both because of the market segmentation that a central plan could not predict or accommodate as well as a free market, and also because the incentives for the creator and access to the means of the production (primarily startup capital) were easier to come by in capitalist economies. I think your comparison with Hitler is lacking in depth, unless it was meant to be a dig at my comment, which I believe I have rebutted. I fundamentally disagree with your final statement. The accumulation of physical resources and political power is and will always be intertwined. If you can name one example in all of human history (from agriculturalization onwards), whereupon the political system did not depend on the economic system and the economic system did not depend on the political system, then I will concede my point. Until then, I find your argument lacking.