4 ms·

A not well-researched viewpoint. In USSR since late 20s, a significant portion of workforce was compensated on a "per unit of goods produced" basis, not "per ho

by gspetr 8y ago

A not well-researched viewpoint. In USSR since late 20s, a significant portion of workforce was compensated on a "per unit of goods produced" basis, not "per hour worked", which was the standard in contemporary capitalist countries. Slave labor in the post-renaissance era cannot compete with other types of labor. If it could then the South would have fared much better in the US Civil War and everyone and their grandmother would have industrialized economies in Africa by now. Or at the very least Ethiopia should have, which was never a colony of anyone for any meaningful period of time. Not to mention, the North Korean Famine of 1994-1998, in which 3% of population died, would not have been a thing.

varjag 8y ago
Incorrect. Farmers were closer to slave labour and paid in "work-days", which could be accounted for handouts by administration. Farmers had no freedom of movement outside their farm territories. Life in Soviet villages was largely subsistence based. Slavery for farmers was abolished in 1974 when they were issued domestic passports (the primary ID in USSR) just like townspeople. As for countless prisoners, they were working for survival with no compensation.
- gspetr 8y ago
  A strawman. Farmers alone could never account for the record Soviet rates of economic growth. And neither could they if combined with convicts/POWs. In late 20s this was the deal: - Poor peasantry cannot provide wheat due to very poor productivity. They use primitive and crude tools, because by definition they cannot afford anything better and can barely even feed themselves, let alone produce any meaningful surplus that can be exchanged for goods or money. - Rich peasantry is not incentivized to, since the state has monopoly on pricing and is the only legal buyer. - It's impossible to offer industrial goods to the peasants in exchange for wheat because all resources are directed toward industrialization to create means of production. - There are foodstamps in the cities, food becomes more expensive, the workers are discontent. - The state loses most of it's export revenue because the global price of wheat declines as the Great Depression begins. - The West refuses to trade with USSR even in exchange for gold. The entire point of collectivization was to raise workforce productivity in agriculture to free enough people to work in cities and to allow these farms to be able to buy industrial goods. Forced collectivization mostly stopped in 1932-1933, you could run a farm on your own if you wanted to, but you would have been taxed at a much higher rate than a collective farm. The other key point is that state monopoly allows for concentration of capital that cannot otherwise be achieved in a dirt poor country. Would an efficient soviet land owner (or a foreign investor) have invested in a tractor factory in 1929? The answer is: No, because the demand simply did not exist. And even if it would have appeared, it would have been much easier for a land owner to just buy Ford's tractors worth $300-350 each, not invest in a tractor factory. And even though the West refused to trade, the US engineers played pivotal role in construction of key soviet factories and plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd_Tractor_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd_Tractor_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Lincoln_Cooper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Lincoln_Cooper
  - greedo 8y ago
    The motives behind collectivization weren't purely productivity. There was a substantial political impetus as well.
  - varjag 8y ago
    Most grand industrial projects in 1920s-1930s indeed were built by the West, or bought from the West wholesale. They were paid largely from proceeds of selling the confiscated grain, which led to famines taking lives of millions. So tell me, are you keen to invest into a tractor plant if it takes the lives of your family? Improves productivity for those that survive alright?

by gspetr 8y ago

varjag 8y ago

Incorrect. Farmers were closer to slave labour and paid in "work-days", which could be accounted for handouts by administration. Farmers had no freedom of movement outside their farm territories. Life in Soviet villages was largely subsistence based. Slavery for farmers was abolished in 1974 when they were issued domestic passports (the primary ID in USSR) just like townspeople. As for countless prisoners, they were working for survival with no compensation.

gspetr 8y ago
A strawman. Farmers alone could never account for the record Soviet rates of economic growth. And neither could they if combined with convicts/POWs. In late 20s this was the deal: - Poor peasantry cannot provide wheat due to very poor productivity. They use primitive and crude tools, because by definition they cannot afford anything better and can barely even feed themselves, let alone produce any meaningful surplus that can be exchanged for goods or money. - Rich peasantry is not incentivized to, since the state has monopoly on pricing and is the only legal buyer. - It's impossible to offer industrial goods to the peasants in exchange for wheat because all resources are directed toward industrialization to create means of production. - There are foodstamps in the cities, food becomes more expensive, the workers are discontent. - The state loses most of it's export revenue because the global price of wheat declines as the Great Depression begins. - The West refuses to trade with USSR even in exchange for gold. The entire point of collectivization was to raise workforce productivity in agriculture to free enough people to work in cities and to allow these farms to be able to buy industrial goods. Forced collectivization mostly stopped in 1932-1933, you could run a farm on your own if you wanted to, but you would have been taxed at a much higher rate than a collective farm. The other key point is that state monopoly allows for concentration of capital that cannot otherwise be achieved in a dirt poor country. Would an efficient soviet land owner (or a foreign investor) have invested in a tractor factory in 1929? The answer is: No, because the demand simply did not exist. And even if it would have appeared, it would have been much easier for a land owner to just buy Ford's tractors worth $300-350 each, not invest in a tractor factory. And even though the West refused to trade, the US engineers played pivotal role in construction of key soviet factories and plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd_Tractor_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd_Tractor_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Lincoln_Cooper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Lincoln_Cooper
- greedo 8y ago
  The motives behind collectivization weren't purely productivity. There was a substantial political impetus as well.
- varjag 8y ago
  Most grand industrial projects in 1920s-1930s indeed were built by the West, or bought from the West wholesale. They were paid largely from proceeds of selling the confiscated grain, which led to famines taking lives of millions. So tell me, are you keen to invest into a tractor plant if it takes the lives of your family? Improves productivity for those that survive alright?