As a system of economics.If for example Russia instead of becoming Communist had turned into a democratic, free market economy; would they:>had been able to modernize the country in the time that Stalin did>had been able to resist the invasion of the GermansWould they have been better off? How so? Many Leftists argue in favor of the Soviet Union saying that its centralized government after overcoming the second World War modernized Russia. But I think if they had been a democratic free market economy their quality of life would have been exponentially better.Do you think this is the case? Why or why not.
>>18543581Capitalism is inherently unstable. All growth-seeking businesses are fueled by incomes derived from workers buying goods/services. At the same time all companies must automate, cut costs, lower wages, and eliminate workers. So capitalism is stuck: under it, businesses seek growth while rendering growth impossible.
>>18543581>If for example Russia instead of becoming Communist had turned into a democratic, free market economy>had been able to resist the invasion of the GermansHow would the nazis seize the power without a Soviet Union? Their succes was in great part due to fear of communism and the Soviet Union. Without the SU, society does not geat as polarized as it got and the nazis don't get enough support to gain power.If Russia was a democratic, free market economy, then they would not actively help Germany to violate the Traty of Versailles>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rapallo_(1922)>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_tank_school>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipetsk_fighter-pilot_school>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomka_gas_test_site>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations_(1918%E2%80%931941)#Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_PactIn fact, if Russia was a democratic, free market economy, it's sensible to think they would cooperate with UK, Britain and Poland.Without Soviet Union, there's no rise of nazism>had been able to modernize the country in the time that Stalin didRussia was going through industrialization process before the revolution, with fast progress. If there was no revolution, Russia would have been alongside the victors of WW1, trading with them and not suffering five years of civil war and a couple of decades of idiotic economic decisions
>>18543581>democratic free market economythis is a contradiction in terms. A free market economy is the antithesis of democracy, it means the few rule over the many in the economic sphere, it's an oligarchic system by its very nature.
Can you summarise what it is as I am yet to understand.
>>18543581Counter-factuals are hard to answer. For me it makes more "sense" thinking of this stuff as like 1930s sci-fi. Socialism since its inception had always been connected to the idea of an "advanced modernity that seeks to cure the evils of current modernity," it just so happened that current modernity from the 1800s to the time period we're discussing was associated with private ownership.There was a strong belief that automation was an unambiguous good as long as the means of production was socialized because it could be used to increase productivity and lower working time. And socialism meant more and more mechanization. Like if you read "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" by Stalin (one of their main textbooks on political economy during that period), Stalin has the assumption that in all situations the replacement of labor by capital is worth it. The following is a work of fiction but what they were imagining they were building was a society like Atomic Heart:https://youtu.be/RdsKoWUNcIkBut in practice it does "work." Obviously there are differences between a state ruled by a ML party-state that controls most politics and investment decisions in the economy and a state in which that doesn't happen, which is why there are differences between "capitalism" and "socialism" in comparative economics for the 20th century. But in reality it was mostly about allocation of some share of investment in nominal rubles for heavily integrated firms (or "ministries"). They still had money, labor, and consumer markets that were selling inputs and outputs. The communist moneyless planning stuff was always fake and never existed. There were also more and more markets as they proceeded, not less, because planning gets more complicated past grain and raw materials.That's the fundamental problem. Markets won to a far larger degree than anyone expected in the past.
>>18543697>Russia was going through industrialization process before the revolution, with fast progress.The issue with Tsarist Russia was a political issue. Syria's economy was also growing rapidly before the revolution began in 2011. Obviously there are economic issues involved like inflation and so on (which became very bad in Russia as a result of the war) but really the political system that was running Russia was completely rotted out and unable to reform and it broke down as the army was getting decimated. Like it was absolutist but didn't get the stats bonuses you can get from that, instead it was bad at being that and indecisive and Nicholas II lost the support of the army so Red Alert happened:https://youtu.be/xAXgh0kCv08
>>18544132Nicky was incompetent. But his government fell ater years of war against Germany, A-U and the Ottomans; had a very decent run against the last two, and got fucked when Germany focused on Russia, in great part due to german intelligence services (Lenin was a german agent). Maybe if the Okrhana were competent it could have been avoided. It's interesting to compare them and the Cheka, they were playing at a completely different level, chess to Okrhana's checkers. Then, you also gotta wonder what would have happened if Lenin was successfully arrested when Kerensky was in power. Maybe we could have got the liberal, free market Russia OP asks about
>>18543581in case of russia, the issue was more with wars and political struggle. China started out communism around the same time and they are recently doing pretty fine. Good portion of what used to be russian empire but emerged as capitalist states and returned to it after the fall of ussr, are doing pretty fine.If russia chose capitalism, it could be on the level of baltics and maybe even nordics if ww2 never turned in to a zerg rush for them.if russia chose socialism but stayed out of ww2, it could be like china in 25 years from now.
>>18544858This is retarded, development-wise it would have been at China's current level by the 80s. People severely underestimate how fucked the USSR was by the civil war and then the war against Germany and how much of its resources and labor pool were wiped out
>>18544858>>18544885Russia was never going to be China, their government was simply too corrupt. Their issue was the Soviet Military Industrial Complex was actively using Cold War paranoia to harbor wealth and power within the government which was siphoned away from civilian interests. By the end, military leaders were basically the ones running the show, and in-spite of some resistance, they ended up assuming the roles of modern Russian oligarchs. It's no coincidence that their current leader is former KGB
>>18543581>>had been able to modernize the country in the time that Stalin didYes. Stalin heavily hindered economic development in russia.https://www.nber.org/papers/w19425Not only that but he got a bunch of capitalist investments and technical help from the west which basically build the ussr.read antony sutton's work on this
>>18543633Why have real wages radically increased since the 1800s then?The falling rate of profit is a myth.
>>18543741>it means the few rule over the many in the economic sphereThis would only be true if wage labor was exploitation, which it is provably not.Even if it was, having a ML party monopolize the state and your live is obviously much more authoritarian and exploitative.
