Russia’s lack of a good transport system really gummed things up in WW2.
And earlier.
Stakhonovites were folks that performed great feats of production out of revolutionary spirit. Their accomplishments were often stage managed or otherwise enhanced by the party. But it still resulted in increased production in certain cases.
Smiling_Bandit and Dan_Ch bring up the single biggest problem: a top-down planning approach that just wasn’t able to keep up with changing events. I’m a planner and we are always getting input from our citizens, either ahead of time in order to decide our next step, or during the plan amendment process, which can change our next move.
Stalin was able to artificially squeeze results out of the Soviet economy through terror and throwing huge quantities of labor at problems. In the U.S., men like Carnegie and Rockerfeller had amazingly efficient management that was able to take huge capital investment and make nation-wide infrastructure. Stalin overcame inefficiency through an increased labor force. When you have the ability and inclination to arrest thousands just for their muscle power, you can move a lot of dirt.
Wow - these are huge, probably misfounded, assumptions. Russia in Czarist times was a brutally repressive kleptocracy, and viciously anti-semitic. There’s no reason to suppose that would have changed. A capitalist Russia in the 1920’s and 30’s - well - I see absolutely no reason to believe it wouldn’t have gone the way of other countries and descended into fascism. In fact, that descent would have been easier, because Russian capitalism and the state would presumably have had no qualms dealing harshly with organized labor and other social democratic groups.
I don’t see any reason to suggest that Russia would have suddenly changed. Quasi-slavery and pogroms would have continued in the country, and brutal repression of any progressive forces in the cities. And the wealthy would have continued to loot the country and live as kings while others starved in the dark.
That’s pretty offensive and nauseating, even from you. Blaming the victims again. While capitalists and the churches was cutting deals with the Nazis, the Communists and Socialists were fighting them, trying to protect the working class. And now it is their own fault they were stuck into camps.
With no evidence to back it up whatsoever, my gut feeling is that Czarist Russia would never have been able to keep fighting the Germans in WWII. Stalin succeeded in making Russia industrial, well-organized and bloody-minded enough to withstand the Nazis. I really doubt that the Czars could have done it and it still came at the cost of an unimaginable amount of lives.
After WWII, I don’t see any upshot to Soviet Communism except, possibly, that it made the more civilized capitalist nations of the world a bit more apprehensive of the needs of the workers.
Please note that when it came to union-busting, certain American business leaders were pretty good at terror too.
Yeah. Some would argue that the difference was that Stalin was using state-sponsored terror whereas the industrial magnates were employing private violence. But a sad fact was that the government was almost always on the side of management and it was the police (and quite often the national guard) who broke up protestors on behalf of big business.
I guess one difference was that the Soviets arrested thousands specifically to use them as prison labor while the US tycoons screwed their workers through private means and used force to when they tried to get some decent working conditions. Not nearly as bad as a gulag, but nothing to be proud of.
I’m currently reading the book Red Plenty which I believe might be of interest to one or more posters in this thread.
A few individual efforts - much less stage-managed or ‘enhanced’ - don’t make up ‘most of the populace’.
The propaganda efforts may have been performed by comparatively few, but it did have an effect on much of the populace. My cite is the BBC documentary miniseries Red Empire, a production made just after the fall of Gorbechev.
I’ll agree - it’s a lousy cite, but many things I have read about both the Red Army and Societ workers suggest that the Stakhonovite example did have many people at least trying to follow it.
blinks
Have you any idea what you’re talking about? There was this little affair called the Russian Revolution, which led not to a Communist state but a moderate social-democracy. I’ll grant it never got going as Lenin stabbed it in the back, but it was founded by real democratic reformers who very nearly turned Russia into a free society.
Once again, you confuse ignorance with argument. Suffice it to say your cute little “history” if the Nazi rise to power needs some, err… work. You have no idea what you are talking about.
By the by, thank you for calling me vile. Given your particular viws on things, that’s a massive compliment.
“Pure” Communism doesn’t work, like “pure” Capitalism doesn’t work. We need elements of ALL ideas.
I think it’s you who have no idea what you are talking about. You’d have run crying to Mommy with a dirty diaper at the policies of the Socialist Revolutionaries. Anywhere else where Social Democracy comes to power, you and your ilk talk of it as the inevitable precursor of communism.
There was no significant support for the Constitutional Democrats and other centrists. Mainly because they had no program to deal with the ills of Russia.
“Very nearly turned Russia into a free society” - my God, that is one of the most naive things I have ever read.
I didn’t call you vile, though. I called your views offensive and nauseating. It was people of your views who sat back and watched as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet and their ilk rose to power. The fascists were welcomed as the defenders of capitalism, because capitalism had ensured the privilege of the nationalists and conservatives. The nationalists and conservatives might have held their nose a little, as the people Hitler ran with weren’t the right sort, but at least they could let him give the Reds a bloody nose.
When it comes to fascism, there isn’t a middle ground. You are either actively against it, or you are a supporter of it. You have shown, time and time again, you are an apologist for it.
Had the October Revolution failed, Russia would have ended up in some kind of authoritarian, fascistic state. Had the March revolution failed, Russia would have continued a backward, authoritarian, anti-semitic kleptocracy. After the October revolition succeeded, it ended up an oppressive, authoritarian Stalinist state. There was a chance for a better future, but the dividing point came later - had NEP been allowed to continue, we might have seen a very different, probably truly Democratic Socialist, Russia.
How do you know that? Perhaps, if Kerensky had held on to power, the Constituent Assembly would have been allowed to meet as scheduled and organize a new government. The largest party in the Assembly, and presumably in the new government, being the peasant-based Socialist-Revolutionaries, their first priority would have been land reform. Does that automatically lead to fascism?
Surely you jest. Murdering the Royal Family comes to mind.
You know that the Royal Family was murdered by the Communists, right?
Yes, I thought that’s who we were talking about. The Russian revolution.
Rather than the standard insulting “You know…right?” here is your chance to politely fight ignorance. 
If I must fight ignorance, I shall.
There was the March Revolution, which smiling bandit pointed out “led not to a moderate social-democracy” and “was founded by real democratic reformers who very nearly turned Russia into a free society.”
Then there was the October Revolution, where the Bolsheviks took over.
Your response to Smiling Bandit’s comment about the March Revolution was “Surely you jest. Murdering the Royal Family comes to mind.”, but the March revolutionaries didn’t do that. It was the Communists who did that.
My point was that had October failed, then the forces of reaction would have retaken power. I don’t think, given the structure of Russia at the time, the Socialist-Revolutionaries could have maintained power - they would have lost it to one side or the other.