Last I heard they were doing pretty well. People there hadn’t the ingrained communism nearly as much as the Russians, and their communists tended to be knocked out of power much more easily. They were going positive and comparing favorably to western European growth rates. Granted, part of that is the catching up syndrome - giving certain bases, its easier to catch up when you can borrow technology and expertise, or have a new freedom to work with to achieve more with pre-existing structures. They had a not inconsiderable base to start, since the Soviets loved Big Iron (figuratively), and are now taking over the industrial economy. They were relatively cheap and efficiently, and earnestly desire to “make it” in the new capitalist world.
Chumpsky, when you get through digging yourself out from under the mountain of facts DDG and others have dumped on you, totally devastating your pitiful OP, aid crews will be standing by with hot coffee and cookies.
[hijack]
I think the Poles, Slovaks, and Slovenes would take exception to this, as Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia were never part of the Soviet Union, and the last two did not exist as independent countries during the Soviet era.
[/hijack]
And **Chumpsky, ** there are those who consider me a communist sympathizer, and I have a certain amount of sympathy for economically egalitarian ideals.
However, in your opinion, exactly what qualifies a death as one for which Stalin should be held responsible? Did he have to pull the trigger himself?
Eva: They might not have been part of the USSR directly but they sure as hell were under almost direct control of the USSR (especially Czechoslovakia, which Slovakia was then part of) thanks to the Warsaw Pact and the propensity of the USSR to send in troops whenever it didn’t like what was happening. Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia though so they can be taken off the list. Estonia (which was part of the USSR) is also up for EU membership in 2004 as well as the Czech Republic.
But anyway back to regular programming.
Eva Luna -
In another thread, Chumpsky posted that he held the US responsible for all the misdeeds committed by Saudi Arabia as well, so I would be interested in an answer to your question as well.
Not sure of the standard. The USSR isn’t responsible for anything (apart from the 799,00 deaths Chumpsky dismisses so lightly), but whenever a child cries in the night, the US and its ruling classes are at the root of it. Go figure.
Regards,
Shodan
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 23 million people in the USSR, according to this site. Of course, Chump will claim that they’re lying too.
Tagos:
**Define “meltdown”. Foreign investment relocating to other countries? Runaway double-digit inflation? Widespread starvation? The ruling elite and the intelligentsia converting their assets to gold and diamonds, or dollars, and fleeing the country? Factories and other businesses closing? Those are all the things that happen when an economy really does go into the toilet.
However, the worst the CIA can say about the economies of the former Soviet republics is that they are “disappointing”, or “limited”, or “held back”.
Armenia: "Armenia’s severe trade imbalance has been offset somewhat by international aid, domestic restructuring of the economy, and foreign direct investment. "
Azerbaijan: "Azerbaijan shares all the formidable problems of the former Soviet republics in making the transition from a command to a market economy, but its considerable energy resources brighten its long-term prospects. "
Belarus: “high inflation…persistent trade deficits…self-isolated from the West and its open-market economies.”
Estonia: “Estonia, as a new member of the World Trade Organization, is steadily moving toward a modern market economy.”
Georgia: “Despite the severe damage the economy has suffered due to civil strife, Georgia, with the help of the IMF and World Bank, has made substantial economic gains since 1995, achieving positive GDP growth and curtailing inflation.”
Kazakhstan: “Kazakhstan has enjoyed double-digit growth in 2000-01 thanks largely to its booming energy sector, but also to economic reform, good harvests, and foreign investment.”
Kyrgyzstan: “Kyrgyzstan has been one of the most progressive countries of the former Soviet Union in carrying out market reforms. With fits and starts, inflation has been lowered to an estimated 7% in 2001.”
Latvia: “Latvia’s transitional economy recovered from the 1998 Russian financial crisis, largely due to the SKELE government’s budget stringency and a gradual reorientation of exports toward EU countries…”
Lithuania: “Lithuania, the Baltic state that has conducted the most trade with Russia, has been slowly rebounding from the 1998 Russian financial crisis. High unemployment, at 12.5% in 2001, and weak consumption have held back recovery.”
Moldova: “Following the return to positive GDP growth in 2000 (1.9%), Moldova experienced strong 6.1% rise in GDP in 2001, driven by a marked improvement in industry and a 20% improvement in agriculture.”
Tajikistan: “Even though 80% of its people continue to live in abject poverty, Tajikistan has experienced strong economic growth since 1997. Continued privatization of medium and large state-owned enterprises will further increase productivity.”
Turkmenistan: “With an authoritarian ex-Communist regime in power and a tribally based social structure, Turkmenistan has taken a cautious approach to economic reform, hoping to use gas and cotton sales to sustain its inefficient economy. Privatization goals remain limited.”
Ukraine: “GDP in 2000 showed strong export-based growth of 6% - the first growth since independence - and industrial production grew 12.9%.”
Uzbekistan: “A growing debt burden, persistent inflation, and a poor business climate led to disappointing growth in 2001.”
And of course, Russia: "The economy subsequently has rebounded, growing by an average of more than 6% annually in 1999-2001 on the back of higher oil prices and a weak ruble. This recovery, along with a renewed government effort in 2000 and 2001 to advance lagging structural reforms, have raised business and investor confidence over Russia’s prospects in its second decade of transition. "
No “meltdowns” there.
You wanna see a real economic meltdown? Look at Argentina.
http://www.iie.com/topics/argentina/hotargentina.htm
http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/107-52.pdf
http://union.ic.ac.uk/scc/finance/c2002_06.htm
Runaway double-digit inflation.
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/statistics/inflation/argentina.htm
Widespread starvation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2484061.stm
The ruling elite and the intelligentsia taking their money and getting out, and factories and other businesses closing.
Now there’s an economic meltdown.
But nothing like this is happening in any of the former Soviet republics. They’re all trudging along, some doing better than others, but there’s nothing happening in them that’s causing economists worldwide to go “tsk tsk”.
I’m just chuckling at the image of a FEMA truck pulling up to Chumpsky’s house to assess the damage.
“That’s one big crater.”
“Yep.”
Since you’re so anxious to credit Stalin for winning WWII, Chumpsky, how do you explain the consensus among historians that Stalin’s brutality and stupidity actually prolonged the war and caused incredible suffering in the Soviet Union - in part through his mass purges of military leaders in 1937-40 and his miscalculations in allying to Hitler and mulishly refusing to credit intelligence suggesting that the Nazis were planning to invade in 1940? Plus the fact that most of the industrial capacity you’re trumpeting fell into the hands of the Nazis early in the war.
Awaiting clarification along with everyone else whose refutations you are blithely ignoring.
Duck Duck Goose, As the only Argentinian in this board I demand an apology, there was a meltdown in Chernobyl… I can assure you that hell is colder than our economy 
But luckily for us (and unfortunately for Russia, Ukraine, etc) we are with all our shortcomings a capitalist society and therefore we have the human resources (and not just the natural ones) to get away from this mess. The russians don’t and that is their tragedy.
While Typing this I am listenig to the radio and finally after a recession of 4 years things are starting to look brighter.
Back to the op I can only say that market system (there is no such thing as a free market at least outside economy books) will improve things in the former Soviet Union when they understand it fully. I remember laughing a few years ago in a Sociology class because of an anecdote my professor was telling us. She said that in Russia workers traded stocks for Vodka or Cigarrettes simply because they didn’t know what was their value. They simply did not know understand the concept of a “corporation”.
This happened 3 years ago and she was refering to first the privatazations in Russia back in the early nineties. I don’t know how much different is the situation now.
vasyachkin wrote:
I think vasyachkin has hit on the essence of the problem in Russia.
Prior to the 1860’s virtually all the Russian people were serfs. Slaves in all but name. They were tied to the ground (virtually all of which was owned by an extremely small number of nobels) where they lived. Unable to move, own property (to any degree worth talking about), run a business, or much of anything else they, quite reasonably, saw business as a supressor to be circumvented.
Under Communisism “Business” was a four letter word. What need do you have for a business friendly climate when the only business is government?
The idea of government and business working together to allow freedom of choice is so foreign to them as to be beyond belief.
I made a Pit thread where Chumpsky may defend his Stalin apologetics if he so desires.
Don’t hold your brath. Don’t you just love revisionism?
SandyHook what i actually meant is that people are not keeping the government in check, because historically they never did before, and they still dont know how to.
people do not ever discuss issues themselves, they only discuss the politicians. there is also a sense there that basically we’re all fucked and we can’t change anything. and if people go to vote it is usually to cross everybody out if they do vote for somebody they will never be able to give a coherent answer why they did it, the best you can hope for is “he’s such a nice young guy”
hard to get excited about politics when you know its all going downhill anyway
thus the only ones voting are those stupid enough to believe that all is not so bad
Looks like our Stalinist friend Chumpsky has exiled himself from this thread now. Should we send an agent to assassinate him with an ice-pick?
Estilicon, I’m glad to hear that Argentina is pulling it out. I think probably the reason the economists are using the word “meltdown” is because it all happened so fast.
even sven: “Most modern Communists believe that Stalin is what stood in the way of Russia ever experiencing Communism.”
Yes, but most modern non-Communists believe that Stalin is the natural result of Communism - after all, it wasn’t like he was alone. In Cecil’s article, quoted above, of the top 9 demociders in history, 5 were Communists, 2 or 3 Fascists, and I don’t know that much about Khan of Pakistan. If Stalin were alone I’d give this theory more credence, but he is depressingly typical of Communist leaders.
Chumpsky wrote:
That is absolutely true for pensioners, workers in the big cities, workers outside the big cities, even if these can usually grow their own food. More about this later.
My guess is that it will, but much later. Before that, it will live like Batista’s Cuba, a bandit-capitalistic period; crimes, diseases, people without proper schoo
and hospitals, prostitution, early deaths (people without care and medicine), immense wealth, everything a soup that is hard to explain.
Cuba is not a good example of this all, because we are speaking about a country where just now the temperatures are between - 20 degrees Celsius and - 48 degrees Celsius.
And the country is so vast, that it is hard to imagine. There are cities in the north to where there is no roads at all. When they did not get the food transportation some years ago, they got it by helicopters. If there was fuel, that is.
When Yeltsin and his gang was in power, You did not need a thermometer to see in what condition the country was, You needed a alcometer!
And this country is the most rich country in the world if You look at it’s resources, with the most poor people I have ever seen.
So, this was my answer to the original OP.
But let me also comment (rant) a little bit wider:
I visited USSR first time 1977 and occasionally after that.
I visited Russia first time 1993.
I begun to work actively in Russia 1996 and emigrated to Russia in February 1997.
During my lifetime I have studied the birth of Soviet Union and it’s reflections to Finland and the Finnish people. (I am a Finn). This means that I have read some hundreds of books from the ultra-left propaganda to ‘hard-core’ cold-war propaganda, films, articles etc.
My impression of all this is, that they are all wrong and they are all right.
Let me just explain a little bit:
- The communists tells how Russia, the common people, was living under the czar. They are right, it was a disaster.
- The most rabiate anti-Soviet guys were also right, so, as You can guess, my answer will not be a very ‘normative’ one.
I take the opportunity to give a little bit broader answer than the OP really is about, because I can not otherwise answer this question even as slightly answered as it will be.
For a complete answer You will need a library and you will still be confused.
So let me begin (my rant, and if You are not interested in this rant, just jump to the next poster). I write directly from memory, I do not begin to check with books or Google. Most of the history is not found by Google anyhow. Most of it was never writ
n, or translated:
- The October Revolution was a result of a long war, stupid authorities etc.
- The communists made a one-sided peace with Germany, who immediately attacked and got the russsian front in even a bigger chaos. Later there was all kind of ‘white’ troops attacking the young Soviet Union.
Finnish, American, French, English etc. helping the whites. The war, or many wars ended in 1922. - Lenin put much efforts in industrialization and when he saw that everything can’t be done by the state, he made the NEP-program. The NEP-program meant that there can be small shops etc., privet owners, but not hired people from outside the family.
- Lenin died and so did the NEP-program. Stalin looked to that. The Russians here tells as a joke and as the truth: The last communist died 1933 when Kirov, (a very popular commie, too popular for Stalin), was murdered by Stalin’s secret police.
- Stalin killed people. Moved them to different parts of the vast country, put up gulags etc.
Almost all the Finnish communists, the Canadian and people from USA (leftist people) that moved to USSR in the 20ties got killed in a gulag or another.
The Stalin canal, south of lake Ladoga is a huge grave-yard of Finnish communists.
We had a civil war in Finland 1918 and most of the leftists people were shot and that is why so many leftists and communists fled to USSR. The fate for them, was about 10 -15 years later the very same. - So Stalin killed more communists than the white generals even dreamt about.
- 1939 Stalin attacked Finland. The war is called the winter war and it lasted 110 days.
- When Hitler attacked USSR, Stalin was totally taken out from his dreams, the first weeks he did not know what to do.
- Anyhow he begun to bomb Helsinki, the Finnish capital. (That he seemed toremember to do from old habit.) The Finns begun the new war against Stalin 3 days later, even if the preparations of war had begun much earlier.
Finland lost some 20% of its area in this war, which ended 1944. (Then Finland begun its war against the Germans).
After the war, Finland paid it’s debts to Stalin. Everything was paid, year 1955, if I remember right.
Anyhow, USSR wanted more of the Finnish stuff, so we begun to trade and did so to the end of the history of USSR. It was good business for Finland.
My first visit to USSR was an official one, but I walked “without guides” with some friends in the different towns and cities we visited: Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev (Ukraine).
Some shops did have cheese, but no sausages, some shops had sausages but no cheese.
Vodka and canned fish You found everywhere.
We came anyhow to the conclusion that everyone has food as much as they like. And we were deliberately looking for the worst places in each city.
If I list the good things about USSR:
- everyone was fed properly
- free and very high standard education
- good social standards, hospitals etc.
- everyone seemed to have money
buts; - lived in houses that was badly built, the apartments was very crowded. (You could not even always call them appartments).
- everyone seem to have money but nothing to buy, if You did not want to buy more canned fish, of course.
- the country was ruled by almost free vodka (and still is).
When I first visited Russia in the winter 1993, I was shocked: no food, no nothing, just a big disaster.
I have to admit, that I could not understand anything, even less what was really going on under the surface.
Just a side-note:
Estilicon wrote:
Well, it is not an anecdote. I know one guy that bought the majority of a whole construction company with vodka. Every worker had one share. So he bought the company with its saw-mills and everything, with one bottle of vodka per share. He got more than 350 shares, and obviously had bought as many bottles. That was enough for him to rule alone the 700 workers. He is very rich today.
Henry
To be continued…
Some recommended readings in Russian history (Prof. Eklof at Indiana U. was my thesis advisor, but I’m not a historian):
http://www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/blspr03/hist/hist_h740_2890.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/blspr03/hist/hist_h640_2877.html
Indiana has one of the best Russian history programs in the country.
Aso check out the listed syllabi for any courses offered through the Russian & East European Institute (http://www.iub.edu/~reeiweb) or Central Eurasian Studies (http://www.indiana.edu/~ceus/). Central Eurasia covers everything from Finland, to Central Asia, to Hungary…not a very elegant name, but what else were they supposed to call it?
The Soviet Union was an extremely complex and messy place, and Russia has certainly continued in that grand tradition. More later, when I have time, but my favorite quote about the place (author unkown) is that “Russia isn’t underdeveloped, it’s misdeveloped.” It’s a land of great riches, great poverty, and boundless contrasts. Everyone should learn more about it!