My response
"there was rising standard of living in slave societies"
Everyone who participated in the industrial revolution at all was obviously categorically better off in 1900 than in 1800, whether they had slavery or not. Also, every slave society who did not industrialize (Sudan, Persia, etc) improved very little. Clearly the dominant variable for standard of living increases during this time period was industrialization, and slavery had marginal influence.
"substantial economic growth under Stalin"
During Stalin's reign, USSR gdp/cap went from $1370 to $3050. Meanwhile USA went from $6500 to $10200 over that period. In the 1953-1989 period, USSR went from $3050 to $7100. USA went from $10,200 to $23,500. So in terms of growth rate, its true they did ok. Also keep in mind that meanwhile we did not have millions of people starve to death.
"Russia went to 3rd world because of capitalist reforms"
Extreme logical fallacy. Russia is 3rd world because communist self-loot economy utterly collapsed. Capitalist reform is the only thing that kept them from completely nose diving Cambodia style.
"same is true of Cuba"
From 1959 to 2003, Cuban gdp/cap has skyrocketed from $2000 to $2300 in a mere 44 years. An amazing .0034% growth rate.
"US has illegaly withdrawn from WTO"
If only it were true.
"blah, blah Castro wanted autonomy, scaring Kennedy's advisors"
Fine, we shouldn't meddle with Latin American governments. You will not find me ever arguing for interventionism.
Chomps never denies that capitalism has improved standard of living, so theres nothing solid to refute here.
Lastly, while its true Russian gdp/cap did crash pretty hard in the 90s, they are now growing 3x faster than the Stalin era. Also this figure is based on total average of all former Soviet satelite states, so the numbers are weighted down by places like Tajikistan which have devolved into medieval theocracies. Some of the more western places like Latvia and Estonia barely suffered at all, and are better off now than in 1989.
As for Stalin's allegedly positive impact, its important to realize how completely WWI devastated Russia. Doing anything other than running 24/7 human meat grinders, would have produced the same startling statistical upswing. In 1922 (Stalin's inauguration) industrial output was 13% of what it was in 1914. Due to Stalin's belligerence and general world antipathy to communism, foreign investment was nil. So Stalin financed the rush-industrial strategy by restricting citizen consumption (read: 100% taxes and reduced rations) and reinvesting what would have been wages into state-organized industrial construction. By 1933 real wages were down to 10% of the pre-Stalin rate. Then WW2 happened and FDR saved the day, pumping billions into Soviet economy via Lend-Lease, and giving Stalin massive new playpen in Eastern Europe to drain.
Professor Chomps is anarcho-communist, and speaks well against government in general. Even given his Soviet-apologism, Noam is way, way more tolerable than say Ralph Nader, as aging far-left intelectuals go.
Everyone who participated in the industrial revolution at all was obviously categorically better off in 1900 than in 1800, whether they had slavery or not. Also, every slave society who did not industrialize (Sudan, Persia, etc) improved very little. Clearly the dominant variable for standard of living increases during this time period was industrialization, and slavery had marginal influence.
"substantial economic growth under Stalin"
During Stalin's reign, USSR gdp/cap went from $1370 to $3050. Meanwhile USA went from $6500 to $10200 over that period. In the 1953-1989 period, USSR went from $3050 to $7100. USA went from $10,200 to $23,500. So in terms of growth rate, its true they did ok. Also keep in mind that meanwhile we did not have millions of people starve to death.
"Russia went to 3rd world because of capitalist reforms"
Extreme logical fallacy. Russia is 3rd world because communist self-loot economy utterly collapsed. Capitalist reform is the only thing that kept them from completely nose diving Cambodia style.
"same is true of Cuba"
From 1959 to 2003, Cuban gdp/cap has skyrocketed from $2000 to $2300 in a mere 44 years. An amazing .0034% growth rate.
"US has illegaly withdrawn from WTO"
If only it were true.
"blah, blah Castro wanted autonomy, scaring Kennedy's advisors"
Fine, we shouldn't meddle with Latin American governments. You will not find me ever arguing for interventionism.
Chomps never denies that capitalism has improved standard of living, so theres nothing solid to refute here.
Lastly, while its true Russian gdp/cap did crash pretty hard in the 90s, they are now growing 3x faster than the Stalin era. Also this figure is based on total average of all former Soviet satelite states, so the numbers are weighted down by places like Tajikistan which have devolved into medieval theocracies. Some of the more western places like Latvia and Estonia barely suffered at all, and are better off now than in 1989.
As for Stalin's allegedly positive impact, its important to realize how completely WWI devastated Russia. Doing anything other than running 24/7 human meat grinders, would have produced the same startling statistical upswing. In 1922 (Stalin's inauguration) industrial output was 13% of what it was in 1914. Due to Stalin's belligerence and general world antipathy to communism, foreign investment was nil. So Stalin financed the rush-industrial strategy by restricting citizen consumption (read: 100% taxes and reduced rations) and reinvesting what would have been wages into state-organized industrial construction. By 1933 real wages were down to 10% of the pre-Stalin rate. Then WW2 happened and FDR saved the day, pumping billions into Soviet economy via Lend-Lease, and giving Stalin massive new playpen in Eastern Europe to drain.
Professor Chomps is anarcho-communist, and speaks well against government in general. Even given his Soviet-apologism, Noam is way, way more tolerable than say Ralph Nader, as aging far-left intelectuals go.
0 comments:
Post a Comment