Russia in the 1980s..

[Dartzap]

...Uh... Don't your larger shops have.. you know... Bakeries in them? Thats why the bread tends to be so fresh, they make it on the premises. I for example, enjoyed a very nice and fresh 3ft long French loaf earlier today, which was just in a paper bag on the shelf.

[K. A. Pital]

During Soviet times, there were many of fresh bread bakeries. We had 2 of them just in our quartal. A lot of bread also came from the bread factory. Most of it was fresh, and people were _strongly_ advised not to store bread in polyethilene packs (even in written form - I still remember a banner "Citizens, don't store bread in p/e packs, it spoils it!" or something like that.

Now most of the bread comes from various private bakeries. But it's always stored in polyethilene and rarely tastes fresh.

I believe this is because of the modus operandi. In the USSR, bread and milk, and other food, was produced fresh, but storage technologies were not developed (no polyethilene packs for bread or tetrapacks for milk), so it was quickly transported to the stores, where it was sold. If something was not sold, it quickly worsened and was thrown away. Bread was brought into the shops at evening and morning, just as milk. Sometimes there was some bread left in the evening, but in the morning, the shop was filled with the new bread party. Same with milk.

And in the small "fresh bread" shops you just bought bread straight from the bakery

[Admiral Valdemar]

I see a potential target for Tesco to invade. You will soon fall to capitalism, you pinko commies!

[FSTargetDrone]

...Uh... Don't your larger shops have.. you know... Bakeries in them? Thats why the bread tends to be so fresh, they make it on the premises. I for example, enjoyed a very nice and fresh 3ft long French loaf earlier today, which was just in a paper bag on the shelf.

Yes! You may have missed it, but:

Many of the large supermarkets have bakery sections and they will sell unwrapped breads and pastries on display in cases (that are of course wrapped as you buy them). But if you are just going in for the boring old sliced bread for your peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you will pick out one of dozens of varieties of pre-packaged loaves.

We even have actual stand-alone bakeries as well, but the larger supermarket chains (at least where I live) such as Genuardi's, etc. have begun to offer specialty sections such as bakeries right in the supermarket itself.

What I want to know is the current state of Russian bread availability.

Edit:

During Soviet times, there were many of fresh bread bakeries. We had 2 of them just in our quartal. A lot of bread also came from the bread factory. Most of it was fresh, and people were _strongly_ advised not to store bread in polyethilene packs (even in written form - I still remember a banner "Citizens, don't store bread in p/e packs, it spoils it!" or something like that.

Now most of the bread comes from various private bakeries. But it's always stored in polyethilene and rarely tastes fresh. Sad

I believe this is because of the modus operandi. In the USSR, bread and milk, and other food, was produced fresh, but storage technologies were not developed (no polyethilene packs for bread or tetrapacks for milk), so it was quickly transported to the stores, where it was sold. If something was not sold, it quickly worsened and was thrown away. Bread was brought into the shops at evening and morning, just as milk. Sometimes there was some bread left in the evening, but in the morning, the shop was filled with the new bread party. Same with milk.

And in the small "fresh bread" shops you just bought bread straight from the bakery

Thanks, retroactively!

[PeZook]

...Uh... Don't your larger shops have.. you know... Bakeries in them? Thats why the bread tends to be so fresh, they make it on the premises. I for example, enjoyed a very nice and fresh 3ft long French loaf earlier today, which was just in a paper bag on the shelf.

Our hypermarkets have bakeries in them...only they suck at actually making bread.

Well, they aren't exactly our markets, it's all French and British chains. And, well...we all know the Brits eat nothing but toast bread, and French can only make croissants and baguettes that are halfway good.

All in all, bread sold in large stores is still a shitty, air-inflated dry sponge, rather than the delicious, soft but full and slightly moist texture within a golden-brown, crunchy outside that's tasty all by itself - that kind of bread is made in local bakeries which they ship it over to small stores around their local city. And lemme tell you - when you smell that warm, fresh bread in the morning, your stomach starts screaming "I want some! NOW!"

Uh, okay, where was I again? Oh...

Open shelves are a common sight here. Glass display casings? Try wicker baskets full of fresh loaves.

[FSTargetDrone]

This is what I was getting at:



This is typical in US supermarkets. An aisle full of such racks of bread. All neatly wrapped. Sometimes doubly so. You can even see the old standby Wonder Bread I mentioned some posts back, at the very bottom.

[Dartzap]

Oh, you get that here as well, but with a massive selection of the fresher stuff as well.

It's all part of that 'Get Healthy' bollocks thats infesting the country The Supermarkets even have organic vegetables!

[FSTargetDrone]

Oh, you get that here as well, but with a massive selection of the fresher stuff as well.

It's all part of that 'Get Healthy' bollocks thats infesting the country The Supermarkets even have organic vegetables!

We have entire chains of stores devoted to organic produce. The larger chains of supermarkets and even the Wal*Marts are starting to play catch-up.

[PeZook]

This is what I was getting at:
This is typical in US supermarkets. An aisle full of such racks of bread. All neatly wrapped. Sometimes doubly so. You can even see the old Wonder Bread I mentioned some posts back, at the very bottom.

Ugh.
Well, it's not a sight that's uncommon here as well, and I do sometimes buy bread wrapped and sliced. There's one bakery in Gdansk in particular which can make wrapped&sliced bread taste very nice and fresh, though for some reason it doesn't have the crunchy skin I crave. Some stores also get frozen bread and buns, and then reheat them on the spot. Works well for some pastry, worse for other kinds.

Still, fresh local bread FTW. For me, at least.

[K. A. Pital]

Our hypermarkets have bakeries in them...

This word hurts my eyes, but I should've expected the appearance of this term

Thanks, retroactively!

Welcome. I also believe the chemical composition of the bread has been altered during the years to include more conservants. The most appaling cases are when usual bread is the same "resin" composition bread as toaster bread... you know... the one which never goes dry or spoiled even after a week on fresh air

[PeZook]

Our hypermarkets have bakeries in them...

This word hurts my eyes, but I should've expected the appearance of this term

It hurt me when I first saw it, but now I kinda got used to it.
Even distribution specialists use that category, though I'm sure for Americans our quiant "hypermarket" category means "slightly larger than my local store"

[Lord Zentei]

Then we seem to be having a disconnect of terminology: you mean "physical production", yes? As opposed to implied "natural", or "intrinsic" value...

No, not "natural" value. Merely physical production. Though it's pretty clear that if physical production has zero value while the population requires food, something is wrong.

Ah, good. And yes, I think we can agree here.

One may argue that an economy without the one or the other is not going to accomplish much.

Most economies started as large, almos totally agriculture-based, then industrial development and finally the growth of services. You get all of them if they grow in a consequence.

Indeed.

I meant too pessimistic about Russian potential.

I don't know if there's such a subject in Western schools called "economic geography", but was quite illuminating for me. And yes, I'm pessimisting because I can see the inner workings of today's business and yesterday's socialism. Both have had problems, but I don't think today's "business" is one inch better. Socialism created this infrastructure which is now being used up by capitalism in a "liquidation" fashion - it's not "owners changed from state to private", it's "private owners find it more effective to destroy production assets, then move capitals out". Russian "potential"?

From what I see now, this country has just recently been on the verge of collapse and desintegration. And quite frankly, the most common type of business (3-year "money-washing" firms created to generate capital and self-destruct) makes me wonder if this isn't going to happen as soon as Putin's popularity fades - the government has only a 28% rating, Putin's popularity and clever PR is perhaps the only thing that keeps it afloat.

Well, such liquidation businesses are pretty much inevitable when firms are being sold at a fraction of their cost, and when future production is in doubt. Not having foreseen this in the 90s was one of the main reasons things went the way that they did, IMHO.

Capitalism is "great", as in it allows for efficient production

I don't know if economic efficiency is the only criterion for socioeconomic systems. I consider a system which produces enough food to feed all people with 3500 cal and potentially able to sate 12 billion (and had the productive potential to do this for quite a long time now), but failing to sate 6 billion with close to 1 billion in hunger from year to year "efficient" only in a machinery term. Is capitalism, as an economic machine efficient? Sure. It separates those who are "uncompetitive" consumers and locks capitals in the most productive spheres (i.e. where circulating them brings most revenue on capital). This mechanism of capitalism that is based on cutting off, lowering costs, etc. leads to rather vicious consequences, like the aforementioned hunger and poverty.

Of course economic efficiency is not the only criteria. But neither is the resultant poverty as the one you are referencing an inevitability of it -- much less am I one to advocate "pure" capitalism, unsupported by welfare.

Nah, I was referring to competitiveness against industries in other countries.

Frankly, even the productiveness of labour in both oil and energy supergiants in Russia has drastically fallen since Soviet times (just as Russian internal consumption), but the prices have risen and therefore those companies have increased their capitals greatly and now are considered "competitive for investment". Does this mean they are effective? The mere capitalization allows for things that were previously unthinkable, just as price conjunctures.

The effectiveness of Russian oil and energy industries has increased from the plunge experienced following the breakup of the USSR. That's largely making up lost ground, of course, though one cannot simply write it off. If it is indeed competitive for investment, that would place a break on capital flight in any case, yes?

[K. A. Pital]

Well, such liquidation businesses are pretty much inevitable when firms are being sold at a fraction of their cost, and when future production is in doubt. Not having foreseen this in the 90s was one of the main reasons things went the way that they did, IMHO.

I presume you haven't read the interviews of "them" after the 90's destruction was complete, and "they" went to Baden Baden. I have. No, they have _perfectly_ understood what they are doing. And they still understand _what_ they are doing now.

But neither is the resultant poverty as the one you are referencing an inevitability of it

The results of historical scenarios often call for overplaying, but rarely allow for such.

That's largely making up lost ground, of course, though one cannot simply write it off.

Why? There's a marked difference between re-gaining positions and really building new infrastructure. So far, building new infrastructure is a big no-no for Russian capitalism, the results here are marginally bad. The same reason various "economic miracles" and "high growth rates" post a depression, when the workforce returns at least partly into the industry, don't impress me as much as continous development. And that's not taking into account that Russian "post-crisis re-gaining" hasn't been very miraculous either - an external surge in oil prices lifted the industry up and allowed to concentrate some funds.

I would have had a good laugh if the USSR endured through the crisis up until today's oil prices level I imagine the de-joure press loathing of my country would've been increased a good 1000%-fold.

If it is indeed competitive for investment, that would place a break on capital flight in any case, yes?

On capital flight from oil and gas industries? Sure. Better than nothing. But I have no illusions on what will happen if the prices fall. Foreign currency reserves can only buy so much consumer goods a given year. And god help us if oil reserves start to deplete.

[Lord Zentei]

Well, such liquidation businesses are pretty much inevitable when firms are being sold at a fraction of their cost, and when future production is in doubt. Not having foreseen this in the 90s was one of the main reasons things went the way that they did, IMHO.

I presume you haven't read the interviews of "them" after the 90's destruction was complete, and "they" went to Baden Baden. I have. No, they have _perfectly_ understood what they are doing. And they still understand _what_ they are doing now.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Who are "them"?

But neither is the resultant poverty as the one you are referencing an inevitability of it

The results of historical scenarios often call for overplaying, but rarely allow for such.

I'd say that this is more the result of rapid structural change w/o adequate economic infrastructure to support it, rather than capitalism per se.

That's largely making up lost ground, of course, though one cannot simply write it off.

Why? There's a marked difference between re-gaining positions and really building new infrastructure. So far, building new infrastructure is a big no-no for Russian capitalism, the results here are marginally bad. The same reason various "economic miracles" and "high growth rates" post a depression, when the workforce returns at least partly into the industry, don't impress me as much as continous development. And that's not taking into account that Russian "post-crisis re-gaining" hasn't been very miraculous either - an external surge in oil prices lifted the industry up and allowed to concentrate some funds.

The infrastructure is hardly all USSR-era, is it? There is still depreciation, after all. In any case, you have stated that it is become competitive for investment. You cannot reach such a state without first making up lost ground, and in that sense it is indicative of improvement.

If it is indeed competitive for investment, that would place a break on capital flight in any case, yes?

On capital flight from oil and gas industries? Sure. Better than nothing. But I have no illusions on what will happen if the prices fall. Foreign currency reserves can only buy so much consumer goods a given year. And god help us if oil reserves start to deplete.

There is that saying about the gift horse and the mouth -- though yes, the opportunity should be taken to broaden the economy.

[K. A. Pital]

Who are "them"?

The reformers. I can quote some of the most jucy bits:
Alfred Koch interview:

Q: Often people from the press tell about enterprises, which were sold for a fraction of their price, and say that the people were robbed.

A: Well, the people weren't robbed, because none of it belonged to the people. How can you rob someone to whom it doesn't belong? [...]

Q: Some voice an opinion, that there's a catastrophe in Russia and economic future is ghostly. What do you think?

A: I think the same.

Q: No light in the end of the tonnel?

A: No.

Q: What's your prognose for Russia's economic future?

A: Raw materials-producing appendage. The emigration of all people who can think, but cannot work (I mean - physically), which can only invent. After that - desintegration, turning into dozens of ministates.

Q: And how long do you think this desintegration will last?

A: I think, 10-15 years... You see, for 70 years, as the world capitalist economy formed, Russia, or Soviet Union, which was like out of it, developed separately, on it's own laws. And the world capitalism system has formed without the Soviet Union. And now it's self-sufficient, it has all resources it needs. And now that Russia has appeared, no one needs it (Laughter) There's no place for it in the world economy, no one even needs it's oil or aluminium now. Russia only spoils profits, because of it's price dumping. So, I think, our fate is sad, clearly.

Q: Do you prognose a flow of investment into Russia, will it be as large as people expect?

A: No, because no one needs Russia (laughter), no one needs Russia at all (laughter), don't you understand?!

Q: But Russia has colossal economic and human resources, and working for the Russian market...

A: What resources does Russia have? I want to put an end to that myth. Oil? It's cheaper and warmer in the Persian Gulf. Nickel is mined in Canada, aluminium - in America, coal - in Australia. Forests - in Brazil. What's so special about Russia?

Q: But to trade with Russia, a huge country, which wants to buy, buy, buy (consumer goods)...

A: To buy, you need money. Russians cannot make anything, thus neither can they buy anything.

Q: So, you see no future?

A: Me? No. (Laughter) Well, if Primakov sees any, let him work (laughter), I, as soon as I don't see them, I went off from the government [in fact, he was fired, not "went off" - SB]

Q: What do you think about the economic policy of Russian government? Do you think it can return to old methods?

A: What the hell sort of importance does this have? No matter what, Russia is a bankrupt country.

Q: And you think no methods of economy will save Russia?

A: I think, it's pointless to.

[...]

Q: You views on Russia's future are rather grim...

A: Yes, grim. And why the hell should it be happy? (Laughter)

I'd say that this is more the result of rapid structural change w/o adequate economic infrastructure to support it, rather than capitalism per se.

The 1974 price inflation, for example, which starved the Bangladeshi was not a capitalist mechanism? Poor Bangladeshi were uncompetitive, as buyers, for the food. Therefore, it was sold to foreign buyers - while at the same time pauperized farmers failed to get the food which was enough to feed all of Bangladesh at the time. The hoarding which was done by food producers at the time was driven by the idea of getting more profit. In fact, the key problem is that for a capitalist, the optimal selling quota would be not to those who need this food the most, but to those who are willing to pay the most. Obviously someone can pay more than the other, and thus 40-times gross differences in consumption occur. While one person pays for 2 lunches, another cannot get a single one - competition of consumers, eh.

The infrastructure is hardly all USSR-era, is it?

Most of it is. And the change in some spheres has not brought any increase in people's incomes or productivity... you know... like buying cars Yeah, people have shitloads of personal cars. For this, we had to pay with enormous amounts of money that was not invested into the economy. Like idiots who buy toys in a supermarket at the last 100 dollars that were given to them for paying up the rent.

You cannot reach such a state without first making up lost ground

Oil prices go up - oil industry receives a large inflow from foreign cash. Money-wise, you can "make up" lost ground. Production-wise? Not really. Internal consumption? Oil consumption for internal industries today has fallen deep down. So what is this effectiveness? How useful is our current oil supermonopoly for the economy? It subsidizes it in some fashion? Sure. Did it get a lot of money from high prices? Indeed. But labour productivity per person in the industry - in natural oil units? I think it's at best up to 1990 level, probably barely there now.

There is that saying about the gift horse and the mouth -- though yes, the opportunity should be taken to broaden the economy.

Sure. As always, state investment FTW and save the day when private investors refuse to do jack shit about the dying country. Too bad they needed to destroy a massive, but _working_ state sector totally, and then realize this But have they, really? So far I see mergers, buying, selling of oil corporations and superprofit stored in foreign funds. I don't see massive injections into the economy, industry, etc. which could really help at such a time.

[Lord Zentei]

Who are "them"?

The reformers. I can quote some of the most jucy bits:
Alfred Koch interview: <snip assholism>

My IPU, just wow.

Though being somewhat pedantic, I might point out that you cannot really fault a model for failing if the people responsible for its implementation openly admit to fucking over the country they are supposed to be helping(!)

I'd say that this is more the result of rapid structural change w/o adequate economic infrastructure to support it, rather than capitalism per se.

The 1974 price inflation, for example, which starved the Bangladeshi was not a capitalist mechanism? Poor Bangladeshi were uncompetitive, as buyers, for the food. Therefore, it was sold to foreign buyers - while at the same time pauperized farmers failed to get the food which was enough to feed all of Bangladesh at the time. The hoarding which was done by food producers at the time was driven by the idea of getting more profit. In fact, the key problem is that for a capitalist, the optimal selling quota would be not to those who need this food the most, but to those who are willing to pay the most. Obviously someone can pay more than the other, and thus 40-times gross differences in consumption occur. While one person pays for 2 lunches, another cannot get a single one - competition of consumers, eh.

Certainly. Though I think you'll agree that much of the problem with Bangladesh is that the great bulk of its people have little in the way of a flexible skill set; the farmers who form a large percentage of the population are not in a position to act as flexible agents.

I did specify that efficiency was not the only criteria, you know... though it is a very important one. Nor do you need capitalist mechanisms to pauperize a country as I'm sure you'll agree.

The infrastructure is hardly all USSR-era, is it?

Most of it is. And the change in some spheres has not brought any increase in people's incomes or productivity... you know... like buying cars Yeah, people have shitloads of personal cars. For this, we had to pay with enormous amounts of money that was not invested into the economy. Like idiots who buy toys in a supermarket at the last 100 dollars that were given to them for paying up the rent.

Fiscal responisibility is obviously a necessity regardless of the system.

You cannot reach such a state without first making up lost ground

Oil prices go up - oil industry receives a large inflow from foreign cash. Money-wise, you can "make up" lost ground. Production-wise? Not really. Internal consumption? Oil consumption for internal industries today has fallen deep down. So what is this effectiveness? How useful is our current oil supermonopoly for the economy? It subsidizes it in some fashion? Sure. Did it get a lot of money from high prices? Indeed. But labour productivity per person in the industry - in natural oil units? I think it's at best up to 1990 level, probably barely there now.

And a half-empty glass is still better than a mid nineties one. Production has picked up since then, though the pre-90s level has arguably not been crossed, at least as yet.

There is that saying about the gift horse and the mouth -- though yes, the opportunity should be taken to broaden the economy.

Sure. As always, state investment FTW and save the day when private investors refuse to do jack shit about the dying country. Too bad they needed to destroy a massive, but _working_ state sector totally, and then realize this But have they, really? So far I see mergers, buying, selling of oil corporations and superprofit stored in foreign funds. I don't see massive injections into the economy, industry, etc. which could really help at such a time.

Obviously, working up from this state is going to be a lot harder than if the state sector hadn't imploded first.

[FSTargetDrone]

Ugh.
Well, it's not a sight that's uncommon here as well, and I do sometimes buy bread wrapped and sliced. There's one bakery in Gdansk in particular which can make wrapped&sliced bread taste very nice and fresh, though for some reason it doesn't have the crunchy skin I crave. Some stores also get frozen bread and buns, and then reheat them on the spot. Works well for some pastry, worse for other kinds.

Still, fresh local bread FTW. For me, at least.

Agreed! To fresh bread! Huzzah!

Welcome. I also believe the chemical composition of the bread has been altered during the years to include more conservants. The most appaling cases are when usual bread is the same "resin" composition bread as toaster bread... you know... the one which never goes dry or spoiled even after a week on fresh air

No doubt such foodstuffs were developed to stock the fallout shelters with.

[K. A. Pital]

Though being somewhat pedantic, I might point out that you cannot really fault a model for failing if the people responsible for its implementation openly admit to fucking over the country they are supposed to be helping(!)

Yeah. With such attitudes, I don't think they were doing anything with "best intentions". Most of them were, and still are doing it for personal enrichment (and have succeeded greatly at that, no doubt). There's not many people who'll trust anyone associated with them now (as even our often-fraudlent elections have shown quite clearly, the mere showing of people like Koch and Chubais at an election campaing means "LOSE" in big letters).

Though I think you'll agree that much of the problem with Bangladesh is that the great bulk of its people have little in the way of a flexible skill set; the farmers who form a large percentage of the population are not in a position to act as flexible agents.

Well, people aren't 100% flexible even in the most diversified economy - they take time, etc. to gather skills which at a given point can become useless. And in a very specialized economy? Imagine that demand for oil falls, what will happen to the now-rich Saudi Arabia. And at a certain relative level of poverty, your skills don't exactly matter anymore, since you're trapped down there. Why would you want to feed your own countrymen, whoever they are (engineers, farmers or whatnot), if you can sell the same food for a far bigger price to feed _cattle_ in the West? And why would you even want to feed all, if the biggest profit is achieved by cutting some "losers" off the line, speculating and inflating prices?

Nor do you need capitalist mechanisms to pauperize a country as I'm sure you'll agree.

Quite sure, you don't need them (although somehow most of such events, even in socialist countries, had a capitalist mechanism - consider hoarding during the 1932 Soviet famine, when the government decided to sell grain to the West instead of it's own citizens - it acted remarkably similar to a capitalist). I was just pondering the situation. The most common argument for USSR's success of socialism is that it has reached almost zero poverty and hunger levels in a very short historical term (post-WWII). The experiment had various successes and failures, but the destruction of Soviet state ended it forcibly without giving a chance for further development and improvement. In the existing capitalist system however, poverty exists even in some developed states. Welfare doesn't extend to the more poor countries of the world economic system. And capitalism exists for a good several hundred years, with more and more of the world being incorporated into it's global system, but little progress on solving the aforementioned issues.

Fiscal responisibility is obviously a necessity regardless of the system.

The problem is, businesses cannot be forced to be "fiscally responsible" once the borders are opened. You can no longer make them reinvest in our own economy. This is why so much trade occured, but so little production.

And a half-empty glass is still better than a mid nineties one.

And that's also the only thing which holds the country from rampant self-destruction as per the Alfred Koch scenario. I feel uneasy when I think about the future - though hopefully oil prices dont fall suddenly.

[Lord Zentei]

Good that voters are rejecting the people you referenced in these interviews. Unfortunate if this means that reform itself becomes suspect, though.

Though I think you'll agree that much of the problem with Bangladesh is that the great bulk of its people have little in the way of a flexible skill set; the farmers who form a large percentage of the population are not in a position to act as flexible agents.

Well, people aren't 100% flexible even in the most diversified economy - they take time, etc. to gather skills which at a given point can become useless. And in a very specialized economy? Imagine that demand for oil falls, what will happen to the now-rich Saudi Arabia. And at a certain relative level of poverty, your skills don't exactly matter anymore, since you're trapped down there. Why would you want to feed your own countrymen, whoever they are (engineers, farmers or whatnot), if you can sell the same food for a far bigger price to feed _cattle_ in the West? And why would you even want to feed all, if the biggest profit is achieved by cutting some "losers" off the line, speculating and inflating prices?

There are always limits to protability of skills, no doubt about that. However, as you say, it takes a certain level of poverty to make this into a poverty trap.

On another note, given lack of mobility of people, making your country a one-product dependant one is a bad idea. Specialization is a powerful tool, though it has to allow for flexibility as well.

With greater mobility of people, that's much less of a problem, though open borders for mobility of people is sadly less realistic than for goods. In an ideal world, people would have freedom of movement and education/information.

Nor do you need capitalist mechanisms to pauperize a country as I'm sure you'll agree.

Quite sure, you don't need them (although somehow most of such events, even in socialist countries, had a capitalist mechanism - consider hoarding during the 1932 Soviet famine, when the government decided to sell grain to the West instead of it's own citizens - it acted remarkably similar to a capitalist).

However, that was done without the opportunity of the populace to even have the chance to buy the grain they produced even if they could.

Moreover, the hoarding was a natural human response to the failures of the socialist government mechanisms. Human nature has to be taken into account, after all. And was there a legal internal free market that would have allowed the hoarders to redistribute what they had scraped together (even at an increased cost, it would have been preferable to famine, after all)?

I was just pondering the situation. The most common argument for USSR's success of socialism is that it has reached almost zero poverty and hunger levels in a very short historical term (post-WWII). The experiment had various successes and failures, but the destruction of Soviet state ended it forcibly without giving a chance for further development and improvement. In the existing capitalist system however, poverty exists even in some developed states. Welfare doesn't extend to the more poor countries of the world economic system. And capitalism exists for a good several hundred years, with more and more of the world being incorporated into it's global system, but little progress on solving the aforementioned issues.

Hmmm, well, I have heard very conflicting reports on the validity of the "zero poverty" claim for the USSR. The standards of what constitutes "poverty" are the issue, it seems. Moreover, I have doubts that the Soviet model would have been able to continue indefinately: the beurocracy was too top heavy (even though the manner of the "reform" left a lot to be desired, and destroyed what had been put into place).

Wealthy capitalistic/welfare states such as north European countries and Canada, while not poverty free are far closer to being so than almost any other place.

Welfare does not prevent poverty in the poorer states, to be sure (since welfare is distributed by local government), though that is not guaranteed by socialism either.

Fiscal responisibility is obviously a necessity regardless of the system.

The problem is, businesses cannot be forced to be "fiscally responsible" once the borders are opened. You can no longer make them reinvest in our own economy. This is why so much trade occured, but so little production.

Huh? I thought you were talking about the consumer in that point.

[K. A. Pital]

Good that voters are rejecting the people you referenced in these interviews. Unfortunate if this means that reform itself becomes suspect, though.

The reform which has been run is already finished as a major failure. People don't want any more "reforms" of the same kind, really. The outrage at an attempt to destroy social healthcare discounts brought millions of people into the streets (the government verged on resignation that time IMHO). The idea to make all education private can very soon force riots from students, especially in the province.

However, as you say, it takes a certain level of poverty to make this into a poverty trap.

Poverty is a relative thing. Even if they weren't that poor, capitals would still mostly be locked spinning between the most wealthy.

In an ideal world, people would have freedom of movement and education/information.

Yeah. The problem is that information and education itself cost a lot. Especially for the disadvantaged. Freedom of movement, as in free, no-barrier transit to wherever capital concentrates, is hard to imagine. Modern capitalist Russia has created thousands of "iron curtains" compared to the old one - people from the province cannot freely move over to Moscow because of the enormous costs of everything involved in such a transit - from tickets to housing.

However, that was done without the opportunity of the populace to even have the chance to buy the grain they produced even if they could.

Sure. The problem is that a price inflation and export-oriented production cut off people just the same way without even needing any non-economic barriers to purchase.

Moreover, the hoarding was a natural human response to the failures of the socialist government mechanisms. Human nature has to be taken into account, after all. And was there a legal internal free market that would have allowed the hoarders to redistribute what they had scraped together (even at an increased cost, it would have been preferable to famine, after all)?

I mean the hoarding done by the government. If it didn't hoard and sell ot the West, but re-distribute, as it should've done under socialism, hunger would've been averted. Just the same as Bangladeshi hoarders - but they simply increased the prices to such a level where a lot of people simply could not buy the grain. With the same effect.

Hmmm, well, I have heard very conflicting reports on the validity of the "zero poverty" claim for the USSR. The standards of what constitutes "poverty" are the issue, it seems.

Well, sort of. The USSR was lacking in consumer goods, but giving out a lot of socialized services (socialized housing, education, medicine, transportation). Housing was perhaps the greatest achievement - today we have totally lost that with tons of homeless people wondering around while flats cost _from_ 1,000,000 RUB upwards for a 1-room flat.

Moreover, I have doubts that the Soviet model would have been able to continue indefinately: the beurocracy was too top heavy (even though the manner of the "reform" left a lot to be desired, and destroyed what had been put into place).

While the bureaucracy was indeed very top heavy, today's bureaucracy is even more so (the number of state officials has grown from Brezhnew times). And it's not that the USSR could continue _indefinetely_ without reform - the problem was that it entered a crisis in the mid-1980s, but if it could struggle through the 1990s to current oil price levels, I believe the situation would've been quite different.

Wealthy capitalistic/welfare states such as north European countries and Canada, while not poverty free are far closer to being so than almost any other place.

Correct. They have a lot of wealth to re-distribute in the first place though. Periphery states like various resource appendages, etc. don't have this luxury money.

Welfare does not prevent poverty in the poorer states, to be sure (since welfare is distributed by local government), though that is not guaranteed by socialism either.

Consider the fact that the USSR was severely more poor than the West (and started out from a poor agrarian country, too), but still managed to get rid of hunger/poverty problems, at least for the majority of the population. A 3500 cal diet for all + housing given by citizenship (even if with ques) and guaranteed workplace under the 100% employment policy have had their results.
An alternative to that would be, say, Mexico - a state with very high urbanization rates (quite mirroring the Soviet urbanization). Both had urbanization around 15% in 1913, but it's achievements by the year 1980 are uncomparable - and that's considering Mexico never faced anything compared to Great Patriotic War devastation, or a Cold-War style arms race which forced to spend ~10% of GDP on arms...
While the USSR took great pains, but failed to achieve the central capitalist countries level (USA, Europe), it also left behind all the poorer capitalist countries (like Mexico) being quite superior.

Huh? I thought you were talking about the consumer in that point.

Sure, I was. They're interrelated. If I'm person A, and I want to buy a foreign car instead of, say, investing into home industries, buying bread bonds or whatnot, businesses will also work to bring over cars for personal use. Which aren't exactly improving the economic situation in the country.

[Lord Zentei]

Good that voters are rejecting the people you referenced in these interviews. Unfortunate if this means that reform itself becomes suspect, though.

The reform which has been run is already finished as a major failure. People don't want any more "reforms" of the same kind, really. The outrage at an attempt to destroy social healthcare discounts brought millions of people into the streets (the government verged on resignation that time IMHO). The idea to make all education private can very soon force riots from students, especially in the province.

That is pretty unfortunate, since a combined market/welfare approach is generally to be preferred. Seems this has been tainted by association.

However, as you say, it takes a certain level of poverty to make this into a poverty trap.

Poverty is a relative thing. Even if they weren't that poor, capitals would still mostly be locked spinning between the most wealthy.

Not to the extent that the general population starves.

However, that was done without the opportunity of the populace to even have the chance to buy the grain they produced even if they could.

Sure. The problem is that a price inflation and export-oriented production cut off people just the same way without even needing any non-economic barriers to purchase.

Non-economic barriers + legal barriers are worse than the former alone.

Moreover, the hoarding was a natural human response to the failures of the socialist government mechanisms. Human nature has to be taken into account, after all. And was there a legal internal free market that would have allowed the hoarders to redistribute what they had scraped together (even at an increased cost, it would have been preferable to famine, after all)?

I mean the hoarding done by the government. If it didn't hoard and sell ot the West, but re-distribute, as it should've done under socialism, hunger would've been averted. Just the same as Bangladeshi hoarders - but they simply increased the prices to such a level where a lot of people simply could not buy the grain. With the same effect.

Same point as above.

Moreover, I have doubts that the Soviet model would have been able to continue indefinately: the beurocracy was too top heavy (even though the manner of the "reform" left a lot to be desired, and destroyed what had been put into place).

While the bureaucracy was indeed very top heavy, today's bureaucracy is even more so (the number of state officials has grown from Brezhnew times). And it's not that the USSR could continue _indefinetely_ without reform - the problem was that it entered a crisis in the mid-1980s, but if it could struggle through the 1990s to current oil price levels, I believe the situation would've been quite different.

Perhaps it would, though I would suspect that the crisis was the long term result of the structure of the system itself. Economic realities => history, in the Communist philosophy, am I not correct?

Wealthy capitalistic/welfare states such as north European countries and Canada, while not poverty free are far closer to being so than almost any other place.

Correct. They have a lot of wealth to re-distribute in the first place though. Periphery states like various resource appendages, etc. don't have this luxury money.

Unfortunately so.

Welfare does not prevent poverty in the poorer states, to be sure (since welfare is distributed by local government), though that is not guaranteed by socialism either.

Consider the fact that the USSR was severely more poor than the West (and started out from a poor agrarian country, too), but still managed to get rid of hunger/poverty problems, at least for the majority of the population. A 3500 cal diet for all + housing given by citizenship (even if with ques) and guaranteed workplace under the 100% employment policy have had their results.
An alternative to that would be, say, Mexico - a state with very high urbanization rates (quite mirroring the Soviet urbanization). Both had urbanization around 15% in 1913, but it's achievements by the year 1980 are uncomparable - and that's considering Mexico never faced anything compared to Great Patriotic War devastation, or a Cold-War style arms race which forced to spend ~10% of GDP on arms...
While the USSR took great pains, but failed to achieve the central capitalist countries level (USA, Europe), it also left behind all the poorer capitalist countries (like Mexico) being quite superior.

Undeniably. However, I'm rather skeptical as to whether the acheivement was fully sustainable or competitive in the long run: too much dependance on massive subsidies - this sort of model cannot be a long-term success.

That's not to claim that Mexico is doing great, mind - it's not - though they didn't suffer collapse either. It would have been neccesary to get someone instead of Brezhnev and his retardedly stangnation-inducing policies already in 1964.

Huh? I thought you were talking about the consumer in that point.

Sure, I was. They're interrelated. If I'm person A, and I want to buy a foreign car instead of, say, investing into home industries, buying bread bonds or whatnot, businesses will also work to bring over cars for personal use. Which aren't exactly improving the economic situation in the country.

That depends on whether all industries suffer this fate or whether specialization allows some to remain.

[PeZook]

Agreed! To fresh bread! Huzzah!

Hell yeah!

...and I think this concludes the bread tangent

Some pictures to augment the thread. Not from Russia, but Poland - 70s and 80s. Translation of the writing above each picture:

Save...Oxygen! Honestly, I've got no idea where this is from.


Moonshine - cause of blindness!


Ours is a prosperous country, citizens! Long live the Party!


35 years of the People's Republic! Totally random agitation. You can just feel the enthusiasm!


Citizen! This is how you should grab the crank!


Mechanization of the countryside shall bring wealth and prosperity! Only I think we got it backwards...the writing says "This is how Poland was like"


More random agitation. Aren't the workers just overflowing with joy? Banner says: "Long live the fighting Vietnamese nation!"


What, you thought it's a stereotype that communists have to light fires under their cars to start them, huh? Well, it is. You just have to give them a good push!

[K. A. Pital]

That is pretty unfortunate, since a combined market/welfare approach is generally to be preferred. Seems this has been tainted by association.

With such a market, welfare is hard to come by Though, people essentially oppose the dismantling of Soviet welfare system.

Not to the extent that the general population starves.

Certainly. Still, the over- and underconsumption are a problem. When people have enough to eat, they will fight for housing, clothes, etc. In all those things, an enormous gap also exists. People would fight until they have at least a relative equality of opportunities.

Non-economic barriers + legal barriers are worse than the former alone.

They are a tool which can also be used for good. Forcibly re-distributing goods in a crisis can help people who're under threat of price surge.

Perhaps it would, though I would suspect that the crisis was the long term result of the structure of the system itself. Economic realities => history, in the Communist philosophy, am I not correct?

True enough. But why did anyone think that socialism is a crisis-less system in the first place? Capitalism has had, and still has regular crises. So it was inevitable that socialism would face a crisis at some point. One can arguably say that socialism itself, historically, is a result of the crisis of a capitalist system.

Unfortunately so.

The current beneficiaries of the world trade system - the First World - clearly doesn't need them to increase internal consumption of their own energy resources, which are limited. If those states start building own industries, it's clear the workforce and energy, raw materials would be taken from what now is used in export. Which would mean decreasing exports into the First World and a reduction of energy consumption.

It would have been neccesary to get someone instead of Brezhnev and his retardedly stangnation-inducing policies already in 1964.

I have studied Soviet economic history and I must say that it was still possible to break the crisis in early 1980s. The USSR should've outsourced it's light industry to Communist China which already was on the way to turning into a consumer good factory - this would've solved the consumer good problem while at the same time keeping own workforce occupied with creating better technologies.

However, I'm rather skeptical as to whether the acheivement was fully sustainable or competitive in the long run: too much dependance on massive subsidies - this sort of model cannot be a long-term success.

It was more like a massive megacorporation, which used all of it's income for social service. Can such megacorporations work as socialist states? Yes, I think, the experience shows that the model is workable, if not perfect. What needs to be perfected are forms of control, forms of property, the amount of market sector and state sector. There were various forms of worker control, too. For example, I think that if the USSR used the SFRY model (worker own the company as a cooperative) in the 80's, it could've averted crisis.

[Lord Zentei]

That is pretty unfortunate, since a combined market/welfare approach is generally to be preferred. Seems this has been tainted by association.

With such a market, welfare is hard to come by Though, people essentially oppose the dismantling of Soviet welfare system.

Naturally people oppose the dismantling of welfare, that's true regardless of the country. Though the problem arises if taxes and govermnent owned production can no longer pay for it.

Perhaps it would, though I would suspect that the crisis was the long term result of the structure of the system itself. Economic realities => history, in the Communist philosophy, am I not correct?

True enough. But why did anyone think that socialism is a crisis-less system in the first place? Capitalism has had, and still has regular crises. So it was inevitable that socialism would face a crisis at some point. One can arguably say that socialism itself, historically, is a result of the crisis of a capitalist system.

In the case of Russia and China, I'd say that it was a crisis that followed the collapse of aristocratic government systems as much as anything else. In various parts of Europe, where the capitalistic system had matured over a long period, Communists, though a force to be reconed with politically, were never able to overturn the system, except where the Red Army aided them in so doing. In certain third world countries, however, that point may well be valid. A successful capitalist system needs a long incubation time.

Unfortunately so.

The current beneficiaries of the world trade system - the First World - clearly doesn't need them to increase internal consumption of their own energy resources, which are limited. If those states start building own industries, it's clear the workforce and energy, raw materials would be taken from what now is used in export. Which would mean decreasing exports into the First World and a reduction of energy consumption.

Not a given, since energy efficiency is not a constant. Take a look at Chinese industries for instance (though they are energy importers, the point stands).

It would have been neccesary to get someone instead of Brezhnev and his retardedly stangnation-inducing policies already in 1964.

I have studied Soviet economic history and I must say that it was still possible to break the crisis in early 1980s. The USSR should've outsourced it's light industry to Communist China which already was on the way to turning into a consumer good factory - this would've solved the consumer good problem while at the same time keeping own workforce occupied with creating better technologies.

You still would have been stuck with a huge infrastructure that would need upgrading, as well as an inflexible internal market and legal environment... a lot of inertia would have to be overcome in very few years, and a lot of things would have to go just right. In any case, I tend to be suspicious of the viability of quick fixes...

However, I'm rather skeptical as to whether the acheivement was fully sustainable or competitive in the long run: too much dependance on massive subsidies - this sort of model cannot be a long-term success.

It was more like a massive megacorporation, which used all of it's income for social service. Can such megacorporations work as socialist states? Yes, I think, the experience shows that the model is workable, if not perfect. What needs to be perfected are forms of control, forms of property, the amount of market sector and state sector. There were various forms of worker control, too. For example, I think that if the USSR used the SFRY model (worker own the company as a cooperative) in the 80's, it could've averted crisis.

Well, on that I disagree. There is nothing inherently superior about how a megacorporation functions per se -- the cheif advantages of the capitalist system are negative feedback from the consumer and redundancy of providers. If everything is run by a single megacorporation, that disappears.

Of course, in capitalism, you can end up with monopolistic corporations too, if eforcement of antitrust legislation is too weak -- however, even here there are (presumably) no legal barriers to entry into the market, so a competitor could in principle emerge should the monopolist fail to act responisbly.

[K. A. Pital]

Though the problem arises if taxes and govermnent owned production can no longer pay for it.

Indeed. However, many of the world capitalist states - even the powerful ones - have been fiscally irresponsible too.

In the case of Russia and China, I'd say that it was a crisis that followed the collapse of aristocratic government systems as much as anything else.

Collapse of aristocracy comes in the form of bourgeois revolutions. The problem with Russia was that the country was already turning to capitalism under the Tsar, a sort of Third World capitalism.

In various parts of Europe, where the capitalistic system had matured over a long period, Communists, though a force to be reconed with politically, were never able to overturn the system, except where the Red Army aided them in so doing.

Europe, which has accumulated huge masses of capital in the initial accumulation (not last thanks to colonial robbery), was rather hard to assail - though things like the German revolution and Great Depression gave a quite good chance. And in Latin America and elsewhere, popular socialist movements not only have arisen without immediate Red Army help, but also continued into the future after the USSR itself collapsed.

In any case, the idea that a crisis in socialism should be solved by reverting to capitalism overnight seems utterly wrong. That's like treating a sick child with poison instead of finding and feeding him medicines.

Not a given, since energy efficiency is not a constant. Take a look at Chinese industries for instance (though they are energy importers, the point stands).

China is not a resource appendage - it's role is that of a "world factory". And their industries feed on energy of others. For example, Russia - whose own internal consumption has drastically fallen.

You still would have been stuck with a huge infrastructure that would need upgrading

Correct. The problem here lies in the ability to introduce innovations into the industry. The idea that increasing raw production with the same level of technology means stagnation. But there were currents which lobbied the introduction of computerized automatization in the industry, for example, and other innovations.
Why was it important to upgrade on your own? Because if your country uses the "runner-up" mode of development, you would hardly ever become a leader in technological progress. You need to have your own top technologies for that. This gives your economy the potential to become an innovation economy.

...as well as an inflexible internal market and legal environment... a lot of inertia would have to be overcome in very few years, and a lot of things would have to go just right.

Correct. But doing it small step-by-step, without losing control over the process, is a better idea than simply destroying it all overnight and then hoping for a "miracle".

In any case, I tend to be suspicious of the viability of quick fixes...

Me too. It would've taken a decade or so. If we manage to outlast the 1990 oil price gap, in the 2000 the oil surge would give some leeway for investment - and given the USSR's industry was more diversified than our current one, I'm sure they would've found some ways to invest in it.

Compare that to the programs of the reformers, some of whom claimed Russia will experience an "economic miracle" if it destroyed it's socialist system and shifted over to capitalism - in a term of 500 days.

There is nothing inherently superior about how a megacorporation functions per se -- the cheif advantages of the capitalist system are negative feedback from the consumer and redundancy of providers. If everything is run by a single megacorporation, that disappears.

Negative feedback from the consumers is very important, but I don't see why such a system could not have been introduced in, say, an SFRY-type socialism. The idea that all should be state-owned creates a planned economy which is arguably too massive to handle. But I think making the light industry and services - the most important consumer good producers - owned in a cooperative style, with workers controlling the property and a fair competition of such cooperatives in the market could've reduced the deficiencies of the system.

Another way for the negative feedback in a centralized owner economy can work, is if there are multiple production units inside it which compete with each other, and get ousted if they don't satisfy the public. The problem would be creating this many branches to compete - it would also greatly increase the requirements for feedback systems in the economy. And this needs introduction of a solid legal framework.