StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Democides"? Rummell is a far right lunatic who blamed Obama for having an insufficiently democratic evangelistic (at the point of a sword) foreign policy thereby delaying the Marxist utopia end of history universal peace of democratic nations. He's also a propagandist who doesn't count war crimes by "good guy" (read: American-aligned) regimes, and systemically under-represents and underestimates the death tolls of authoritarian states (Indonesia in East Timor, etc.), because that does not fit with his totalitarianism-as-the-font-of-all-evil thesis.

And on Stalin and the famines, if one credits the British with industrializing and modernizing such that eventually they came to an end, so did the Bolshevik rule finally the termination of the Russian famines going back throughout the Czarist and medieval era.

The British had less responsibility for the Indian famines than Stalin did for the famines in the USSR. The worst recorded famine in the Czarist era is under a million. The famines that occurred under Stalin claimed the lives of 6-8 million people. The frequent famines that occurred in India before the British arrived was regularly in the millions. Whilst some of the policies the British empire put into place no doubt made the famine worse, it was certainly not on the same level as Stalin's famines.

I was under the impression Stalin was only responsibe for one major famine in 1932, with the rest due the German invasion and the damage done to Ukraine which made food shortages and famine occur in the late 1940s.

I was under the impression Stalin was only responsibe for one major famine in 1932, with the rest due the German invasion and the damage done to Ukraine which made food shortages and famine occur in the late 1940s.

There were several famines that happened from 1932-1933. I'm not counting the starvation in the 1940s because as you said, that was a result of the Nazis, not Stalin.

Were the famines of 1932-33 purely artificial, though?

stormthebeaches wrote:The British had less responsibility for the Indian famines than Stalin did for the famines in the USSR. The worst recorded famine in the Czarist era is under a million. The famines that occurred under Stalin claimed the lives of 6-8 million people. The frequent famines that occurred in India before the British arrived was regularly in the millions. Whilst some of the policies the British empire put into place no doubt made the famine worse, it was certainly not on the same level as Stalin's famines.

Care to explain how the 1943 Bengal famine is different from the 1932-1933 famine in the USSR?

Let's check:
1) government requisitioning regardless of famine - check
2) government steps in to aid, but too late and insufficient - check
3) government continues exporting food out of the place regardless of famine - check
4) crop harvest of the year sufficient to alleviate a famine - check (the Bengal harvest of 1943 was the same as in 1941).

Please, let's avoid being petty and nationalistic - the British were not any better than Stalin when considering India. Just because you feel familiar or what with the Anglo-Saxon culture, you can't just say arbitrarily "but they were better, uh-nuh-huh!" Ellman's opinion, for example, is that the Bengal famine is pretty much equivalent to the 1930s' famine, because the conditions are extremely similar, even up to the political response - indifference and very weak, pathetic aid.

Iosef Cross wrote:However, with the natural growth tendency of the population of about 1.5% per year, the population of the Russian empire should have been 259.6 million in 1940. Hence, we have a 60 million excess deaths between 1916 and 1940.

You fail basic demography. These are not "excess deaths", these are unborn children due to the birthrate changes. "Natural growth tendency" of the Russian Empire population was certainly higher than that of the USSR, which was rapidly industrializing and urbanizing. The USSR's growth for 1920-1960 was 0,60%, whereas industrialized nations like Britain, France and Germany had a growth of 0,46%, 0,41% and 0,41% correspondingly. There's also the archival data. The 50-60 mio "excess deaths" is a fantasy made by people who can't even comprehend the real birth rates in the USSR - they were much, much lower than what is needed to allow for such a gigantic number of excess deaths. As opposed to "unborn", of course.

Undeniably there was about seven-eight million excess deaths in peacetime which are only attributable to the high excess mortality in the prison camps (c.2 mio), executions (c.1 mio), and famine (c.4-5 mio). That alone is a rather high cost, although the industrialization brutality in Russia, in some aspects, merely mimiqued the West (like the canals, for example - canals built in Russia took thousands of deaths, but so did many of the British Empire channels, Panama channel, and many, many others).

Ireland, Ethiopia, colonial India and the Soviet Union under Stalin all had major famines killing millions while they were net exporters of foodstuffs and other agricultural products. The first conclusion people jump to is to assume that the governments and/or business interests were at best indifferent to the starvation and at worst were deliberately trying to starve people.

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to the famines of the modern era is that one huge factor is the over-reliance on cash crops. For example, during the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s, the country exported a large amount of crops, but most of those were sorghum and linseed which were planted for export and wouldn't have been of much use to feed people anyway. So any disaster affecting food crops (war, typhoon, drought, disease) means starvation unless there's immediate relief. One problem: the disasters that made the food crops fail in the first place usually make relief efforts difficult or impossible.

Forgot to mention Bangladesh in 1974. Kept exporting food too.

Care to explain how the 1943 Bengal famine is different from the 1932-1933 famine in the USSR?

Let's check:
1) government requisitioning regardless of famine - check
2) government steps in to aid, but too late and insufficient - check
3) government continues exporting food out of the place regardless of famine - check
4) crop harvest of the year sufficient to alleviate a famine - check (the Bengal harvest of 1943 was the same as in 1941).

How common were famines in the Bengal area and how big where the famines. If famines of that size where rare then I'll conceed and say that the Bengal famine was just as bad as the 1932-1933 famine in the USSR.

Forgot to mention Bangladesh in 1974. Kept exporting food too.

The British didn't rule Bangladesh in 1974.

Ireland, Ethiopia, colonial India and the Soviet Union under Stalin all had major famines killing millions while they were net exporters of foodstuffs and other agricultural products. The first conclusion people jump to is to assume that the governments and/or business interests were at best indifferent to the starvation and at worst were deliberately trying to starve people.

You are referring to the Irish potato famine right? That was definately a British screw up and I'll readily admit that. Ethiopia I don't know much about so I can't comment on that. With colonial India I believe people are trying to point out that famines on that scale were common before the British came and they happened once the British left, this is different from the famines in the USSR under Stalin, which were significantly worse than the worst famines in Czarist Russia.

stormthebeaches wrote:

Ireland, Ethiopia, colonial India and the Soviet Union under Stalin all had major famines killing millions while they were net exporters of foodstuffs and other agricultural products. The first conclusion people jump to is to assume that the governments and/or business interests were at best indifferent to the starvation and at worst were deliberately trying to starve people.

You are referring to the Irish potato famine right? That was definately a British screw up and I'll readily admit that. Ethiopia I don't know much about so I can't comment on that. With colonial India I believe people are trying to point out that famines on that scale were common before the British came and they happened once the British left, this is different from the famines in the USSR under Stalin, which were significantly worse than the worst famines in Czarist Russia.

What is your data for that assertion?

stormthebeaches wrote:How common were famines in the Bengal area and how big where the famines. If famines of that size where rare then I'll conceed and say that the Bengal famine was just as bad as the 1932-1933 famine in the USSR.

Of course they were common. But were famines common to Russian Empire heartland regions? Yes - the Samara famine of 1874, the famine of the 1891, etc. The harvest of 1943 was equal to 1941, in Bengal, so famine could've been avoided. The harvest of 1932 in the USSR was worse than other years, but was misreported as "great" by overzealous officials fearing repression.

The Ukrainian famines of the 1930s are often associated with intentional repression from the Soviet military and security forces, with the "Kulaks" (the better off and more stubborn peasants) being classifed as state enemies and getting deported if they didn't conform to rural collectivisation. It wasn't specifically genocide as such, since the Kulaks were a vague group, but it was still pretty ugly with nearly 2 million deported and deaths running into the hundreds of thousands.

Though about a decade later in 1943 the British military and security forces in India intentionally deported starving refugees out of Calcutta, condemned to die out in the country without any assistance, while Calcutta was well stocked with surplus food. On the other hand after 1943, Viceroy Lord Wavell tried to turn things around for the starving Indians and attempting to more fairly allocate food, pleading for more grain imports from overseas; these measures were against Winston Churchill's wishes. Churchill blocked a lot of the relief efforts. Bengal women kept themselves alive in the famine by being comfort women to the Empire's officers, soldiers, and sailors garrisoned there.

After reading the new information I shall admit that the British were as guilty for the Bengal famine as Stalin was for the famine in the USSR. Consider the point conceeded.

Stas Bush wrote:

Iosef Cross wrote:However, with the natural growth tendency of the population of about 1.5% per year, the population of the Russian empire should have been 259.6 million in 1940. Hence, we have a 60 million excess deaths between 1916 and 1940.

You fail basic demography. These are not "excess deaths", these are unborn children due to the birthrate changes. "Natural growth tendency" of the Russian Empire population was certainly higher than that of the USSR, which was rapidly industrializing and urbanizing.

The growth rate of the Russian empire was nearly 2% per year from 1820 to 1915, when their population increased 6 times. A 1.5% growth rate between 1915 and 1950 is a pretty modest assumption.

The USSR's growth for 1920-1960 was 0,60%, whereas industrialized nations like Britain, France and Germany had a growth of 0,46%, 0,41% and 0,41% correspondingly. There's also the archival data. The 50-60 mio "excess deaths" is a fantasy made by people who can't even comprehend the real birth rates in the USSR - they were much, much lower than what is needed to allow for such a gigantic number of excess deaths. As opposed to "unborn", of course.

So, the Stalinist regime managed to make the Soviets have several times less babies than before? That's only reveals the enormous authoritarianism of the Soviet regime.

Without the existence of the USSR, today the population of the lands of the Russian empire would be 500 - 600 million.

To compare the population growth rates of Britain, France and Germany to the USSR is ridiculous. These countries were mature by the mid 20th century.

Undeniably there was about seven-eight million excess deaths in peacetime which are only attributable to the high excess mortality in the prison camps (c.2 mio), executions (c.1 mio), and famine (c.4-5 mio). That alone is a rather high cost, although the industrialization brutality in Russia, in some aspects, merely mimiqued the West (like the canals, for example - canals built in Russia took thousands of deaths, but so did many of the British Empire channels, Panama channel, and many, many others).

During the industrialization of western Europe, mortality decreased. The canal deaths in Panama and Suez were deaths for a pre industrial labor force in pre industrial countries.

Also, the 50-60 million excess deaths also include the WW1 and the 1917-1921 war losses. While you 7-8 million number only includes deaths in the 30's. I would agree with a ~10 million excess deaths in the 30's.

Elfdart wrote:Ireland, Ethiopia, colonial India and the Soviet Union under Stalin all had major famines killing millions while they were net exporters of foodstuffs and other agricultural products. The first conclusion people jump to is to assume that the governments and/or business interests were at best indifferent to the starvation and at worst were deliberately trying to starve people.

Famines are a common cause of death in pre capitalistic societies. Before the industrial revolution in western europe, only the Netherlands (the world's first market economy) managed to avoid them.

Stas Bush wrote:Care to explain how the 1943 Bengal famine is different from the 1932-1933 famine in the USSR? Let's check: 1) government requisitioning regardless of famine - check 2) government steps in to aid, but too late and insufficient - check 3) government continues exporting food out of the place regardless of famine - check 4) crop harvest of the year sufficient to alleviate a famine - check (the Bengal harvest of 1943 was the same as in 1941).

Well, so Stalin didn't plan to kill this population? I always thought that he did indeed plan to do it.

However, when one thinks about it, famines were a common occurrence in these "second world" countries during their processes of forced industrialization. That's because these regimes pulled people out of the field and put them in the cities while errors in planning (with always occur) leads to a small agricultural production in some years, resulting in millions of deaths due to famine. That's occurred to the USSR in the 30's and with China in the 60's.

Iosef Cross wrote:Well, so Stalin didn't plan to kill this population? I always thought that he did indeed plan to do it.

Oh, you're referring to aid? Yeah, it's pointless to allocate famine aid if it's a plan. The problem with Stalin and his government, or Churchill and his government for that matter, was not some sort of "grand plan" but merely gross indifference to the fates of those that could die (and eventually died) in the famines.

Iosef Cross wrote:However, when one thinks about it, famines were a common occurrence in these "second world" countries during their processes of forced industrialization. ... Famines are a common cause of death in pre capitalistic societies. Before the industrial revolution in western europe, only the Netherlands (the world's first market economy) managed to avoid them.

Famines happened in Third World nations during industrialization, too (China wasn't a Second World nation, neither was India). And in First World nations, too, in times during the Industrial Revolution, and even after the first phase of industrial revolution was passed (Great Irish Famine, for example). Famines indeed are a common cause of death in pre-industrial societies.

Iosef Cross wrote:The growth rate of the Russian empire was nearly 2% per year from 1820 to 1915, when their population increased 6 times. A 1.5% growth rate between 1915 and 1950 is a pretty modest assumption ... So, the Stalinist regime managed to make the Soviets have several times less babies than before? That's only reveals the enormous authoritarianism of the Soviet regime. Without the existence of the USSR, today the population of the lands of the Russian empire would be 500 - 600 million. To compare the population growth rates of Britain, France and Germany to the USSR is ridiculous. These countries were mature by the mid 20th century.

*shrugs* I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's evil and authoritarian to introduce mass contraception in a nation? You're one of the pro-life nutters or what? Urbanization combined with mass contraception massively decreases a population growth rate. At the same time, for industrializing and industrialized nations it raises the GDP per capita and allows people to have a higher life standard than they otherwise would have with a higher population growth rate. What is ridiculous? By the 1960s, the USSR became a part of the so-called "industrialized global north" through the crash industrialization in the 1930s. It's healthcare, life expectancy and birth rate indicators were corresponding to it's industrialized economy.

That aside, the other nations likewise experienced fluctuations. For example, the industrialized nations' pop.growth rate dropped considerably because of the industrialization (re: Maddison). Australia's growth rate fell from 8,1 to 1,4 - must have been the "cruel authoritarian First World Australian blah blah blah" at work? Growth rates of industrialized nations on the average declined twice or more. Besides, Maddison's averages give a 1-1,4 average annual growth rates for the territories of the USSR (meaning the Russian Empire excluding Poland and Finland) for 1820-1870 and 1870-1913. Why is "1,5" a modest assumption, when in fact it seems to be the peak growth rate? Some weakly industrialized nations of the Latin America likewise had 1,5-1,8 average growth rates for the 1930-1950 period, for example.

In any case, Australia managed to reduce population growth sixfold for the period in question. On the other hand, Italy, an industrialized nation, always had a low growth rate - even in 1820-1870 and 1870-1913 periods it was 0,4-0,6. Sorry, Iosef. You should perhaps consider learning your world population growth history.

Iosef Cross wrote:During the industrialization of western Europe, mortality decreased. The canal deaths in Panama and Suez were deaths for a pre industrial labor force in pre industrial countries.

During the industrialization of the USSR, mortality likewise decreased (owing to the creation of electricity, modern sanitation, penicillins finally). In 1914, infant mortality was 274 per 1000 (close to that of India and other Third World nations), while crude death rate was 27 per 1000 in 1914, whereas by 1960, the crude death rate was around 7 per 1000 and the infant mortality rate was around 45 per 1000 live births in the year 1960. And of course, when you start building canals in a pre-industrial nation, you have deaths. That's what happened in Panama, Russia, Egypt, Industrial-Revolution era Britain, etc. After the industrialization is largely complete, engineering works have a much lower death toll (if at all).

Iosef Cross wrote:Also, the 50-60 million excess deaths also include the WW1 and the 1917-1921 war losses. While you 7-8 million number only includes deaths in the 30's. I would agree with a ~10 million excess deaths in the 30's.

Hmm, and how is that relevant? First of all, how is World War I relevant to the Soviet Union? That state did not exist in World War I (neither took a part in it). The Civil War is likewise a war. And so is World War II. Of course, if you combine all these wars (WWI, Civil War and World War II, and the 1930-1953 repression deaths), you might get a number as high as 50-60 million. But by that logic, you can find lots of nations that experienced heavy demographic losses in wars. China, for example, Japan, Germany, industrialized nations which took part in World War I. *shrugs* I'm not sure this is relevant to the discussion at hand, much less anything in this thread. Of course there were ~10 million excess deaths in the 1930-1953 period unrelated to anything but the repressions and hunger - that is not in dispute here.

A rough tally:
World War I: ~3 700 000 died in the First World War (civilian and military losses combined, of which the military were a greater portion).
Civil War: ~9 million died, of them 2,5 million in combat, 2 million in mutual repressions, and around 5 million from hunger and epidemics.
World War II: ~26 000 000 died, of them 9 million military deaths and ~17 million civilian deaths.
Repression 1930-1953: ~3 000 000 excess deaths (1 million executions, 2 million penal system deaths).
Hunger 1930s': ~7 million.

The combination of all these losses yields a summary of roughly 50 million excess deaths, but the purpose of such a combination is not exactly clear. The combination of all other losses except World War II yield 24 million excess deaths.

Big Orange wrote:On the other hand after 1943, Viceroy Lord Wavell tried to turn things around for the starving Indians and attempting to more fairly allocate food, pleading for more grain imports from overseas; these measures were against Winston Churchill's wishes.

To be fair, this was during World War II, when Britain itself was only barely getting the supplies they needed. It wasn't until April of 1943 that the Battle of the Atlantic really swung to the Allies favor. Hell, in early 1943 the Ministry of Food wanted to raise the extraction rate of flour from wheat, and diluting it with barley and oats (which would procude a less palatable, less digestible bread) because Britain wasn't able to import enough to satisfy demand. There was a period of time where they were using oats and dried potato bits to brew beer so free up barley for flour production. On top of that, Turkey demanded 150,000 tons of grain as a payment for them to not join the war against Russia. And besides India, there were famines on Ceylon and in British East Africa. Due to the demands of the campaigns in Europe, the British were barely able to send ships to the Indian Ocean at all. So I think it is a bit ingenuous to say that Churchill was obstinately refusing to send relief to the Indians.

Elfdart wrote:Ireland, Ethiopia, colonial India and the Soviet Union under Stalin all had major famines killing millions while they were net exporters of foodstuffs and other agricultural products. The first conclusion people jump to is to assume that the governments and/or business interests were at best indifferent to the starvation and at worst were deliberately trying to starve people.

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to the famines of the modern era is that one huge factor is the over-reliance on cash crops. For example, during the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s, the country exported a large amount of crops, but most of those were sorghum and linseed which were planted for export and wouldn't have been of much use to feed people anyway. So any disaster affecting food crops (war, typhoon, drought, disease) means starvation unless there's immediate relief. One problem: the disasters that made the food crops fail in the first place usually make relief efforts difficult or impossible.

While what you say makes sense, none of it applies to the Irish potato famine-the Irish weren't over-reliant on cash crops so much as they were over-reliant on one crop for their own food (and even then, they were still growing other food crops, they just never got to eat it), the food that was being exported would have been ready to feed the people immediately if the British had wanted to, and there was no disaster keeping people out of Ireland, just a potato blight killing the food.

Stas Bush wrote:

Iosef Cross wrote:Well, so Stalin didn't plan to kill this population? I always thought that he did indeed plan to do it.

Oh, you're referring to aid? Yeah, it's pointless to allocate famine aid if it's a plan. The problem with Stalin and his government, or Churchill and his government for that matter, was not some sort of "grand plan" but merely gross indifference to the fates of those that could die (and eventually died) in the famines.

Iosef Cross wrote:However, when one thinks about it, famines were a common occurrence in these "second world" countries during their processes of forced industrialization. ... Famines are a common cause of death in pre capitalistic societies. Before the industrial revolution in western europe, only the Netherlands (the world's first market economy) managed to avoid them.

Famines happened in Third World nations during industrialization, too (China wasn't a Second World nation, neither was India). And in First World nations, too, in times during the Industrial Revolution, and even after the first phase of industrial revolution was passed (Great Irish Famine, for example). Famines indeed are a common cause of death in pre-industrial societies.

What third world nations experienced famine during industrialization outside USSR and China? Brazil never experienced famine during the 1945-75 period. India is starting to industrialize right now, their 1943 famine wasn't the result of industrialization. Also, China's real industrialization drive began in the 1980's, their industrial growth before that date was artificial.

In the technocratic dictatorships of the USSR and China, they pulled manpower out of the production of food in other lines of production, decreasing food production and leading to famines. It was the unintended consequence of government intervention.

In capitalism, the labor supply migrates from food production into other lines of employment because wages and employment opportunities are higher/better in other sectors. Food production will only decline if the demand can be satisfied by imports, or employment will decrease in the agricultural sector by increased productivity.

And Ireland wasn't industrialized in 1850. There was no famine in Britain after ~1820. Maybe even by 1770.

*shrugs* I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's evil and authoritarian to introduce mass contraception in a nation? You're one of the pro-life nutters or what? Urbanization combined with mass contraception massively decreases a population growth rate. At the same time, for industrializing and industrialized nations it raises the GDP per capita and allows people to have a higher life standard than they otherwise would have with a higher population growth rate. What is ridiculous? By the 1960s, the USSR became a part of the so-called "industrialized global north" through the crash industrialization in the 1930s. It's healthcare, life expectancy and birth rate indicators were corresponding to it's industrialized economy.

It is true that decreased population growth can increase per capita income growth. However, the increase in per capita income growth is very small (in the order of 0.3% for 1% less population growth, that's because per capita income is driven by 2 factors: per capita capital invested and technological progress, a increased population growth will lead to a reduction in per capita capital invested). For example, if the USSR didn't have any policies to control population growth, their population would probably growth by about 1.1% instead of 0.6%. This decreased population growth would have increase per capita income growth by ~0.15%.

That aside, the other nations likewise experienced fluctuations. For example, the industrialized nations' pop.growth rate dropped considerably because of the industrialization (re: Maddison). Australia's growth rate fell from 8,1 to 1,4 - must have been the "cruel authoritarian First World Australian blah blah blah" at work? Growth rates of industrialized nations on the average declined twice or more. Besides, Maddison's averages give a 1-1,4 average annual growth rates for the territories of the USSR (meaning the Russian Empire excluding Poland and Finland) for 1820-1870 and 1870-1913. Why is "1,5" a modest assumption, when in fact it seems to be the peak growth rate? Some weakly industrialized nations of the Latin America likewise had 1,5-1,8 average growth rates for the 1930-1950 period, for example.

Well, the 2% number that I thought applied to Russia in the XIX century I read from a quite old book. Maddison's data is apparently more precise. So I will concede that I was wrong in assuming an 1.5% population growth for 1913-1940.

In any case, Australia managed to reduce population growth sixfold for the period in question. On the other hand, Italy, an industrialized nation, always had a low growth rate - even in 1820-1870 and 1870-1913 periods it was 0,4-0,6. Sorry, Iosef. You should perhaps consider learning your world population growth history.

1- Italy wasn't industrialized in the 19th century. Their level of development by 1910 was nearly the same as Russia.

2- Where I said that industrialized nations have high population growth rates? Also, pre industrial countries tend to have zero or 0.1% population growth rates. The industrial revolution increased population growth rates by reducing mortality, them, natality decreased after. So population jumped up and them stabilized. This happened to most industrializing countries.

France and Italy didn't have much population growth during the 19th century, however. These countries started to industrialize slowly, and never had the radical changes like Germany and Britain had. Britain had 10 million people in 1780, by 1880, they had 35 million, by 1910, 50 million.

3- And yes, USSR's territory should have a population in the order of 0.5 billion now, if their population followed a normal trajectory. However, excess mortality in the order of 50 million during the 20th century, plus the demographic collapse of the CIS countries after the 80's changed this trajectory.

4- Brazil's population increased at 2.50-2.75% between 1945-1975. This period also was the period of fast industrialization. And yes, Latin America is weakly industrialized versus the US and Europe, but in terms of growth, some countries, like Brazil, experienced very fast growth between 1945 and 1975. Brazil's industry grew enormously, much faster than any European country ever grew, and by 1980 was the most powerful industry in the southern hemisphere.

Weak industrialization process? Bullshit.

Europe and the US were industrializing for 200 years, Brazil's 30 year industrialization process couldn't hope to reach the same levels of development. Even them, population growth was 2% per year even in 1980. It only slowed down during the last 30 years, today is only 1.2%.

What third world nations experienced famine during industrialization outside USSR and China?

India. They however had a system in place to provide relief preventing mass deaths although malnutrition remained high.

Also, China's real industrialization drive began in the 1980's, their industrial growth before that date was artificial.

Explain. Did the efforts of the Manchus, the Nationalists and the Maoists not count for some reason?

In the technocratic dictatorships of the USSR and China, they pulled manpower out of the production of food in other lines of production, decreasing food production and leading to famines. It was the unintended consequence of government intervention.

Bullshit. China food production increased until 1957 while its industrial base was massively increasing. In both the USSR and China, the drop in food production was caused by collectivization and the famines were caused by unrealistic production goals, restrictions on movement and poor communication when the famine occured.

In capitalism, the labor supply migrates from food production into other lines of employment because wages and employment opportunities are higher/better in other sectors.

Specifically, the agricultural field is satured and the marginal product of labor is about zero while for industry it is a non-zero value.

And Ireland wasn't industrialized in 1850. There was no famine in Britain after ~1820. Maybe even by 1770.

So resource colonies don't count? In that case the famine China doesn't count- they occured in places that weren't industrializing either.

Iosef Cross wrote:What third world nations experienced famine during industrialization outside USSR and China? Brazil never experienced famine during the 1945-75 period. India is starting to industrialize right now, their 1943 famine wasn't the result of industrialization. Also, China's real industrialization drive began in the 1980's, their industrial growth before that date was artificial.

The first phase of industrialization begun in China under Japanese occupation in Manchuria, where heavy industry was built, etc. That is waay before the 1980s. India's industrialization likewise begun even under British rule (despite it remaining underdeveloped). Bangladesh had a famine as late as 1974.

Iosef Cross wrote:And Ireland wasn't industrialized in 1850. There was no famine in Britain after ~1820. Maybe even by 1770.

When was the Highland Potato Famine, again? *shrugs* You yourself say it - Ireland was "not industrialized"? Neither was China in the 1960s, according to you at least. Besides, that's not the only example of First World nation famine. There were famines on the verge of the 18th century in France, Sweden, etc.

Iosef Cross wrote:For example, if the USSR didn't have any policies to control population growth, their population would probably growth by about 1.1% instead of 0.6%. This decreased population growth would have increase per capita income growth by ~0.15%.

Why? Each coming person would've contributed less to the GDP. I'm not sure I should accept your arbitrary figures until you show the math behind them. Go on.

Iosef Cross wrote:Well, the 2% number that I thought applied to Russia in the XIX century I read from a quite old book. Maddison's data is apparently more precise. So I will concede that I was wrong in assuming an 1.5% population growth for 1913-1940.

Good for you. Don't use obsolete or incorrect data.

Iosef Cross wrote:Italy wasn't industrialized in the 19th century. Their level of development by 1910 was nearly the same as Russia.

Why Italy didn't have Russia's abysmal levels of infant and general mortality, then? *lifts eyebrow* Do prove. I know Russia was about as developed (per capita) as Latin America in the 1910s (by number of industrial plants, machine tools per capita, etc.). Was Italy that lagging?

Iosef Cross wrote:Also, pre industrial countries tend to have zero or 0.1% population growth rates.

African nations are pre-industrial and they mostly have above-replacement growth. *shrugs* Iosef, once again - do your math. Pre-industrial Australia had a growth rate of 8,1 - an odd example, of course *laughs* it was a penal continent after all, who could've made such a grand endeavour if not the British Empire. But that aside, growth rate of pre-industrial socities does not seem to be 0,1 or zero. The Maddison table given provides different growth rates - 0,5, 1, 2, 3 percent. But not zero. In fact, the average for pre-industrial Latin America is 1,6. Pre-industrial average for Eastern Europe is 0,7.

When will you stop bullshitting, Iosef? I grow tired.

Iosef Cross wrote:And yes, USSR's territory should have a population in the order of 0.5 billion now, if their population followed a normal trajectory. However, excess mortality in the order of 50 million during the 20th century, plus the demographic collapse of the CIS countries after the 80's changed this trajectory.

Indeed. Also, northern territories like Russia's are badly suited for supporting such a large population.

I'm not sure what your last screed was aimed at. No one is interested in the minutiae of the growth of some (!) "weakly industrialized" Latin American nations, as you put it, here in this thread. It's simply not related to the subject at hand. In fact, I'm not sure what your points are any more. Your population growth claims have been proven wrong. LA growth is pure off-topic.

Iosef Cross wrote:Europe and the US were industrializing for 200 years

This means the process started in c.1750 in Europe and this again means the first phase of industrialization was ripe with famines. In fact, when the industrial revolution passed it's first phase, famine indeed went away. But that was exactly what I said - after the first initial phases of industrialization are complete, there is usually no famine afterwards. Same for industrial construction - in under-developed (let's call them non-industrialized) locations, when you come to build industrial objects, there is a massive deathtoll on the workforce. Once the nation is duly industrialized and industry reaches a certain level of development in that location, the engineering no longer is so deadly.

The more primitive is engineering and industry of a given nation, the more likely said nation is to have famines and deaths from work-related accidents.

Stas Bush wrote:I know Russia was about as developed (per capita) as Latin America in the 1910s (by number of industrial plants, machine tools per capita, etc.). Was Italy that lagging?

Italy began to industrialize ca. 1890. In the north it was fairly successful, though the south saw very little progress until post-World War II, really. The country was ~57% rural in 1910, which I believe was about average for European countries at the time (continent-wide 62% in 1900 ... can't find data for 1910 at the moment). Productivity in Italy rose slightly faster than Russia between 1840 and 1910, though below the continent's average. It was also ranked ninth out of the fifteenth "most advanced countries" in 1910 in terms of number of patents, which is often used as a proxy for "inventive activity."

So, essentially, although Italy lagged behind France, Germany, and Britain, I believe it was ahead of Russia at the time.

(Source)

Stas Bush wrote:

Iosef Cross wrote:What third world nations experienced famine during industrialization outside USSR and China? Brazil never experienced famine during the 1945-75 period. India is starting to industrialize right now, their 1943 famine wasn't the result of industrialization. Also, China's real industrialization drive began in the 1980's, their industrial growth before that date was artificial.

The first phase of industrialization begun in China under Japanese occupation in Manchuria, where heavy industry was built, etc. That is waay before the 1980s. India's industrialization likewise begun even under British rule (despite it remaining underdeveloped). Bangladesh had a famine as late as 1974.

This first factories. But the real industrialization, when the bulk of the population was impacted by it, occurred in the 80's.

In Brazil the first factories were build in the 1880's. But the country started to really industrialize in the 1930's. Between 1930 and 1980 the rate of urbanization in Brazil increased from 25% to 75%. Today is 83%.

Iosef Cross wrote:And Ireland wasn't industrialized in 1850. There was no famine in Britain after ~1820. Maybe even by 1770.

When was the Highland Potato Famine, again? *shrugs* You yourself say it - Ireland was "not industrialized"? Neither was China in the 1960s, according to you at least. Besides, that's not the only example of First World nation famine. There were famines on the verge of the 18th century in France, Sweden, etc.

China wasn't industrialized in the 1960. An industrialized country needs to have the bulk of it's population in urban areas. China had 20% of their population in urban areas in 1960.

Iosef Cross wrote:For example, if the USSR didn't have any policies to control population growth, their population would probably growth by about 1.1% instead of 0.6%. This decreased population growth would have increase per capita income growth by ~0.15%.

Why? Each coming person would've contributed less to the GDP. I'm not sure I should accept your arbitrary figures until you show the math behind them. Go on.

I assumed that the labor force contributed 1/2 to the product and capital contributed 1/2 that's in a Cobb Douglas production function, homogeneous in the first degree, with equal "quantities" of capital and labor. In that case a 1% increase in labor would increase product by 0.5%.

For example, if you had 9 labor and 9 capital, and increased labor to 16 (78% increase in pop.), the production would increase by 33%, so per capita production would decrease by 25%.

However, if I assume that 1/3 of growth in per income between two periods is driven by technology, with is an exogenous factor and is independent of factor inputs (it measures the growth in total factor productivity). In this case, the reduction of population growth would have a small impact on per capita income, 1/3 of total impact.

If growth in per capita income is entirely driven by technology, population growth wouldn't affect it.

However, this brought to me an idea!

Since in the USSR the freedom to act as entrepreneur was smaller than in capitalistic countries, the speed in technological advances in terms of innovations was slower, reducing factor productivity growth. Hence, growth in per capita income depended on growth in per capita capital invested.

Hence, the USSR depended more in decreasing population growth than more capitalistic countries in increasing living standards. That's because of the fucking terrible system they had.

Iosef Cross wrote:Italy wasn't industrialized in the 19th century. Their level of development by 1910 was nearly the same as Russia.

Why Italy didn't have Russia's abysmal levels of infant and general mortality, then? *lifts eyebrow* Do prove. I know Russia was about as developed (per capita) as Latin America in the 1910s (by number of industrial plants, machine tools per capita, etc.). Was Italy that lagging?

I read in an article about wages in 1875, Italy had the lowest wages of the sample. I don't remember the name of the article.

The sample, daily wages:
US - (= 100)
UK - 86
Germany - 67
Italy - 28

Very low wages....

And, Latin America is a very large region. Argentina in 1910 was a first world country, with the same per capita income as France, Germany and Netherlands. While Brazil at the same date was very poor, with near African levels of development.

Iosef Cross wrote:Also, pre industrial countries tend to have zero or 0.1% population growth rates.

African nations are pre-industrial and they mostly have above-replacement growth. *shrugs* Iosef, once again - do your math. Pre-industrial Australia had a growth rate of 8,1 - an odd example, of course *laughs* it was a penal continent after all, who could've made such a grand endeavour if not the British Empire. But that aside, growth rate of pre-industrial socities does not seem to be 0,1 or zero. The Maddison table given provides different growth rates - 0,5, 1, 2, 3 percent. But not zero. In fact, the average for pre-industrial Latin America is 1,6. Pre-industrial average for Eastern Europe is 0,7.

Pré industrial duh.. I mean medieval!

Latin America in the 20th century is not preindustrial.

Unless you count pre industrial as countries with you think were "less advanced" than you glorious USSR (they were not). Brazil had 50% rate of urbanization in 1960. China today is still urbanizing.

When will you stop bullshitting, Iosef? I grow tired.

Well, if you want offenses...

You saying that pre industrial countries tend to have higher population growth than modern countries... Please, that's fuking retarded in your part.

And I think that you are better than that. Thought not much if you like the "glorious USSR", with is a sign of ignorance.

Iosef Cross wrote:And yes, USSR's territory should have a population in the order of 0.5 billion now, if their population followed a normal trajectory. However, excess mortality in the order of 50 million during the 20th century, plus the demographic collapse of the CIS countries after the 80's changed this trajectory.

Indeed. Also, northern territories like Russia's are badly suited for supporting such a large population.[/quote]

The USSR had 22 million km2. The US have 9 million, half of it is desert. The USSR's territory should have now 750 million, at the same densities.

I'm not sure what your last screed was aimed at. No one is interested in the minutiae of the growth of some (!) "weakly industrialized" Latin American nations, as you put it, here in this thread. It's simply not related to the subject at hand. In fact, I'm not sure what your points are any more. Your population growth claims have been proven wrong. LA growth is pure off-topic.

It was region of the same development level as the USSR. Hence, it is the closest comparison. To compare with Germany and Britain is truly off-topic.