The below appears to be an argument for the importance of a continued
centralising role of a communist party even in a more economically diverse
economy.
Does any one know the standing of Ellman and Kontorovich in economic
circles or whether their books have had any credibility?
Chris Burford
London
from another list:-
Western anti-Marxist attempts to ascribe the USSR's spectacular
self-destruction to fundamental incurable flaws in how a workers state must
inevitably function, have failed quite sensationally. One of the most
exhaustive economics studies was by Ellman (Amsterdam University) and
Kontorovich (Haverford College, USA) (1992, Routledge).
"The Soviet system has been brought down to a considerable extent by the
acts of its top executive, starting in 1986 .... On the one hand, the
decision (the 'initial revolution from above') was related to objective
difficulties confronting the society. On the other hand, the decisions taken
reflected very much the ruler's perception of the situation. Judging by
Gorbachev's speeches, it seems to have developed as a trial and error
response to his perception of the situation he inherited (ie failure to
compete successfully on the economic front with the capitalist world,
widespread drunkenness and corruption, low economic growth, and an official
economic doctrine which could not rationalise the policies the leadership
wished to pursue).
"The economic collapse has been in part an unintended by-product of the
political changes Gorbachev has introduced. These political changes (the
withdrawal of the Communist Party from a direct role in the economy; the
transfer of substantial powers to the Soviets; detotalitarianisation; an
expansion of the independence of enterprise) were expected to release the
human factor in economic development and thus lead to rapid economic
growth. In fact they removed the motive force (pressure from above) which
had propelled the Soviet economy in previous decades, without replacing it
by an adequate substitute. Hence, as the political reforms became more
radical, the economy went into a tail-spin."
...
"The leadership itself removed (from the building it was trying to rebuild)
crucial load-bearing 'bricks' on which the stability of the structure
rested. As a result, the whole structure came crashing down. The three key
'bricks' which Gorbachev removed, or weakened, were: the central
bureaucratic apparatus; the official ideology; and the active role of the
party in the economy."
...
"Among other things, the congress criticized the endless administrative
reorganizations affecting agriculture: 'In recent years, the agro-industrial
complex has been continuously reorganized. This has destroyed the links and
interrelationships between the different parts of the agro-industrial
complex, led to the loss of many highly qualified specialists, and weakened
technological, productive and state discipline. This was the view of most of
the agricultural delegates. At the section on agrarian policy of the
congress, practically all the speakers proposed re-establishing the Ministry
of Agriculture. The resolution of the congress on agricultural policy
specifically called for the restoration of the Ministries of Agriculture and
Agricultural Machinery (abolished by Gorbachev in 1985), and the
re-establishment of a supply and service system specifically for
agriculture. These demands were not conceded, partly because that would have
been an admission that Gorbachev's earlier reorganizations had been harmful,
and partly because they came from people, opposed to Gorbachev's partial
decollectivization policy ."
....
"By removing the party from its role in the economy, Gorbachev removed an
essential feature of the smooth running of the traditional model. In the
traditional model, the party committees at all levels played an essential
role. They cut through the maze of conflicting bureaucratic bodies and
enforced the priorities of the centre. Once they withdrew from the economy
however, factories, cities, regions, and republics were free to do what they
thought best, regardless of the documents emanating from the centre.
Furthermore, the process of de-totalitarianisation, by transferring much
power to the Soviets and permitting the emergence of independent social
organizations, led to destabilizing economic consequences, varying from the
introduction of customs posts round republics, and depriving nonresidents
of certain cities of the possibility of shopping there, to the closing of
ecologically harmful factories. It also led to the coming to power of
anti-communists in parts of the country (Moscow, Leningrad, RSFSR, Baltic
republics, Georgia). These anti-communists were prepared to go ahead with
reforms regardless of their short-run negative effects .... one of the
striking effects of the disintegration of Marxism-Leninism was that it was
partially replaced by religion and nationalism. In a multi-national and
multi-religious state .the disintegration of Marxism-Leninism and the
revival of religion and nationalism automatically led to a weakening of the
USSR as a unitary state. Replacing an ideology which was uniform throughout
the country by ones which divided it on ethnic lines was a recipe for
conflicts... and had serious economic costs."
[Amazon quote
The Disintegration of the Soviet Economic System
by Michael Ellman, Vladimir Kontorovich (Editor). Paperback (May 1992)
Our Price:$24.95 Special Order
AND
The Destruction of the Soviet Economic System : An Insider's History
by Michael Ellman(Editor), Vladimir Kontorovich (Editor). Paperback
(October 1998)
Our Price:$35.00 Special Order]
