>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> After mistakenly erasing the entire reply I wrote yesterday, I tried again. This time, I pushed the wrong button and sent it before I finished! Okay, try again. Once more into the breach, dear friends.
As I said before, during the Stalin period, the negative impact of true full employment on work effort (when it occurred) was dealt with using terror (on and off). Earlier, workers' identification with the goals of the revolution encouraged hard work for many. ^^^^^ CB: Oh, I see. The previous, accidently sent message that I replied to was a scrivener's error. I can go with your statement with the "(on and off)" added in, and the sentence that follows that ^^^^^^^ CB:> I am open to a sort of opposite notion , that you may not agree with, that the slower work pace was evidence that the workers _did_ have significant power in the work situation, in that people supervising themselves are not going to be as hard on themselves as capitalist supervisors would be.< This is right. Just because the official labor unions were generally under the government's thumb does not mean that workers did not have some say & a lot of control over their work-effort. People can't be turned into robots. The Good Solider Schweik springs to mind: you can order people around, but they always have a lot of options about how to follow orders. (And sometimes official unions can be used against the state, as under Franco in Spain toward the end of his reign.) ^^^^ CB: We are on the same page here. ^^^^ The problem is that the effort to restrict work was, as I understand it, generally in the economistic direction. The USSR didn't see workers "working hard to produce high-quality goods" (balanced by respect for the human need for free time) in the name of what's good for society, including the workers themselves. Instead, it was a more of a matter of workers taking advantage of the labor shortages, etc., to defy the bosses by goofing off (or by sneaking off to wait in line for commodities that were in short supply). ^^^^^ CB: Had to be some of that, no doubt. I don't know that that dominated. We can find much purposeful messing up in the US production, but we wouldn't use those examples to characterize the whole process. I think something similar would be true of SU production. ^^^^ It should be stressed that the problems in the micro-level production process were compounded with the inadequate planning system, which created an incentive for factory managers to emphasize quantity of production over quality, while hoarding labor and other inputs into production. They never got the planning system right. Nor did the plans reflect popular will, except in the vague sense that people like Khrushchev understood that the Soviet people were calling for more production of consumer goods and that he should heed that message or the USSR would suffer from Hungary-style (1956) revolts. ^^^^^ CB: However, the failures in planning do not teach us that planning is the best way. What we should learn it planning better by correcting the mistakes made in planning in the history of the SU. Trial and error. That's how scientific progress works. Practice, then new theory, based on experience. The problem with most left discussion of the SU is that one would conclude that planning "doesn't work". Working is a relative thing. It did work enormously well in many ways. The ways in which it failed should be modified, while keeping planning. The history of the SU 's economy stands for "yes, we should plan, but better". I'd say critical factor in fewer so-called consumer was that 1) They had to rebuild from scratch after WWII after capitalist invaders destroyed most of the infrastructure built during the early period. If they hadn't had to do this, they probably could have had a lot, lot more consumer goods; 2) They _had_ to put a lot of production into the military _after_ WWII because their treacherous , betraying ally from WWII refused to ban nuclear weapons, as the Soviets proposed to the US; the US also invaded Korea _as a Communist country_ thus indirectly threatening the SU. The SU leaders couldn't allow their population that had just suffered the loss of 27 million suffer another mass slaughter at the hands of the US. So , billions of work hours had to go into matching the US military industrial complex ( and that of Britain, France, Italy; not to mention supply Korea, China, Vietnam) These work hours would have produced quite a few consumer goods, if they could have gone into civilian production. 3) a third point is the numbers of young people lost in WWII to the Nazi invasion was on a scale that it reduced production because of a lack of labor power, humans, the main source of use-values. If all those people hadn't been dead or wounded , they would have produced quite a few more consumer goods and higher quality consumer goods. It's not just the quantity , but the quality that you refer to that was impacted by so much going to production means of destruction for defense. All together I think the difference in level of production of consumer goods and much of the difference in quality, can be substantially attributed to capitalist war and threat of war on the SU and other socialist countries. Not to lack of moral hazard or lack of unemployment, or lack of homelessness, or the other socialist benefits that the SU was able to provide. In sum, socialists , whether tending to pro or anti SU should not interpret the history of the SU as evidence that unemployment, poverty, homelessness are necessary to spur production of high quality use-values and high quantities of high quality use-values. CB: > So, contradictory thoughts, faster pace, harder work than workers under capitalism when they were industrializing and recovering from WWII. Slower pace as they we move into the 60's , 70's.< I don't understand. ... CB had asked: >>> If so, little work was done, how come so many use-values were produced ?<<< >> Repeating what I said: in general, the _quality_ of Soviet use-values was low. They produced shoddy goods.<< ^^^^ CB: Shoddy all goods or shoddy so-called consumer goods ? They had good quality subways, buses, satellites. airplanes, roads, heating systems, watches, warmth of clothes. I'm thinking many qualities of many of the use-values were probably good and excellent ,unlike the stereotype in Western propaganda. ^^^^^^^^^ CB, now: > Machines are use-values too. Subways and buses are use-values. Not all Soviet use-values were shoddy. I'm not quite sure that this well known claim is as thoroughly true as most are in the habit of thinking.< JIm D./I'm sure that _some_ Soviet-era goods weren't shoddy. I pointed to a clear exception (in the eyes of many), military goods. CB: > I'm one of those anti-consumerists, who feels a bit uncomfortable with so many gadgets and giszmos. Of course, even more so with global warming and the oil problem. The level of production of socalled consumer goods in the SU may be closer to what the world standard will have to be.< Jim D.:It's true that we could do without a lot of gizmos. In fact, we _should_ do without them, as you say. But it seems a bad idea to restrict the production of consumer goods by engaging in _inefficiency_ in production (what economists call "X inefficiency"). The resources wasted as part of inefficiency could be used instead to clean up environmental messes, etc. ^^^^^ CB: Again, I wouldn't cop to quite the stereotypical Western characterization of Soviet production as just generally less "efficient" than capitalist production. I'd say the lack of production of the highest quality and quantity of use-values is more attirbutable to the gun that capitalism held to the SU's and other socialist countries' heads throughout the whole existence of the SU. I would not attribute it to lack of unemployment etc., the topic of this thread ^^^^^^^ Though the over-emphasis of orthonomics on efficiency issues (and the knee-jerk tendency to equate profitability with efficiency) is very off-putting, I agree with them that inefficiency is a bad thing. ^^^^^ CB: I'm not ready to accept that , when one looks at the system as a whole, it was very efficient with the what it had to work, starting to fare behind, being knocked down by the Nazi invasion, and forced to divert so much, too much , to the military. Being forced to be so militarily prepared was a big factor in undermining democracy, instituting hierarchy even in the civilian sector. For so much of its history , the whole society had to be militarily prepared, and thereby undemocratic. ^^^^^ CB: > Also, compared with most countries beyond the most advanced capitalist countries, their goods were good quality, i.e relative to most production in the world.< Jim D: That's true, but the old SU's spokespeople bragged about how educated their people were. That brag was true, compared to the "most countries" to which Charles refers. But that makes it shocking how much of their means of production just couldn't cut the mustard compared to international competition, how many of their consumer products were inadequate compared to "Western" goods. ^^^^^ CB: Actually, academically educated people don't tend to do a lot of material production, in my experience. I can see how lots of education might cut back on the work hours in producing "consumer" goods. You don't find a lot of university-college educated folks doing production with their "hands" , do you ? ^^^^^^^ me: >> The fundamental reason is due to class antagonism: there was not enough harmony between workers and their state-appointed supervisors and managers to motivate workers to produce high-quality products. This meant that the reserve army of the unemployed was sorely missed -- that is, if your only goal is to produce high-quality use-values.<< - CB: > "high quality" is a relative term. The goods were high quality compared to most places and most of history. They worked in many and most ways. Maybe the goods were good enough for people.< Jim D: yeah, people lower their expectations. CB: And they can feel genuinely satisfied. "Expectations" are a tricky thing in this discussion. Wants and needs are learned. One can have a happy life with fulfillment of the "lower" expectations. > They didn't have exploding Pintos ? asbestos all over the place did they< Jim D.yeah, Ford (the folks who brought us the Pinto) deliberately took risks with consumer lives. That kind of thing is much too common, but it's a different kind of thing, a problem arising directly from orders passed down from above. ^^^^^ CB: It's different and the same. I am saying an exploding Pinto is a low quality good, and represents "inefficiency". In the overall comparison of "efficiency" and quality between the two systems , things like exploding Pintos and asbestos and air pollution and even so many car accidents as a leading cause of death and injury count on the "inefficiency" scale of capitalism compared to Soviet socialism, in my book. IN the usual discussion of comparison of the SU and US, many of the inefficiencies and low qualities of the US side are not calculated in. If they were, the two would be closer than the stereotypical discussion makes them. ^^^^^^ The post-Stalin Soviet era's production was more like the case of US auto workers welding beer cans into the cars. But it seems to have been more systematic. ^^^^^ CB: I'm not sure it doesn't "seem" so because we are at ground zero of gigantic anti-Soviet/pro-US propaganda. An American has to discount heavily everything one has heard about the SU. We are all seriously anti-Soviet brainwashed. If an American doesn't make a very big specific effort to confront anti-Soviet propaganda themes and "facts", one is most likely to have some of it still stuck in one's head. ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ Even a simple product like a pressure-cooker (a pre-Microwave oven, for you young 'uns) couldn't be trusted. ^^^^^^ CB: So says the New York Times. One has to be skeptical about every single one of these types of "facts". $trillions were spent on brainwashing Americans to be anti-Soviet. ^^^^^^^^ The problem with asbestos was that almost no-one knew about its horrible side-effects when it was put into walls, etc. The real problem was due to the extreme resistance to fixing the problem (and I'd bet the cover-up of the negative side before the asbestos was installed). ^^^^^ CB: I'm familiar with the history of asbestos. But at a certain point the judgment must be of the result. The result represents one of the most inefficient and low quality mass productions in history. There is no excuse in not doing enough scientific testing and planning and thinking it out before puttting it in so many places. The bottom line result is massive inefficiency and low quality use-values. And it counts on the negative side for the US oin our comparison of the efficiency and quality production of the two systems. Even the mass production of "consumer" goods, and raising so many expectations, now , with global warming and oil sufficiency problems, counts as a gigantic inefficiency in the long run for the US side. The scale of production of "consumer" goods is now seen to be "inefficient" in using too much oil based fuel compared to the total supply we have and the impact on the environment. If the US hadn't produced so many consumer goods, and raised expectations too high, we wouldn't have such an important problem now, and we wouldn't face dropping those expectations so drastically. ^^^^^^ > There is a lot of problematic quality in goods here. Also, there isn't quite a clearcut correlation between better quality of life and socalled higher quality good ,in my opinion, living in the locus of production of "higher" quality goods. All these consumer goods, whatever quality are not all they are cranked up to be, a mon avis. I'd take job security , free health care, free college, free rent etc. over lots of consumer > goods, myself< Jim D: As I mentioned, job security, free health care, etc. were major pluses of the old USSR. Whether or not these benefits were overwhelmed by the costs is a matter of opinion. The Soviet people should have been given the chance state their opinions on that question. Why can't we combine the pluses of the old USSR with some of the pluses of the US or (even better) of Western Europe? why do we have to make the Cold War choice, i.e., _either_ USSR _or_ US? why can't we at least think of a third alternative? ^^^^ CB: This reminds of major economists like Samuelson seeing the two systems as mixed economies back in the late 1960's. How far the average economists have fallen from that "third" way attitude. I'd say peaceful coexistence and competition between different social systems. Next time capitalism must not visit the worst wars in the history of humanity on socialism, and we will have a compromise and draw from the positives of both ways. > > I'm not sure the stereotype of low quality there, high quality here is > > as clearcut true as we have been brainwashed to believe. yeah, I'm totally brainwashed. I think TV's "Survivor" is great art. Howard Stern is a genius. as is Tyra Banks. The I-Pod is the road to enlightenment. The US war to conquer Iraq will bring world peace. ^^^^^ CB: If you don't think all Americans were subject to anti-Soviet brainwashing you are not getting it all out of your head. I know I was subject to anti-Soviet brainwashing. Any American of our generation can give many examples. The Russians are coming ! with Cubans at their side. The Russians have a lower quality of life than Americans, etc., etc, etc.
