Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Communism as historical tragedy
Message-ID: <28200338@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 01:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200338
Posted: Tue Nov 26 01:17:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 21:09:23 EST
References: <364@ubvax.UUCP>
Lines: 58
Nf-ID: #R:ubvax:-36400:inmet:28200338:000:2976
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 26 01:17:00 1985


[Tony Wuersch tonyw@ubvax]
>If the "Russian empire" had fallen apart and not industrialized
>rapidly, Nazism and not communism would rule Eastern Europe today.
>German developments did not depend on the Russian empire.

Two errors here. 
(1) Russia would, by all historical trends, have  industrialized.
Russia *was* industrializing, at a breath-taking pace, before the
communist revolution. There was every reason for this to continue
and  accelerate.   Empire  had nothing to do with it, in fact, as
with other empires, it distorted development. Communism preserved
the empire and squandered the resources of development. What
remained made Russia the third-ranking economic power today.
It was a natural candidate for #1 - even without its colonies.
In fact that was what the original article argued - the one
Gabor and I rebutted. *That* part was never rebutted.

(2) German developments did, as it happens, depend on the Russian
developments.  Without  USSR,  German  Communism  would be just a
shade in Social-Democratic spectrum. And without fear of  Commun-
ism  and polarization of German politics, Hitler would never have
come to power. There were certainly other factors; but Nazis made
it  by  a small margin, at the time when their influence was dec-
lining.  Without *this* factor they certainly wouldn't. Also,  at
a  critical moment German Communists were ordered by Moscow to
support Hitler. So he benefited both  from  Communism  and  anti-
Communism. It was 1917 that made 1933 possible.

>The power of the USSR is in its huge land size, population, and
>natural resources, combined with a level of economic development
>which has let its size advantages make a difference.  Britain
>and the other empires Jan lists ruled at a time of history when
>size was not convertable into political and economic influence.
>Their demise was inevitable.  Russia's was not.

British and the other empires - except Austro-Hungary -
existed at *the same* time in history  as USSR.

>Lenin said communism equaled electrification -- and that's what
>communism did for the USSR.  It industrialized the USSR to the
>point where it could become a world power.  It did so at high
>costs to the political system, which has only advanced slowly
>since.  And it left gaps in industrial development, especially
>in consumer goods.

Answered above;  quite  wrong;  and  even  misinterprets
Lenin's words. He meant that electrification was a *precondition*
of a communist society, not that communist ideology would  create
electricity. He certainly was *for* electrification.  So were the
businessmen who fled the country, the engineers who were tortured
and  imprisoned, the economists who were shot for realistic
estimates, and  the  farmers  who were starved and who otherwise
would have paid for it. Human bones are not  the  most  efficient
foundation  for  modern industry.  The sixty million corpses were
in vain; the development was retarded, not enhanced.

		Jan Wasilewsky