Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Communism as historical tragedy
Message-ID: <379@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 19:12:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ubvax.379
Posted: Mon Dec  2 19:12:12 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Dec-85 01:51:36 EST
References: <364@ubvax.UUCP> <28200338@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 75

In article <28200338@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>
>[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.

When did empires distort development?  Not in the capitalist era,
for Britain, the US, France, or Germany.  Why so for the USSR?
Even given the speed of development pre-Revolution, it still
doesn't come close to what happened in the Thirties, or to the
postwar recovery.

And Tsarist development was heavily dependent on foreign investment,
which wouldn't have lasted forever.  No guarantee it would have
incorporated peasant labor as a factor in development, as the
Communists did (too much so, we know 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.

See the above.

>(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

The fear was never the Communists, but rather the Socialists, the
SPD.  Communists were never more than scapegoats.  Do you want to
blame the USSR for creating scapegoats?

>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 myth of Communist strength is just that, a myth.  It was liquidated
when Luxembourg and Liebknecht were liquidated.

>>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.
>
>		Jan Wasilewsky

But were the Tsars for electrification?  I doubt it.  It would have
weakened their political control too much.  If the Tsars weren't
for it, nothing would move anyhow.

Tony Wuersch