>>> Brad De Long <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> 06/08/99 11:10AM >>>
>Charles: In the larger historical picture the Russian Revolution of 1917
>and following most rapid economic development in the history of industrial
>civilization...
Ummm...
No.
Let's take the 1913-1973 period that ends just as Soviet economic growth effectively ceases,
((((((((((((
Charles: This is a little misleading , because, after 1913 was WWI which depleted the Russian economy. Then after the 1917 Revolution, the United States, Britain and all the imperialist countries tried to strangle the revolution in the crib with an invasion. As Victor Perlo says in _Superprofits and Crises_ "Russian industrial production in 1913 was only about on-eighth the U.S. level. IN 1922 after four years of war an four more years of counterrevolutionary intervention, Soviet industrial output was a mere 3% of the U.S. level. "
Starting with a lower base in 1922 than 1913 makes your statistics below misleading. Japan and Finland suffered no equivalent to what Russia suffered, so their bases were not likely so lowered.
(((((((((((((((((
and for which Angus Maddison has constructed reasonable estimates of economic growth (although note that I consider his estimates of growth in the Soviet Union and its dependencies too high: not enough adjustment for the low quality of most produced consumer goods). We find that national product per capita grew at (according to Maddison):
Japan... 3.52% per year Finland... 2.76% per year USSR... 2.34% per year
Charles: So you are saying that Soviet growth was the third fastest in the history of industrial civilization.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Soviet growth is the third largest rate in industrial history, the point of the post you excerpt above would be (as the thread has progressed) that that enormous rate of growth of the Soviet Union outstrips the growth under the IMF regime in recent years which Brad D. thought would get good historical marks.
Thus, the impact of these policies on premature deaths due to poverty etc. would place the IMF regime under every suspicion that Brad D. wants to place the Chinese and Soviet regimes under.
((((((((((((((((((((
Stalinist industrialization achieved great things in heavy industry. But the price in foregone agricultural, consumer goods, transportation, communications infrastructure, and service sector economic performance was very high. And the net balance sheet from an *economic* point of view was not that impressive--less impressive than the overall economic performance of a Japan, or a Finland, or a Greece, or a Spain from 1913-1973.
(((((((((((((((((
Charles: I specifically said "industrial civilization". See above.
(((((((((((((((((9
On the other hand, Stalinist industrialization meant that when the Nazis rolled across the border the T-34 assembly lines were ready for them...
On the third hand, a Soviet Union less interested in destroying German "social fascism" before 1933 would have had less need for the T-34 assembly lines...
(((((((((
Charles: I guess this is a joke. huh
On the final hand, the rapid Soviet industrialization saved the world from the Third Reich.
Charles Brown