If one wishes to compare the USSR to an undeveloped country the question is which one. Looks great next to Madagascar and maybe not so great next to post-war Taiwan. In some ways choosing an "undeveloped" baseline is just as problematic as choosing a "developed" one.
I think the USSR tended to be compared to "the best of the west" because it was supposedly the "best of the command economies" (maybe E Germany, but they weren't as big 'n' powerful) and the notion was, do a best-to-best comparison of two types of economies. Remember the us-or-them logic which prevailed. Love it or leave it. All of that. Best-to-best is not illogical, anymore than worst to worst is illogical. But if the notion is "their system" versus "our system" (which I think is what started the debate) than best-to-best, middle-to-middle, and worst-to-worst are good points to go with.
There is an altogether different point to be made--which is Doug's point--that one should simply look at the USSR as an up 'n' out of poverty model. Wallerstein in an essay somewhere makes explicit comparisons with India, which, given the ethnic problems 'n' all, seems logical to me. The "showcase" achievements of the USSR were better than anything India did in the comparable achievement (nukes and space program) but India may have done better on other lines. For example, I'm not sure India has an environmental rape story comparable to the destruction of the Aral sea. But maybe it does (deforestation perhaps?). And India was a kind of oligarchic state capitalism, not USA everywhere insane capitalism. As an up 'n' out of poverty maybe the USSR works and then again maybe it doesn't. Arguably it was doing its own core-periperhy thing with E.Europe and the southern tier. It comes as no surprise when the metropole prospers at the expense of the periphery--USSR or in the west.
-gn.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Greg Nowell wrote:
>
> >1. It is not "evil" or misleading to compare to 1913. This is the standard
> >baseline comparison in most economic writing and was also the standard
> >baseline
> >used in the immediate aftermath of the war.
>
> Well if you're comparing to prewar, yes 1913 makes sense, but in the
> context of talking about the Soviet experience, it's a bit odd, since it
> predates the Soviet era, and the revolution itself was partly the result of
> the dislocations of the war.
>
> >2. Any country starting from a low level of industrialization will have
> >a higher
> >rate of growth than one starting form a high level of industrialization
> >(assumign
> >it's on any kind of growth track at all, which some countries, many in
> >Africa, are
> >not). High USSR rate seen in this light could be a reflection of just how
> >backward things were under the czars. Does not mean USSR was "outperforming",
> >say, Germany.
>
> Like I said, why is Germany the relevant comparison? Why not Mexico or
> India? Pre-revolutionary Russia was peripheral, semicolonial, and
> underindustrialized.
>
> >3. The technical problems involved in measuring output from the former
> >command
> >economies are substantial.
>
> Yes they are, but Maddison is a standard source and his book was published
> by the OECD, which can hardly be accused of pro-Soviet sympathies.
>
> >The summary resort to questionable historical data to
> >make the leftie point that "Russia doesn't look so bad relative to other
> >countries
> >after all" is a very paradoxical twist given the history of these kinds of
> >comparisons.
>
> My point is that the achievements of Soviet industrialization were not
> insubstantial. We can argue about what numbers to put on this, but the
> central point is being forgotten. We can say that it happened at tremendous
> social cost, which it did, but so did British industrialization.
>
> >4. Notwithstanding which eastern Europe and Russia did have significant
> >economic
> >growth and for a time seemed to be "barking at the heels" of the western
> >countries. But were they really? E. Germany was the pride of the Eastern
> >bloc
> >and even an example to Russia. Its magnificent achievement was the
> >Trabant, which
> >was perhaps marginally more relliable than the Yugo, and is now universally
> >derided. Productive infrastructure in E. Germany was found to be so primitive
> >after reunification that most of it has been junked.
>
> Primitive relative to one of the richest, most advanced countries in the
> world, yes. But compared to, say, Tanzania or Sri Lanka?
>
> >6. Notwithstanding all of which the USSR social system probably worked better
> >than now for the vast majority of people and the failure to have US
> >over-consumerism is not necessarily such a failure after all. Arguably it may
> >have been better to be dirt poor in the USSR in the 1970s than in the US
> >in the
> >1990s. Dunno. I just think we're getting a bit too overhyped on these here
> >stats.
>
> Why points 1-5 then?
>
> Doug
-- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298