[lbo-talk] Fidel on dolphins & the Cuban model

[Wojtek S]

[WS:] I would not use the GDP as the basis for measuring socialism, because
it reflects mainly the volume of market transactions and defines away all
non-market transactions as being "outside production boundaries."  Socialism
was not about marketization of society (as capitalism is) but about
"material development" largely bypassing the market (that is why they had
central planning.)  Therefore, a better metric would be "material progress"
with the reference point at the onset of socialism.

Of course, we can argue what "non-market material progress" entails - access
to services?  development of public infrastructure (railroads, utilities,
etc.)?  volume of industrial production?  technological advance?  It is even
more problematic to quantify those advancements.  But you have to admit that
on most of these measures the Soviet Union showed and almost exponential
rise, being propelled from a stagnant backwater to a world superpower in the
time span of 20+ years.

Again,  I am not trying to defend socialism but rather put it in a different
frame  - the frame of development project rather than a final destination as
it is  commonly portrayed.  Therefore, it requires a different metric in
measuring its  success than standard measures developed for a market
economy.  Dropping $100 bn on a public infrastructure project that will
never pay for itself let alone bring a profit may be a bad business
decision, but it becomes a good move if its goal is to stabilize the
faltering markets.  Likewise, public ownership & central planning certainly
look horrible from a business perspective, but they performed wonders to
propel the entire country to a different level of social and economic
development.

Wojtek

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:


>
> On Sep 10, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> > And as far as i know, countries like Russia or Poland made far
> > greater progress during the first 10 years of socialism than during the
> 20+
> > years of capitalism and privatization.
>
> For Russia, it was more than the first 10. According to Maddison, Russian
> incomes were 55% of U.S. levels in 1820. That fell steadily to 28% in 1913.
> It rose to 36% in 1973, then began to lag, falling to 30% in 1990. But then
> the undoing of the USSR kicked in, bringing incomes down 14% of U.S. levels
> in 1998. According to the IMF's not-comparable data, total Russian GDP was
> 18% of the U.S. in 1992 (the first year they have data for). It fell to 11%
> in 1998, a really sharp fall in a short time. It's since risen to 15%, i.e.
> back to 1993 or 1994 levels.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>