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

[Somebody Somebody]

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 

Somebody: What always troubles me is that we had always assumed that socialism would work best in developed countries. Yet as the Soviet Union completed it's phase of industrialization it seemed to work less well. I can understand a decline in GDP growth rates since that's typical for capitalist countries moving up the value added chain. But why the *relative* decline in GDP that you document here? 

The same is true of Cuba as well. Cuba slightly lowered the gap in GDP per capita with Chile after the revolution, but of course has been absurdly outpaced thereafter (not right after the Pinochet coup but since the late 80's - conservatives credit finance minister Hernan Buchi). As far human development Cuba has been a great success, but it has to admitted that here too, Chile is on the verge of overtaking the country in some measures, like life expectancy - although Chile's average obscures health disparities that are still in their infancy in Cuba. Cuba may soon have the third highest life expectancy in Latin America, behind Chile and Costa Rica. Soviet life expectancy was strangely stagnant following the 60's, matching their stagnant economy. Here too, they began to close the gap with the U.S. before falling behind again. This of course preceded the alcohol and unemployment fueled public health disaster that Russian men faced in the 90's.

I know some here argue against the use of GDP to measure the success of a society or economic system. I have some sympathy with this argument, given that leftist regimes have shown how vast improvements can be made, for a time, in health and education even in low growth. However, *in the long run* notions of zero-growth sustainable socialism have to fall by the wayside. All one-party states left-wing states seek to maximize growth as much as their capitalist counterparts - and with good reason, because it's ultimately their only chance of persisting in a capitalist world. Unless we don't care if socialist countries last, it matters a great deal whether they can grow (whether that means GDP or material output as Wojtek suggests).