[nico]

The DDR (or GDR) East Germany was communism's best success story, compare to a Romania, or a Hungary. The country was socialy, and economicly conservative. Following the old lines, but the shocks of the mid-80's with Glasnost, and perestroika shokced the E.Germans the most. East Germans by far lived the best out of all the communist states in the world. With a GDP per capita of $12,500 East Germany was not unlike the Netherlands. As I read in other posts Gorbi wanted a Soviet Union more like W.Europe, but was this mis-placed would it have been better to follow the DDR lead?

[CasX]

With a GDP per capita of $12,500 East Germany was not unlike the Netherlands.

What year was this? If it's real GDP and not simply numerical, what is the base year it's compared to? GDP has many flaws, but I'll go into that another time.

My Dad visited the Soviet Bloc - including East Germany - as a guest of the government in the 60's, and he thought it was crap, basically. Grey, drab, poor society, and sad people. I don't know if it picked up later, but I sure wouldn't want to live like that. Doesn't seem like much of a higher, socialist society to me.

[nico]

What year was this? If it's real GDP and not simply numerical, what is the base year it's compared to? GDP has many flaws, but I'll go into that another time.

Here is what it said:

German Democratic Republic Economy - 1989


The GDR has a centrally planned command economy in the Soviet fashion. Agricultural land is 95% collectivized, and financial institutions, transportation, and industrial and foreign trade enterprises are state owned. The GDR is the most industrialized country in Eastern Europe, with over half of its GNP generated by the industrial sector. It also enjoys the highest standard of living among Communist countries, with a per capita GNP of $12,500 in 1988. Trade is characterized by exports of manufactured goods and imports of basic raw materials (lignite is the only important natural resource found in the GDR). About 65% of foreign trade is with the USSR and other CEMA countries. The GDR's most important trade partner in the West is the FRG, which provides the GDR with interest-free credit under a special trade arrangement. During the period 1982-88 overall economic growth slowed to 1.5% from a rate of 2.0% during 1976-80. The GDR must overcome many economic problems that include low hard currency earnings, stagnating living standards, shortages of energy and labor, and an inadequate level of capital investment.

GNP: $207.2 billion, per capita $12,500; real growth rate 1.8% (1988)


Looks better off then the USSR.

My Dad visited the Soviet Bloc - including East Germany - as a guest of the government in the 60's, and he thought it was crap, basically.

It was the 60's, how about the 70's and 80's when the Bloc reached a level of stability?

Doesn't seem like much of a higher, socialist society to me.

Looks better than the Soviet society. [/b]

[CasX]

I'm no expert on East Germany but I value quality of life over material living standards, in any nation. Acceptable economic growth rates are no substitute for social freedom and democracy. I don't think any of the soviet societies were socialist in the Marxist sense, and having a higher material living standard than the other Bloc countries in the 1980's wouldn't have been terribly hard.

With a GDP per capita of $12,500 East Germany was not unlike the Netherlands.

Again, quality of life comes into it. I would rather live in a free, democratic, non-militarist nation with a GDP per capita of $1000 than a class-divided, pseudo-socialist, militaristic dictatorship with a GDP per capita of $10000.

In many ways GDP is only a measure of how efficiently capitalistic a nation and it's economy are.

Significant problems with GDP Statistics

- Non-market activity is not measured.
In subsistence agriculture or non-market driven economies this results in an underetimation of GDP.

- Income distribution is not measured.
Comparing income levels between nations does not indicate if income levels are evenly distributed.

- Composition of output is not a factor
In some economies huge amounts of GDP are spent on the military, which does not raise the material living standards of the population.

GDP can be overestimated in some economies where high levels of pollution mean some formal activity has to be carried out to fix problems that have been caused. This will add to the GDP, but not increase the standard of living.

An increase in leisure time will increase the quality of life of the population, but decrease GDP.

- Quality of goods is not a factor.
Many goods will become cheaper and of better quality over time due to increased technology. This will be measured as a decrease in GDP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Gross Domestic Product is hugely overestimated in the western world as an indicator of how well-off people really are.

[nico]

I agree that to live in a free society is sometimes better than to live in one with material wealth. But freedom, with nothing is not what most ppl would enjoy.

I don't think any of the soviet societies were socialist in the Marxist sense,

Oh of course not, Marxist-Leninism was a front so these stalinist countries could get some form of legitimacy. If anything these states were also looking to make a good buck themselves.

Again, quality of life comes into it. I would rather live in a free, democratic, non-militarist nation with a GDP per capita of $1000 than a class-divided, pseudo-socialist, militaristic dictatorship with a GDP per capita of $10000.

EEK! I am not sure if you lived in a third world country? $1000 is not a lot of money, neither is $10,000 in '03. But if the country was non-militant then GDP should be higher. Every society is class divided, it is impossible to have a classless society, you will always have the higher ups. We don't want anacrchy.

In many ways GDP is only a measure of how efficiently capitalistic a nation and it's economy are.

I don't really consider that a bad thing.

Non-market activity is not measured.

True half of Russia's economy is black market.

Income distribution is not measured.

Well you have the Gini index for example in Germany:

Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 4%
highest 10%: 25% (1997)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
30 (1994)


Which is not bad considering some nations are way off the charts

Composition of output is not a factor

Well I think you mean what section of the economy produces what:

Germany:
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1%
industry: 31%
services: 68% (2002 est.)

Quality of goods is not a factor.

True, but how can we really measure quality?

E.Germany spent in 1988 5.4% of it's budget on the military, around $16.2million marks.
Meanwhile W.Germany spent $35.5 Billion! 22% of her budget. I mean talk about a militaristic society.

[CasX]

Where can I get some more info on that Gini index?

[nico]

Here is a explanation:

Gini index:

This index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. The index is calculated from the Lorenz curve, in which cumulative family income is plotted against the number of families arranged from the poorest to the richest. The index is the ratio of (a) the area between a country's Lorenz curve and the 45 degree helping line to (b) the entire triangular area under the 45 degree line. The more nearly equal a country's income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country's income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100.


Here is a world wide list:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... /2172.html

[Gothmog]

I hope it could help you. Needs some effort to find the data. Unfortunately, the third link seems to be not working (it is
the best of all..)

http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/data/t ... htm#table1

http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/data/2_8wdi2002.pdf

http://www.wider.unu.edu/wiid/wiid.htm

[Gothmog]

Again, quality of life comes into it. I would rather live in a free, democratic, non-militarist nation with a GDP per capita of $1000 than a class-divided, pseudo-socialist, militaristic dictatorship with a GDP per capita of $10000.

US$1000 is the per capita income of countries like Bolivia, Syria and China. Believe me, you woudn´t like to live there. On the other hand, I fully agree with you on individual freedom. I don´t know to what extent DDR was a class divided society. It had one of the lowest unequality levels of the world and the second of Europe (Mark Mazower-Dark continent). But its government also suffered from a chronic lack of legitimacy (althought it was surprisingly moderate in its level of repression-for East Bloc standards). This, coupled with poor economic performance, led to the collapse of DDR. On that GNP of US$10000, we should also add that GNP are converted to dollars after calculation, so they depend on currency exchange rates. In those days of free market, currency suffers some really wild fluctuations, making difficult comparison between countries. In the former East Bloc countries, the problem is that they had a regime of fixed exchange rate, who overvaluated the currency, thus overestimating GDP per capita (althought their arbitrary currency rates are close to PPP values, which weren´t fashionable then...)

In many ways GDP is only a measure of how efficiently capitalistic a nation and it's economy are.

Significant problems with GDP Statistics

- Non-market activity is not measured.
In subsistence agriculture or non-market driven economies this results in an underetimation of GDP.

- Income distribution is not measured.
Comparing income levels between nations does not indicate if income levels are evenly distributed.

- Composition of output is not a factor
In some economies huge amounts of GDP are spent on the military, which does not raise the material living standards of the population.

GDP can be overestimated in some economies where high levels of pollution mean some formal activity has to be carried out to fix problems that have been caused. This will add to the GDP, but not increase the standard of living.

An increase in leisure time will increase the quality of life of the population, but decrease GDP.

- Quality of goods is not a factor.
Many goods will become cheaper and of better quality over time due to increased technology. This will be measured as a decrease in GDP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
per capita
I think Gross Domestic Product is hugely overestimated in the western world as an indicator of how well-off people really are.

-Right. Still, a high per capita GDP does not mean high living standards, but a low per capita GDP usually means low living standards. And you also has the troubles with currency exchange rates I mentioned before. The use of PPP (Purchase Power Parity) is a way to overcome these troubles, but has some bias too.
-On leisure: must remember that increase in leisure time is somewhat a result of increased productivity, which increases GDP too.
-And of course, measurements of quality of life is even more troublesome that that of GDP

[jaakko]

It's annoying how some people see DDR as 'poor' and even use it as an example of how capitalism is better. What capitalist countries are they comparing it? They are comparing it to the richest tenth of the capitalist world, to the centres of imperialism. I'm not sure of the latter decades, but atleast in the 1960's DDR had higher GDP than Finland, for example. If I were to live in the 1960's in some of the 'Eastern Bloc' countries, I'd choose DDR if I looked at the material conditions of living, and Albania if I chose politically.

GDP is crap, it doesn't take into account the exploitation of man by man or the fact that large portion of that worshipped GDP is in the pockets of few mega-rich, things that exist in capitalism. There are no socialist countries anymore, but if we took a socialist country with the same GDP as some capitalist country, the actual conditions of living would most likely be much better in the socialist one.

I think I must repeat one thing once more. Socialist society cannot be defined as 'a society having this and this amount of collective ownership, or this and this amount of economic planning'. Socialist society is in motion, and it's the direction of this motion that makes it socialist. Socialism is nothing but a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Only an economy that is gradually abolishing capitalist relations of production etc. and is developing towards communism, can be called 'socialist economy'. In order to such transition to be carried out, a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat must be established. Remember that it's always possible to this state to exist without the country being socialist. Dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are interconnected, different concepts, not the same thing. Cuba puzzles me a little. Socialist transition obviously isn't taking place there, but I may think the state is basically a dictatorship of the proletariat. One may disagree, but I used it just as an example (maybe erroneously), but the point should be clear (possibility of a state of the dict. of the pr. to exist when socialist transition hasn't started or has been interrupted or has been reversed towards capitalism).

[nico]

I don;t think the DDR was poor, she was by far the best off out of socialist state. But of course the thing about the DDR that made her downfall was the lack of freedoms that the population didn't enjoy. I mean by 1998 the GDP of the fmr. E.Germany had dropped to $144 billion! Under capitalist rulership, E.Germany got poorer. If the DDR wasn't so repressive on the population then maybe we would have seen her in existance today. Another thing is that the DDR lacked legitimacy with many Germans as the real German state. Mainly because it was seen as a Soviet lacky. The problem with the DDR and the entire socialist system is centralization of everything. Moscow held the keys, thus giving the impression of a puppet state to the USSR. I don't think GDP is crap, it is a good indicator of what the nation is really like. I mean draw your own conclusions:


USA
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $36,300 (2001 est.)

Cuba
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $2,300 (2002 est.)

http://www.zlb.de/schlossplatz/geschichte/palazzo.jpg
SAVE THE PALAST DER REPUBLIK!

[Gothmog]

It's annoying how some people see DDR as 'poor' and even use it as an example of how capitalism is better. What capitalist countries are they comparing it? They are comparing it to the richest tenth of the capitalist world, to the centres of imperialism. I'm not sure of the latter decades, but atleast in the 1960's DDR had higher GDP than Finland, for example. If I were to live in the 1960's in some of the 'Eastern Bloc' countries, I'd choose DDR if I looked at the material conditions of living, and Albania if I chose politically.

-Two questions:
1-GDR was in pretty good situation in the 60´s and 70´s, as far as material living stardards are of concern (better than Italy and Spain, for instance), but it clearly suffered from continued (relative) decline in the following 20 years. It seems we have a clear deficiency of the political and economic system here. This becomes even worse when we consider that this was a "decline over decline", because the capitalist central economies also faced economic hardships after 1973 and still did better than GDR. You can argue that those capitalist economies benefited from imperialism, but this is a half explanation, because GDR never benefited from imperialism and still had high economic growth rates until early 70´s. In your opinion, what did happen?
2-How do you defend Albania, that was a clear failure as economic and political system, to the extent it simply disintegrated withouth external agression or civil war (Albanian people voted with their feet in 1990, right?) and which were the poorest European country in 1990?

GDP is crap, it doesn't take into account the exploitation of man by man or the fact that large portion of that worshipped GDP is in the pockets of few mega-rich, things that exist in capitalism. There are no socialist countries anymore, but if we took a socialist country with the same GDP as some capitalist country, the actual conditions of living would most likely be much better in the socialist one.

-You´re right, but it was dificult for socialist countries to keep the same GDP growth as capitalist ones, at least after 1973. To my point, this don´t represent a failure of socialism itself, but a failure of the political system of those countries, who din´t gave enough room for democratic discussion and free flux of information. You are talking socialism as being defined by a transitional fase to communism. But communism implies in the abolition of state and classes. Was this happeneing in ANY country before 1990?

[Gothmog]

It's annoying how some people see DDR as 'poor' and even use it as an example of how capitalism is better. What capitalist countries are they comparing it? They are comparing it to the richest tenth of the capitalist world, to the centres of imperialism. I'm not sure of the latter decades, but atleast in the 1960's DDR had higher GDP than Finland, for example. If I were to live in the 1960's in some of the 'Eastern Bloc' countries, I'd choose DDR if I looked at the material conditions of living, and Albania if I chose politically.

-Two questions:
1-GDR was in pretty good situation in the 60´s and 70´s, as far as material living stardards are of concern (better than Italy and Spain, for instance), but it clearly suffered from continued (relative) decline in the following 20 years. It seems we have a clear deficiency of the political and economic system here. This becomes even worse when we consider that this was a "decline over decline", because the capitalist central economies also faced economic hardships after 1973 and still did better than GDR. You can argue that those capitalist economies benefited from imperialism, but this is a half explanation, because GDR never benefited from imperialism and still had high economic growth rates until early 70´s. In your opinion, what did happen?
2-How do you defend Albania, that was a clear failure as economic and political system, to the extent it simply disintegrated withouth external agression or civil war (Albanian people voted with their feet in 1990, right?) and which were the poorest European country in 1990?

GDP is crap, it doesn't take into account the exploitation of man by man or the fact that large portion of that worshipped GDP is in the pockets of few mega-rich, things that exist in capitalism. There are no socialist countries anymore, but if we took a socialist country with the same GDP as some capitalist country, the actual conditions of living would most likely be much better in the socialist one.

-You´re right, but it was dificult for socialist countries to keep the same GDP growth as capitalist ones, at least after 1973. To my point, this don´t represent a failure of socialism itself, but a failure of the political system of those countries, who din´t gave enough room for democratic discussion and free flux of information. You are talking socialism as being defined by a transitional fase to communism. But communism implies in the abolition of state and classes. Was this happeneing in ANY country before 1990?

[Gothmog]

It's annoying how some people see DDR as 'poor' and even use it as an example of how capitalism is better. What capitalist countries are they comparing it? They are comparing it to the richest tenth of the capitalist world, to the centres of imperialism. I'm not sure of the latter decades, but atleast in the 1960's DDR had higher GDP than Finland, for example. If I were to live in the 1960's in some of the 'Eastern Bloc' countries, I'd choose DDR if I looked at the material conditions of living, and Albania if I chose politically.

-Two questions:
1-GDR was in pretty good situation in the 60´s and 70´s, as far as material living stardards are of concern (better than Italy and Spain, for instance), but it clearly suffered from continued (relative) decline in the following 20 years. It seems we have a clear deficiency of the political and economic system here. This becomes even worse when we consider that this was a "decline over decline", because the capitalist central economies also faced economic hardships after 1973 and still did better than GDR. You can argue that those capitalist economies benefited from imperialism, but this is a half explanation, because GDR never benefited from imperialism and still had high economic growth rates until early 70´s. In your opinion, what did happen?
2-How do you defend Albania, that was a clear failure as economic and political system, to the extent it simply disintegrated withouth external agression or civil war (Albanian people voted with their feet in 1990, right?) and which were the poorest European country in 1990?

GDP is crap, it doesn't take into account the exploitation of man by man or the fact that large portion of that worshipped GDP is in the pockets of few mega-rich, things that exist in capitalism. There are no socialist countries anymore, but if we took a socialist country with the same GDP as some capitalist country, the actual conditions of living would most likely be much better in the socialist one.

-You´re right, but it was dificult for socialist countries to keep the same GDP growth as capitalist ones, at least after 1973. To my point, this don´t represent a failure of socialism itself, but a failure of the political system of those countries, who din´t gave enough room for democratic discussion and free flux of information. You are talking socialism as being defined by a transitional fase to communism. But communism implies in the abolition of state and classes. Was this happeneing in ANY country before 1990?

[jaakko]

Afenelon,
You are one of the people here whose posts I read with interest.

GDR was in pretty good situation in the 60´s and 70´s, as far as material living stardards are of concern (better than Italy and Spain, for instance), but it clearly suffered from continued (relative) decline in the following 20 years. It seems we have a clear deficiency of the political and economic system here. This becomes even worse when we consider that this was a "decline over decline", because the capitalist central economies also faced economic hardships after 1973 and still did better than GDR. You can argue that those capitalist economies benefited from imperialism, but this is a half explanation, because GDR never benefited from imperialism and still had high economic growth rates until early 70´s. In your opinion, what did happen?

To be honest, I don't know exactly. I'm bad in economics, and it's the development of USSR of which I know only some basics of. You noted that I talk of socialism as the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. It is a very contradictory period, the society undergoing it consisting of elements of both capitalism and the future communism. Such a society must be continuously and consciously developed towards communism. Of course taking into account the existing conditions to make plans for the wisest way forward. But if the society isn't progressing, either slow or faster, it will sooner or later fall back to capitalism. In USSR, this happened in steps. But during the 1960's, capitalist relations of production weren't no longer replaced or being planned to be replaced, no more concrete plans were made as how to continue the transition to communism, and the coiurse of the development of economy was turned back towards capitalism. I have, after quite long inner-head debate, come to adopt the view according to which the launchment this, as it is called, 'restoration of capitalist relations of production' was first prepared politically during the 1950's (the actual larger scale gradual economic 'capitalist restoration' being launched around the mid-60's).

Now back to the GDR and others. Thus far, I've made the assumation that European People's Democracies followed roughly the same steps as USSR, some more others less. Albania was an exception. Mistakes were made in Albania too, but they were different mistakes. They were mistakes in the fullest meaning of the word, mistakes committed by persons seeking to develope the country towards communism. You seemed to imply that the GDR's development stagnated because lack of motivation. I've heard stories from communists who had been in the USSR many times. In the 1970's at the latest, the communist enthusiasism of the earlier decades was practically gone. They tell for example, that by then the teaching of Marxism-Leninism wasn't just plagued by revisionism, but turned into its caricature, dogmatic repeating of mantras without a meaning (kind of like what anyone can find in his bourgeois school books). Thinking about the social conditions and overall 'atmosphere', I don't think I'd been very motivated either. Sorry for being rather vague, but could all this somehow apply to GDR too. I know the leadership of GDR got into contradiction with Gorba's policies, but this doesn't necessarily mean a fundamental difference (and by 1980's it was all too late anyway, I think).

You are talking socialism as being defined by a transitional fase to communism. But communism implies in the abolition of state and classes. Was this happeneing in ANY country before 1990?

-Withering away of state? Of course not!
-Abolition of classes? This is more complicated. In USSR the bourgeoisie as an economic class was liquidated by the 1930's, but the actual bourgeois people continued to exist, with other reactionaries and people loyal to them. One problem with the People's Democracies I think is that the relationally peacefull revolutions was enabled by the fact that the Red Army had over-run the armies allied to Nazi-Germany, thus making the bourgeois states practically defunct. Because of the People's Democracies weren't established through an armed revolution consisting of numerous clashes with the bourgeoisie, and because the bourgeoisie either left these countries or surrendered relatively peacefully, this enabled the bourgeoisie and its servants to prepare themselves in all peace. They could prepare how to live in the new society, retain atleast some positions in the structures of the new society, enabling them to act more efficiently (consciously or not) for the good of the counter-revolution. I'm not completely sure, but I think this might be one major weakness in the system known as People's Democracy, applying to 'relatively peacefully established socialist states' in general.

[Gothmog]

Afenelon,
You are one of the people here whose posts I read with interest.

-Thank you, I can say the same thing about you, althought we disagree in some aspects.

To be honest, I don't know exactly. I'm bad in economics, and it's the development of USSR of which I know only some basics of. You noted that I talk of socialism as the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

-Maybe the GDR collapse is related to USSR one, since GDR was part of a socialist system of trade and production, and the USSR was resposible by more than 50% of the GDP of this system. So the decline of USSR could have caused the decline of all the socialist bloc as a whole. In this case, you would help if you gave our impressions on the decline of USSR.

It is a very contradictory period, the society undergoing it consisting of elements of both capitalism and the future communism. Such a society must be continuously and consciously developed towards communism. Of course taking into account the existing conditions to make plans for the wisest way forward. But if the society isn't progressing, either slow or faster, it will sooner or later fall back to capitalism. In USSR, this happened in steps. But during the 1960's, capitalist relations of production weren't no longer replaced or being planned to be replaced, no more concrete plans were made as how to continue the transition to communism, and the coiurse of the development of economy was turned back towards capitalism. I have, after quite long inner-head debate, come to adopt the view according to which the launchment this, as it is called, 'restoration of capitalist relations of production' was first prepared politically during the 1950's (the actual larger scale gradual economic 'capitalist restoration' being launched around the mid-60's).

-Why do you say capitalist restoration started in the 50-60´s?

Now back to the GDR and others. Thus far, I've made the assumation that European People's Democracies followed roughly the same steps as USSR, some more others less.

-I think the situation in EE countries were distinct in the sense those governments were imposed by USSR, instead of being the result of revolutions (Albania and Yugoslavia were exceptions), so those governments lacked the legitimacy that USSR had among its population. Also those countries followed a economic policy largely based on that from USSR (autharchy and emphasis in the production of capital goods) that didn´t make sense for them, since they didn´t have neither the population nor the natural resources from USSR. We could, so, focuse in the causes of decline of USSR. I would like to see your opinion.

Albania was an exception. Mistakes were made in Albania too, but they were different mistakes. They were mistakes in the fullest meaning of the word, mistakes committed by persons seeking to develope the country towards communism.

-But again, why did Albania had such a poor performance? Was that because of isolation? Or a very bad starting situation?

You seemed to imply that the GDR's development stagnated because lack of motivation. I've heard stories from communists who had been in the USSR many times. In the 1970's at the latest, the communist enthusiasism of the earlier decades was practically gone. They tell for example, that by then the teaching of Marxism-Leninism wasn't just plagued by revisionism, but turned into its caricature, dogmatic repeating of mantras without a meaning (kind of like what anyone can find in his bourgeois school books). Thinking about the social conditions and overall 'atmosphere', I don't think I'd been very motivated either. Sorry for being rather vague, but could all this somehow apply to GDR too. I know the leadership of GDR got into contradiction with Gorba's policies, but this doesn't necessarily mean a fundamental difference (and by 1980's it was all too late anyway, I think).

-In 1917 Rosa Luxembourg wrote that the kind of political system that was being developed by the Bolsheviks in Russia would result in a complete emptiness of political life, by alienating the masses from taking part in politics. That is the point where I agree with her and the main reservation I have towards Leninism (and its Trotskyst and Stalinist branches). I think that the one party system eventually creates the political athmosphere you´re mentioning, which is, as you correctly points, one step for capitalist restoration. It is wonderful that Luxembourg was able to forecast these events 79 years in advance. Did you read her book on Russian revolution?

Abolition of classes? This is more complicated. In USSR the bourgeoisie as an economic class was liquidated by the 1930's, but the actual bourgeois people continued to exist, with other reactionaries and people loyal to them. One problem with the People's Democracies I think is that the relationally peacefull revolutions was enabled by the fact that the Red Army had over-run the armies allied to Nazi-Germany, thus making the bourgeois states practically defunct. Because of the People's Democracies weren't established through an armed revolution consisting of numerous clashes with the bourgeoisie, and because the bourgeoisie either left these countries or surrendered relatively peacefully, this enabled the bourgeoisie and its servants to prepare themselves in all peace. They could prepare how to live in the new society, retain atleast some positions in the structures of the new society, enabling them to act more efficiently (consciously or not) for the good of the counter-revolution. I'm not completely sure, but I think this might be one major weakness in the system known as People's Democracy, applying to 'relatively peacefully established socialist states' in general.

-But you should consider that capitalist restoration happened both in countries of "peaceful revolutions" and countries with iolent revolutions. Historic experience seems to imply that this wasn´t a very important variable. In China and USSR capitalism was restored too.

[nico]

Maybe the GDR collapse is related to USSR one, since GDR was part of a socialist system of trade and production, and the USSR was resposible by more than 50% of the GDP of this system. So the decline of USSR could have caused the decline of all the socialist bloc as a whole. In this case, you would help if you gave our impressions on the decline of USSR.

Well here is a break down of trade between the USSR and the world:

Exports: $107.7 billion (f.o.b., 1987); @m5commodities--petroleum and petroleum products, natural gas, metals, wood, agricultural products, and a wide variety of manufactured goods (primarily capital goods and arms); @m5partners--Eastern Europe 50%, EC 12%, Cuba 6%, US, Afghanistan (1987)

Imports: $96.0 billion (f.o.b., 1987); @m5commodities--grain and other agricultural products, machinery and equipment, steel products (including large-diameter pipe), consumer manufactures; @m5partners--Eastern Europe 56%, EC 11%, Cuba, China, US (1987)

And for the DDR:

Exports: $30.8 billion (f.o.b., 1987); @m5commodities--machinery and transport equipment 47%, fuels and metals 16%, consumer goods 16%, chemical products and building materials 13%, semimanufactured goods and processed foodstuffs 8%; @m5partners--USSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, FRG, Hungary, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Romania

Imports: $31.0 billion (f.o.b., 1987); @m5commodities--fuels and metals 40%, machinery and transport equipment 29%, chemical products and building materials 9%; @m5partners--CEMA countries 65%, non-Communist 33%, other 2%

The DDR did have a 1/4 of here imports were from the west, but her exports were mostly to the USSR. The FRG I would imagine with ost-politik would have been most of the non-communist import countries. But as you can see the DDR didn;t really need to imnport heavy machinery, thus showing she had a sizeable industrial base. But one that was largely old and very inefficent.

I was wondering what do you think of this, was gorbi doing the right thing?

Soviet Union Economy - 1989
Overview: General Secretary Gorbachev's program of economic restructuring--perestroika--has been slowly implemented and by mid-1989 had led to no discernible improvement in economic growth rates. In 1988 the economy grew by 1.5%, little better than the poor performance of 1987. Industrial output rose by 2.4%, about average for the post-Brezhnev era. Agricultural production fell by 2% in 1988; moderate gains in the livestock sector were not enough to offset poor harvests of potatoes and other vegetables and a reduced grain harvest. Urban consumers continue to experience shortages of fruits, potatoes, vegetables, and high-quality nonfood consumer goods. The highly centralized bureaucratic planning and administration of the economy have led to inefficiencies, technological backwardness, and sluggish growth for many years. Gorbachev's economic restructuring is aimed at revitalizing growth and raising quality by (a) decentralizing many allocation decisions to enterprises and households; (b) modernizing the informational flow system; and (c) revamping motivational patterns. Gorbachev, however, has stated he will not dismantle the system of socialist ownership and central planning nor give up the Communist Party's monopoly on power. Skeptical Western observers think he is seeking the benefits of the market system without adopting its fundamental operating roles.



has stated he will not dismantle the system of socialist ownership and central planning nor give up the Communist Party's monopoly on power.

Was that a big mistake? What do you think? I think it was, he tried to do half measures without really bitting the dust to make it work.

[Gothmog]

Exports: $107.7 billion (f.o.b., 1987); @m5commodities--petroleum and petroleum products, natural gas, metals, wood, agricultural products, and a wide variety of manufactured goods (primarily capital goods and arms); @m5partners--Eastern Europe 50%, EC 12%, Cuba 6%, US, Afghanistan (1987)

Imports: $96.0 billion (f.o.b., 1987); @m5commodities--grain and other agricultural products, machinery and equipment, steel products (including large-diameter pipe), consumer manufactures; @m5partners--Eastern Europe 56%, EC 11%, Cuba, China, US (1987)

-As the Soviet GDP was around 1,5 trillion dollars by 1987, its exports were about 6% of GDP (just for today comparisons, USA=10%, Brazil=13%, China=30%). As the majority of USSR trade was done inside the Eastern bloc, the importance of USSR in global trade was almost none. That was a trouble for a country which desperately needed strong curency reserves to deal with a hostile capitalist world. If the USSR tried to pursue a merchantilist policy, trying to improve its trade balance in relation to West, they could have survived (however, opening to external trade also brings the risks of capitalist restoration, but as we saw, a closed economy also id subjectyed to that risk)

I was wondering what do you think of this, was gorbi doing the right thing?

[i]Soviet Union Economy - 1989
Overview: General Secretary Gorbachev's program of economic restructuring--perestroika--has been slowly implemented and by mid-1989 had led to no discernible improvement in economic growth rates. In 1988 the economy grew by 1.5%, little better than the poor performance of 1987. Industrial output rose by 2.4%, about average for the post-Brezhnev era. Agricultural production fell by 2% in 1988; moderate gains in the livestock sector were not enough to offset poor harvests of potatoes and other vegetables and a reduced grain harvest. Urban consumers continue to experience shortages of fruits, potatoes, vegetables, and high-quality nonfood consumer goods. The highly centralized bureaucratic planning and administration of the economy have led to inefficiencies, technological backwardness, and sluggish growth for many years. Gorbachev's economic restructuring is aimed at revitalizing growth and raising quality by (a) decentralizing many allocation decisions to enterprises and households; (b) modernizing the informational flow system; and (c) revamping motivational patterns. Gorbachev, however, has stated he will not dismantle the system of socialist ownership and central planning nor give up the Communist Party's monopoly on power. Skeptical Western observers think he is seeking the benefits of the market system without adopting its fundamental operating roles.
[i]has stated he will not dismantle the system of socialist ownership and central planning nor give up the Communist Party's monopoly on power.

Was that a big mistake? What do you think? I think it was, he tried to do half measures without really bitting the dust to make it work.

-I think Gorbatchev neeeded to deal with the following troubles:

1-Agriculture: USSR has a very deficient agriculture. Overall output was not so bad, but the system relied on enormous subsidies which were a drain to USSR budget. To make things even worse, losses due to poor transportations and storage nets were very high. And the prices, kept on low levels by subsidies were so unreal that USSR farmers sometimes gave bread to their pigs!!! I think Gorby should have kept the collective agriculture, but introduced market regulation there (like was did in Hungary, with excellent results). This would have allowed subsidies to be diverted to other areas while improving the Soviet trade balance by decreasing imports.
2-Military expenses. USSR should have made an unilateral cut in their military budget, keeping their strong nuclear forces and decreasing the size of the Army. It would still be invulnerable to US direct agression and, again, the waste of resources would be decreased.
3-Keep the planning system, which was dismantled by Gorby which put nothing in his place. Some concessions to markets in production goods could have been made. Variables of quality should have been introduced in the planning system.
4-Export oriented policies, based in the state owned industries (with some joint ventures with foreign enterprises). This would have allowed the USSR to improve their reserves of strong currency, and, maybe, turn the ruble in a strong currency.

-All those strategies should work, but must be kept in mind that Soviet leaders should have considered hat the USSR couldn´t act like a superpower, because its economy was declining in relation to the World economy as a whole. A strategy of slow retreat should be planned. This would make USSR somewhat weaker as a military power, but much stronger than Russia today. It should have included a dramatic cut in the navy budget (except submarines-navy is the weapon of the superpowers while submarines are the weapon of the weaker) and a change in the Aitforce to give priority to air defenses, at the expense of tatical attack planes. An unilateral retreat of Afghanistan should have made as early as in 1985.

[nico]

As the Soviet GDP was around 1,5 trillion dollars by 1987,

? Sorry no it wasn't.

GNP: $2,500 billion, per capita $8,700; real growth rate 1.5% (1988)

(just for today comparisons, USA=10%, Brazil=13%, China=30%).

Well let's for the sake of the argument use the late 80's:

Brazil: ca. 8.2%
USA: ca. 15%
China: ca.19%
USSR: ca. 26%

Unless I did a mathimatical mistake of course

I think what was big problem for the USSR as with many socialist countires is it's total disreguard for it's budget. Look at this:

USSR
Budget: revenues $575 billion; expenditures $710 billion, including capital expenditures of $NA (1988 est.)

Budget: revenues $622 billion; expenditures $781 billion, including capital expenditures of $119 billion (1989 est.)

In just one year they managed to increase spending that much!

By the last year of her existance her imports exceeded her exports:

Exports: $109.3 billion (f.o.b., 1989); commodities--petroleum and petroleum products, natural gas, metals, wood, agricultural products, and a wide variety of manufactured goods (primarily capital goods and arms); partners--Eastern Europe 46%, EC 16%, Cuba 6%, US, Afghanistan (1989)

Imports: $114.7 billion (c.i.f., 1989); commodities--grain and other agricultural products, machinery and equipment, steel products (including large-diameter pipe), consumer manufactures; partners--Eastern Europe 50%, EC 13%, Cuba, China, US (1989)

Surely that is b.c of the down fall of E.Europe, I think what would have saved the USSR would have been to open up to international markets as
Afenelon mentioned, but also to China. Also debt really pilled up:

External debt: $26.4 billion, net (1987)

External debt: $55 billion (1990)

That's why I am saying that 1985 was to late, 1980 was the best time to change. Right before the nuveau capitalist model of Globalization took off.

[Gothmog]

As the Soviet GDP was around 1,5 trillion dollars by 1987,

? Sorry no it wasn't.

GNP: $2,500 billion, per capita $8,700; real growth rate 1.5% (1988)

-You are right on that there were the official estimates, but it were probably overestimated. You will find lower estimates. I think that 2,5trillion seems not to be right. No nation with such a robust economy and high GDP would hae collapsed so fast.

Well let's for the sake of the argument use the late 80's:

Brazil: ca. 8.2%
USA: ca. 15%
China: ca.19%
USSR: ca. 26%

Unless I did a mathimatical mistake of course

-Considering the GDP you quote, USSR exports/GDP would be equal to 4%. The other values are ok.

USSR
[i]Budget: revenues $575 billion; expenditures $710 billion, including capital expenditures of $NA (1988 est.)

Budget: revenues $622 billion; expenditures $781 billion, including capital expenditures of $119 billion (1989 est.)

-This would give you a budget deficit around 4% if you consider that estimate and 6% if you consider mine. High, but not crippling. Close to deficits run by Europe in late 80´s. However, as the state in the USSR was the owner of prouction means, a higher budget deficit would IMO be much more harmful for the conomy, since it prevented investment. This don´t happens in countries were ownership is private. In these countries budget deficts may actually stimulate the economy.

Surely that is b.c of the down fall of E.Europe, I think what would have saved the USSR would have been to open up to international markets as
Afenelon mentioned, but also to China. Also debt really pilled up:

-Look to the fact that USSR was becoming an exporter of raw materials in their last years, instead of selling industrial goods abroad.

External debt: $55 billion (1990)

That's why I am saying that 1985 was to late, 1980 was the best time to change. Right before the nuveau capitalist model of Globalization took off.

-This was a big increase but still tolerable-around 2-3% of GDP, which is less than the 27% net external debt the evil empire enjoys now.