Thread: Is the US on the decline?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

That is false. First, the famines alone killed more people than the Czarist government had... ever. That is one of the reasons why I am living in the US (my Grandmother's family moved to the US from the Ukraine when the rest of their village was liquidated... they were the lucky few). When you throw in the purges in the 1920's, 1930's, and post-WWII (and this is without the deaths caused by the Soviet state shooting their own in WWII) Stalin gets the dubious distinction of being responsible for the most Russian deaths in history. Far more than Hitler.

Czarist Russia wasn't exactly capitalist. It was feudal. So that comparison is irrelevant also. The point still stands. Russian capitalism has accomplished nothing, other then causing a demographic crisis, destroying many industries, and throwing tens of millions into poverty, as well as collapsing the country, destroying out military, and causing corruption on a scale unprecedent even compared to the worst years of the Soviet or Czarist systems.

Now you talk about the deaths. Please enlighten this ignorant, nostalgic russian youth on how many deaths there were.

Entropy you're asking me to prove that I'm not a camel. Let whoever said the bs prove it. (see? no kitties this time, just a quote from Nochnoi Dozor )

Well, you are the on spitting it out.

And quoting Night Watch is bad style.

Originally Posted by Feanor

right..... but that's only true if we count direct execution deaths. And ignore the fact that the capitalist government in Russia has made no progress, despite killing a few people over the years. So if we compare capitalism to Stalin in a single given country (Russia) Stalin is actually more efficient because he achieved notable long term progress. And if we take into account the demographic crisis and raise of mortality rates as a result of free market reforms.... well you get the picture. You're living in Belgium for a reason.

Since we have more than one communist country with a ruthless dictator, let's expand our case studies and look at progress in China under Mao (not quite the sheer killing power of Stalin, but nonetheless efficient compared to other dictators in history) versus progress in China under a capitalistic economic system. The Great Leap Forward vs. the end of the century.

The winner is: capitalism! So, while I am not fully up to speed on Russia's economic woes, I think you'd find that the causation for the recession in Russia was not due to capitalism itself, but rather, the rate of transition to capitalism and a free market economy. Russian simply didn't have the institutions in place, unlike some other Eastern Europe countries like Poland, to transition to freer markets at the rate it did.

Originally Posted by Feanor

Czarist Russia wasn't exactly capitalist. It was feudal. So that comparison is irrelevant also. The point still stands. Russian capitalism has accomplished nothing, other then causing a demographic crisis, destroying many industries, and throwing tens of millions into poverty, as well as collapsing the country, destroying out military, and causing corruption on a scale unprecedent even compared to the worst years of the Soviet or Czarist systems.

Ok, first, the point is that the ruthless autocracy that the Russian people revolted against didn't have a patch on the ruthless autocracy that replaced it.

Second, the demographic crisis started a long time before Russian democracy. The Russian population of the Soviet Union stopped growing in any meaningful way in the mid-1960's, and had been in relative decline (smaller growth rate than the US) since WWI. Just a few numbers here. According to Munting's Economic Development of the USSR (which, if anything, painted a far too rosy a picture of the state of the Soviet economy) the total labor force of the Soviet Union rose by 24,217,000 in between 1970 and 1980... however of that growth only about 2,000,000 of it occurred in the Russian population. In between 1980-1990 the labor force only grew by approximately 8,000,000, of which less than half a million were Russians. The life expectancy, which had risen substantially (from about 50 years old in between 1950-1953 all the way to 66 in Khrushchev's time) began to fall again, down to 60 years old in 1984... during this same period infant mortality rates increased increased in absolute terms as well as relative terms (to over three times the US rate in 1980) (Soviet Economy Toward the Year 2000 by Michael Feshbach).

To be quite frank, Russians have been having demographic problems since long before the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Politburo was having to deal with the problem of not enough Russian males (and a surplus of Muslim minorities... among whom the vast majority of growth was occurring) since the economic slowdown of the late 1960's.

Those industries were devastated because they weren't efficient... and were exposed to competition from others who were for the first time in 80 years. The exact same thing happened to the economies of the former Soviet satellite nations. However, I would like to point out the shortages and lines for essential goods that plagued Russia during the 1980's obviously showed how inefficient those industries were. Pretty much, capitalist Russia was paying the price for Communist Russia's effect on business.

Now you talk about the deaths. Please enlighten this ignorant, nostalgic russian youth on how many deaths there were.

My advice to you is read a book on the subject. Any book on the subject. The only requirement is that it is done by a credible historian (hell, most Communists look back on Stalin as a butcher, and have since the man died). This isn't exactly classified information I'm imparting here.

I will say this, any government that starts shooting its returned prisoners of war for being "too Western" would definitely shoot you for the same reason.

I would also point out that nobody who had lived through the Stalin era was nostalgic for it, and those were the people he was convinced he could trust in charge... most of Khrushchev's time in office was spent undoing what Stalin had done, and raising the living standards of the Russian people. It was also the last sustained period of Soviet economic growth. However, no one was in favor of giving anyone as much power as Stalin had held because of what Stalin had done with that power.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Ok, first, the point is that the ruthless autocracy that the Russian people revolted against didn't have a patch on the ruthless autocracy that replaced it.

Second, the demographic crisis started a long time before Russian democracy. The Russian population of the Soviet Union stopped growing in any meaningful way in the mid-1960's, and had been in relative decline (smaller growth rate than the US) since WWI. Just a few numbers here. According to Munting's Economic Development of the USSR (which, if anything, painted a far too rosy a picture of the state of the Soviet economy) the total labor force of the Soviet Union rose by 24,217,000 in between 1970 and 1980... however of that growth only about 2,000,000 of it occurred in the Russian population. In between 1980-1990 the labor force only grew by approximately 8,000,000, of which less than half a million were Russians. The life expectancy, which had risen substantially (from about 50 years old in between 1950-1953 all the way to 66 in Khrushchev's time) began to fall again, down to 60 years old in 1984... during this same period infant mortality rates increased increased in absolute terms as well as relative terms (to over three times the US rate in 1980) (Soviet Economy Toward the Year 2000 by Michael Feshbach).

To be quite frank, Russians have been having demographic problems since long before the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Politburo was having to deal with the problem of not enough Russian males (and a surplus of Muslim minorities... among whom the vast majority of growth was occurring) since the economic slowdown of the late 1960's.

But not the savage demographic crisis that threatens modern day Russia. Nowhere near it.

Those industries were devastated because they weren't efficient... and were exposed to competition from others who were for the first time in 80 years. The exact same thing happened to the economies of the former Soviet satellite nations. However, I would like to point out the shortages and lines for essential goods that plagued Russia during the 1980's obviously showed how inefficient those industries were. Pretty much, capitalist Russia was paying the price for Communist Russia's effect on business.

Not quite so. The real answer is that Russian industry is inefficient period. The modern western world has no industry. In effect is has de-industrialized via outsourcing. When Russian industry ended up open to competition it had to compete with India and China, and promptly lost because of a much high cost. Since then Russian capitalism has not done any real good for the country, and the modest gains that have happened are due to limitations on capitalism rather then due to letting it run un-restricted. So lets see, limits on capitalism = modest gains, lack of limits = massive economic collapse. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

My advice to you is read a book on the subject. Any book on the subject. The only requirement is that it is done by a credible historian (hell, most Communists look back on Stalin as a butcher, and have since the man died). This isn't exactly classified information I'm imparting here.

I will say this, any government that starts shooting its returned prisoners of war for being "too Western" would definitely shoot you for the same reason.

I would also point out that nobody who had lived through the Stalin era was nostalgic for it, and those were the people he was convinced he could trust in charge... most of Khrushchev's time in office was spent undoing what Stalin had done, and raising the living standards of the Russian people. It was also the last sustained period of Soviet economic growth. However, no one was in favor of giving anyone as much power as Stalin had held because of what Stalin had done with that power.

I have a full shelf of literature including various biographies. None cite any reliable numbers. And by reliable I mean supported with more then demographic estimates and/or citations of other similar works on Stalins era. But since you were so confident that Stalin killed millions I was hoping to get from you a reliable source that gives you such confidence

Originally Posted by Shek

Since we have more than one communist country with a ruthless dictator, let's expand our case studies and look at progress in China under Mao (not quite the sheer killing power of Stalin, but nonetheless efficient compared to other dictators in history) versus progress in China under a capitalistic economic system. The Great Leap Forward vs. the end of the century.

The winner is: capitalism! So, while I am not fully up to speed on Russia's economic woes, I think you'd find that the causation for the recession in Russia was not due to capitalism itself, but rather, the rate of transition to capitalism and a free market economy. Russian simply didn't have the institutions in place, unlike some other Eastern Europe countries like Poland, to transition to freer markets at the rate it did.

Mao was not communist in my books. He was at best using some socialist policies to cover up a brutal dictatorship. He is much closer to Cambodia then to the USSR.

Originally Posted by Feanor

I have a full shelf of literature including various biographies. None cite any reliable numbers. And by reliable I mean supported with more then demographic estimates and/or citations of other similar works on Stalins era. But since you were so confident that Stalin killed millions I was hoping to get from you a reliable source that gives you such confidence

Have you ever heard anyone deny it?

Because I know two polite old ladies (my grandmother and her sister) who would happily spit in your face for talking the way you are right now. Of course I guess you've never had secret police come into your village and take away friends and family... something you advocate.

And that alone convinces me that you have no clue what you are talking about.

However like I said before, people like you get purged rather quickly under a Stalinist system, so it wouldn't matter for you anyways.

Originally Posted by Feanor

But not the savage demographic crisis that threatens modern day Russia. Nowhere near it.

Demographic crisis are long term trends, what happened to Russia over that 15 year period was a hiccup... a hiccup it is now recovering from.

Not quite so. The real answer is that Russian industry is inefficient period. The modern western world has no industry. In effect is has de-industrialized via outsourcing. When Russian industry ended up open to competition it had to compete with India and China, and promptly lost because of a much high cost. Since then Russian capitalism has not done any real good for the country, and the modest gains that have happened are due to limitations on capitalism rather then due to letting it run un-restricted. So lets see, limits on capitalism = modest gains, lack of limits = massive economic collapse. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

More dollars worth of goods (excluding services) are produced in the West (Europe, US, Japan) than are produced in China and India combined.

I would also point out that Russia's economy had begun its recovery prior to Putin's arbitrary interventions.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Demographic crisis are long term trends, what happened to Russia over that 15 year period was a hiccup... a hiccup it is now recovering from.

A hiccup that has dropped the Russian population (and is still dropping) from 148 million to 141 million.

More dollars worth of goods (excluding services) are produced in the West (Europe, US, Japan) than are produced in China and India combined.

Do you have a source? And also (this question is rhetorical) will it be that way in 30 years?

I would also point out that Russia's economy had begun its recovery prior to Putin's arbitrary interventions.

1999 was the default. I'd say rock bottom. Minor recovery occured until around 2000-2001 when Putin came to power and starting to force an effective subsidization of Russian industry.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Have you ever heard anyone deny it?

Yes. I've seen number estimates from 672 000 to 120 million.

EDIT: I'm still waiting for those numbers

Originally Posted by Feanor

A hiccup that has dropped the Russian population (and is still dropping) from 148 million to 141 million.

The Russian population stop growing in the 1980's and had started declining before the fall of the Soviet Union. That demographic plunge was caused in part by the economic collapse, but it was a continuation of trends that were in place before the fall of communism.

Do you have a source? And also (this question is rhetorical) will it be that way in 30 years?

My source is the Economist, however I've done some checking and you can find this information on the CIA World Factbook and the IMF informational website (although you'll have to do your own addition in the unadjusted GDP figures in the industrial sector).

As for in the next 30 years, I'd actually say that with the advances being made in robotics we'll be seeing a lot more manufacturing being done in the US than is occurring today (although far fewer jobs in that field...).

1999 was the default. I'd say rock bottom. Minor recovery occurred until around 2000-2001 when Putin came to power and starting to force an effective subsidization of Russian industry.

Rising oil prices have been the primary driver behind that economic recovery. Long term problems will result however, as the oil and gas exports are driving up the price of other Russian exports which will hurt the Russian economy in the long run (Petro-currencies almost always come back to bite large economies that rely on them).

Yes. I've seen number estimates from 672 000 to 120 million.

EDIT: I'm still waiting for those numbers

I've seen numbers from credible statisticians and historians ranging from 10,000,000-30,000,000 from the famines. Approximately 2,000,000 Russian POW's who were "liberated" were shot or shipped to the Gulags after WWII. How many died in the purges? Well that number is mostly estimated between 10-20 million. Members from every level of society disappeared, either into the gulags or just shot and put in mass graves (the most famous of these was the 1937 purges... but in reality they were conducted constantly throughout Stalin's era... Beria was such a lovely fellow). The only concrete numbers for those are the deaths within the officer corps (which ranged from 100% at the top levels to 70% of the Lieutenants... with losses increasing the higher up you go).

Now, approximately 20 million soldiers died in the Great Patriotic War (those same statisticians and historians, Soviet numbers are completely unreliable)... that is including soldiers that died as a result of Stalin's policies (such as the KGB barrage battalions, various local purges, Vlassov's army, using Russian civilians as minesweepers, ect). So we'll be generous to Stalin and say that all of those 20 million were Hitler's fault.

Now, millions more died from forced migrations (such as the Germanic populations or many of the Tatars) to Siberia and from malnutrition or overwork during WWII for the Soviet Union, but we'll be very generous and absolve Stalin of responsibility for those as well. Now, being generous and using the lowest estimates for all of the others that Stalin had killed independent of WWII (and Stalin was responsible for a lot of deaths in WWII that weren't necessary), Stalin still manages to get a higher number of dead Soviets than Hitler.

Stalin was a paranoid butcher... if you were to argue that you would be the first, communist or no, that I've met that believes otherwise. No one who lived through that wanted to go back (have you read some of the resolutions that were coming out of the Central Committee in the decade after Stalin died?)... because no one was safe. At least in Germany you knew what would get you killed.