Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What "foreign exchange earnings?"
He needed the imported machinery that he couldn't get from abroad by any other means but selling grain, yes it's true.
What "economic miracle"?
Do you really think he needed some "economic miracle" - that was the whole idea behind his rapid industrialization?
No, he knew that if he wouldn't have industrialized his country fast, it would have fallen a prey to capitalist countries.
Yes, he made his choice at the expense of the peasantry.
I've read thru the thread quickly and noticed your posts but I'm uncertain as to the main point. The economic miracle was the rapid industrialization. What went on in Stalin's head - what he knew or intended - is way over my pay grade!!! Reading more closely, you appear to be defending some of Stalin's actions in your initial post?
How the USA operates is more like an oligarchy. It would not take control over the businesses - like Nazi Germany did. Instead it would throw a lot of money at businesses to produce what they need. That money coming from taxpayers.
In fact, the entire war reparations racket the USA gave to W. Europe was this precisely. The money these countries would get from the US taxpayer would go directly back into the hands of these corporations.
Germany didn't have that kind of money after the first world war - HELLOOOO))))
American bankers made the allies pay ( Britain first of all) the loans, and allies in their turn shifted these obligations onto Germany)))
I've read thru the thread quickly and noticed your posts but I'm uncertain as to the main point. The economic miracle was the rapid industrialization. What went on in Stalin's head - what he knew or intended - is way over my pay grade!!!
OK, the whole idea behind Stalin's rapid industrialization was NOT some "economic miracle" ( "economic miracle" - that's how AMERICANS perceived it during the times of Great Depression.)
But for Stalin the rapid industrialization itself was the end goal; he made public speeches about it, with explanations why it was necessary for the country.
OK, the whole idea behind Stalin's rapid industrialization was NOT some "economic miracle" ( "economic miracle" - that's how AMERICANS perceived it during the times of Great Depression.)
But for Stalin the rapid industrialization was the end goal; he made public speeches about it, with explanations why it was necessary for the country.
That's why the "economic miracle" was in quotes - for while it represented a massive economic transformation it was hardly miraculous given how it came about. Curious - did you see my last sentence asking about your overall take on this?
We're getting lost in the semantics. The last reference to "radical structuring" was to the class system, not specific Fascist economic policies. But to jump back to the economic, the changes that were made to the German economic and business structures under the Nazis certainly appeared less radical than what appeared in the USSR. The state became primary in both settings - that made possible the totalitarianism found in both - but in the case of Germany the changes were within an overall traditional structure (corporations survived, even flourished) whereas society was upended in the USSR. Nazism was in many ways conservative - actively rejecting some of the socialistic reforms of the Bismarck era; the opposite was the case for communism as expressed under the Bolsheviks and Stalin.
No, there was nothing conservative about Nazism. It was a progressive movement at the time. Hitler saw his movement as the path that all future governments would follow. How is that conservative that seeks to retain old institutions and old levers of power? Hitler tore all that up.
Now as to your statement that corporations flourished. No they did not - all corporations that were not directly related to the war effort - were not flourishing at all. Corporations had no control over their business model anymore. It was merely a facade so the corporate leaders at the top could still get some money and have a good life, but in effect it was all state run.
Germany didn't have that kind of money after the first world war - HELLOOOO))))
American bankers made the allies pay ( Britain first of all) the loans, and allies in their turn shifted these obligations onto Germany)))
True, but I don't know what's the point to continue with this hypothetical. As the saying goes, if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. Countries without capital will naturally change their economic system to suit their needs. If the economy was roaring back in 1920s Germany and Germany and their industries had a lot of capital, Hitler would have never come to power.
I've read thru the thread quickly and noticed your posts but I'm uncertain as to the main point. The economic miracle was the rapid industrialization. What went on in Stalin's head - what he knew or intended - is way over my pay grade!!! Reading more closely, you appear to be defending some of Stalin's actions in your initial post?
In the long run - yes I do.
After going through the Russian history, I don't put the blame on Stalin as much as I put the blame on the government ( yes, the capitalist government) before him.
Without any "Stalin" the civil war took away the lives of three million people from typhus alone.
If not for his rapid industrialization, the country would have collapsed during the WWII, that was approaching fast.
Russians wouldn't have anything to protect themselves with.
So Stalin's ideas were correct, but his personality ( and personalities of some henchmen surrounding him) were of questionable nature.
But that's not for the first time in Russian history.
That's why the "economic miracle" was in quotes - for while it represented a massive economic transformation it was hardly miraculous given how it came about. Curious - did you see my last sentence asking about your overall take on this?
No it was not "miraculous," but people put this kind of things in quotes for different reasons, that's why I didn't pay any particular attention at them, sorry.
True, but I don't know what's the point to continue with this hypothetical. As the saying goes, if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. Countries without capital will naturally change their economic system to suit their needs. If the economy was roaring back in 1920s Germany and Germany and their industries had a lot of capital, Hitler would have never come to power.
There was nothing "hypothetical" about it.
Hitler had the right-wing ideas ( because the ideas of the racial superiority is NOT a left-wing kind of ideas, as much as you try.) But he employed SOME of the left-wing ideas to implement his theories in life as I've already mentioned before.
And that's why you consider Hitler's Germany being "left," mistakenly so.
Ideology comes primary, economy comes secondary, so it can be used in more flexible ways.
So my point is probably the following; don't point at other countries, seeking the examples ( good or bad.)
All these countries have their own histories/circumstances and their own background, that has little to do with the US.
Just look at AMERICA and think what can/can't be done within its own context.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
