ManusJustus said:
The same can be said for communism. Stalinism, believe it or not, was very productive. The Soviet Union was the first country in space and Americans were afraid of the Soviets powerful economic machine, the problem was that the personal incentive here was personal harm (same goes for slavery in America). Nothing makes someone want to work harder than fear of being put in a gulag. This is not an acceptible form of personal incentive. Obviously, collective farms with no personal incentives for production (monetary or punishment wise), which is what many people think of communism as, is very unproductive. Why should I work hard if it doesnt benefit me? Same goes for many government workers and the above mentioned Wal-Mart employees.
However, some forms of communism can create more personal incentive and be more productive than their capitalist counterpart. That personal incentive is worker ownership of production. When Russian farmers were given the land that they once leased from feudal lords, they became more productive. When every effort that a factory worker puts into his product is returned to him, they become more productive. Some forms of Marxism, Troskyism, and Lenin's early Soviet Communism is an example of this, and it uses the same method of incentive as many businesses today, only to a much higher degree. Profit sharing, which many business do with their employees, leads to more productive workers. Imagine how productive all workers would be if they recieved full profit sharing, which is essentially what worker owns of production is.
|
I'm unsure if you are just expousing on the virtues of a command economy, or really know what the USSR's GDP was during the introduction of Marxism.
Notice the major increase during Gladnost and Peristroika?
Notice how Russia's GDP per capita was within 15-20% of the United States during the last Tzar's reign? What about the fact that GDP per capita saw no increases between 1925 and 1940 among the Soviet Union? Why was it that by 1970, US per capita was over twice that of Russia?
I think your also not understanding the difference between a command economy and a free market economy. In a command economy, the soviet union was able to pick & choose, based on leaders' goals, what to invest capital in. They decided that a space program would be good, and got to space first. But the fact of the matter is that the US was able to invest far more heavily and totally destroyed the USSR in the space race because they could invest more capital, as our economy was many times greater than the USSR.
