Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

An Interview Of Stalin By H.G. Wells

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1325
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 28 Dec 2014, 23:16
soviet78 wrote:
I know boycotts of products are mostly for liberal hipsters and they rarely lead anywhere, but it really bothers me that 'the market' is considered such a holy cow that we aren't allowed to offend anyone with anything. Just a couple weeks ago a guy asked the president about why a local brand of kvass couldn't get a place in the big retailers, and Putin said that while there may be some scientific studies to show that Coca Cola 'may be bad for your health', we aren't allowed to offend any of our investment partners, including Coke.
I mean the US has just basically declared Russia the number one threat to the world, but one of its symbols, Coca Cola, is still free to take the place of rooftop 'Glory to the CPSU' banners? That's just bullshit.


What you said about people not wanting to upset big corporations doesn't surprise me in the least. There literally is nothing in the world that would land you a shit storm as heavy as one after you've offended big corporations, who are in many ways the most powerful entities in the world. So in a way I can understand Putin for not wanting to make matters worse with foreign investors and corporations upon which many of the local oligarchs are in big business with. When you open up your country to foreign capital you inevitably will become a slave to the system to which Putin is no exception; and although I do believe Putin to be a man who loves his country wholeheartedly and does indeed care for the welfare of his people, he still does have his limits to how far he would go in order to battle foreign businesses even if it were to the betterment of the Russian working class.

It takes a man with a pair of steel balls the likes of the Man of Steel himself to effectively fight off foreign capital; and Putin sure as hell ain't no Stalin. Stalin and Trotsky always differed on foreign trade. Trotsky rejected economic isolation as unproductive, but Stalin felt otherwise.

"The more our exports and imports grow, the more we depend on the capitalist west and the more vulnerable we become to attacks from our enemies", Stalin explained in 1925. Both Stalin and Trotsky favoured trade but Stalin, like Lenin, defended the state trade monopoly as protection against spontaneous commercial exchanges with foreigners.

Bukharin said much the same in Pravda on October 10, 1927: "We do not want to be swallowed up by our deadly capitalist enemies. For this we need a barrier - the monopoly on foreign trade."

Western trade collapsed in 1931, partly owing to the great depression to which Stalin closed the country to foreign investments.

After that there were many attempts to introduce foreign capital into the Soviet economy to which Stalin steadfastly refused.

One such attempt was made by none other than H. G. Wells when he tried to convince Stalin that people like Henry Ford and John Rockefeller who were although capitalist billionaires, had the interests of the working class in mind; and that foreign investment, capital, and the opening of the Soviet economy to Western corporations would be to the benefit of the working class; to which Stalin replied that he simply did not believe in the goodwill of the bourgeoisie.

Nevertheless upon returning to England Wells said in a statement to the press regarding Stalin: "I have never met a man more fair, candid, and honest."

Below is the narrated conversation between these two people I admire very much, Stalin and H. G. Wells, the visionary futurist and devout socialist who wrote some of the greatest science fiction novels of all time including The War of the Worlds, The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, and The Island of Doctor Moreau.

An Interview Of Stalin By H.G. Wells (Marxism Versus Liberalism)
Image


The great art of life is sensation; to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 29 Dec 2014, 01:14
Quote:
It takes a man with a pair of steel balls the likes of the Man of Steel himself to effectively fight off foreign capital; and Putin sure as hell ain't no Stalin. Stalin and Trotsky always differed on foreign trade. Trotsky rejected economic isolation as unproductive, but Stalin felt otherwise.

Where are you getting this idiocy from? Stalin's USSR wasn't in economic isolation as it exported grain even during a famine. In fact in the first pyatiletka not only all of the materials but even tens of thousands of foreigners came to the USSR from abroad, so this is bullshit. What Stalin said in 1925 doesn't matter here.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1325
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 29 Dec 2014, 01:31
Are you having one of your epileptic fits again? Where did I say that the USSR was in economic isolation? Why do I always have to quote myself with you?

Quote:
Both Stalin and Trotsky favoured trade but Stalin, like Lenin, defended the state trade monopoly as protection against spontaneous commercial exchanges with foreigners.


When I said Trotsky was against economic isolation or when I said Stalin closed the country to foreign investment in 1931, I did not mean closing the country's borders to all forms of trade.

Barb removed

-Praxicoide
Image


The great art of life is sensation; to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 29 Dec 2014, 02:13
Quote:
It takes a man with a pair of steel balls the likes of the Man of Steel himself to effectively fight off foreign capital; and Putin sure as hell ain't no Stalin. Stalin and Trotsky always differed on foreign trade. Trotsky rejected economic isolation as unproductive, but Stalin felt otherwise.

Your words here.

In reality there was almost no foreign investments in the USSR except for a few cases, so that didn't really have anything to do with how Stalin felt about anything.

Quote:
After that there were many attempts to introduce foreign capital into the Soviet economy to which Stalin steadfastly refused.

Actually Ford opened a tractor factory in Stalingrad around 1928.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1325
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 29 Dec 2014, 03:06
The lack of foreign investments had everything to do with how Stalin felt. I don't know why you brought up the truck factory that Ford assisted in setting up in 1928 when I had already said that Stalin stopped working with foreign capitalists after 1931. Either way even that wasn't the investment of foreign capital, as Ford's technical assistance was being paid for by Soviet capital to build the factory that would essentially belong to the people of the Soviet Union and not to private shareholders.

The government of the Soviet Union always held a monopoly on all foreign trade activity, but only after the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 did the government accord importance to foreign trade activities. Stalin's policy restricted trade as it attempted to build socialism in one country. Stalin feared the unpredictable movement and disruptive influence of such foreign market forces as demand and price fluctuations. Imports were restricted to factory equipment essential for the industrialization drive that began with the First Five-Year Plan.
Image


The great art of life is sensation; to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 29 Dec 2014, 09:24
Quote:
The government of the Soviet Union always held a monopoly on all foreign trade activity, but only after the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 did the government accord importance to foreign trade activities. Stalin's policy restricted trade as it attempted to build socialism in one country. Stalin feared the unpredictable movement and disruptive influence of such foreign market forces as demand and price fluctuations. Imports were restricted to factory equipment essential for the industrialization drive that began with the First Five-Year Plan.

Except for several years after 1945 when the USSR propped up a system of typically colonial exploitation of E. Europe and some other countries. See SOVROM.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1325
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 29 Dec 2014, 17:39
It wasn't a system of colonial exploitation but of mutual assistance and economic integration between what would become allied socialist states working for the betterment of the proletariat and for the reconstruction of Eastern Europe after the destruction wrought upon it during the war.

After Barbarossa to which Romania played the leading role outside of Nazi Germany, the soviets needed resources to rebuild the worker's state. American capitalists were salivating at the thought of loan sharking the U.S.S.R.'s reconstruction. Had Stalin agreed, America would have sucked the soviet people dry by the time Stalin died, and a new generation of Soviet citizenry would have been born into a life of perpetual debt and bondage, which is the predicament most of us are in right now. So of-course the European nations most responsible for destroying the U.S.S.R. would have to be held most accountable and pay due reparations.

A reminder of what the soviets lost as a result of Fascist aggression to which I'll reiterate Romania was significantly responsible:

Quote:
98,000 collective farms had been ransacked and ruined, with the loss of 137,000 tractors, 49,000 combine harvesters, 7 million horses, 17 million cattle, 20 million pigs, 27 million sheep; 25% of all capital equipment had been destroyed in 35,000 plants and factories; 6 million buildings, including 40,000 hospitals, in 70,666 villages and 4,710 towns (40% urban housing) were destroyed, leaving 25 million homeless; about 40% of railway tracks had been destroyed; officially 7.5 million servicemen died, plus 6 million civilians, but more than 20 million in all died. In 1945, mining and metallurgy were at 40% of the 1940 levels, electric power was down to 52%, pig-iron 26% and steel 45%; food production was 60% of the 1940 level.


I won't even go into detail regarding all the atrocities, war crimes, and crimes against humanity Romanian Fascists were responsible for especially in the Ukraine with an estimated 400,000 people mass murdered. We must always remember what Romania's Fascist Conducător, Ion Antonescu, said ten days before Operation Barbarossa: "When it's a question of action against the Slavs, you can always count on Romania!" Romania committed more troops to the Eastern Front than all the other allies of Germany combined.

A little extortion through SovRoms was a small price to pay for Romanian War crimes against the people of the Soviet Union. It's not the U.S.S.R. that invaded Romania after all but the other way around. Furthermore, it's not like the money they extorted went into the pockets of corrupt soviet statesmen (of-course some of it did), but mostly into the reconstruction of the U.S.S.R., upon which most of it was fittingly used in Ukraine's reconstruction alone.

One-third of the U.S.S.R.'s fourth five-year plan's capital expenditure was spent on Ukraine, which was important agriculturally and industrially, and which had been the Soviet Republic most devastated by war. Eventually, the SovRom companies were handed over to the Romanian proletariat after due reparations were paid for the war and for soviet investments in the Romanian economy.

To those people who argue that the total value of goods passed by Romania to the Soviet Union surpassed the demanded war reparations; I ask how do you put a price for all the soviet civilian lives ended or destroyed?

Romanians should have been grateful that their infrastructure and civilian populations were left largely intact after the war despite all the trouble they had caused. Finally it's not like Romania had a whole lot of choices after the war with SovRoms being the best deal they could get.

Oh and by the way, I apologise for the statement that praxicoide removed, both to you and praxi.
Image


The great art of life is sensation; to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 29 Dec 2014, 18:33
Quote:
It wasn't a system of colonial exploitation but of mutual assistance and economic integration between what would become allied socialist states working for the betterment of the proletariat and for the reconstruction of Eastern Europe after the destruction wrought upon it during the war.

No, you might argue that functioning COMECON was something like that but before it was outright colonial exploitation. In Yugoslavia there was an even harsher and more exploitative regime than in Romania or even Iran, even though that country was a Soviet ally.
Now unfortunately there's not many sources on that in English but you can read Milovan Djilas' Conversations with Stalin where this gets mentioned as well.

Also there's this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/w ... h08.htm#s3
Quote:
The record of imperialist expansion – Russian ingestion of Eastern Europe

The traditional imperialist countries exploited their colonies in three ways: by buying the products of their colonies for low prices; by selling them the products of the “mother” countries for high prices; and by establishing enterprises owned by the capitalists of the “mother” country and employing “natives”. Russian state capitalism uses the same three methods to exploit its colonies.

There are numerous statistics proving that Russia pays very low prices for the products she buys from her satellites. To give a few examples. The Russo-Polish Agreement, dated 16 August 1945, stipulated that from 1946 onwards, Poland was to deliver to Russia at a special price (said to be 2 dollars per ton) the following quantities of coal: 1946 – 8 million tons, from 1947 to 1950 – .13 million tons each year, and subsequently 12 million tons annually, as long as the occupation of Germany continued. This coal is not to be paid for by Russian products, but by reparations taken from Germany by Russia. As far as is known, Poland did not get anything on this account. Anyhow, 12-13 million tons of coal at 2 dollars a ton, when the price of coal on the world market is 12-15 dollars a ton, gives a net profit to Russia of 10-14 dollars a ton, or altogether 120-180 million dollars a year (a sum comparable with the maximum annual profits of British capitalists from their investments in India). Borba, the Yugoslav daily of 31 March 1949, writes that a ton of molybdenum, an essential ingredient of steel, that cost Yugoslavia 500,000 dinars to produce, was sold to USSR during the Stalin-Tito honeymoon period for 45,000 dinars. The former Bata plants of Czechoslovakia had to supply Russia with shoes (the leather for which was supplied by Russia) for 170 Czech crowns, although the actual cost price per pair was 300 crowns. A particularly flagrant case of capitalist exploitation was that of Bulgarian tobacco: bought by Russia for 0.5 dollars, it was resold by her in Western Europe for 1.5-2.0 dollars. [11]

What applies to Russia’s trade relations with her European satellites, applies equally to her trade relations with China. Chinese pig, bristles and tung oil, which constitute a large proportion of Chinese exports, are offered at present in the Western European markets at prices below those in Shanghai and Tientsin, the main ports of export of these products. Russia is the exclusive agent selling Chinese products in the Western markets, and the fact that she can afford to sell them at prices below those prevailing in China itself – and there is no question that Russia makes a profit on the transaction – indicates clearly that she pays exceptionally low prices for them. It partially also explains why Peking is making such efforts to open direct trade relations with the West, thus eliminating the Russian intermediary.

So much for underpayment. As far as overcharging the satellites for Russian products is concerned, we shall cite the following blatant examples: Russia charges China much higher prices for its goods than are charged, for instance, in nearby Hong Kong by Western capitalist sellers. Thus, for instance, a Soviet Zis 4-ton truck in Tientsin was sold by Russia for a price equivalent to 50,000 Hong Kong dollars, while a comparable six-ton truck of Western make is sold in Hong Kong for 15,000 Hong Kong dollars. Czechoslovakian saccharine, imported via Russia, is sold in Tientsin for a price equivalent to 106.40 Hong Kong dollars per lb., while German saccharine of the same quality is sold in Hong Kong for 6.50 Hong Kong dollars. [12]

The position of Russian-owned enterprises in Eastern Europe shows up most blatantly the third means of capitalist exploitation carried out by Russia: exploitation of the “natives” employed in enterprises owned by foreign capital.

In the Russian Occupation Zone of Germany, the Russian state took outright as its property about a third of all industry. This is owned by what is called “Soviet Shareholding Companies” (SAGs). The importance of the SAGs is very great. Nearly all the large-scale enterprises are owned by them. Every SAG employed in 1950 on the average 2,400 workers, as against 139146 in the LEBs (enterprises owned by the so-called German Democratic Republic) and about 10 in the private industries. The importance of the SAGs will be even clearer if we take into account that they control heavy industry entirely. In the SAGs German workers produce surplus value taken by the Russian bureaucracy.

In Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria there are mixed companies, in which Russia owns 50 per cent and which are in reality completely under its control. Thus, for instance, such a company controls the richest oilfields in Rumania; others control steel, engineering, coal-mining, shipping, air communications , timber, chemical production, tractor production, the building material industries, the exploitation of natural gas deposits, banks, insurance companies, etc. – altogether making up far more than half the industries, transport, banking and insurance of Rumania. In Hungary and Bulgaria there are also mixed companies, but their importance is much smaller.

Taking up half the profits of the mixed companies, while all the workers are “natives” – is not this a clear case of colonial exploitation?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.