History Historical Myth Debunked: Communism Unnecessary for Russian Industrialisation

[Navarro]

Latter-day Communists and apologists for the USSR like to repeat the claim that Stalin, and the October Revolution in general, caused Russia's massive industrial growth in the 1930s and its status as a technological and military rival to the USA in the mid-20th century. Some have even gone so far as to argue that the genocidal killing of millions and totalitarian repression of life under communism were justified by this increase in industrial capacity. Thankfully, due to recent economic research actually analysing the factors in play, this has been soundly debunked.

Would Russia have industrialized without Stalin?

The question, "Was Stalin necessary?," posed in a recent paper, by economists Anton Cheremukhin of the Dallas Fed, Mikhail Golosov of Princeton, Sergei Guriev of…

foreignpolicy.com

The question, “Was Stalin necessary?,” posed in a recent paper, by economists Anton Cheremukhin of the Dallas Fed, Mikhail Golosov of Princeton, Sergei Guriev of the New Economic School in Moscow, and Aleh Tsyvinski of Yale, seems a bit tasteless at first. Obviously, nothing could make the 20th century’s greatest mass murderer “necessary.”

But considering Russia’s growth from a largely agrarian economic backwater into an industrialized power that was competing with the United States and putting humans into space in just a little over four decades, it’s worth considering whether the same result could have occurred had he never come along. The authors attempt to do this by developing a counterfactual model of how the Russian economy might have developed if it had continued on the same path it was on prior to 1918.

The authors point out that the Russian economy was not exactly stagnant in the late Tsarist period. Efforts to industrialize the country had begun with the abolition of serfdom in 1861 and accerated in the early 20th century with the reforms undertaken by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, which included the adoption of a gold standard, investments in railroads, and the encouragement of exports. GDP per capita grew at around 1.91 percent between 1885 and 1913.

Economic productivity was decimated by World War I and the revolution, and only returned to pre-revolutionary levels by around 1928, following the limited market reforms of Lenin’s New Economic Policy.

...

The authors run a counterfactual simulation of economic growth under “Tsarist” conditions, as well as comparing Russian performance to that of Japan — which had similar economic conditions prior to 1918:

The Tsarist economy, even in our conservative version assuming that it would not experience any decline in frictions, would have achieved a rather similar structure of the economy and the levels of production as Stalin’s economy. However, this structural transformation would be achieved at a significant cost in terms of economic welfare measured in consumption equivalents. The short-run (1928-1940) costs of Stalin’s policies are very significant for an economy in a peaceful period. Our comparison with Japan leads to astonishingly larger welfare costs of Stalin’s policies.

...

The paper is a good reminder that just because terror coincided with industrialization in Stalin’s Soviet Union, one was not a precondition for the other. Obviously, even had the Bolsheviks never come onto the scene, it’s hard to imagine that the Tsarist status quo would have continued indefinitely without disruption. The paper doesn’t get into how some sort of non-Tsarist, non-Stalinist system might have fared.

And of course, taking a step back from the economics, the obvious answer to the question of whether a 16.5 lifetime gain in consumption levels makes 20 million deaths “necessary” is ‘no.’

 

[Darth Robbhi]

I'd flip it. Industrialization without social reform brought communism.

 

[Navarro]

I'd flip it. Industrialization without social reform brought communism.

Communism in Russia - which is where all this trouble started - managed to take over because the German Empire was using it as a weapon to quickly knock Russia out of WW1.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Communism in Russia - which is where all this trouble started - managed to take over because the German Empire was using it as a weapon to quickly knock Russia out of WW1.

Lenin, yes. But the Germans didn't introduce the idea, nor did Lenin himself create the conditions for the October Revolution on his own between Febreuary and October 1917.

Russia had been in various stages of revolution since the 1870s, starting with The People's Will through the autocratic oppression of Alexander III and the fateful incompetence of Nicholas II. Those two were trying to keep Russian society static, not recognizing that both the traditional bonds of rural obedience were breaking down and that industrialization was creating the same social pressures in Russia it did elsewhere. Or recognizing it, but absolutely unwilling to be Russia's Lord Salisbury and adapt slowly to release the pressure.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Communism in Russia - which is where all this trouble started - managed to take over because the German Empire was using it as a weapon to quickly knock Russia out of WW1.

No, the Germans only gave it the nudge, it was Tzar's incompetence, along with decadence and idiocy of the ruling elite that made it possible. Lenin and buddies would be arrested and executed as traitors if Russia was still functioning country when he crossed the border. Russian empire really was rapidly modernizing, but much needed social reforms were not forthcoming, the warning of 1905 was not heeded and entire country paid the price for Nicky being a weak minded fool.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

No, the Germans only gave it the nudge, it was Tzar's incompetence, along with decadence and idiocy of the ruling elite that made it possible. Lenin and buddies would be arrested and executed as traitors if Russia was still functioning country when he crossed the border. Russian empire really was rapidly modernizing, but much needed social reforms were not forthcoming, the warning of 1905 was not heeded and entire country paid the price for Nicky being a weak minded fool.

Executing Lenin would not have prevented the problems, merely changed the names. Russia was at the point where the soldiers would not shoot people down when ordered to. They had fast approached the limits of what oppression as applied could do, and the wheels were going to come off. Just like they did in Germany when they collapsed, and Communists became a viable force in the street fighting.

Preventing Communism requires social reforms that give people the ability to enjoy the fruits of their labor and some political power. If you view people as stupid peasants to be ruled over, you're going to inevitably have revolution.

Russia needed a Lord Salisbury, not another Alexander III.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Executing Lenin would not have prevented the problems, merely changed the names.

My point was that this would be possible if Russia was still functional country. By the time Lenin crossed the border it wasn't anymore. Nicky decided to ignore the final warning call in 1905 and everyone paid the price for his futile clinging to autocracy.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Ultimately the reason why the UK and Germany avoided Marxist rebellion is because they gave the lower classes a stake in the system however limited. Working proletariat aren’t as open to Bolshevism when they can elect a Soc Dem or Labor Democrat to represent them in the national parliament.

Tsarist Russia may have been able to industrialize at the same pace-but politically Tsarism was a discredited system that needed drastic reform. Either in its removal in a Russian republic or making the Tsar ceremonial and thus making Russia a constitutional monarchy with all practical power invested in the Duma.

This paper doesn’t take into account the political system of Tsarism as it was-could not have endured into the 20th century without drastic reforms.

Which makes saying “well the economy would have kept on growing” pointless. Because it wasn’t the economy, it was the political system that needed real reform.

 

[Abhorsen]

Ultimately the reason why the UK and Germany avoided Marxist rebellion is because they gave the lower classes a stake in the system however limited. Working proletariat aren’t as open to Bolshevism when they can elect a Soc Dem or Labor Democrat to represent them in the national parliament.

Tsarist Russia may have been able to industrialize at the same pace-but politically Tsarism was a discredited system that needed drastic reform. Either in its removal in a Russian republic or making the Tsar ceremonial and thus making Russia a constitutional monarchy with all practical power invested in the Duma.

This paper doesn’t take into account the political system of Tsarism as it was-could not have endured into the 20th century without drastic reforms.

Which makes saying “well the economy would have kept on growing” pointless. Because it wasn’t the economy, it was the political system that needed real reform.

That's not what they are arguing though. They aren't saying that Tsardom could have survived; instead, they argue that the industrialization of Russia would have happened even if communism hadn't happened.

 

[Navarro]

That's not what they are arguing though. They aren't saying that Tsardom could have survived; instead, they argue that the industrialization of Russia would have happened even if communism hadn't happened.

Yes, that's what they were saying. Presuming literally nothing changes (which is highly implausible), the "late Tsarist" economy gets highly similar results to Stalin's crash-course industrialisation programs. Which shows that Russian industrialisation was not the result of communism, as communist apologists claim.

 

[Navarro]

Russia needed a Lord Salisbury, not another Alexander III.

Remember that Russian Tsar who carried out liberal reforms and was highly popular for this, until an anarchist murdered him which caused his successor to roll it all back out of spite?

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Remember that Russian Tsar who carried out liberal reforms and was highly popular for this, until an anarchist murdered him which caused his successor to roll it all back out of spite?

Yup. Not necessarily spite, though. Alexander III had very different political views from his father, and was part of the court and government faction opposed to greater liberalization, much like the Irish peers.

 

[Deleted member 88]

There's also the fact that liberalization doesn't make people unhappy more mellow, it emboldens them.

Undoing serfdom and other such reforms is seen by radicals as either not enough, or a self interested ploy to hold power. Which sometimes is the case.

In any event, I think the main problem with the model is that it doesn't acknowledge Russia needed actual political reform. And thus the model doesn't really say anything of value. Because politics and economics, especially in 20th century Russia are such intimately tied subjects.

 

[Abhorsen]

In any event, I think the main problem with the model is that it doesn't acknowledge Russia needed actual political reform. And thus the model doesn't really say anything of value. Because politics and economics, especially in 20th century Russia are such intimately tied subjects.

You don't seem to understand the point of the model. It wasn't intended to model political changes, that's a) very difficult, and b) completely irrelevant. The whole point was to show that, regardless of political system, Russia would have industrialized.

 

[Doomsought]

Executing Lenin would not have prevented the problems, merely changed the names. Russia was at the point where the soldiers would not shoot people down when ordered to. They had fast approached the limits of what oppression as applied could do, and the wheels were going to come off. Just like they did in Germany when they collapsed, and Communists became a viable force in the street fighting.

There were many different revolutionary groups at the time. The only thing the Bolsheviks did was manage to take control of the various revolutions and organize them. Without Leninin and friends, one of the other revolutionaries would have taken cotnrol, or Russia would have been split between several of them.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

There were many different revolutionary groups at the time. The only thing the Bolsheviks did was manage to take control of the various revolutions and organize them. Without Leninin and friends, one of the other revolutionaries would have taken cotnrol, or Russia would have been split between several of them.

I pretty much agree. Some kind of revolution and civil war was inevitable in Russia once the state was put under stress. Too many scores to settle.

 

[JagerIV]

Hm, this discussion of how Czardom was doomed without liberal reform seems to be a very "just so" story that seems to, well, ignore what happened in Russia for the next 60 years, where a more authoritarian system was put in place and kept chugging for quite some time.

Or the other obvious point of comparison raised in the study itself: Japan: japan I don't think could really be described as moving in a more "liberal" direction between 1920 to 1940.

I think some people are telling a story of the necessity of liberalism which simply is not born out by the facts on the ground. Sure, conditions would continue to change, and new laws would be passed. A Czarist regime is equally capable of passing laws every year (I'm sure they already did) as a parliament.

I'm not even really sure the Czarist regime would be worse at passing reforms than the USSR were, which seems to be part of the claim.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Hm, this discussion of how Czardom was doomed without liberal reform seems to be a very "just so" story that seems to, well, ignore what happened in Russia for the next 60 years, where a more authoritarian system was put in place and kept chugging for quite some time.

Or the other obvious point of comparison raised in the study itself: Japan: japan I don't think could really be described as moving in a more "liberal" direction between 1920 to 1940.

I think some people are telling a story of the necessity of liberalism which simply is not born out by the facts on the ground. Sure, conditions would continue to change, and new laws would be passed. A Czarist regime is equally capable of passing laws every year (I'm sure they already did) as a parliament.

I'm not even really sure the Czarist regime would be worse at passing reforms than the USSR were, which seems to be part of the claim.

Would require someone other than Nicky, though. Which is my point. His regime was the worst of both worlds - unwilling to enact anything but token reforms, unable or unwilling to go full Stalin. The pressure was building, and something needed to relieve it. Nicholas’ regime probably would have survived longer absent the stress of war, but I don’t think it was strong or legitimate enough to survive major shocks to the system. Not after 1905, anyway. Certainly Nicholas could not survive losing the middle and upper classes, the workers, and the troops.

Now, a different Czar is a different question. Should Alexander III live longer, or Nicholas die earlier, then there are lots of possibilities.

But I don’t see Nicholas changing his tune, which makes a social crisis inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Hm, this discussion of how Czardom was doomed without liberal reform seems to be a very "just so" story that seems to, well, ignore what happened in Russia for the next 60 years, where a more authoritarian system was put in place and kept chugging for quite some time.

Or the other obvious point of comparison raised in the study itself: Japan: japan I don't think could really be described as moving in a more "liberal" direction between 1920 to 1940.

I think some people are telling a story of the necessity of liberalism which simply is not born out by the facts on the ground. Sure, conditions would continue to change, and new laws would be passed. A Czarist regime is equally capable of passing laws every year (I'm sure they already did) as a parliament.

I'm not even really sure the Czarist regime would be worse at passing reforms than the USSR were, which seems to be part of the claim.

One does not mean the other. As we've said-the Czarist system was about to collapse. Mostly due to the pressures of WW1, another authoritarian system arising doesn't negate the above. When the soldiers stop obeying, the regime is done. And that was the case in Tsarist Russia.

As for Japan-that's a bit more complicated. In the post war years Japan did have some semblance of...democracy, but as we all know the military was too strong and too independent. Politicians that didn't do what the military wanted often ended up assassinated. During the great depression-people were eating tree bark. So any democratic system in Japan(which as said was already very weak to start with), couldn't handle that and so the military assumed control.

 

[Deleted member]

In 1906 forward there was a functional constitution. It simply did not last long to stabilise into a constitutional monarchy because of the pressures of the war. Of course, the March Revolution which put an end to it was not the October Revolution, and again, the fact that Kerensky's regime had lasted less than a year (which was yet still much shorter than ten years of constitutional monarchy) guaranteed that it didn't have a sufficiently entrenched constitutionalism to prevent the Bolsheviks. The Kerenskyites were totally incompetent and incapable; the last chance to prevent the Bolshevik revolution was Kornilov and Bonapartism, but it failed for Russia because of luck and because Kornilov was no Napoleon. But Communism was not inevitable and contributed nothing to industrialisation, and the Provisional Government was also not inevitable; without the war, Russia could have stabilised into a constitutional monarchy.