Talk:Soviet-type economic planning

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheRushingRussian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias

It appears this article is heavily slanted in favour of a first world/capitalist point of view. References to STP as 'inferior' in general, without establishing a particular criteria with which to judge the system, show a bias towards the viewpoint of those in countries such as the US or UK, whose economies ascribe higher value to things such as consumer goods and concepts such as freedom of enterprise. It could be more useful to find a specific metric with which to grade Soviet-type economic planning, such as real GDP per capita, perceived freedom or other measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.218.178 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this article is very biased. It offers a large amount of analysis from one side of the argument and none from the other. Alistoriv (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Feb 26 2017 "anonymous commenter" and would like see comments / analysis on both sides of the question - free market democracy vs. Soviet style (and others) forms of Communism. Simply saying "I agree" does not contribute much. The ultimate standard for comparison is success - national AND individual welfare - monetary and personal, psychological, "happiness", etc. There is considerable data and rankings out there although you might say that those too are biased being prepared through the western lens of welfare and satisfaction. I have visited Moscow several times, in the late 19890s, just prior to Perestroika and remember vividly entering large food stores near Red Square with almost nothing on the shelves, in one case, only one loaf of bread on a shelf and separately finding a bug in my hotel room. So yes, my interpretation is fairly biased. But isn't it also true that the general population do not know much about what's going on in the rest of the world, only what is filtered through the Party lens.Danleywolfe (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is “biased” in the same sense that it’s biased against fringe theories. Wikipedia doesn’t include flat earthers theories in an article about astronomy, and likewise should present the viewpoint that an overwhelming majority of economists agree on. That SCP is an inefficient disaster compared to a market economy.

It’s also interesting to note, that everyone who accuses the article of “bias”, are people who have never experienced living under a planned economy themselves. Anyone who has lived in the Eastern block, will tell you what life looks like in a centrally planned economy. Lower living standards. (A new pot of shoes? A weeks wage. A new suit? Six weeks wages.) A lack of goods, not just “luxuries” like meat, but also sometimes essentials. A limited selection of subpar products. You can go to the doctor for free, sure. But if you want a good doctor or want to avoid waiting for months, you’ll have to go to a private doctor/bribe your way into the office, and afterwards pay half a months wages on the black market for Western pharmaceuticals, medicine, because the state factories doesn’t produce the newest patent medicines. 185.107.12.99 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm also "biased" because of my political beliefs, but could it be that this "lower living standars" (according to whom? compared to what? on which particular areas? on which particular periods?) are more related to the historical context in which those central planned economies took course (most of them undeveloped, feudal or semi-feudal, stagnated third world countries with decades of social and economic problems before the transition to SCP), as well as the policies that more developed and global-integrated Western economies took against them for political reasons (such as embargoes and economic blockades)? I don't know, it could also be that... But the article doesn't mention this important aspect of the discussion, so who would know besides us? 148.0.146.155 (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You're asking pretty basic questions here ("according to whom?") that have been answered a million of times already. While GDP is not a good overall measure of welfare, demographic metrics such as life expectancy and children mortality are, and they were significantly worse in SCP countries. Purchasing power and goods baskets are probably the best for day-to-day comparisons - for example East Germany had an average salary of $20 per month, in West Germany $2000 per month but food and basic good prices weren't free or even 100x less in East Germany. So say to buy a pair of trousers in SCP you had to work for a few months while in the West - maybe a day or so. I mention Germany specifically here as both West and East started from the very same level, just as South and North Korea, which removes the alleged factor of them being economically disadvantaged in the beginning.

Then, as you mention various underlying reasons, you need to realize that the whole point of Marxian economy was that it's significantly more superior and more efficient to capitalist economy and will "soon" overcome capitalist economies. USSR in 70's still argued that "in just 20 years" there will have true communism and everything will be free! No Western socialists (starting from Marx) ever had any problems with arguing that socialist economy is more efficient, for example due to lack of surplus (a central point in Marxian economy). For years people such as Jean-Paul Sartre argued and presented numbers (usually invented and manipulated) to prove superior efficiency of the Soviet economy. Now, after it all collapsed, suddenly everyone became very concerned about "hey, why should we even compare efficiency at all?", so this is nothing more than a simple evasion.

Now as you mention sanctions, all of them were introduced for a reason. If you read about sanctions against Cuba for example, they had a very simple origin - Cuba forcibly nationalized private enterprises owned by US citizens, so as result US refused to trade with Cuba until it somehow settles and compensates the loss, which never happened. Back then sanctions were no problem for Cuba or USSR because... they argued Marxian economy is superior and more effective and as such it will overcome and conquer the Western economy anyway! You apparently don't really realize how aggressively the communist planners boasted about their superiority back then, and again, the whole "oh can we just remove sanctions on Cuba to let it trade with the world" narrative was invented after USSR has collapsed.

And the ultimate argument from a perspective of someone who lived in the Eastern Bloc - we couldn't leave our countries, we were effectively locked in there as some kind of property of the state. Today you have boat people who risk their lives trying to escape from North Korea or from Cuba to Mexico (!), which tells a lot about the level of welfare in these lock-down countries. Cloud200 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the people statistically who defect from nations such as the DPRK possess a survivorship bias, also these people are mostly criminals statistically speaking, and usually have committed severe crimes such as the fisherman in the DPRK who murdered his entire crew and escaped to avoid punishment and retribution for his actions, also most people who defect from the DPRK, usually return back to the DPRK, this is statistically proven. Also, news corporations usually pay the defectors money, usually in the hundred thousands, to say anything negative about the nation which is usually false because they want the money and as I have previously stated they have a survivorship bias. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Socialism has resulted in improved national GDPs such as in the Marxist-Leninist, Socialist Albania. Also, it's like that one person mentioned, they usually came to be after feudalized or semi-feudalized societies and usually have accomplished great things during short periods of time, one woman who was alive during Stalin's leadership of the Soviet Union mentioned in a documentary that their industrialization was "like a fairy tale", this is referring to how rapidly it had occurred. Also about Albania, Albania had brought electricity to every home, something that wasn't the case years prior to Hoxha's leadership. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

About the surplus under Capitalism, Capitalism causes immense over-production and under-consumption which often results in waste of things such as food for example, and also leads to land and water pollution because people dispose of things that haven't been used such as expired food, they throw it away whilst it is still in the container for example and thus the packaging, something that isn't bio-degradable begins to sit somewhere i.e. a landfill or the ocean. Some stores throw away food and then pour bleach inside of their trash cans so homeless people can't eat it. The world has an over-abundance of food for example, yet this food isn't being distributed to everyone because it is unprofitable for the Capitalists. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Slave labor

The USSR used significant amounts of slave labor (as in tens of millions of people) at various times in it’s history. Particularly in the years that economic growth was the fastest: 1930ies to 1950ies.

This should also be included, since it was part of the states planning.

As for a “capitalist bias” its hard to see any. Wikipedia is supposed to report the opinions of reliable sources, and economists universally agree that central planning is inefficient and a subpar economic model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.12.99 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Every economic power uses slave labour to some extent (currently the US, for example, also exploit +2.5 M prisoners' labour in their well-known prison–industrial complex); the impact of these production factors in some concrete SCP economy overall can be discussed (they could've been exagerated or minimized though), but marking them as distinctive of these economies would be untrue.
And no, there is not universal consensus on whether economic planning is inefficient (most Marxian, Anarchist, and even some Keynesian economists will disagree with that) or, even further, on what "inefficiency" means at all. You can, by the way, base your facts on reliable sources while, at the same time, be biased on which sources you display and which sources you disregard. 148.0.146.155 (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Slave labour was not really part of Soviet economic theory, it was just a convenient way of getting free labour. As for efficiency of the Soviet model perhaps the best metric here is the fact that for the large part of its history it was dependent on loans from capitalist countries, for decades struggled with shortages and eventually defaulted. For specifics of the inefficiency, I recommend Николай Петрович Шмелёв (Nikolay Shmelyov) "Авансы и долги (Avansy i dolgi)" ("Credits and debts"), Новый мир (Novyi Mir) – 1987. - № 6.[1], written in USSR while it still existed by a prominent Soviet economist. Cloud200 (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Prisoners were still paid under J. Stalin. Therefore, it cannot be called slave labor. @Cloud200: Perestroika myths are completely uninteresting. People like Shmelev destroyed the country and at the same time wrote tons of myths and lies. Gnosandes (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In the United States, there is the equivalent of such prison 'slave' labour, in the United States prisoners are forced to partake in dangerous work such as extinguishing fires, digging mass graves for COVID victims, etc. Also, in the state of Texas in particular, prisoners aren't required to be paid anything, so one could really see that this is an equivalent of slave labour and draw that connection and make that comparison. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Bloc

Added information to the page related to Economic Planning in the Eastern Bloc. Hope it's a helpful addition. TheRushingRussian (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Bias?

I know this was brought up before, but there wasn't much of a conclusion to it. as it stands, the article is very obviously biased against SEP. Perhaps the way to go would be to remove any potentially loaded language, expand on arguments for SEP and responses to its disadvantages where applicable. A good model for an explanation of any argument in my opinion is one that lays out what the argument is, responses to the argument, and how that argument may respond in turn. Leaving it up to the reader to make up their own mind on which is the best way forward. Does this only work if there is an alternative argument that has the same treatment? Yes. But there is no shortage of pages on wikipedia that discuss Capitalist economics, so I doubt that is an issue. Genabab (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think there is too much of an emphasis placed on neo-classical economic thought. Other views are only slightly touched on in comparison. I think this is another example of bias. Genabab (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

1986 Physical Quality of Life Index Study

There's a section under "Actual performance" that cites what I believe to be a very flawed study. The study proposes to compare capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL) while taking into account level of economic development. The authors don't seem to consider that the choice of political-economic system may have an influence on economic development. By controlling for economic development, the authors create endogenous selection bias. I think this seriously calls into question the validity of this study.

The other issue with the article is the binary classification of "capitalist" and "socialist"; the authors defend this by saying countries can be called one or the other based on whether central planning or market mechanisms dominate a bulk of economic activity, even if the country may have a mixed economy in reality. But contradicting this, they put countries like Pakistan under "capitalist". That said, since people can debate endlessly about what constitutes socialism vs capitalism, I consider this a secondary problem compared to the first. Overall, I would like to hear why this section should be maintained. Oakley Kim (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)