Thread: Lenin: Good or bad?

Very slow pace of industrialization. The state planner allocated just enough resources for basic needs which were very sufficient and allocated most of the resources on a rapid electrification program, construction of dams, and irrigation engines, etc. If I were a state planner in future communist Philippines, I would only allocate 10% of what capitalist system allocate to filmmaking under free enterprise which are waste given that these films result in accounting losses and have no intellectual nor ethical value...Waste, my friend, is negligible under state planning.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

Very slow pace of industrialization. The state planner allocated just enough resources for basic needs which were very sufficient and allocated most of the resources on a rapid electrification program, construction of dams, and irrigation engines, etc. If I were a state planner in future communist Philippines, I would only allocate 10% of what capitalist system allocate to filmmaking under free enterprise which are waste given that these films result in accounting losses and have no intellectual nor ethical value...Waste, my friend, is negligible under state planning.

Are you serious about advocating the central state planning? Also, the claim of "basic needs which were very sufficient" needs more support. To the best of my knowledge, the industrialization (First Five-Year Plan (Soviet Union) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) strangely was followed by the famine (Soviet famine of 1932–1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which "killed many millions". And the famine strangely did not stop the central planners from proceeding with the Second Five-Year plan to further industrialize the country (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%...82%D0%BA%D0%B0). That's what I meant when mentioning that the industrialization came at a price. The price of millions dead from hunger. Men, women and children. So far so good for the rapid industrialization?