The Soviet Union, State Capitalist?

[RGacky3]

I used to call the USSR and other Leninist states State Capitalist, but after thinking a little it really was'nt.

It was in the sense that it had a class system (but thats not the defining feature of Capitalism), and that economic power was centralized (again, not a defining feature).

But the USSR was not a for profit entity, it did not have a market, as far as private property thats debatable, considering the state controlled the property and since the USSR was far from a functioning democracy you could almost call the state a private entity (rather than a public one), but thats a seperate debate.

I don't think it would be fair to call it socialist, because you did'nt have a functioning democracy, thus the economy was not publically controlled, nor were the workplaces worker controlled.

I think its also fair to say it was not a total dicatorship, there was due proccess and rule of law, and a type of accountability.

Now obviously things were radically different before and after Stalin, so we can't generalize.

ALso there are radical differences between the leninist states (for example cube has a much more democratic system when it comes to local issues, to the point to where a good argument could be made that it is more democratic than the United States).

I like Zizeks analysis of the USSR, it makes sense, that it was something completely different.

So what do you think it was?

PS: I put it in the OI, because I'm restricted, but I really don't want this turning into one of the discussions that has been had over and over with the pro-Capitalists, about how "this is the natural outcome of anytime some one tries socialism" and so on and so forth, so please, if you'd be so kind, lay off it.

[revolution inaction]

i think it was state capitalist, wage labor was the mode of production and those who where forced by there circumstances to work for a wage, and those who had control of the means of production formed different classes. i think there where also some restricted markets.

Had you read this? http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben
what do you think?

[RGacky3]

i think it was state capitalist, wage labor was the mode of production and those who where forced by there circumstances to work for a wage, and those who had control of the means of production formed different classes. i think there where also some restricted markets.


But its not the same mode of production, the profit motive is a HUGE part of capitalism, this si why you have the unsustainable nessesity for 3% growth each year, cut throad competition that hurts workers and ultimately consumers, and the destruction of any type of altruism (the profit motive essencially makes altruism illigal).

As far as markets they were so small that they can hardly justify calling it State Capitalist.

As far as the anarchist analysis I've read it some time in the past, and the points made were good, i.e. wage slavery, a class system, and so on, but thats not enough to call something Capitalist, those are symptoms of a system, not a system itself.

[Palingenisis]

The reality is what period of Soviet history are you talking; its social, economic and political realities were constantly changing (as everything in our universe does) sometimes forward, sometimes backwards and ultimately backwards at an immense rate from 1965 onwards. Still it would be a few more years from there till when it all fell apart.

[Bud Struggle]

The Soviet Union is what happens when good Communists try to make an honest Marxist Revolution and the complexities of the real world get in the way.

The Soviet Union was practical Communism as opposed to the theoretical Communism that you Comrades discuss. So Was the Soviet Union State Capitalist in theory, maybe? You can define that as you wish. But in the REAL WORLD it was Communism, and the real world is all that actually matters.

[RGacky3]

The Soviet Union is what happens when good Communists try to make an honest Marxist Revolution and the complexities of the real world get in the way.

The Soviet Union was practical Communism as opposed to the theoretical Communism that you Comrades discuss. So Was the Soviet Union State Capitalist in theory, maybe? You can define that as you wish. But in the REAL WORLD it was Communism, and the real world is all that actually matters.


Bud .... what did I say? You've spouted your semantic nonsense which has been debunked over every other thread, leave this one alone.


The reality is what period of Soviet history are you talking; its social, economic and political realities were constantly changing (as everything in our universe does) sometimes forward, sometimes backwards and ultimately backwards at an immense rate from 1965 onwards.

As is every country, however I'm talking systemically.

[Palingenisis]

As is every country, however I'm talking systemically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Soviet_economic_reform

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html

So am I.

[Rafiq]

The Soviet Union is what happens when good Communists try to make an honest Marxist Revolution and the complexities of the real world get in the way.

The Soviet Union was practical Communism as opposed to the theoretical Communism that you Comrades discuss. So Was the Soviet Union State Capitalist in theory, maybe? You can define that as you wish. But in the REAL WORLD it was Communism, and the real world is all that actually matters.

Just like china?

SOMETIMES BUD, is it okay to say Communism = Capitalism?

Since that's what the soviet union had...

What do you mean in the "real world",

or you mean the mainstream political discourse?

So? They never called themselves communist, or living under communism, nieither did their revolution (Which for the most part only happened because they were sick of the war, not to achieve Communism in russia).

That's a bad assumption, buddy.

I could understand why an uneducated person would call them SOCIALIST, but communist? No freaking way.

We are trying to end capitalism, and bring about socialism and then communism.

EVEN if we have to change the names.

From Socialism to Friendism,

Or Communism to Earthism, or whatever.

That's what we want .

If the name's been tarnished too much, we could always change it.

[Bud Struggle]

Just like china? Chaina WAS Communist--nowadays, not so much.


SOMETIMES BUD, is it okay to say Communism = Capitalism?

Since that's what the soviet union had... That's just how it is.


What do you mean in the "real world", When you have labor--not the labor theory of value.


or you mean the mainstream political discourse? It's not discourse at all. It's Marxist Communists trying to put Communist theory into practical use.


So? They never called themselves communist, or living under communism, nieither did their revolution (Which for the most part only happened because they were sick of the war, not to achieve Communism in russia). They called themselves Socialist. And the governing party was the Communist Party. They were trying to be Communist as best they could.


I could understand why an uneducated person would call them SOCIALIST, but communist? No freaking way. Then Lenin was uneducated.


We are trying to end capitalism, and bring about socialism and then communism. I know. But you seem to be living in a dream world when you think all those Socialist/Communist Revolutions were a bunch of nothing and only YOU have the key to pure Communism.


EVEN if we have to change the names.

From Socialism to Friendism,

Or Communism to Earthism, or whatever.

That's what we want . I'd do it!


If the name's been tarnished too much, we could always change it.
I agree. Do so.

[danyboy27]

I used to call the USSR and other Leninist states State Capitalist, but after thinking a little it really was'nt.

It was in the sense that it had a class system (but thats not the defining feature of Capitalism), and that economic power was centralized (again, not a defining feature).

But the USSR was not a for profit entity, it did not have a market, as far as private property thats debatable, considering the state controlled the property and since the USSR was far from a functioning democracy you could almost call the state a private entity (rather than a public one), but thats a seperate debate.

I don't think it would be fair to call it socialist, because you did'nt have a functioning democracy, thus the economy was not publically controlled, nor were the workplaces worker controlled.

I think its also fair to say it was not a total dicatorship, there was due proccess and rule of law, and a type of accountability.

Now obviously things were radically different before and after Stalin, so we can't generalize.

ALso there are radical differences between the leninist states (for example cube has a much more democratic system when it comes to local issues, to the point to where a good argument could be made that it is more democratic than the United States).

I like Zizeks analysis of the USSR, it makes sense, that it was something completely different.

So what do you think it was?

PS: I put it in the OI, because I'm restricted, but I really don't want this turning into one of the discussions that has been had over and over with the pro-Capitalists, about how "this is the natural outcome of anytime some one tries socialism" and so on and so forth, so please, if you'd be so kind, lay off it.

has rousseau point out in his book the social contract, definite, clear political system are quite rare, more than often its a mixed bag of many thing.

the soviet union was a state controlled by an aristocratic class, and its economy was a centrally planned economy.

One of the main mistake many people make is considering that, beccause an economy is centrally planned, its have something to do with socialism or communism.

During ww2 Most countries worldwide adopted the model of a centrally planned economy, including the United state.

You can have a centrally planned economy and still have big corporation.

Nazi Germany had at a certain point a centrally planned economy has well, the only difference was the priviledges and advantages the corporation had under nazi germany.

The German economy went better at a certain point during Hitler reign because of that, because of all the contract the state gave to the corporations to manufacture Uniform, shell casing, gun, tanks and cannons.
It was unsustainable at a long run because military hardware require maintenance and basically produce nothing meaningful to society, so they had to invade Poland and half of Europe to make this whole system viable and be able to pay up for all those armament contracts.

The soviet union governement was an aristocratic government.
Those who where in control where the party members, but to be a party member you had to demonstrate that you where dedicated to the state in a way or another.

And that why this aristocracy dint robbed the people blind like many other in the world, because there was a rational selection process built in the structure of the organization of the communist party who was calling the shot.

there is really no shame in saying that the soviet union was an aristocratic government with a centrally planned economy, if you take time to analyze what those world mean of course.

[Amphictyonis]

A command economy of sorts but the state simply took the exploitative role of capitalists.

[RGacky3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_So...conomic_reform (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Soviet_economic_reform)

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html)
So am I.

Thats interesting about the 1965 reform, how it had to become profitable, I'm guessing that profit was reinvested in things like military projects?


there is really no shame in saying that the soviet union was an aristocratic government with a centrally planned economy, if you take time to analyze what those world mean of course.

I agree, however most of the centrally planned economies in the west were that way because, it was government issued, the government paid the corporations (the rich) at a profit for what it wanted produced, this was not the case in the USSR, I'm not calling it socialist, but .... at least up to 1965 it was'nt state capitalist.

[danyboy27]

I agree, however most of the centrally planned economies in the west were that way because, it was government issued, the government paid the corporations (the rich) at a profit for what it wanted produced, this was not the case in the USSR, I'm not calling it socialist, but .... at least up to 1965 it was'nt state capitalist.

i guess if a centrally planned economy is not based on actual profit you could just call it a centrally planned economy with non-profit based objective.

in the case of the USSR it was the way it was to fufill various nationalistic goal ; build up the military and construct gigantic state projects like electric dam, highway and space shuttle.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I would argue that it was bureaucratic collectivist.

That means that the state owns the means of production, but the surplus is distributed among an elite party bureaucracy instead of among the workers. It is the bureaucracy, not the workers or the people in general, who controls the economy and the state.

[RGacky3]

I would argue that it was bureaucratic collectivist.

That means that the state owns the means of production, but the surplus is distributed among an elite party bureaucracy instead of among the workers. It is the bureaucracy, not the workers or the people in general, who controls the economy and the state.


Wheres the collectivist part of that? Or is it just collectivist because the state party hacks cooperate?