The state capitalism of the DDR, Hungary, Poland, and Romania

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to official "Marxism-Leninism," the DDR, Hungary, Poland, and Romania each had state capitalism. They did not "complete the transition to socialism" - much less with the pomp of the Congress of Victors - like Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia did, let alone do so as quickly as the USSR did (read: Socialist Primitive Accumulation).

So what, apart from agricultural socialization, distinguished the state capitalism of these "People's Democracies" from the further developed economies of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR?

[RED DAVE]

Nothing.

RED DAVE

[Ismail]

According to Soviet "theorists," Afghanistan was merely a democratic state of a "new type," whereas South Yemen was a radiant Marxist-Leninist toilers' state.

So evidently there's not much consistency or logic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to Soviet "theorists," Afghanistan was merely a democratic state of a "new type," whereas South Yemen was a radiant Marxist-Leninist toilers' state.

So evidently there's not much consistency or logic.

I'm talking about Soviet standards for having "achieved socialism" though. :confused:

[Ismail]

Bulgaria's economy seemed to totally mimic the USSR's. As for Czechoslovakia, perhaps it was in response to Prague Spring. I can't really see any reasons outside of propaganda that those two countries would be signaled out for having "developed socialism" or whatever.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I didn't have "developed socialism" in mind at all, either. Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia did something so they could get the ideological perks of the Congress of Victors without the pomp or purges.

[Omsk]

Im not sure if any of the mentioned countries could actually match the economic and production level of the DDR and Czechoslovakia.
On the other hand we have Yugoslavia,(Tito's Yugoslavia) but it is obvious that it does not fit into the context of this thread. (Warsaw pact states + USSR) It was different.
The DDR had moderate relations with the USSR (Brezhnev USSR and Stalin's USSR) and,later,it pursued the so-called,consumer socialism,and thus,shortages were rare.(People could buy both everyday use items and food,but could also buy more expensive things (Of course,not to costly) like tropical fruits,sea fish,wine,etc etc.

[Jose Gracchus]

I didn't have "developed socialism" in mind at all, either. Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia did something so they could get the ideological perks of the Congress of Victors without the pomp or purges.

Uh no, they didn't, if you actually listened to what he just said. Why must their on-paper designation reflect any internal reality? What basis is there for your fiat declaration second sentence? Your say-so?

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to Paul Cockshott, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia had greater proportions of state farms in relation to agricultural production than even the Soviet Union.

[Jose Gracchus]

Oh my God, they called their wage farms STATE FARMS?????

Well in that case, I'll be a horse's uncle. Goddamn.

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh my God, they called their wage farms STATE FARMS?????

Well in that case, I'll be a horse's uncle. Goddamn.

Well, no they didn't. Paul C. called them that, in the interests of accuracy.

They had all sorts of great Stalinist euphemisms, "peoples' farms" or what have you. Stalinists were always very good at that.

State farms is quite accurate. Now that begs the question of what you consider the state of Bulgaria in the old days to be? Capitalist, state or otherwise? Feudalist? Bureaucratic collectivist? Totalitarian, the official line in capitalist countries? A "Peoples Democracy" or a "socialist state," like the Stalinists themselves called it? A bureaucratically-deformed workers state, like the Trotskyists called it?

Take your pick.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

Any of Bureaucratic Collectivist, Coordinator Socialist (not Proletarian Socialist), Popular Front State, or Bureaucratically Deformed would suffice, and this would apply to the CSSR as well.