Modern theories of Soviet capitalism

[commieathighnoon]

I am wondering if anyone has read Paresh Chattopadhyay's (sorta ortho-Marxist) On the Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience and/or Neil Fernandez's (autonomist/operaist Marxist) Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR.

I'm interesting in non-Cliffite theories, ones that possibly address Hillel Ticktin's theories, which I have read. I am interested in those who do claim that the law of value functioned totally internally to the USSR, etc.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

You should read Alexander Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth, it is a diary he wrote about his deportation to Russia in 1920, it will tell you what the Soviet Union was realy like.

[Grenzer]

I recommend Western Marxism and the Soviet Union (http://www.brill.nl/western-marxism-and-soviet-union). You can it much cheaper in paperback form elsewhere. It divides the history of the Soviet Union into different period, and provides the dominant economic theories of each era, and gives a critique of them.

[Rafiq]

You should read Alexander Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth, it is a diary he wrote about his deportation to Russia in 1920, it will tell you what the Soviet Union was realy like.

What a scum bag. He really, honestly, attempted to judge an Economy, that of which was War Torn by the Allies, that of which was fucked over, ravaged by the counter revolution, as evidence that there was some kind of "Myth"?

What an insect. To judge the political situation in 1920 as an expression of the Bolshevik "Free will", that, "Well, turns it it isn't a paradise" is something that can be appropriately deployed, is absurd. No one was suggesting it was a paradise in 1920's. Not even the Bolshevik status quo.

He is trying to debunk a myth, a myth which never existed. It's simple bourgeois propaganda.

[Anarpest]

The over-the-top vitriol is amusing, but I'm not entirely sure what your point is supposed to be. Of course there was a 'Bolshevik myth' among the left of the time; Berkman should know, it's why he was in Russia in the first place. The Bolshevik revolution was romanticized on account of being a revolution in a period which had been starved of one, and displayed as a fight in which, regardless of labels, revolutionists could be "one in the sacred task of the revolution." The Bolsheviks were often seen as a simple, unambiguously working-class force, rather than as one which ended up putting down working class resistance (whatever underlying causes there may have been.) Such views have been more or less discredited by historical research of the Bolsheviks in power since then, but given how much of the left was still mythologizing Russia after Stalin and the purges, claiming that there was no myth and that Berkman is somehow being 'bourgeois' is fairly disingenuous.

The situation on the ground, of course, was quite different from what Berkman had been brought to expect, although I'm sure that your knowledge of leftist perspectives on Russia at the time far exceeds Berkman's. Still, though, I suppose that somebody wont to quip about how Stalin didn't kill enough and how Marxism is violence and terror could well find it strange for somebody to actually get disturbed at experiencing events like Kronstadt and the persecution and murder of his anarchist comrades.

[robbo203]

I am wondering if anyone has read Paresh Chattopadhyay's (sorta ortho-Marxist) On the Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience and/or Neil Fernandez's (autonomist/operaist Marxist) Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR.

I'm interesting in non-Cliffite theories, ones that possibly address Hillel Ticktin's theories, which I have read. I am interested in those who do claim that the law of value functioned totally internally to the USSR, etc.


Buick and Crumps book State Capitalism: the Wages System under new management would be what you are looking for, in that case. They argue forcefully that the law of value did function in the Soviet Union in a background sense and that the same might well be said of conventional western style capitalism since prices never really correspond to labour values but rather gravitate around value. It is only at the aggregate level that the sum of prices equal the sum of values whether in western capitalism or soviet capitalism

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I just got Neil Fernandez' book on 'Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR'.

[Paul Cockshott]

It is only at the aggregate level that the sum of prices equal the sum of values whether in western capitalism or soviet capitalism
This is a statement so vacuous as to be a parody of science.
Given a suitable conversion constant, the sum of prices is also equal to the number of trees in the Caledonian forest or to the acreage under barley, or to the amount of tantalum directly and indirectly used in the production of the national output.
A theory of value is only useful if it says something about at least the relationship between the x-value of the output of industries and the money price of their output - where x is what you choose, labour, timber, grain, titanium etc.

[robbo203]

This is a statement so vacuous as to be a parody of science.
Given a suitable conversion constant, the sum of prices is also equal to the number of trees in the Caledonian forest or to the acreage under barley, or to the amount of tantalum directly and indirectly used in the production of the national output.
A theory of value is only useful if it says something about at least the relationship between the x-value of the output of industries and the money price of their output - where x is what you choose, labour, timber, grain, titanium etc.

Its not vacuous at all and only someone who does not understand the labour theory of value could say something like that. That theory asserts that commodities do not sell at their value but at prices that gravitate around their value. Prices depart from value for a number of reasons but value exerts a kind of background gravitational pull on prices nevertheless The sale of some commodities at prices above their notional value means therefore that other commodities must be selling below their value.

That I think is rather significant unless of course think the whole labour theory of value is itself "vacuous"

[Tim Cornelis]

What a scum bag. He really, honestly, attempted to judge an Economy, that of which was War Torn by the Allies, that of which was fucked over, ravaged by the counter revolution, as evidence that there was some kind of "Myth"?

What an insect. To judge the political situation in 1920 as an expression of the Bolshevik "Free will", that, "Well, turns it it isn't a paradise" is something that can be appropriately deployed, is absurd. No one was suggesting it was a paradise in 1920's. Not even the Bolshevik status quo.

He is trying to debunk a myth, a myth which never existed. It's simple bourgeois propaganda.

It seems you are creating a myth of yourself.

[Kotze]

What Paul Cockshott said, in other words:

Suppose I tell you that prices are determined by the number of cats the bosses own. You show me an example with two companies where things don't work out as I claimed. I then say: Well, what I meant was only about the total aggregate, inflation/deflation aside.

The problem with that kind of statement about total aggregates is that no way of checking exists. One can't show the cat theory of total aggregate value to be wrong. Really.

Any sensible theory about how price ratios are similar to other ratios without always being appararant in the micro view has to work out in a way that this relationship already shows when you only zoom out a bit.

[Zulu]

Soviet Union was openly state capitalist during the NEP in 1921-28 and after a period of intensive socialist construction in the 1930-50s capitalism was gradually restored. Check out these works:

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html
http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

[Rafiq]

It seems you are creating a myth of yourself.

Fantastic, and with that being said, care to actually contribute something of higher quality to the thread, as opposed to cheap insults?

[Tim Cornelis]

Fantastic, and with that being said, care to actually contribute something of higher quality to the thread, as opposed to cheap insults?

No, I was going to, but never mind. It wasn't an insult, nor was it in any way "cheap" (which suggests dragging in of an unrelated personal attack), not even by a long shot. It was just calmly pointing out that you were, at least in part, misrepresenting what Berkman noted on his experience under the Bolshevik regime. Admittedly, it was elusive, and you are right to ask for clarification, despite this I am not going to give you one.

You are incredibly hostile and riddled with animosity (you seemed to have taken the few criticisms I directed towards you as a personal attack) as well as incapable of civil conversation and thus I will withhold a response.

EDIT: I was expecting you to call me a coward for not replying, so I did in the comment below where I dissect your comment and destroy its contents. The content of your comment, thus was a myth in itself, as it was false and based on misrepresentations of what Berkman wrote. This is what I meant, it was not a personal attack, nor a cheap shot.

EDIT II: I just noticed the great irony in your comment. Accusing me of cheap insults and not contributing to topic while you derailed the thread with cheap insults, and not providing OP with what he was asking.

[Tim Cornelis]

What a scum bag. He really, honestly, attempted to judge an Economy, that of which was War Torn by the Allies, that of which was fucked over, ravaged by the counter revolution, as evidence that there was some kind of "Myth"?

To what degree does Berkman contend that the Bolshevik myth consists of merely economic aspects? The "myth" in Berkman's view consists of the totality of the Bolshevik regime. Thus assuming that if you're correct in what you state, then you have still to refute the political repression of the Bolsheviks in order to be able to argue that Berkman did not refute a "The Bolsheviks".

But it would be wrong to say that you're correct even looking at the economy alone. It is unmistakably clear that the food shortages and famine was in part induced by the policies of the Bolsheviks themselves.

In 1918 War Communism was introduced which, by a decree, made private exchange illegal. This was disastrous as there was no adequate alternative infrastructure to function as surrogate.
With War Communism, the prodrazvyorstka was introduced which entailed the requisitioning of grain by the authorities. With the remnants of the old economic order still in place, peasants lost the incentive to produce beyond personal consumption (incidentally, a development we're seeing in Venezuela at this very moment).

What was produced circulated through black markets. The Bolsheviks saw this as a threat and began to crack down on peasants. The Bolsheviks confiscated food for personal consumption from the peasants as punishment. These measures lead to peasant revolts.

Without these disastrous policies, the famine would have never been as large as it was.

Moreover, large stockpiles of food and grain was captured by the Bolsheviks in 1920 from the Whites.

Sources:

Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution.
Carl Landauer, European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements.


What an insect. To judge the political situation in 1920 as an expression of the Bolshevik "Free will", that, "Well, turns it it isn't a paradise" is something that can be appropriately deployed, is absurd. No one was suggesting it was a paradise in 1920's. Not even the Bolshevik status quo.

The fact that the word "paradise" is only mentioned once is apparently be lost on you (the fact it's mentioned once shows it is not the main thesis of his book, unlike what you imply). Given that it's only mentioned once shows that the "myth" Berkman is unraveling does not consist of the myth that Russia was a workers' paradise. By failing to acknowledge this, you have created a myth, i.e. a strawman, for yourself.

The fact of the matter is is that the Bolsheviks could have easily chosen to not adopt these obviously disastrous policies. This alone is evidenced by the fact that the Bolsheviks did indeed reverse their agricultural policies when, as Richard Pipes claims, starvation became a threat to the Bolshevik's regime. Even if we accept that Pipes is wrong, it is still a fact that the agricultural policies were successfully reversed by 1921, while the civil war raged on for another year. Ergo, it is clear beyond denial that the Bolsheviks not only had the ability ("free will") to reverse the agricultural policies, but in fact did indeed do so off their own accord while the situation in which Russia was located remained virtually unchanged. From this we can conclude that the agricultural policies, as well as other policies, could have been reversed earlier, unlike what you imply.

Therefore, if you are denying that the Bolsheviks did not have the ability (free will) to reverse and change their agricultural policies--as you do--then you must necessarily deny the fact that they did exactly what you claim they couldn't, i.e. you must deny reality.

Now let's look at the context of when Berkman mentioned the word "paradise" shall we?


But for the cursed Allies starving the country and supporting armed counterrevolution, Russia --- it is claimed -- would be a workers' paradise

(emphasis added)

In other words, he is not claiming that the Bolsheviks or anyone claims Russia was a paradise (unlike what you claim), but that without the counter-revolution it would be--i.e. you misrepresent Berkman, i.e. you have created a myth for yourself.

Lastly, you are merely focusing on the economics of the issue. Even assuming that everything you said regarding the economy of Russia, then still the arguments by Berkman about political repression (which seemingly dominated his book) would still stand.


He is trying to debunk a myth, a myth which never existed. It's simple bourgeois propaganda.

And here we go with the unsubstantiated use of the word "bourgeois".

In conclusion, everything you said was wrong, yet have the audacity to call someone an "insect" for detailing his personal experience in a journal without bothering to actually look up the facts and the matter at hand. And I wasted my time writing this, as Tim Minchin said: "we might as well be ten minutes back in time for all the chance you've changed your mind."

[Paul Cockshott]

Its not vacuous at all and only someone who does not understand the labour theory of value could say something like that. That theory asserts that commodities do not sell at their value but at prices that gravitate around their value. Prices depart from value for a number of reasons but value exerts a kind of background gravitational pull on prices nevertheless The sale of some commodities at prices above their notional value means therefore that other commodities must be selling below their value.

That I think is rather significant unless of course think the whole labour theory of value is itself "vacuous"

What you are saying now is considerably stronger than what you said before. Previously you said only that total prices equal total values, which would be true whatever you said the value substance was: oil, electicity, labour, etc. It is an unfalsifiable proposition.
Now you a saying something that is a scientific hypothesis - that prices are attracted to, and thus correlate with, their values.

[robbo203]

In other words, he is not claiming that the Bolsheviks or anyone claims Russia was a paradise (unlike what you claim), but that without the counter-revolution it would be--i.e. you misrepresent Berkman, i.e. you have created a myth for yourself.

Lastly, you are merely focusing on the economics of the issue. Even assuming that everything you said regarding the economy of Russia, then still the arguments by Berkman about political repression (which seemingly dominated his book) would still stand.


Yes, I think this is the case. I cant say I have read much of Berkman though i recall long ago reading his ABC of Anarchism which was quite good. I checked out The Bolshevik myth on the internet and I have to say I was a bit puzzled by Rafiq's charges

[Luís Henrique]

Robert Kurz (http://libcom.org/library/german-war-economy-state-socialism-robert-kurz), who is surprisingly difficult to find in English (why would a German-writing author be more accessible to a Portuguese-reading public than to the Anglosphere? Mystery, or is there a material cause for it?)

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

I'm going to sleep. Expect a post tommarow

[Paul Cockshott]

Robert Kurz (http://libcom.org/library/german-war-economy-state-socialism-robert-kurz), who is surprisingly difficult to find in English (why would a German-writing author be more accessible to a Portuguese-reading public than to the Anglosphere? Mystery, or is there a material cause for it?)

Luís Henrique

Quite interesting, but it has a lot of theoretical weaknesses. The most obvious is the nonsensical idea that it is possible or desirable to abolish abstract labour.
What is meant by this?
Then he assumes what he should be proving - that the modernisation of the USSR was capitalist not socialist. All he presents in this context is that it was modernisation and as such must be capitalist.

He is also very dismissive of classes and class exploitation. There is a real difference between a society with an exploiting class consumes some 40% of the output and one where there is no such consumption, so when Stalin points out that the Soviet State had deprived the exploiting classes of their incomes and that this enabled socialist industrialisation he was pointing out something very real. He quotes Stalin as saying this, but it seems that to Kurz the class distribution of income is not important.

Had Kurz written elsewhere on what he thought a socialist economy should be like?

In the absence of that, his article is just part of the crowing of West German bourgeois society in 1991 that their socialist rival had finally been defeated.

[Rafiq]

No, I was going to, but never mind. It wasn't an insult, nor was it in any way "cheap" (which suggests dragging in of an unrelated personal attack), not even by a long shot. It was just calmly pointing out that you were, at least in part, misrepresenting what Berkman noted on his experience under the Bolshevik regime. Admittedly, it was elusive, and you are right to ask for clarification, despite this I am not going to give you one.

How can Berkmen expect a pleasant experience under the Bolshevik state in the 1920's, where Russia itself was war torn and all together a shit hole?


You are incredibly hostile and riddled with animosity (you seemed to have taken the few criticisms I directed towards you as a personal attack) as well as incapable of civil conversation and thus I will withhold a response.


I'm incredibly hostile because my patience for Idealists is very limited.


EDIT: I was expecting you to call me a coward for not replying, so I did in the comment below where I dissect your comment and destroy its contents. The content of your comment, thus was a myth in itself, as it was false and based on misrepresentations of what Berkman wrote. This is what I meant, it was not a personal attack, nor a cheap shot.


Good, then. I'll respond to it now. Although, I can't say I'd expect it as a post "Dissecting and destroying" my comment. We'll see, I suppose.


I just noticed the great irony in your comment. Accusing me of cheap insults and not contributing to topic while you derailed the thread with cheap insults, and not providing OP with what he was asking.


Cheap insults? they weren't cheap at all. I provided an argument and a reason for why I called him a scumbag. Initially, you did nothing but throw cheap insults at me. We'll see what this post bellow has to offer, though.

[Rafiq]

, I'll be responding tonight, got to go.

[Rafiq]

To what degree does Berkman contend that the Bolshevik myth consists of merely economic aspects? The "myth" in Berkman's view consists of the totality of the Bolshevik regime. Thus assuming that if you're correct in what you state, then you have still to refute the political repression of the Bolsheviks in order to be able to argue that Berkman did not refute a "The Bolsheviks".

What is it, do you mean by the "Totality" of the Bolshevik state?

Berkmen completely neglected the material circumstances that were a cause, not a product, of the Bolshevik's political and economic situation.

If you did not know, I am a materialist, and "Political Repression" for us, is not a factro that exists side by side with the mode of production, it is a direct reflection. Meaning, in a country war torn by the counter revolution and the allies, with the economy in total shit, "Authoritarian" and "Repressive" policies would be expected, in order for whatever Social order still enact to protect itself, and avoid crumbling into little bits and pieces.


But it would be wrong to say that you're correct even looking at the economy alone. It is unmistakably clear that the food shortages and famine was in part induced by the policies of the Bolsheviks themselves.


Food Shortages and famine could not have been prevented. I'm curious as to what you have to say otherwise. There isn't a policy that could have prevented that on behalf of the Bolsheviks, if we take into account the counter revolution sabotaging and burning Bolshevik crops, etc.

Of course, a petty Moralist like you wouldn't be able to articulate that, so intsead you focus on the errors in "Personal Responsibility" on behalf of the Bolshevik state. This was hardly the case.


In 1918 War Communism was introduced which, by a decree, made private exchange illegal. This was disastrous as there was no adequate alternative infrastructure to function as surrogate.

Private Exchange wasn't made illegal for Ideological reasons, if this is what you are implying. We can clearly see this with the NEP that followed it.

And I would like to say, at the risk of disagreeing with several of my good comrades on this site, that War Communism, on the contrary, prevented the Famine and Food shortages from being even worse. There wasn't time for Private Exchange or a Profit motive. The grain was needed immediately and the contradictions of a market economy simply had to be addressed with Regulations, Regulations, of which the Bolsheviks had not the time or the resources to oversee.

After all, they barely came out victorious from the Civil war. It would seem you are criticizing their actions, intsead of asking why those actions were implemented to begin with.

You're no better then the clerics who blame the faults of capitalism on Personal responsibility or Morals.


With War Communism, the prodrazvyorstka was introduced which entailed the requisitioning of grain by the authorities. With the remnants of the old economic order still in place, peasants lost the incentive to produce beyond personal consumption (incidentally, a development we're seeing in Venezuela at this very moment).

There wasn't anything that could have been done otherwise. Had they made personal exchange legal, there would have been virtually no way for the Bolsheviks to acquire the grain to feed the Soldiers and the Working people, i.e. People external from just the Local Peasantry. Again, there were regions in the Former Russian empire under Bolshevik control that lacked the necessary social infrastructure for private exchange to feed entire populations, therefore infrastructure that did had grain which needed to be confiscated forcefully in order to feed the former.

It was either Peasants get private exchange, but the grain falls into the hands of forces external from the Bolsheviks, which would have led to an even worse famine, or what you describe.

Certainly you can put yourself in their position and see why such policies were implemented.


What was produced circulated through black markets. The Bolsheviks saw this as a threat and began to crack down on peasants.

That of which was necessary. Again, there wasn't another way to retrieve the necessary war supplies. You can see that even in most capitalist countries, when War comes, Market exchange becomes minimal, as does the Market all together.

But even with this, majority of the Peasants who engaged in this were Kulaks, or White Army sympathizers. Feel free to provide a source claiming otherwise.


The Bolsheviks confiscated food for personal consumption from the peasants as punishment. These measures lead to peasant revolts.


I'm confused in your wording. You are either implying that the Bolsheviks confiscated food from the Peasants and ate it themselves?(!) or that the Bolsheviks confiscated food from the Peasants that those individual peasants used for personal consumption.

Either way, those are ridiculous and ahistorical assertions. I need not even divulge into the ridiculous character of the former, and I certainly hope that isn't what you were implying, lest this would be evidence that I'm arguing with a madman and wasting my time.

If, by any chance it is the latter you are implying, that is almost equally ridiculous. The Bolsheviks were trying to prevent famine, not Starve incompetent Peasants. They weren't idiots, they knew that this would, if anything draw their support to the enemy. A lot of the Peasant revolts, though, were done on behalf of the enemy, whether it be the Allies or the native counter revolution, or by Kulaks, through Propaganda and so on.


Without these disastrous policies, the famine would have never been as large as it was.


Of course that's a baseless, almost even half assed assertion. I would say that, on the contrary, the famine would be twice as bad and that the White Army would have been successful in crushing the Bolsheviks and the Red Army. Each and every one of the policies implemented by the Bolsheviks, to some extent contributed to their victory and at their very best tried to prevent Famine. The famine, though, was inevitable, and beyond the will of the Bolsheviks.


Moreover, large stockpiles of food and grain was captured by the Bolsheviks in 1920 from the Whites.


What's your point? Without these, the famine would have been even worse. Again, you're just spewing baseless, half assed assertions with no meaningful context inherent within them.


Sources:

Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution.
Carl Landauer, European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements.


I'll address them accordingly.


Richard Pipes: who specializes in Russian history, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union. In 1976 he headed Team B, a team of analysts organized by the Central Intelligence Agency who analyzed the strategic capacities and goals of the Soviet military and political leadership.

Do you take me for a fool, Goti? Do you honestly thing I will take this as a credible source? He is a Counter Revolutionary Scum bag. Twisted History, is all, on behalf of White Army scum.

As for Carl, your best friend:


European history professor Carl Landauer, in his book European Socialism argued that social anarchism is unrealistic and that government is a "lesser evil" than a society without "repressive force." He also argued that "ill intentions will cease if repressive force disappears" is an "absurdity.


This was from the very same book that you cited.

This man can't pose as a credible source to either of us, it would seem. I'd hardly think you, a Social Anarchist would consider Social Anarchism unrealistic. He's a counter revolutionary whom speaks as a mouthpiece for Bourgeois Historians.

Of course, your sympathy for Anti Anarchists (Like Hoxhaist Comrade Commistar) reaches no limits, so long as the material they spew is directed against me.

You must, here, be of totality. You can't pick and choose which part of his book is credible, and which part is not.

I know I haven't provided any sources, but you haven't asked for any. You provided two, non credible sources without even citing phrases or even small sentences from both that would signify what you are saying is correct. Therefore they cannot be taken seriously.

But should you ask for a source, I can give you several.


The fact that the word "paradise" is only mentioned once is apparently be lost on you (the fact it's mentioned once shows it is not the main thesis of his book, unlike what you imply).

It is the main thesis of his book. He was implying that the Proletarian dictatorship was non existent in the 1920's and that Workers were not in a position of supreme executive power, that it was, in reality not a "Worker's paradise" and that limits on free speech and so on were instituted...

of course, he does this, neglecting all of the Material factors that lead to this, attributing it to Irresponsibility on behalf of the Bolsheviks.

Plus, Lenin himself had no illusions and never created a "Myth" for this worthless rodent to debunk. Lenin was fully aware of the horrible situation him and his Party was in, none the less the horrible situation the Revolution was in. This was something I respect heavily about Lenin, something, of which Stalin never was able to express.


Given that it's only mentioned once shows that the "myth" Berkman is unraveling does not consist of the myth that Russia was a workers' paradise. By failing to acknowledge this, you have created a myth, i.e. a strawman, for yourself.

It does consist of the "Myth that Russia was not a Worker's paradise" (Though this Myth does not exist, it only exists within the head of silly Idealists like Berkmen).


The fact of the matter is is that the Bolsheviks could have easily chosen to not adopt these obviously disastrous policies.

Quite an assertion. Once again, baseless and half assed.

Each and every one of the policies deployed by the Bolsheviks during the Civil War period were done in order to protect the revolution. And for the most part, they were successful (But they could not control the victory of the Working class abroad, etc.)

The Bolsheviks could not have "Easily" chosen to do anything, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. The Bolsheviks were in a very dangerous, and chaotic situation.

Of course, in the fantasy land of Idealists, we live in a realm of Free Will, and that Material conditions do not exist that constrain this will, but only exist as a product of this Free Will, whether it be "good or bad". In the world of Idealism, anything is possible, and that anything could be "Easily" done. The Bolsheviks failed, to them, because they were not "Moral" enough, they did not make the right choices.

Such is the basis of Bourgeois thought. And historically, it would seem those who deviated from these policies for "Moral" reasons ended up being crushed by the counter revolution.

"But da Bolsheviks were da counter revolution!"

Yes, eventually they did become that. But this was beyond their choice, this occured as a direct response to the international isolation of the Revolution, something that was beyond their control. Such an internal imbalance in the party, such policies that were implemented to avoid this isolation, led to the counter revolution.

Of course to you, this is wrong, it was merely because "They did not make the right choices".

Yet you've failed to provide us with those alternative choices. The ones you mentioned, as I've pointed out, would have been disastrous. And they knew that.


This alone is evidenced by the fact that the Bolsheviks did indeed reverse their agricultural policies when, as Richard Pipes claims, starvation became a threat to the Bolshevik's regime.

The NEP was implemented shortly before the Civil War ended. During the peak of the civil war, the NEP would have been completely disastrous. I'm sure the Bolsheviks had this in mind when implementing War Communism, which is, if you did not know, only necessary during the actual War.

But no, I"m sure your CIA-propagandist source is correct. I may as well cite a member of the NKVD is evidence of the USSR being a Paradise under Dear leader.


Even if we accept that Pipes is wrong, it is still a fact that the agricultural policies were successfully reversed by 1921, while the civil war raged on for another year.

You are forgetting that this is when the Allies were gone. The allies left, actually, in 1920. The War then, with War Communism already done with and implemented, was just a matter of crushing the scattering White Army forces. Their fate was already determined, by then.

Wasn't that one White Army song about "How could god do this to us? Are we not faithful Christians" written around 1921, anyway?


Ergo, it is clear beyond denial that the Bolsheviks not only had the ability ("free will") to reverse the agricultural policies, but in fact did indeed do so off their own accord while the situation in which Russia was located remained virtually unchanged.

What a foolish assertion. By 1921 the Civil War was a walk in the park for the Bolsheviks. The White Army, by then, stood no chance, and the Bolsheviks were in a much healthier position. If not for War Communism previously, they would not have been in such a position at all. The Allies were gone as well (With the exception of Japanese forces scattered in Siberia, which hardly posed as a real threat).

You're right, Goti, but only if we pressupose loads of baseless, non-credible assertions and ahistorical "Facts".


From this we can conclude that the agricultural policies, as well as other policies, could have been reversed earlier, unlike what you imply.


How? From the fallacy that the "Conditions of the Civil War in Russia in 1921 were identical to those existence and in place from 1918-1920"? Then yes, from this we can come to that conclusion.

But what you call "This" is a fallacy, one of the most pathetic assertions I've heard you spout out in a while. You like to sneak in this seed of Bullshit, which without your whole argument crumbles into little bits and pieces. Sounds a bit familiar?


Therefore, if you are denying that the Bolsheviks did not have the ability (free will) to reverse and change their agricultural policies--as you do--

Shut the fuck about this "Free Will". I didn't want to divulge into this ridiculous, disgusting Bourgeois Concept (which is in itself apologia for Racism, Sexism, Poverty, etc. but in your case only when you want it to be) because it would be off topic.

You scum, you're inconsistent. You like to think free will exists in X place, but when it comes to homeless people, you probably will say Free Will doesn't exist and that it is a consequence of systemic issues put in forth devoid from will.

But yes, I do deny the charge that they had the possibility to institute an alternative agricultural policy during the Russian Civil War which would have either avoided or reduced the damage of the famine.



then you must necessarily deny the fact that they did exactly what you claim they couldn't, i.e. you must deny reality.


I couldn't wipe my ass at exactly 6:30am today, and therefore I couldn't take a shit, because I had no toilet paper.

But at 11:00am, I had toilet paper and I was free to both Take a shit and wipe my ass afterwards.

Is this a denial of reality?

This stems back from your Idealism. You neglet the fact that material conditions (Which is, as it seems a bad word now) are always static and that we live in a realm of free will, in which our choices, which are devoid of any influence from any material entity, determine our fates. You, like Berkmen, like to neglect the fact that I could not have wiped my ass at 6:00am because the necessary resources in order to do so did not exist until 11:00am.

You use me taking a shit at 11:00am as evidence that I could have done this at 6:00am, when in fact, the conditions existent at 11:00am were totally different from those existent at 6:00am.



Now let's look at the context of when Berkman mentioned the word "paradise" shall we?
(emphasis added)

If he did say this, then it would contradict not only what you are saying, but the point of his whole book.

Still, the sentance makes absolutely no sense.

"But for the cursed Allies starving the country and supporting the armed counter revolution Russia --- It is Claimed --- Would be a worker's paradise".

If you replaced "For" with "If not", the sentence would make sense.

What he is implying is that... If the allies were to starve the country, Russia would be a paradise? What the hell? I hope that's a mistake.



In other words, he is not claiming that the Bolsheviks or anyone claims Russia was a paradise (unlike what you claim), but that without the counter-revolution it would be--i.e. you misrepresent Berkman, i.e. you have created a myth for yourself.

The Bolshevik Myth is then, a contradictory book. How could it hold the Bolsheviks accountable for anything if it operates with this premise?


Lastly, you are merely focusing on the economics of the issue. Even assuming that everything you said regarding the economy of Russia, then still the arguments by Berkman about political repression (which seemingly dominated his book) would still stand.

Yes, It's because I'm a materialist. There is no distinction between economics and political situations, and even Social Anarchists acknowledge that.

The mode of production is the sole base of all Human behavior, thought, and organization. Politics is a direct, and straight (Unlike some other things, which are indirectly influenced) reflection of "Economics". All of the economic issues determined the policies by the Bolsheviks. The trade relations with Turkey, etc. for example, were done by necessity because of the Revolution's isolation, and in turn contributed to the retention of the capitalist mode of production.



And here we go with the unsubstantiated use of the word "bourgeois".


Of course you wouldn't recognize this term external from it's usage in describing a certain class. Bourgeois implying enlightenment concepts which were inherently Idealist, such as excessive Moralism, Liberty, Personal responsibility, neglecting of material conditions, emphasis on free will etc. But mainly, the propaganda structure of the Allied Powers, at the time.


In conclusion, everything you said was wrong, yet have the audacity to call someone an "insect" for detailing his personal experience in a journal without bothering to actually look up the facts and the matter at hand.

I love this so much. It always happens. People have the nerve to Challenge me a lot, and write a semi long post in doing so, with uttermost confidence. And after a little bit, when I completley destroy all of the baseless, shit assertions they've made, I come to the end of their post and see their little snarl, their overly confident remark "So HA! You were wrong, I win, you were wrong about Everything!" speechless, apathetic, and almost sorrowful for them.

It just so happens everything I said was right, and that your whole post was built upon a straw men and a hefty number of useless, baseless and downright Idealist pressuposions.

I don't plan on letting things like that slide.


And I wasted my time writing this, as Tim Minchin said: "we might as well be ten minutes back in time for all the chance you've changed your mind."

You have wasted your time. You should feel embarrassed, virtually almost everything you said was completely wrong. The reason I didn't "Change my mind" was because you're arguments were not only completely wrong, they were poorly constructed.

Sorry, for all that I've learned, the post of just another Bourgeois Rationalist, which in nature is identical to the rest of the Bourgeois rodents intellectual material (It grows boring to read) isn't going to, by any means change my views on the Bolshevik Revolution.

What, did you think so? Do you take me for some curious, optimistic, and easily manipulated new comer?

Of course, I don't think you think you've wasted your time. I think you're going to respond to this, furiously, insulted at my post, and just downright challenged. And by all means do so. I'll be waiting.

[commieathighnoon]

God, did I ask for Stalin-bot of the week's replies on the kitchen sink? No. I asked if anyone had any pieces for those who want to see for themselves, of non-Cliffite state capitalism. Clearly an opportunity for everyone and their brother to use as a pretext for their street-side preaching.

Cockshott of course thinks capitalism is all about the diversions of value toward capitalist luxuries, and socialism is about nothing but removing those and denying anyone the levers of value but the empowered cyber-bureaucrats in their apparatus heaven.

Value is to be maintained, as is the regimentation of labor-time by accumulation. 'Democracy' is just a fig-leaf of mobilization in the form of slogans and rhetoric, to mobilize sterile support for the enlightened cyber-planners and their schemes, and to provide 'American Idol' level input. mumble mumble plebiscites mumble mumble

Anyway, I'm interested in those who actually have read, and want to discuss, the two works listed, or other non-Cliffite statecap theory, and contrast the alternatives. I've already read all of the standard theories, so I don't need all this street-preaching about the basics. I'm interested in discussing details.

[Paul Cockshott]

Cockshott of course thinks capitalism is all about the diversions of value toward capitalist luxuries, and socialism is about nothing but removing those and denying anyone the levers of value but the empowered cyber-bureaucrats in their apparatus heaven.
Do you dispute that the capitalist class live a life of luxury at the expense of the working class?
Do you dispute that this is the motivating factor for capitalist exploitation and the prime cause of the poverty of the working people?





Value is to be maintained, as is the regimentation of labor-time by accumulation. 'Democracy' is just a fig-leaf of mobilization in the form of slogans and rhetoric, to mobilize sterile support for the enlightened cyber-planners and their schemes, and to provide 'American Idol' level input. mumble mumble plebiscites mumble mumble

No I dont say that. I say that democracy is rule by the common people, and that its constitutional forms are random selection and mass voting.

Accumulation is a historically transitory phenomenon that comes to an end in mature capitalism and would not exist in mature socialism either.

[Luís Henrique]

Do you dispute that the capitalist class live a life of luxury at the expense of the working class?

Well, yes, this is highly debatable. Evidently what luxuries the capitalist class enjoys, it enjoys at the expense of the working class; but they certainly cannot expend whatever amount of resources they wish in luxuries. They absolutely must keep the mechanisms of capital going on, and so their luxuries come only after they have made the provisions for the reproduction of capital.


Do you dispute that this is the motivating factor for capitalist exploitation and the prime cause of the poverty of the working people?

I don't think it is the motivating factor for capitalist exploitation; it is probably the main motivating factor for individuals to become or continue to be capitalists, but the motivation for the system as a whole is completely impersonal; capitalist exploitation is necessary because otherwise capital won't reproduce.


Accumulation is a historically transitory phenomenon that comes to an end in mature capitalism and would not exist in mature socialism either.

If accumulation comes to an end, then capitalist itself has come to its end. There is no possible capitalism without accumulation of capital. Of course, in late capitalism this may require systematic destruction of overaccumulated capital so that the game can restart, but such destruction must make accumulation possible again, otherwise capitalism is impossible.

Luís Henrique

[Paul Cockshott]

Well, yes, this is highly debatable. Evidently what luxuries the capitalist class enjoys, it enjoys at the expense of the working class; but they certainly cannot expend whatever amount of resources they wish in luxuries. They absolutely must keep the mechanisms of capital going on, and so their luxuries come only after they have made the provisions for the reproduction of capital.

This is true, but the reproduction of the capital stock is compatible with consuming all of the surplus value unproductively.

If you look at this paper http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Zachariah_AverageProfitRate_v7.pdf
and in particular at figure 19 you will see that the long term trend in the USA is for 80% of profit to be consumed unproductively. Here are some figures for the UK
Year Capital accumulation as % profit
1900 18
1910 4
1920 14
1930 3

Figures for the late 19th century were similar.

The only exceptional period in the British historical record was the post wwII boom when extensive state investment by the nationalised industries and Keynesian expansionary policies meant that capital accumulation became a majority of profit.

Capitalism's apologists claim that profit is necessary for investment, but the historical record shows that the real purpose of profit is to ensure that their son and daughter go to a good Public School at £30,000 each per annum, to ensure that they can afford shooting holidays in the Highlands, a lodge in the country and a Villa in Tuscany etc.

[u.s.red]

This is true, but the reproduction of the capital stock is compatible with consuming all of the surplus value unproductively.


Capitalism's apologists claim that profit is necessary for investment...

On luxury consumption and investment of surplus value (surplus product), from Ch. 24 of Capital, Vol I:

"Deducting these there remains the net or surplus-product, in which the surplus-value lies. And of what does this surplus-product consist? Only of things destined to satisfy the wants and desires of the capitalist class, things which, consequently, enter into the consumption fund of the capitalists? Were that the case, the cup of surplus-value would be drained to the very dregs, and nothing but simple reproduction would ever take place.

To accumulate it is necessary to convert a portion of the surplus-product into capital. But we cannot, except by a miracle, convert into capital anything but such articles as can be employed in the labour process (i.e., means of production), and such further articles as are suitable for the sustenance of the labourer (i.e., means of subsistence). Consequently, a part of the annual surplus-labour must have been applied to the production of additional means of production and subsistence, over and above the quantity of these things required to replace the capital advanced. In one word, surplus-value is convertible into capital solely because the surplus-product, whose value it is, already comprises the material elements of new capital."

There must be something other than luxury consumption in order to convert profit into capital. As I read this, there must be not only a re-investment and conversion of profit into capital but into more capital than originally existed or advanced. Obviously there is still a huge amount of surplus profit, liquidity (as they say) which cannot be converted into capital. The trillions of dollars of cash in bank accounts of various kinds could never be spent entirely on luxury goods. But even if it could, no new capital would be converted. One "problem" with the 2008 recession is that it did not destroy enough capital. In order to really begin the new process of conversion of surplus value into capital, there would have had to have been millions more people laid off, millions more business gone bankrupt, entire regions of states gone bankrupt, destruction of tens of thousand of small community banks, etc.

In my opinion, anyway.

[Paul Cockshott]

There must be something other than luxury consumption in order to convert profit into capital. As I read this, there must be not only a re-investment and conversion of profit into capital but into more capital than originally existed or advanced. Obviously there is still a huge amount of surplus profit, liquidity (as they say) which cannot be converted into capital. The trillions of dollars of cash in bank accounts of various kinds could never be spent entirely on luxury goods. But even if it could, no new capital would be converted.
In principle they can spend it all on luxuries, and in some historical periods they have spent almost all of it that way. But you are right that if this is done, no new capital is formed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The fact of the matter is is that the Bolsheviks could have easily chosen to not adopt these obviously disastrous policies. This alone is evidenced by the fact that the Bolsheviks did indeed reverse their agricultural policies when, as Richard Pipes claims, starvation became a threat to the Bolshevik's regime. Even if we accept that Pipes is wrong, it is still a fact that the agricultural policies were successfully reversed by 1921, while the civil war raged on for another year. Ergo, it is clear beyond denial that the Bolsheviks not only had the ability ("free will") to reverse the agricultural policies, but in fact did indeed do so off their own accord while the situation in which Russia was located remained virtually unchanged. From this we can conclude that the agricultural policies, as well as other policies, could have been reversed earlier, unlike what you imply.There are things which could have been done differently, and it's easy to see mistakes or policies that would eventually aid internal counter-revolution in heinsight - it's much harder to prove that these developments would inherently lead to "socialism in one country" and I think it's a-historical to argue that this was the intention of Bolsheviks or other revolutionaries from the start.

Sure the Bolsheviks could have done something differently - but wouldn't it still be substitutionism - just better substituitionism? In other words the fundamental problems were conditional - conditions that create the window in which the subjective "free-will" can operate. Men make history, but not in conditions of their choosing.

[Zulu]

In principle they can spend it all on luxuries, and in some historical periods they have spent almost all of it that way. But you are right that if this is done, no new capital is formed.
Even if the capitalists spent 0% of their profit on luxuries, there'd still be this fundamental problem about capitalism: ALL IS DONE FOR PROFIT AND NOTHING ELSE!

Back in the 14th century and through the 19th century this sort of thing was actually quite good and progressive, since there was no way to organize social production in any more rational way. But beginning with the 20th century, with all the development of the new means of transportation and communication, the advent of information technology and all that - the major upgrade to the productive forces - it has become more rational to organize social production on the basis of the conscious planning. So, capitalism is not that rational anymore, it has become irrational and outdated. The abstraction of profit makes no sense once we can organize our economy in concrete terms directly relating to material objects and phenomena.

Capitalist entrepreneurs and corporate executives simply don't look any deeper into what they are doing than the abstract numbers of the "universal equivalent", and in this age - when different kinds of wholesale technological destructive forces are at some people's fingertips - it's simply dangerous. Basically, if the profit tells them that they can inflate the number of zeros on their firms' accounts by destroying environment in some way, or even by killing people directly, they will go for it... And if the profit tells them that to go for it they need to bribe some "democratically elected" politician, and brainwash the public via the "independent" media, they will do just that. Because ultimately they are slaves to the capital too, although way more privileged ones than the proletariat and even the petty bourgeoisie.

So, communism is about better efficiency than capitalism and better chance for survival of the human race as a biological species. Justice, equality, freedom, fraternity and all other niceties just come as a bonus.

[Luís Henrique]

Quite interesting, but it has a lot of theoretical weaknesses. The most obvious is the nonsensical idea that it is possible or desirable to abolish abstract labour.
What is meant by this?

Well, what is abstract labour?

If it is something that only exists under capitalist conditions, then it certainly can be abolished, though evidently the question would be "how".


Then he assumes what he should be proving - that the modernisation of the USSR was capitalist not socialist. All he presents in this context is that it was modernisation and as such must be capitalist.

Well, that is a relatively small excerpt of his book, which certainly deals with it in more detail.


He is also very dismissive of classes and class exploitation.

He is. And I think he is wrong.


There is a real difference between a society with an exploiting class consumes some 40% of the output and one where there is no such consumption, so when Stalin points out that the Soviet State had deprived the exploiting classes of their incomes and that this enabled socialist industrialisation he was pointing out something very real.

Well, yes, it was very real; in Russia the working class, or its party, or the bureaucracy that took over it, has been able to perform - to a certain extent, at least - the tasks the bourgeoisie performed in Western Europe a century before, so that when "socialist industrialisation" was complete, the country was ready for "capitalist restoration".


He quotes Stalin as saying this, but it seems that to Kurz the class distribution of income is not important.

I guess it isn't; he would argue that distribution is dependent on production, and that without revolutionising production it is also impossible to revolutionise distribution.


Had Kurz written elsewhere on what he thought a socialist economy should be like?

He wrote a lot more things, several books and many essays and articles, most of which I haven't read; as most Marxists, he is not keen on discussing details of the future.


In the absence of that, his article is just part of the crowing of West German bourgeois society in 1991 that their socialist rival had finally been defeated.

Well, that it is certainly not, though of course many other lines of criticism of his work are possible.

Luís Henrique

[Paul Cockshott]

Well, what is abstract labour?

If it is something that only exists under capitalist conditions, then it certainly can be abolished, though evidently the question would be "how".
What I give below is a reproduction of what I said in another thread yesterday

The idea is introduced in the English translation of Capital here:
Quote:
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.
Clearly he just means the physical expenditure of human energy. It is even clearer in the French translation - the last edition of Capital explicitly reviewed and edited by Marx:
Quote:
La valeur d'usage des marchandises une fois mise de côté, il ne leur reste plus qu'une qualité, celle d'être des produits du travail. Mais déjà le produit du travail lui-même est métamorphosé à notre insu. Si nous faisons abstraction de sa valeur d'usage, tous les éléments matériels et formels qui lui donnaient cette valeur disparaissent à la fois. Ce n'est plus, par exemple, une table, ou une maison, ou du fil, ou un objet utile quelconque ; ce n'est pas non plus le produit du travail du tourneur, du maçon, de n'importe quel travail productif déterminé. Avec les caractères utiles particuliers des produits du travail disparaissent en même temps, et le caractère utile des travaux qui y sont contenus, et les formes concrètes diverses qui distinguent une espèce de travail d'une autre espèce. Il ne reste donc plus que le caractère commun de ces travaux ; ils sont tous ramenés au même travail humain, à une dépense de force humaine de travail sans égard à la forme particulière sous laquelle cette force a été dépensée.
It is not clear what you mean by abolishing the expenditure of human physiological energy - do you mean that you anticipate everything will be done by robots at some time in the future and we will just laze about doing nothing

[Luís Henrique]

What I give below is a reproduction of what I said in another thread yesterday

The idea is introduced in the English translation of Capital here:


If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.

Clearly he just means the physical expenditure of human energy.

But the physical expenditure of human energy is not an abstraction. So he must be talking of a different thing - probably the use of physical expenditure of human energy as a means to create and measure value.


It is not clear what you mean by abolishing the expenditure of human physiological energy - do you mean that you anticipate everything will be done by robots at some time in the future and we will just laze about doing nothing

If abstract labour is the abstraction of the concrete nature of any given human productive activity, in order to make possible the creation of value, then the abolition of abstract labour would be the abolition of such abstraction, and would be tantamount to the abolition of value.

Luís Henrique

[Paul Cockshott]

But the physical expenditure of human energy is not an abstraction. So he must be talking of a different thing - probably the use of physical expenditure of human energy as a means to create and measure value.

I dont think this is quite right. If you abstract from the specific bodily activity involved in say making shoes or tables what do these two things have in common?

They both involve the expenditure of human energy.

It is not the physical expenditure of human labour that is the abstraction, it is all that is left after the abstraction from the concrete movements.

Energy in science is itself an abstract concept it is what all the different concrete forms of energy have in common.

There is a very close analogy between Marx's analysis of value and 19th century ideas of energetics.

The concept of labour power is closely modeled on the concept of power developed by James Watt and codified as the horse power. For Watt power is the ability to do work. The product of time and power gives work done - so 2 horsepower for 10 seconds gives us work of 11,000 foot pounds - a measure of energy in the imperial system.

Similarly in Marx the labour power of two workers employed for two hours gives a value of two person hours. The formal structure is identical.





If abstract labour is the abstraction of the concrete nature of any given human productive activity, in order to make possible the creation of value, then the abolition of abstract labour would be the abolition of such abstraction, and would be tantamount to the abolition of value.

Luís Henrique

If were writing about this I would not express it that way. Abstraction is not a deliberate thing you do in order to create value. You have to ask yourself what value is ? Why does it exist?
I think the basic answer comes in stages -
1. There is only a finite amount of labour power available to society but this labour can be expended in a whole variety of different activities.

2. The basic law of value is that for each use value x, such that the quantity of x consumed by society is Q, and if each unit of x requires y units of labour for its production, then society must allocate Qy people to its production.

3. This law of the proportional distribution of labour is true for any society, but in a society of independent producers this law becomes apparent to people in terms of the exchange ratios of different commodities.

4. Under such circumstances the exchange ratios of commodities approximate to the ratio of their labour values.

Labour thus appears to 'create' value in commodity producing society, since to people in such societies, value is identified with the ability of a product to exchange with other products. But a more accurate way of looking at this is to say that value is the labour that society expended. But it just appears in the form of exchange value. This identification of value with exchange value is fetishism.

Now you can not abolish the law that society must proportionally distribute its labour - this according to Marx is 'a natural law that can not be abolished'. But you can change the specific historically determined form in which this law becomes apparent. You can prevent it appearing in a fetishised form - as exchange value. But society still has to calculate how to allocate its labour, it is just that in a planned economy this can be done in an unfetished form by direct calculations in terms of labour time.

[Imposter Marxist]

The best, the man himself, TONY CLIFF has written NUMEROUS articles about the Evil Totalitarian Death-Nightmare State of Soviet russia. You can find his works on the marxist internet archive.