Sotionov
9th August 2013, 16:10
For those that accept that systems like the USSR were state-capitalists, I have a question that will clear some details about this opinion of ours.
So, why do you consider the USSR to have been state-capitalist? Is it because there existed the bureaucracy, which was the new capitalist class; is it because money wasn't abolished; or is it because the USSR existed in a capitalist worlds and therefore had to participate in the international capitalist market?
Of course, one can hold more then one of these positions, but I found it interesting that there exist people who hold the two latter positions exclusively, as in- everything was cool with the USSR, except that they used money, if they did't do that, but calculation in natura, they'd be proper socialism; or- everything was cool with the USSR, except they were in one country, if the entire world had established the USSR system, that'd be proper socialism.
So, why do you consider the USSR to have been state-capitalist? Is it because there existed the bureaucracy, which was the new capitalist class; is it because money wasn't abolished; or is it because the USSR existed in a capitalist worlds and therefore had to participate in the international capitalist market?
Of course, one can hold more then one of these positions, but I found it interesting that there exist people who hold the two latter positions exclusively, as in- everything was cool with the USSR, except that they used money, if they did't do that, but calculation in natura, they'd be proper socialism; or- everything was cool with the USSR, except they were in one country, if the entire world had established the USSR system, that'd be proper socialism.