Soviet Union

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Hello,

I have been reading loads of different threads, books and web sources and they seem to suggest, that the SU was "state-capitalist" while others say that it was a "centralised planned economy".

State capitalist stuff, I read from books/extracts by Tony cliff.

So, what you people think. Was the Soviet Union just another form of capitalism?

I do not support what happened in the Soviet Union, but do you think the planned economy, even being as corrupt as it was, could have benefited the people in the SU to the extent to which the western world enjoyed, if they had not been so focussed on the military.

cheers :)

[Janus]

Before Gorbachev's reforms, the USSR was a totally centralised planned economy. If you ignore Lenin's New Economic Policy that's around 70 years of socialism. However, Gorbachev's policies such as petrestroika allowed some capitalism but it wasn't until 1991 when the USSR became a fully capitalist country. Once you open the door for capitalism, it is extremely difficult to close it.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 18 2006, 03:59 PM
Before Gorbachev's reforms, the USSR was a totally centralised planned economy. If you ignore Lenin's New Economic Policy that's around 70 years of capitalism. However, Gorbachev's policies such as petrestroika allowed some market reform but it wasn't until 1991 when the USSR became a fully market capitalist country. Once you open the door for markets, it is extremely difficult to close it.
Fixed.

[enigma2517]

The method of capitalist distribution was no longer used.

However, the social dynamics still mimicked that of capitalism. Before long, the Red bureaucrats had evolved into the new capitalist class.

Were they capitalists in the classical liberal sense? Of course not.

Were they a small minority that controlled capital and ultimately used it to their benefit? You betcha

Are all attempts at state socialism going to end this way?

Good question.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 06:43 PM

Are all attempts at state socialism going to end this way?

Maybe, maybe not.

Who cares anyway?

The first world proletariat would never consider that option anyway(for good reason).

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

The USSR definitely had a ruling class.. How democratic it was I'm not sure.. Wish I knew.

[cccpcommie]

not very..but we got rid of the tsars..thats why i support the C.C.C.P. every 1 had healthcare and very good education..as for rights? we had pretty much the same amount when the tsar was around.russians just want democracy who hcould blame them

[Vladislav]

not very..but we got rid of the tsars..thats why i support the C.C.C.P. every 1 had healthcare and very good education..as for rights? we had pretty much the same amount when the tsar was around.russians just want democracy who hcould blame them

Agreed comrade.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:13 AM
not very..but we got rid of the tsars..thats why i support the C.C.C.P. every 1 had healthcare and very good education..as for rights? we had pretty much the same amount when the tsar was around.russians just want democracy who hcould blame them
Exactly comrade. I don't see this happening in capitalist countries like Somalia. So the USSR was certainly not capitalist. Although the USSr was not a democracy, people enjoyed greater freedom than under the Tzars and monarchy. It also depends on your definition of freedom.

[ReD_ReBeL]

every 1 had healthcare and very good education

I agree with you to an extent but when Stalin came into power he was the first Soviet premer to put a fee on Education so i dont know if it was actualy available to 'everyone'. And i dunno if this is correct but the Soviet health system was apparantly flawed due to the extensive military spending.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Primary shcool, secondar school and university were still free. Look it up on wikipedia, it says he put a fee on secondary public schools, not state schools.
And no, the health system was not "flawed". It improved steadily throughout his rule and after until near the collapse of the USSR. WWII did set it back a lot though.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:28 PM
...SU was "state-capitalist" while others say that it was a "centralised planned economy".
Those two premises are not conflicted. "Others" (orthodox Trotskyists) in particular use terms such as "bureaucratic socialism" or "degenerate workers' state".

You mentioned Tony Cliff, but he was only the first among Trotskyists to adopt the theory of State Capitalism. For it he was excluded from the 4th International.

State Capitalism theory was developed among the Left Communists such as Anton Pannekoek and Otto Ruhle.


So, what you people think. Was the Soviet Union just another form of capitalism?

Yes.

Capital was expropriated from the individual capitalists and nationalized in the hands of the State, which acted as a single capitalist. For this reason, it was possible to establish planned economy instead of market economy which reflected the interests of the bureaucratic class.

It cannot be said that bureaucracy was a "new capitalist class" - it was a new ruling class which possessed different social and structural role from classic bourgeoisie. It was in control of the whole state capital, but only as a concentrated hierarchical totality, in which a single bureaucrat could benefit from his social position only in coherence through such oligarchic structure.

Working class, however, in the essence of its social relations, remained what it was in capitalism. Class of working people who had to sell their labor power in order to survive. Working class did not own/control/run the means of production, it did not share any benefit other then wage which maintained its procreation, it did not participate in "shareholding", decision-making, nor management control. It had no political independence nor representation. Last of these was eliminated by force through suppression of the Soviets during the Civil War and NEP.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:28 PM
I do not support what happened in the Soviet Union, but do you think the planned economy, even being as corrupt as it was, could have benefited the people in the SU to the extent to which the western world enjoyed, if they had not been so focussed on the military.

cheers :)
Depends what you mean by the extent to which the western world enjoyed, I highly doubt it would have ever been possible for the Soviet Union to have the suburban spraw or mass consumption of the USA. On the other hand the Soviet Union could have easily improved the lives of its workers (and extended the life of the Soviet Union) if they didn't spend so much on defence. Of course the Soviet Union had real enemies so it was not totally illogical for the Soviet Union to focus so much on it, they just got a bit carried away.

[Janus]

Originally posted by JKP
Fixed.
? :huh:

Yes, the new bureaucracy had pretty much replaced the capitalists but the USSR still can't be regarded as totally capitalist. The Soviet leadership as the leaders of the government were able to exploit their status and rank in order to gain wealth but the system didn't totally degenerate to the level of capitalism. However, the main reason for this was that the workers and the soviets no longer had power after the revolution. This is what allowed for the entrenched bureaucracy to take over the functioning of the state and this is what we must try to avoid.