economics in the USSR

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What was the difference between Kruschev's economic model and Stalin's? What were the reforms of 1965? Just something I've been wondering about...

[Zeruzo]

http://website.lineone.net/~comleague/book/ussrindex.html

Is a book about the '66 reforms.

True economic differences between Kruschev and Stalin did not really exist... Except for the fact that Kruchev never asked for the advice of any experts...

[Intelligitimate]

You might also enjoy this work, with a similar line as that of Bland, which appeared in The Guardian during the 70s.

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

[OneBrickOneVoice]

hmm so basically, it was at the Khruschev period that the capitalist class in the CPSU emerged, and that things like private profit and interest were introduced?

[Leo]

hmm so basically, it was at the Khruschev period that the capitalist class in the CPSU emerged, and that things like private profit and interest were introduced?

No... :rolleyes: It was Lenin period when things like private profit and interest were introduced (see:NEP). Khrushchev was fundamentally not different than Stalin. The economy was going in the same direction. The ruling class was made up of bureaucratic middle cadres; party members. When Khrushchev got to power, the industry and technology was more developed. The economy was moving from having party members who acted collectively as a ruling class to individual capitalists as the industry and technology developed.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 06:50 am
hmm so basically, it was at the Khruschev period that the capitalist class in the CPSU emerged, and that things like private profit and interest were introduced?
Yes, and no. The capitalist class already existed within the CPSU, just not as open. Kruchev allowed them to grow and was very utopian.



No... rolleyes.gif It was Lenin period when things like private profit and interest were introduced (see:NEP).

Wow, that statement goes really deep into the reasons for the NEP. Holding on to war-communism at that period of time would have resulted in failure, just showing again how utopian left-communists are.


Khrushchev was fundamentally not different than Stalin. The economy was going in the same direction.

Well, it depends on what you see as fundamental. Economically speaking, he did not differ a lot. But politically speaking he was very different and his politics eventually allowed the capitalist reforms of '66.


The economy was going in the same direction. The ruling class was made up of bureaucratic middle cadres; party members.

Completely ignoring the fact that Stalin fought this bureaucracy and that during periods of which Trotsky claimed there was 'bureaucratization' a lot of workers joined the party (Mostly model-workers, who worked very hard and were thus vangaurdist).


When Khrushchev got to power, the industry and technology was more developed. The economy was moving from having party members who acted collectively as a ruling class to individual capitalists as the industry and technology developed.

<_< Yes, really brilliant speculation <_<

[Hiero]

From the book Socialist Planing:Some Problems, by Maurice Dobb he finds the major economic difference between Kruschev and Stalin was the central planing. Kruschev allowed alot more planing at a local level without the authority at a national level. This resulted in production and quotas be decided by market value. They produced what would sell good, or hold back production to manipulate prices. In Stalin&#39;s era a national commitee worked with a local committee to evaulate the situation within the conext of the whole nation.