Why didn't the USSR degenerate into Keynesianism

[Psy]

Why didn't the USSR degenerate into traditional Keynesianism? Where the bourgeoisie elements in Russia simply retarded? They were sitting in a state that already had protectionism and subsidies so wouldn't the only thing the bourgeoisie have wanted in the USSR was property rights? Why didn't the Russian bourgeoisie plot against Yeltsin? Yes Yeltsin was giving them property but was taking away protectionism thus putting the Russian bourgeoisie at a disadvantage to the larger international bourgeoisie.

[Q]

The answer is simple: there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR...

[Psy]

The answer is simple: there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR...
Of course there was bourgeoisie elements, if there wasn't Yeltsin wouldn't have existed.

[manic expression]

Neither the bureaucracy nor the oligarchy wanted Keynesian economics. They both thought they would make off like bandits with unbridled capitalism: the oligarchy was correct in this assumption.

Also, although I'm not sure, I think Q-collective's point was that the bourgeoisie wasn't pulling the strings: the bureaucracy calculated that hog-trough capitalism was in its best interests and made it happen (they weren't completely right about that).

[Psy]

Neither the bureaucracy nor the oligarchy wanted Keynesian economics. They both thought they would make off like bandits with unbridled capitalism: the oligarchy was correct in this assumption.

Also, although I'm not sure, I think Q-collective's point was that the bourgeoisie wasn't pulling the strings: the bureaucracy calculated that hog-trough capitalism was in its best interests and made it happen (they weren't completely right about that).

Only in the short term. Raw resources are mostly the only thing Russia can export as industries have lost their subsides and were obsolete compared to the larger industrial powers, thus were gutted because the capitalists owners of the factories couldn't compete in the market so simply liquidated the means of production.

[Xiao Banfa]

The USSR didn't degenerate into Keynesianism because apolitical careerist bureaucrats don't think "hmm maybe we can have a nice capitalism, cause I really care about the workers".

They think "I'm going to sell out so bad, you may as well call me a comprador capitalist".

[Psy]

The USSR didn't degenerate into Keynesianism because apolitical careerist bureaucrats don't think "hmm maybe we can have a nice capitalism, cause I really care about the workers".

They think "I'm going to sell out so bad, you may as well call me a comprador capitalist".
You think the USA heavily used protectionism early in their history because the ruling class cared about workers? The US was protectionist because the American ruling class correctly understood that in a free market Britain would brutally crush them economically. So why didn't the Russian ruling class think along the same terms, thinking "I love to have property rights, but in a level playing field I will be brutally crushed by the major international capitalist powers, maybe I can have both"

[manic expression]

You think the USA heavily used protectionism early in their history because the ruling class cared about workers? The US was protectionist because the American ruling class correctly understood that in a free market Britain would brutally crush them economically. So why didn't the Russian ruling class think along the same terms, thinking "I love to have property rights, but in a level playing field I will be brutally crushed by the major international capitalist powers, maybe I can have both"

Do you really think the oligarchy is crying in their beer over not having enough tariffs? They did quite well for themselves, so I doubt it.

The real reason is that the reestablishment of capitalism in a society does not work with protectionism, for there is nothing to really protect. The American capitalists took on protectionism AFTER capitalism had developed in earnest. Russia in the 1990's was in a completely different position.

[Psy]

Do you really think the oligarchy is crying in their beer over not having enough tariffs? They did quite well for themselves, so I doubt it.

The real reason is that the reestablishment of capitalism in a society does not work with protectionism, for there is nothing to really protect. The American capitalists took on protectionism AFTER capitalism had developed in earnest. Russia in the 1990's was in a completely different position.

What is the oligarchy going to do about the rate of their profits now that they are capitalists? Capitalists have to re-invest in the means of production in order to survive but the Russian capitalists doesn't have the means to and when they took over the means of production they were already way behind in terms of modernization of means of production.

[manic expression]

What is the oligarchy going to do about the rate of their profits now that they are capitalists? Capitalists have to re-invest in the means of production in order to survive but the Russian capitalists doesn't have the means to and when they took over the means of production they were already way behind in terms of modernization of means of production.

They'll do whatever they think is best for their interests. There are many variables in Russia, we must remember this. However, the reason Keynesian economics was not adopted is because the Russian capitalists were at a much different point in their development than other capitalist countries. I would say that the Russian capitalists will adopt monopoly capitalism more and more (they already have, actually), and with it will come the protectionism of imperialist capitalism. That's my view.

[Xiao Banfa]

You think the USA heavily used protectionism early in their history because the ruling class cared about workers?

No but that's not Keynesianism. Keynesianism inluences social democrat and new dealer economics. And for second half of the 20th it was part of the political mainstream in industrialised first world nations.

These politicians protect the national bourgeoisies interests, but the n. bourgeoisie doesn't initiate broad keynesian economics.

The left-leaning politicians like Atlee and Roosevelt were inspired by much broader concerns than the interests of the n. bourgeoisie.
They believed in social cohesion and things like a "great nation".

People like Yeltsin were nihilists, they just sell out the national interest-they weren't motivated by anything else. These type of people are awestruck by turbo-capitalism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Technically no country (that I'm aware of) has employed true Keynesian principles. Keynes was just as critical of senseless debt accumulation as Australian school zealots, but he recognized the inherit nature of market failures (not just the accelerated type) and how for there to be "maximum" benefit the government needed to get involved.

The Russian bourgeoisie and bureaucrats were heavily influenced by the politics of the time: Thatcherism and Reaganism.

[Psy]

Technically no country (that I'm aware of) has employed true Keynesian principles. Keynes was just as critical of senseless debt accumulation as Australian school zealots, but he recognized the inherit nature of market failures (not just the accelerated type) and how for there to be "maximum" benefit the government needed to get involved.

The Russian bourgeoisie and bureaucrats were heavily influenced by the politics of the time: Thatcherism and Reaganism.

Thatcherism and Reaganism both hurt the average bourgeoisie, only the large bourgeoisie benefited but only because they didn't get hurt as much as the average bourgeoisie.

[bezdomni]

The answer is simple: there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR...

lol, so the U.S.S.R. had achieved communism? You really think that?

[Q]

lol, so the U.S.S.R. had achieved communism? You really think that?
Uhm, no. Communism is often nutshelled as "classless and stateless", but it is only that: communism in a nutshell.

It seems your thoughts are going a bit like this:

If it is indeed true that there was no oppressing class in the Soviet Union, then that would automagically lead to a stateless society aswell, right? So why didn't happen that? The existance of a state must therefore mean that there was also still an oppressing class controlling the state, hence "state capitalism"!


This kind of reasoning is a witness of very dogmatic and mechanical thinking.

Lets get back to the basics: What is our goal with communism? That is a society in which there is no social oppression of any kind, where everyone can be truely free and untap the creativity of humanity for the betterment of us all.

Now, what is wrong with capitalism? Capitalism, in its essence, is a system that is based on a structural shortage of goods. This way profits can be made. The "magic" power of money can be brought back to this essence: a representation of the shortage of society. Once there is an abundance in the whole of society, the system gets in a recession, crisis and what more, simply because there are no more consumers. Furthermore, due to the system, the capitalists get all the wealth by default. This fundamental inequality in material abundance, leads to power for the capitalist class, making them the ruling stratum of our society. Due to their numerical minority, they need some kind of apparatus to suppress the majority, hence the need for a state: an apparatus to achieve bourgeois hegemony.

So, what do we want to achieve with socialism? Socialism, being the transitionary phase towards communism, has a few historic tasks. Perhaps the most important historic task of socialism is that of the economy. Socialist economy as the task of letting the material shortages disappear and grow towards a material superabundance, thusly undermining any base of power or oppression. So in other words: socialism begins where capitalism ends, it has a higher mode of production then the highest possible under capitalism (currently that would still be the USA). Socialists try to achieve this via an international revolution, since only internationally we can end not only capitalism, but also achieve a more efficient mode of production. Another task is a political one: give the working class political power, via a direct democracy. This is ofcourse still a "state" in the sense it is still oppressing another class, this time being the disowned bourgeoisie which will still exist for a period of time as a social entity. But the bourgeoisie cannot survive just as that, it will quickly degenerate until the bourgeoisie exists no more as a class. By then the soviet democracy no longer acts as a state, so we achieve a "stateless and classless" society.

Now, what went wrong in the Soviet Union? Russia in 1917 was a very underdeveloped country: it basically was a feudal economy with a few industrial centers. When the revolution broke out and gave power to the working class, it came much to early for purely Russian reasoning. Lenin, Trotsky and others understood the need for the international spreading of the revolution, since purely isolated Russia could never achieve solving the huge material inequalities inherited from feudal/capitalist society. However, the Russian revolution never became an international revolution and due to the backwardness of society, a new stratum quickly began to rise. So, to answer your question: no, Russia never achieved communism, it didn't even achieve socialism. Let's, for the sake of argument, call it "pre-socialism".

Now, this stratum is particularly interesting. It developed and thrived on the existing material inequalities that only worsened during the civil war (during which the Bolsheviks lost lots of cadre, which didn't help a lot either). But then it faced a problem: how could it exist without an economic or social basis? This stratum didn't have a big part in the economy, as that was nationalised and rationalised. Sure, it did control it, but it did't have a function in it, a bit like a parasite taking over its host. So, it created a socalled bonarpartistic state: a state that was cut loose from its economic underground and therefore was forced to rule with an iron fist to ensure the stratum remained where it was: in power.

Yes, eventually this bureaucratic stratum returned to capitalism and became a class, as it gained an economic underground. Trotsky thought this would happen much sooner, it didn't, but it goes too far for this topic to deep up the "why" behind that.

We can all take lessons from the Russian history, but before we take conclusions, we first have to have our analysis right. The conclusions are of course pretty obvious, such as the need for spreading a revolution internationally. Vice versa the Stalinists understood why they gained their basis of power and explains why they started defending the whole "socialism in one country" crap after 1924, as a theoretical defense of the given situation.

So no, there was no bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union, neither were there "bourgeois elements" (as if they could survive without an economic base for existing!).

[ComradeRed]

Why didn't the USSR degenerate into traditional Keynesianism? Where the bourgeoisie elements in Russia simply retarded? They were sitting in a state that already had protectionism and subsidies so wouldn't the only thing the bourgeoisie have wanted in the USSR was property rights? Why didn't the Russian bourgeoisie plot against Yeltsin? Yes Yeltsin was giving them property but was taking away protectionism thus putting the Russian bourgeoisie at a disadvantage to the larger international bourgeoisie. Because the chief identifier for the high priests of capital to switch to Keynesian economic policy is from the business cycle.

Marx pointed out that without competition, the business cycle would be nearly (if not completely) impossible to observe.

So how would the planners of the USSR know when to switch?

It revolves around the problem of there being no competition, since everything was part of one huge corporation for all practical purposes.


Now, what is wrong with capitalism? Capitalism, in its essence, is a system that is based on a structural shortage of goods. Wrong.

Capitalism is a mode of production with unique method of production and distribution of commodities.

The method of production requires wage-labor, which is something novel as all modes of production prior to capitalism simply had the labor be owned or provided by the owner himself.

Wage-labor is defined by Marx as:

Their commodity, labour-power, the workers exchange for the commodity of the capitalist, for money, and, moreover, this exchange takes place at a certain ratio. So much money for so long a use of labour-power. For 12 hours' weaving, two shillings. And these two shillings, do they not represent all the other commodities which I can buy for two shillings? Therefore, actually, the worker has exchanged his commodity, labour-power, for commodities of all kinds, and, moreover, at a certain ratio. By giving him two shillings, the capitalist has given him so much meat, so much clothing, so much wood, light, etc., in exchange for his day's work. The two shillings therefore express the relation in which labour-power is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange-value of labour-power.

The exchange value of a commodity estimated in money is called its price. Wages therefore are only a special name for the price of labour-power, and are usually called the price of labour; it is the special name for the price of this peculiar commodity, which has no other repository than human flesh and blood.

[...]

But the putting of labour-power into action – i.e., the work – is the active expression of the labourer's own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labour itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another. The product of his activity, therefore, is not the aim of his activity. What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold that he draws up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds. What he produces for himself is wages; and the silk, the gold, and the palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the labourer who for 12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so on – is this 12 hours' weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker.

Labour-power was not always a commodity (merchandise). Labour was not always wage-labour, i.e., free labour. The slave did not sell his labour-power to the slave-owner, any more than the ox sells his labour to the farmer. The slave, together with his labour-power, was sold to his owner once for all. He is a commodity that can pass from the hand of one owner to that of another. He himself is a commodity, but his labour-power is not his commodity. The serf sells only a portion of his labour-power. It is not he who receives wages from the owner of the land; it is rather the owner of the land who receives a tribute from him. The serf belongs to the soil, and to the lord of the soil he brings its fruit. The free labourer, on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of life – i.e., to the capitalist. The labourer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labour-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for him to find his man – i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class. From Wage Labor & Capital Chapter 2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm) by Karl Marx (1847).

There is this phenomena which is covered below called "surplus value", which is used in the "expansion of capital".


This way profits can be made. Wrong.

Profits, more generally surplus value, is made by exploiting labor in the production process of capital.

Marx points out:

All surplus-value, whatever particular form (profit, interest, or rent), it may subsequently crystallize into, is in substance the materialization of unpaid labor. The secret of the self-expansion of capital resolves itself into having the disposal of a definite quantity of other people’s unpaid labor. From Das Kapital, vol. I, Chapter 18 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch18.htm) by Karl Marx (1867).


The "magic" power of money can be brought back to this essence: a representation of the shortage of society. Is that why third world nations have shortages and money that is worthless, whereas e.g. the U$ has surpluses and money that is not worthless?

This "explanation" is lacking, it's complete nonsense.

Why is it one currency is worth more than another? Comparatively surplus shortages?

And inflation, interest, etc.? These are all related, but not linearly, to shortages.

So your reasoning is comically flawed.


Once there is an abundance in the whole of society, the system gets in a recession, crisis and what more, simply because there are no more consumers. Using vulgar economics, that sounds reasonable.

I'm not so convinced that this means "Therefore there must be shortages".

What is there to justify this reasoning besides "supply and demand" voodoo?

Well, you could use the scientific explanation of Marx's business cycle, which you evidently do not grasp.

So, once more, your reasoning is choppy and its conclusion is a non-sequitur.


Furthermore, due to the system, the capitalists get all the wealth by default. Your word is good enough for me :lol:

Simply stating what happens at the end of the circulation of commodities is not good enough of an explanation.

Why do they get "all the wealth"?

How much is "all the wealth"? (Hint: it's not all, or you wouldn't have a computer unless you were bourgeois)


This fundamental inequality in material abundance, leads to power for the capitalist class, making them the ruling stratum of our society. Wrong.

They secured power during the period of bourgeois revolutions, from around the 1500s to the early 1800s (A.C.E.).

Remember that whole part of history in Europe? Thirty Years War, War of Roses, etc. etc. etc.


Due to their numerical minority, they need some kind of apparatus to suppress the majority, hence the need for a state: an apparatus to achieve bourgeois hegemony. Uh, right, consolidating power during the bourgeois revolutions had absolutely no influence on the structure of the bourgeois state apparatus :lol:

Your explanations are comically flawed, perhaps you should try reading up on what capitalism is.