Was Stalin's economic mode socialism?

[spice756]

Was Stalin economic mode socialism? I know there is lots of debate on the political side like killing communit party members or killing people who do not meet their work quota.If this is true or not.

But was the economic mode socialism? Or did Stalin keep all the wealth to him self or where there privilege commmunit party members under Stalin .

I know there was no private ownership.Was prrofit in charge?

[ComradeOm]

Ack, this is one of those questions that always comes down to differing definitions. Expect a variety of responses, most negative and many banging on about 'state capitalism'

The command economy of the USSR (and its important to distinguish between earlier economic modes prior to the first Five Year Plan) was non-capitalist in that there was no (or at least severely limited) ownership of private goods or market economy. It was however non-socialist in that the means of production were not at the disposal of the proletariat. Its fundamentally different to anything that came before or has come since. Personally I prefer the terms state socialism* or, the rather blander, centralised state administrative system to describe this unique economy

* Taking care to distinguish between the state socialist theories of late 19th C Germany of course

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I wonder what Bordiga's system would be like, then. It would certainly be a helluva lot more social-abolitionist in regards to non-circulable labour credits replacing $$$, but the technocracy is in charge.

[spice756]

Ack, this is one of those questions that always comes down to differing definitions. Expect a variety of responses, most negative and many banging on about 'state capitalism'


I was not really asking if it was state capitalism but if there was privilege commmunit party members or Stalin keeping all the wealth to him self .

[RHIZOMES]

I was not really asking if it was state capitalism but if there was privilege commmunit party members or Stalin keeping all the wealth to him self .

Stalin didn't keep all the wealth to himself. That isn't just twisting the truth, that's a bold-faced lie.

There was however, definitely bureaucracy which Stalin often struggled with.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'd say it was non-capitalist, but not socialist. It was built more like to a war economy.

[magnus]

There was a bureacracy feeding off the backs of the workers.
Certainly Stalin, as the head of the CP did not make efforts against the bureucracy, as he was rather the impersonation of the bureaucracy and helped them ascend to power , in favourable material conditions of isolation and backwardness.

Stalin was in the head of the Thermidorian counterrevolution .
That does not mean though that the USSR did not have a socialist economic base. On the contrary, its economic base was socialist under Stalin, Krutchev, Andropov, Breznef etc but on the political domain , there was a bureaucratic rule instead of workers democracy which hindered the building of socialism in the USSR and in other countries as well.

That is why eventualy the bureaucrats found it in their best interests to sell out the socialist mode of production in favour of capitalism in order to benefit from it. That is why most of the ex-members of the KGB and the CPSU have now positions of power, wealth and influence.

But this does not mean that the USSR was not based on a socialist planned economy.
Even with the bureaucratic rule this was a tremendus step forward and it is obvious that they achieved a lot of things thanks to the superiority of this economic model.

But as Trotsky said " Democracy is to socialism , what oxygen is to the human body".
Meaning that there was a need of workers democracy in order for the Soviet Union to survive. Unfortunately the political revolution did not come, although it came close to in Hungary in 1956, thus the Soviet Union collapsed.

[Robespierre2.0]

It was socialist. The means of production were owned by the state, which was governed by a vanguard party in the interests of the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Um, notwithstanding the endless debate on "democratic control," surplus value was extracted from the workers, and the means of exchange circulated.

[spice756]

Um, notwithstanding the endless debate on "democratic control," surplus value was extracted from the workers, and the means of exchange circulated.

It has been proven this is not true. Under socialism surplus value is needed for founding stuff and socialism is not getting the same share for the wealth he or she makes.



There was a bureacracy feeding off the backs of the workers


Please be more detail here under what leadership the USSR had lots of leaders.

The US press was saying communist party members living in a nice house and lots of money well exploiting the working class .The communist party members living a very privilege life and become very privilege nice house and car so on..

If this is true or not or under what leadership this was happing? Many people who support Stalin was saying after Stalin this happen , this is why I'm asking those questions in this thread.

If there where a bureacracy feeding off the backs of the workers and living a very privilege life under Stalin than Stalin was a opportunist.

Also Stalin supporters say state capitalism happen after Stalin and there was no state capitalism under Stalin .

[spice756]

Dam did the person I was replying to got ban from this site?

Where is magnus?

[Charles Xavier]

Was Stalin economic mode socialism? I know there is lots of debate on the political side like killing communit party members or killing people who do not meet their work quota.If this is true or not.

But was the economic mode socialism? Or did Stalin keep all the wealth to him self or where there privilege commmunit party members under Stalin .

I know there was no private ownership.Was prrofit in charge?
1. yes
2. no
3. yes
4. no
5. no