|
Hello Jozsef
and whoever else still wants to wade through this. It's become a rather
messy interweaving of my original message, Jozsef's response and my further
response, the latter being in large Times New Roman type (like this) just to
make sure it doesn't get lost. Hope whoever reads it enjoys it. And
Jozsef, I really don't know if I have anything else to say on the matter.
While I'm not conceding the field to you, I must say that I think I should do a
little more thinking and reading before I resume a discussion on this
topic.
Best regards,
Ed Weick
( . . . )
> >|A market of this general kind is a highly monopolized market. It is a >|market in which the single capitalist, or a colluding capitalist class, has >|absolute control. Having such control, the capitalist can absolutely >|determine the character of the market, setting all input and output prices, >|appropriating all surpluses, not allowing any of the free forces that >|determine supply and demand in a competitive market any scope. I would >|suggest that, in its most essential form, this is what the Soviet system was| >|like. > >Except of course that there was no private capitalist class. That might be a >rather pedantic point, although perhaps crucial from another respect. The >bureaucracy, hungry and parasitic, tightly organized and resilient as it was, >was not a private *ownership* class. These differences do matter. I recognize that I'm equating control with ownership. If one has absolute control, one has ownership. Private/public distinctions cease to matter. However, I also recognize that this was not really the situation in the USSR. The byzantine politics at the top continually interfered with the planning system and kept the bureaucracy guessing about which direction it should follow and who should be taken seriously. During the Stalin era, this depended on how close people were judged to be to the leader himself. Signals were given - e.g. positions on reviewing stands at May Day celebrations. >Of course one can argue, as in essence the global perspective does, that >through the system of international linkages that reemerged with WWII and >onwards, there was a private ownership class, the only one that really >matters anywhere, the global one. > >That involves another twist though, the fact that that would of course >also include you and me (to the extent that we have some kind of a retirement >benefit system that invests our savings in global stocks). You'll have to come again on this one. I'm not quite sure of the points you're making here. >| This is how it was intended to operate. However, there was another >|dimension to it, one which is supposed to be absent in capitalism. This was >|ideology. Unlike communists, capitalists do not have this. They are >|supposed to be motivated by greed and greed alone. The goal of the Soviet >|leadership was to develop a communist society, one in which the state would >|whither away and ownership and control would rest with the working class, >|and people would no longer have any cause to be greedy. > >I beg to disagree. I live in the U.S. and see, hear, sense nothing but >ideology. My students come to class full of ideology. Most of my work with >undergraduates is all about undoing the ideology detritus they bring in. But I was referring to the capitalist as a stereotype, and not to your students. I've met many people working for large corporations who are highly idealistic. Out of whatever principles they hold, they want to change the world for the better. Nevertheless, their textbook persona is one that has them driven purely by self interest. >|My view is that Russia was the wrong place to try to achieve anything of >|this general kind. > >For another person of the same view, Marx thought so too.:-) Well, it is always nice to have some support for one's views.:-) >| It was too disparate in terms of many different >|ethnicities with many different quarrels, and carried far too much >|justifiably paranoid historic baggage about being invaded and sacked from >|all directions. As well, there was no extensive working class at the time >|of the revolution. The communist regime therefore slipped into the familiar >|Russian mode of holding the country together by sitting on it, > >As opposed to the liberated tendencies of the western capitalist governments? >In the first two decades of this century? I agree that western governments were not especially liberated during the early part of this century, but for the most part, they had undergone a long period of increasing liberalization and social reform. An extensive and increasingly politicized middle class had emerged. Labour had begun to organize. Constitutions enabled elected governments to challenge monarchs (where these existed). Individuals had legally and constitutionally defined rights. The 19th century saw many attempts to bring about similar changes in Russia, but they failed. Serfdom did not end until the 1860s and continued de facto until the revolution of 1917. Despite many attempts to establish a constitutional monarchy, the powers of the czar remained absolute until the forced abdication of Nicholas II. So, on balance, I would say that the west was far ahead of Russia. >| by imposing >|from the top, by liquidating dissenters or sending them off to the gulags. >|And economically, it behaved like the ultimate textbook monopolist, >|appropriating all surpluses and even the market in order to build mountains >|of capital. > >Excuse me, I find this statement of fact incorrect also. One of the key >points (and I think I said this in my previous post) was precisely that >appropriation of the profits did not result in forprofit investment but many >other things: bureaucratic investment, investment into the state bureaucracy >and the armed forces, and, most relevant to this discussion of all, enormous >investments into collective consumption. I do
recognize this. Much the same kind of investment is undertaken in all
countries, regardless of the regime, and indeed large corporations undertake it
as well, though on a more limited scale. It is true that the Soviet Union
provided good schools, health services, and housing which was better than people
had had before. Nevertheless, I would continue to argue that the primary
objective was to build up an unchallengeable industrial
base.
How is it possible that the
country >which was basically a dirt poor agricultural society with a despotic regime, >famines, illiteracy, etc. in 1913 managed to overtake the U.S. in space >research in two generations? To a large extent *because* appropriated surplus >value went into resource capacity building done by the Soviet state, >including education, research, emotional mobilization for the "Soviet way of >life", measures promoting unbelievable processes of social mobility, etc. The >fact that it was noncapitalist and operated in the context of an increasingly >flexible and competitive global capitalist economy had everything to do in my >opinion with the collapse of the USSR. My
understanding is that defense industries, and activities which put the Soviet
Union on the leading edge such as aerospace, were given the highest
priority. They advanced very rapidly while much of the economy lagged well
behind and remained relatively underproductive. I would agree that the
so-called capitalist world remained hostile to the Soviet Union, but would
continue to argue that the SU brought itself down. As I have said
previously, simply too much was attempted in too short a time and too much was
done inefficiently because of the absence of market tests. The large scale
build up of weaponry because of the Cold War did not help, nor did the Great
Patriotic War (WWII) or Afghanistan.
I will not comment on the remainder of
your response because I may be getting into water that is a little deep for me
(and perhaps I am already over my head). I very much appreciate your long
response. If its purpose was to make me think, it has certainly done
that. I do find your comments on the relationship between the SU and its
eastern European satellites very interesting, and have often wondered if there
is any credible data on the magnitude of the flows between the satellites and
the SU. If you know of any, I would not mind having
references.
Ed
|