--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any modern economy operating on the basis of the
exchange of labor is going to manifest economic
inequality. What Russia junked was socialism. The
people of the Soviet Union understood that Brezhnev
was not a Red. I remember their jokes from this period
. . .
It is difficult to understand Putin's organization without understanding
its reliance on oil. In the 1980's, the Soviet Union was the world's
largest producer of crude, ahead of Saudi Arabia. The bulk of the 12
million barrels produced each day fueled the Soviet economy and its
anemic satellites
The Soviet empire was not extortionary, in the sense of providing a
bounty of riches to the imperial center, as India and other colonial
holdings had done for Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries; instead,
it was a drain on Moscow. Without oil, the heirs of Lenin would have had
great difficulty
Some scholars (sorry, I don't have the reference here) argue that even the British
empire wasn't profitable for Britain as a whole. But it clearly benefited the upper
classes, who were more important in decision-making.
Jim Devine
The British Empire operated on a capitalist basis, whether or not
Devine, James wrote:
The Soviet empire was not extortionary, in the sense of providing a
bounty of riches to the imperial center, as India and other colonial
holdings had done for Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries; instead,
it was a drain on Moscow. Without oil, the heirs of Lenin would
Carrol Cox wrote:
If you consider the conditions of English workers in the 1840s 1850s
as described by Marx Engels, and if in addition you consider the
_change_ for the worse of that condition between (say) 1750 and 1840,
also as described by Marx Engels, and if, finally, you consider that
the
Some scholars (sorry, I don't have the reference here) argue that even the British
empire wasn't profitable for Britain as a whole. But it clearly benefited the upper
classes, who were more important in decision-making.
Jim Devine
LP: The British Empire operated on a capitalist basis,
Jim Devine:
so the USSR didn't have classes? what principles did it follow? was
Stalin a benevolent despot?
reply: Jim, it is totally exhausting to reformat your email. Why can't
you get somebody to configure your MS Outlook, or do it yourself. Here's
how to do it:
1. Select tools/option
2. Select
Devine, James wrote:
it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites, but that doesn't make it any
less of an empire, since the USSR didn't grant its allies independence until the
USSR itself was falling apart.
I'm not sure what to call the USSR dominance of its allies, but I
think it
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites,
but that doesn't
make it any less of an empire, since the USSR didn't
grant its allies
independence until the USSR itself was falling apart.
All it says is
that you can't generalize from US-dominated
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/2/2004 11:16:33 AM
Put another way, to label the U.S. and the USSR with the same label,
empire -- and hence to suggest that there is some analogy between
the
relationship USSR/Cuba and US/Puerto Rico -- is just too violent
an
abstraction, it leaves too little material content
Chris Doss wrote:
There are lots of Soviet jokes depicting Castro as
sucking at Brezhnev's teat.
I used to work with Russian émigrés at Goldman-Sachs. This was in the
late 1980s, when the USSR was still functioning. One of their biggest
complaints was that Moscow was wasting money on the
Schumpeter made that argument in his essay, Imperialism.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:57:20AM -0700, Devine, James wrote:
Some scholars (sorry, I don't have the reference here) argue that even the British
empire wasn't profitable for Britain as a whole. But it clearly benefited the upper
I wrote:so the USSR didn't have classes? what principles did it follow? was
Stalin a benevolent despot?
LP: reply: Jim, it is totally exhausting to reformat your email. Why can't
you get somebody to configure your MS Outlook, or do it yourself. Here's
how to do it:
1. Select tools/option
2.
I wrote: it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites, but that doesn't make
it any less of an empire, since the USSR didn't grant its allies independence until
the USSR itself was falling apart.
CC wrote: I'm not sure what to call the USSR dominance of its allies, but I
think it is
Chris Doss writes:
Russians lived more poorly than people in any other of
the republics or in the Eastern Bloc (except maybe
Albania?). Moscow may have been a possible exception.
It's one of the reasons why Russia junked them.
Ironically, those losses of subsidies have resulted in
the wealthiest
Devine, James wrote:
I've tried all this before (those specific instructions don't work with
my MS Outlook 2000: SR-1, 9.0.0.3821) - and I've complained to the IT
folks (and people on pen-l). So I'm trying to see how MS Word (2000,
9.0.3821 SR-1) works as my e-mail editor. Of course, the on-line
I would say that USSR/Hungary or USSR/Czechoslovakia would be more like US/Puerto Rico, whereas
USSR/Cuba might be more like US/England. Of course, no analogies are perfect.
jim devine
Although it is impossible precisely to evaluate the gains and losses
in intra-Comecon trade it is generally
I never disagreed with this.
Jim Devine
LP quotes: Although it is impossible precisely to evaluate the gains and losses
in intra-Comecon trade it is generally agreed that the USSR was
subsidizing Eastern Europe and that over time this subsidy was rising
largely because of the growing opportunity
JD:If (1) the bureaucrat belongs to a social stratum that controls the
state in a despotic way - enough to kill or imprison those who oppose
their rule - and (2) the state owns the most important means of
production, then doesn't that bureaucrat have a social power akin to
other ruling classes?
Devine, James wrote:
If you think about the power to fire workers, bequeath property to
their sons or daughters, sell/strip assets, etc., you're thinking about
a specifically capitalist form of class power. (Did the Pharaoh have the
ability to the power to fire workers, bequeath property to their
In a message dated 8/2/2004 10:28:39 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russians lived more poorly than people in any other of the
republics or in the Eastern Bloc (except maybe Albania?). Moscow may have been a
possible exception. It's one of the reasons why Russia junked
22 matches
Mail list logo
