Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What made Soviet socialism . . . real existing socialism was the legal system and ownership rights - property rights, that prevented anything other than means of consumption passing into the hands of individuals. That is to say . . . means of production could not pass into the hands of individuals. -- Hi Melvin, This isn't totally true. The USSR did allow small-scale private farming and very small-scale private enterprise, e.g. sewing and repairing clothes for money. Half of Soviet agriculture in the Brezhnev era was produced ny collective farm workers who, after doing their work at the kolkhoz, could grow produce on their private land plots, which they would take to the cities and sell. If anybody is interested in a vivid description of daily life in the Khrushchev era, I recommend Russian writer (and political agitator) Eduard Limonov's wonderful little book about his life as a young man in Kharkov in the 1950s turning from petty crime to literature, Dairy of a Scoundrel. It's available on the Web in English, translated by the eXile's John Dolan, if anyone is interested. (It's not one of the shock books Limonov is famous for, just a simple retelling of his youth. I recommend it wholeheartedly. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
--- Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CB: Are you saying that the Soviet people knew they were really just trying to catch up with the West again ,and just used the Communist terminology to cover it up or that they didn't realize what they were really, pragmatically doing ( simply trying to catch up with the West) ? Basically the best argument against what you are saying is what the Soviet people said. --- Oh, I think it was both. You had some people who believed the ideology and tried to implement it, some people who believed the ideology but tried to implement something else and lied to themselves about, and other people who just cynically used the ideology. I think I have a good description of the USSR: socialism with tsarist characteristics. Or tsarism with socialist characteristics. :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
--- Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CB: If they hadn't been doing something that was building socialism some kind of threat to capitalism , they wouldn't have been in such imminent danger of being defeated again. The reason imperialism was especially focussed on invading and conquering the SU is that they were building socialism, however flawed. --- Also just because it was a rival center of power. __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
by Waistline2 -clip- We have arrived at the very beginning of this process that abolishes property . . . and not simply allows for a change in the form of property . . . based on the revolution in the technological regime. ^^ CB: When you say abolish property instead of abolish private property are you putting forth a different concept than the one that Marx , Engels and Marxists use ? Or just shorthand for what Marxists refer to as the abolition of _private_ property ?
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
In a message dated 8/14/2004 8:18:31 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CB: When you say "abolish property" instead of "abolish private property" are you putting forth a different concept than the one that Marx , Engels and Marxists use ? Or just shorthand for what Marxists refer to as the abolition of _private_ property ? Reply Both . . . or rather Yes . . . because I am not a Marxist . . . just kidding. Although I am more communist - Red, than Marxist . . . from my understanding of the history of American Marxism as a political body as opposed to more than less academic discourse. Marxism is just one facet of communism anyway and never the largest sector at that. Ain't a socialist either . . . although some of my best friends . . . So the answer to the above is . . . Yes, or rather both. All of the above.:-) In fact I have the only valid concept of property according to Marx than has ever existed in history. Everyone else is wrong and I am right because . . . just playing. Private property is a form of property . . . Yes? What is to be abolished is not just the "private" or the form . . . but the property relations itself. By property or the property relation is meant all the things in our society through which one individual dominates another as well as class domination - the actual interactive interrelatedness of everyone to each other . . . Bourgeois property is only oneform of property and what ever ones understanding of property is . . . that is what's meant by abolish property . . . notjust the bourgeois kind. That is the direction of history as I understand all of what Marx and Engels have written. All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. Thus, "property relations" is used to mean all forms of domination of the individual by another individual based in class rights and class antagnoism . . . until the bright red future of communism is achieved and property is wipe from the minds of men and women. We have entered the beginning of a new historical era where the property relations itself can be abolished by abolishing the last form of private property relations . . . bourgeois property . . . WITHOUT THE STATE BEING THE PROPERTY HOLDER. This might take 100 years or a thousand years . . . I don't know. In the former Soviet Union the state was the property holder by way of its specific system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. By way of the state power . . . money, certificates and "sovereign credit" was issued that allowed the working people to access the system of production and distribution. I call this a from of property relations. The bourgeois property relations was abolished in the Soviets industrial infrastructure and more than less in agriculture. Perhaps less than more in agriculture . . . depends on ones point of view concerning exchange and the price form. Properly speaking the industrial workers did not sell their labor power to themselves in exchange for means of consumption . . . but then again . . . yes they did . . . as a transition phase never completed . . . with the state mediating this PROPERTY RELATIONS and the exchange of commodities. If commodities . . . including labor . . . was exchanged in the Soviet Union and this was not a bourgeois property relations or the private property relation . . . then how can anyone say that the working class was property holder and yet . . . there was no property relation at the same time? Property is bigger than a historically specific form. Abolition of property means advancing well beyond Soviet society and what makes this possible is subjective man in the context of a radically new emerging system of production.I do not advocate a Soviet America. Soviets were forms of organization of the workers as property owner. Bourgeois private property is the final and most complete _expression_ of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms . . . yet, under industrial conditions society is not and was not at a technological stage where the mass of people are no compelled to work as the basis of individual consumption. What made Soviet socialism . . . real existing socialism was the legal system and ownership rights - property rights, that prevented anything other than means of consumption passing into the hands of individuals. That is to say . . . means of production could not pass into the hands of individuals. Those who dominate and or administer the things that dominate people and reproduce the compulsion for exchange based on labor are still within a property relation. Socialism means a change in the form of property . . . from bourgeois private property to what? . . . Proletarian property. Here is the contradiction . . . not antagonism. Without questionit was correct to exclude thebourgeoisie from owning property . . . and property is revealed to
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Economics and law by Charles Brown 13 August 2004 17:09 UTC by Chris Doss Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It wiould be better to say something like the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of teh stuff is fluff. ^^ CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin correctly stated in 1931, we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be defeated again.In support of Chris' point, I don't recall this statement as having anything to do with building socialism as such. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Oh, I think a lot of Soviet policy was simply a utilitarian, how do we build up the country as quickly as possible to overtake our enemoies? thing. Russia engages in these grandiose catching up with the West adventures every couple of centuries or so. It has succeeded twice, under Peter the Great and Joseph the Steel, two historical figures I think have a lot in common, except that the Stalin had tanks instead of musketry. There's no way he could beat Peter's Drunken Synods, though. :) -- I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin correctly stated in 1931, we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be defeated again.In support of Chris' point, I don't recall this statement as having anything to do with building socialism as such. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724 __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Chris wrote: Russia engages in these grandiose catching up with the West adventures every couple of centuries or so. What I have always enjoyed about Chris's posts about Russia is his love of the populace... Likewise, I do with North Americans... Ken. -- Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the vanquished were, of course, exterminated. -- Voltaire
economics, law and the old soviet economy
by michael a. lebowitz I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin correctly stated in 1931, we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be defeated again.In support of Chris' point, I don't recall this statement as having anything to do with building socialism as such. michael ^^^ CB: If they hadn't been doing something that was building socialism some kind of threat to capitalism , they wouldn't have been in such imminent danger of being defeated again. The reason imperialism was especially focussed on invading and conquering the SU is that they were building socialism, however flawed.
economics, law and the old soviet economy
by Chris Doss Oh, I think a lot of Soviet policy was simply a utilitarian, how do we build up the country as quickly as possible to overtake our enemoies? thing. Russia engages in these grandiose catching up with the West adventures every couple of centuries or so. It has succeeded twice, under Peter the Great and Joseph the Steel, two historical figures I think have a lot in common, except that the Stalin had tanks instead of musketry. There's no way he could beat Peter's Drunken Synods, though. :) ^ CB: Are you saying that the Soviet people knew they were really just trying to catch up with the West again ,and just used the Communist terminology to cover it up or that they didn't realize what they were really, pragmatically doing ( simply trying to catch up with the West) ? Basically the best argument against what you are saying is what the Soviet people said.
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Charles Brown wrote: CB: If they hadn't been doing something that was building socialism some kind of threat to capitalism , they wouldn't have been in such imminent danger of being defeated again. The reason imperialism was especially focussed on invading and conquering the SU is that they were building socialism, however flawed. Agreed, but that wasn't what Stalin said. (I'm going by memory here: I hope someone can find the exact quotation.) He talked about how the West had beaten us repeatedly through Russian history: i.e., the whole was in nationalist, not socialist, terms. The earlier defeats (and he names several) were not of socialist regimes but of Czarist regimes. And he speaks of _Russia_ being behind militarily, culturally, economically, and several other adverbs. He undoubtedly _could_ have written what Charles writes above, but he didn't. Carrol
economics, law and the old soviet economy
by Carrol Cox Agreed, but that wasn't what Stalin said. (I'm going by memory here: I hope someone can find the exact quotation.) He talked about how the West had beaten us repeatedly through Russian history: i.e., the whole was in nationalist, not socialist, terms. The earlier defeats (and he names several) were not of socialist regimes but of Czarist regimes. And he speaks of _Russia_ being behind militarily, culturally, economically, and several other adverbs. He undoubtedly _could_ have written what Charles writes above, but he didn't. Carrol ^^^ CB: Oh I missed that in what you said. What you say here supports Chris's position , I think. My thought is that he was using Russian national liberation sentiment to rally the people, in the way Fidel Castro refers to Jose Marti, or the Viet Namese were carrying out a national liberation struggle too, harking back to Chinese invasions for centuries.
economics, law and the old soviet economy
Carrol: Agreed, but that wasn't what Stalin said. (I'm going by memory here: I hope someone can find the exact quotation.) ... ^^ CB: Wait a minute, what you said was Stalin said that the USSR existed in a capitalist sea. The reference to capitalists seems to imply he was getting at the fact that the capitalists were invading them because the capitalists didn't like them building socialism. You had said: For one thing, the USSR existed in a capitalist sea, as Stalin said in 1930, they had 10 years to catch up with the west industrially, culturally, etc or they would be overrun. (This speech by Stalin was quoted by Carl Oglesby in a book the title of which I now forget, and I have never been able to run down the text in any of Stalin's works that I possess.) ^ CB: Why not appeal to socialist vision _and_ national liberation hopes ?
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
1928 - At the same time we have around us a number of capitalist countries whose industrial technique is far more developed and up-to-date than that of our country. Look at the capitalist countries and you will see that their technology is not only advancing, but advancing by leaps and bounds, outstripping the old forms of industrial technique. And so we find that, on the one hand, we in our country have the most advanced system, the Soviet system, and the most advanced type of state power in the world, Soviet power, while, on the other hand, our industry, which should be the basis of socialism and of Soviet power, is extremely backward technically. Do you think that we can achieve the final victory of page 258 socialism in our country so long as this contradiction exists? What has to be done to end this contradiction? To end it, we must overtake and outstrip the advanced technology of the developed capitalist countries. We have overtaken and outstripped the advanced capitalist countries in the sense of establishing a new political system, the Soviet system. That is good. But it is not enough. In order to secure the final victory of socialism in our country, we must also overtake and outstrip these countries technically and economically. Either we do this, or we shall be forced to the wall. This applies not only to the building of socialism. It applies also to upholding the independence of our country in the circumstances of the capitalist encirclement. The independence of our country cannot be up held unless we have an adequate industrial basis for defence. And such an industrial basis cannot be created if our industry is not more highly developed technically. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/ICRD28.html 1930 - It is a contradiction between capitalism as a whole and the country that is building socialism. This, however, does not prevent it from corroding and shaking the very foundations of capitalism. More than that, it lays bare all the contradictions of capitalism to the roots and gathers them into a single knot, transforming them into an issue of the life and death of the capitalist order itself. That is why, every time the contradictions of capitalism become acute, the bourgeoisie turns its gaze towards the U.S.S.R., wondering whether it would not be possible to solve this or that contradiction of capitalism, or all the contradictions together, at the expense of the U.S.S.R., of that Land of Soviets, that citadel of revolution which, by its very existence, page 263 is revolutionising the working class and the colonies, which is hindering the organisation of a new war, hindering a new redivision of the world, hindering the capitalists from lording it in its extensive home market which they need so much, especially now, in view of the economic crisis. Hence the tendency towards adventurist attacks on the U.S.S.R. and towards intervention, a tendency which will certainly grow owing to the development of the economic crisis. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/SC30.html
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
(M.Hoover wins the door prize . . . The Task of Economic Executives 1931.) 1931 - It is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo somewhat, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible ! The tempo must not be reduced! On the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our powers and possibilities. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the workers and peasants of the U.S.S.R. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the working class of the whole world. page 528 To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia was the continual beatings she suffered because of her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her -- because of her backwardness, because of her military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because it was profitable and could be done with impunity. You remember the words of the pre-revolutionary poet: "You are poor and abundant, mighty and impotent, Mother Russia."[93] Those gentlemen were quite familiar with the verses of the old poet. They beat her, saying: "You are abundant," so one can enrich oneself at your expense. They beat her, saying: "You are poor and impotent," so you can be beaten and plundered with impunity. Such is the law of the exploiters -- to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak -- therefore you are wrong; hence you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty -- therefore you are right; hence we must be wary of you. That is why we must no longer lag behind. In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backward- page 529 ness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution-"Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries." We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or we shall go under. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/TEE31.html
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backward- page 529 ness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution - "Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries." We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or we shall go under. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/TEE31.html end of quote. I would not call this a nationalist's utterance by any stretch of the imagination. Whether one agrees of not all of Stalin's major writings are worth knowing as source material. Industrialization of the Country and the Right Deviation - 1928 is brilliant. His 1930 speech at the 15th Party Congress stands the test of time. What is fundamental in all his speeches and major addresses is the need to industrialize because they were already Sovietized and industrialization was on the historical agenda for who ever won the political contest. Yes, they understood they were building the foundations of socialism and then socialist industry. "We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries." Something to think about . . . ain't it . . . especially when one wants to understand how a particular leader thought and envisioned the world. No one magically jumps to the communist future on the basis of industrial society. It is simply not possible. What is required is an additional revolution in the mode ofproduction that places the abolition of property on the immediate historical agenda. Not unlike the real revolution in production that abolished the sharecropper as a class . . . which today is understood as the material prelude that abolishes the agricultural worker as agricultural laboring class ... as a primary social force in history. Thousands of years of the transitions in the form of this class of agricultural workers is being abolished from human history. Collectivism was not the answer but a practical solution to a practical problem of scattered production in agriculture. Pardon my economic determinism. I choose to error on this side of the equation. We have arrived at the very beginning of this process that abolishes property . . . and not simply allows for a change in the form of property . . . based on the revolution in the technological regime. Consciousness . . . the masses slowly gaining an awareness of the moment . . . determines everything from here out. Let's see what happens under our impact in the next fifty years. Proletarians Unite! Melvin P.
