Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:47:31 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-practices.html Someone named Orlov says in the essay linked above: When the Soviet system went away, many people lost their jobs, everyone lost their savings, wages and pensions were held back for months, their value was wiped out by hyperinflation, there shortages of food, gasoline, medicine, consumer goods, there was a large increase in crime and violence, and yet Russian society did not collapse. Somehow, the Russians found ways to muddle through. How was that possible? It turns out that many aspects of the Soviet system were paradoxically resilient in the face of system-wide collapse, ^ CB: Evidently, the SU had more of a grass roots and democratic society , working class people's world there all along than a lot of observers and critics, West and East , thought. Was this a paradox or was it proof that working people ran things more than critics claimed ? The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. That the author evidently didn't expect this, suggests he didn't quite understand fully what was going on at the base of his country. ^ many institutions continued to function, and the living arrangement was such that people did not lose access to food, shelter or transportation, and could survive even without an income. The Soviet economic system failed to thrive, and the Communist experiment at constructing a worker's paradise on earth was, in the end, a failure. ^ CB: Or maybe the collapse of the Soviet state was the state whithering away, as Marx prognosticated. And what is left is closer to the free association of free producers, or whatever, Since Marx didn't predict a workers paradise, maybe this author is looking for the wrong thing, and what is there is closer to what Marx envisioned than he thinks. Since the collapse of the Soviet state, I've always been interested in the reports like this one that people continued to survive without income or wages. That means that the money system, the wage system went poof ! That's what is supposed to happen in communism. Very interesting. ^^ But as a side effect it inadvertently achieved a high level of collapse-preparedness. ^^ CB: Maybe it wasn't so inadvertent. Maybe the big ,bad Soviet state was a protective, scary mask worn to ward off the vicious imperialist system, and the real future society was grown on purpose underneath, with hardy roots. It is not likely an accident that the society he describes survived and functions. You can be sure that they are growing a lot of local food in gardens. ^ In comparison, the American system could produce significantly better results, for time, but at the cost of creating and perpetuating a living arrangement that is very fragile, and not at all capable of holding together through the inevitable crash. Even after the Soviet economy evaporated and the government largely shut down, Russians still had plenty left for them to work with. ^ CB: My estimate is that he is mistaken that this was inadvertent. It was not a paradise, but it was a place where the working class was empowered and running their own lives. ^^ And so there is a wealth of useful information and insight that we can extract from the Russian experience, which we can then turn around and put to good use in helping us improvise a new living arrangement here in the United States � one that is more likely to be survivable. ^^ CB: Hopefully. But unfortunately, we don't have socialism, and they did. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
What is socialism? ...we could start or continue our conversation having a clear and Communist understanding of socialism in this particular moment. What do you think? Let me know if you are interested so we could base our discussion on the soviet experience on solid ground...materialist ground...for example: under which conditions the State whiter away? Were those conditions given in 1917? Are there historical evidence of the existence of communist minorities interpretations of that particular moment of human history? Why events had developed the way they did? Let me know if we could deepen our debate on different grounds... --- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? To: cdb1...@prodigy.net, marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu, a-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Saturday, February 21, 2009, 5:44 PM On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:47:31 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-practices.html Someone named Orlov says in the essay linked above: When the Soviet system went away, many people lost their jobs, everyone lost their savings, wages and pensions were held back for months, their value was wiped out by hyperinflation, there shortages of food, gasoline, medicine, consumer goods, there was a large increase in crime and violence, and yet Russian society did not collapse. Somehow, the Russians found ways to muddle through. How was that possible? It turns out that many aspects of the Soviet system were paradoxically resilient in the face of system-wide collapse, ^ CB: Evidently, the SU had more of a grass roots and democratic society , working class people's world there all along than a lot of observers and critics, West and East , thought. Was this a paradox or was it proof that working people ran things more than critics claimed ? The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. That the author evidently didn't expect this, suggests he didn't quite understand fully what was going on at the base of his country. ^ many institutions continued to function, and the living arrangement was such that people did not lose access to food, shelter or transportation, and could survive even without an income. The Soviet economic system failed to thrive, and the Communist experiment at constructing a worker's paradise on earth was, in the end, a failure. ^ CB: Or maybe the collapse of the Soviet state was the state whithering away, as Marx prognosticated. And what is left is closer to the free association of free producers, or whatever, Since Marx didn't predict a workers paradise, maybe this author is looking for the wrong thing, and what is there is closer to what Marx envisioned than he thinks. Since the collapse of the Soviet state, I've always been interested in the reports like this one that people continued to survive without income or wages. That means that the money system, the wage system went poof ! That's what is supposed to happen in communism. Very interesting. ^^ But as a side effect it inadvertently achieved a high level of collapse-preparedness. ^^ CB: Maybe it wasn't so inadvertent. Maybe the big ,bad Soviet state was a protective, scary mask worn to ward off the vicious imperialist system, and the real future society was grown on purpose underneath, with hardy roots. It is not likely an accident that the society he describes survived and functions. You can be sure that they are growing a lot of local food in gardens. ^ In comparison, the American system could produce
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
--- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. ^^ CB: It is interesting that the social safety net remained, because as I understand it, neo-liberalism is supposed to strip away welfare and the social safety net. So, perhaps the name was neoliberalism but the facts on the ground were not so neo-liberal. It really will be interesting to see what happens now if the world wide recession/depression batters what ever free-market institutions that were actually established in Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. Their stock markets are likely to be more fragile and limited than those in the US and Western Europe. A crash of neo-phyte stock markets could be their end or lead to their permanent limitation. Besides the social safety net, how far could they really go in privatizing basic means of production and basic necessities industries, such as food, utilities, mass transit, water, gas, electricity, telephone? Those are only half private in the US. It probably wouldn't be a very big step to nationalize them - permanently. The same with the banking system. In Eastern Europe, and countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania with no Russian troops there anymore, there may be little reason to resent socialist organization, socialist _self_organization and self-determination. Perhaps socialism will come as a negation of the negation of the first experience of socialism. They don't have to call it socialism or communism Just call it economic democracy and freedom or social democracy or democratic socialism. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither
What is socialism? ^ CB: Abolition of private property in the basic means of production. ^ ...we could start or continue our conversation having a clear and Communist understanding of socialism in this particular moment. What do you think? Let me know if you are interested so we could base our discussion on the soviet experience on solid ground...materialist ground...for example: under which conditions the State whiter away? Were those conditions given in 1917? Are there historical evidence of the existence of communist minorities interpretations of that particular moment of human history? Why events had developed the way they did? Let me know if we could deepen our debate on different grounds... ^^^ CB: Tell us what different grounds. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:35:43 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: --- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. ^^ CB: It is interesting that the social safety net remained, because as I understand it, neo-liberalism is supposed to strip away welfare and the social safety net. So, perhaps the name was neoliberalism but the facts on the ground were not so neo-liberal. It really will be interesting to see what happens now if the world wide recession/depression batters what ever free-market institutions that were actually established in Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. Their stock markets are likely to be more fragile and limited than those in the US and Western Europe. A crash of neo-phyte stock markets could be their end or lead to their permanent limitation. Besides the social safety net, how far could they really go in privatizing basic means of production and basic necessities industries, such as food, utilities, mass transit, water, gas, electricity, telephone? Those are only half private in the US. It probably wouldn't be a very big step to nationalize them - permanently. The same with the banking system. Well in Russia the state renationalized most of the energy industry several years ago. Putin, as president, went a long way towards reestablishing the leading role of the state in the management of Russia's economy. The state is a major stockholder in many of Russia's largest companies. One of Putin's big achievements was to rein in the oligarchs who had taken control of much of Russia's economy under Yeltsin. All this course takes us back to a lot of the old debates over the nature of the former Soviet Union: was it socialist? was it state capitalist? a degenerate workers state? a bureacratic collectivism? And to those old debates we can now can add debates over the nature of contemporary post-Soviet Russia. The post-Soviet regimes of Yeltsin and Putin had the avowed aim of restoring capitalism, but it seems that the reality there is perhaps more complex. They never could entirely obliterate Soviet-era institutions and practices, and now, I suspect, that the current world economic practice may force the current government of Medvedev and Putin to revive many of the old Soviet policies. I suppose that we might characterize the current Russian economy as a kind of state capitalism with some socialist characteristics. Jim F. In Eastern Europe, and countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania with no Russian troops there anymore, there may be little reason to resent socialist organization, socialist _self_organization and self-determination. Perhaps socialism will come as a negation of the negation of the first experience of socialism. They don't have to call it socialism or communism Just call it economic democracy and freedom or social democracy or democratic socialism. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Click to learn about options trading and get the latest information. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIzQaKqKDWtUHB687b2RagjNMBwhGf2qCMhoLUSDzR8181lroxupC/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
--- On Sun, 2/22/09, Jim Farmelant wrote: Well in Russia the state renationalized most of the energy industry several years ago. Putin, as president, went a long way towards reestablishing the leading role of the state in the management of Russia's economy. The state is a major stockholder in many of Russia's largest companies. One of Putin's big achievements was to rein in the oligarchs who had taken control of much of Russia's economy under Yeltsin. All this course takes us back to a lot of the old debates over the nature of the former Soviet Union: was it socialist? was it state capitalist? a degenerate workers state? a bureacratic collectivism? And to those old debates we can now can add debates over the nature of contemporary post-Soviet Russia. The post-Soviet regimes of Yeltsin and Putin had the avowed aim of restoring capitalism, but it seems that the reality there is perhaps more complex. They never could entirely obliterate Soviet-era institutions and practices, and now, I suspect, that the current world economic practice may force the current government of Medvedev and Putin to revive many of the old Soviet policies. I suppose that we might characterize the current Russian economy as a kind of state capitalism with some socialist characteristics. Jim F. CB: The overall historical process might be zig-zagging toward socialism, rather than moving in a straight line. One step forward two steps backward...one step right two and a half steps to the left. You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around. That's what it's all about. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
Also, notice the Soviet state did not kill a lot of people when it went away. That's another characteristic of the process that fits the term whither. Away not with a bang but a whimper. CB --- On Sun, 2/22/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? To: cdb1...@prodigy.net, marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 12:53 AM On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:35:43 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: --- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. ^^ CB: It is interesting that the social safety net remained, because as I understand it, neo-liberalism is supposed to strip away welfare and the social safety net. So, perhaps the name was neoliberalism but the facts on the ground were not so neo-liberal. It really will be interesting to see what happens now if the world wide recession/depression batters what ever free-market institutions that were actually established in Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. Their stock markets are likely to be more fragile and limited than those in the US and Western Europe. A crash of neo-phyte stock markets could be their end or lead to their permanent limitation. Besides the social safety net, how far could they really go in privatizing basic means of production and basic necessities industries, such as food, utilities, mass transit, water, gas, electricity, telephone? Those are only half private in the US. It probably wouldn't be a very big step to nationalize them - permanently. The same with the banking system. Well in Russia the state renationalized most of the energy industry several years ago. Putin, as president, went a long way towards reestablishing the leading role of the state in the management of Russia's economy. The state is a major stockholder in many of Russia's largest companies. One of Putin's big achievements was to rein in the oligarchs who had taken control of much of Russia's economy under Yeltsin. All this course takes us back to a lot of the old debates over the nature of the former Soviet Union: was it socialist? was it state capitalist? a degenerate workers state? a bureacratic collectivism? And to those old debates we can now can add debates over the nature of contemporary post-Soviet Russia. The post-Soviet regimes of Yeltsin and Putin had the avowed aim of restoring capitalism, but it seems that the reality there is perhaps more complex. They never could entirely obliterate Soviet-era institutions and practices, and now, I suspect, that the current world economic practice may force the current government of Medvedev and Putin to revive many of the old Soviet policies. I suppose that we might characterize the current Russian economy as a kind of state capitalism with some socialist characteristics. Jim F. In Eastern Europe, and countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania with no Russian troops there anymore, there may be little reason to resent socialist organization, socialist _self_organization and self-determination. Perhaps socialism will come as a negation of the negation of the first experience of socialism. They don't have to call it socialism or communism Just call it economic democracy and freedom or social democracy or democratic socialism.
[Marxism-Thaxis] Review of Sokal's Beyond the Hoax
[Marxism] Brilliant review of Alan Sokal's Beyond the Hoax To: arch...@xx Subject: [Marxism] Brilliant review of Alan Sokal's Beyond the Hoax From: Louis Proyect l...@x Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:09:40 -0500 User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue46/Touger46.htm ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Sokal: law as a heuristic for natual science
Hoax and Reality Jerold Touger Suppose I am asked to pick a number from 1 to 99,999,999,999. I claim to have a method for getting it right on the first try despite seemingly insuperable odds. If I then proceed to do so, it gives my claim enormous credibility. If others claiming the same method likewise get it right, or pick numbers clustering closely around the correct one -- perhaps differing only in the last one or two places -- it does not in a strictly logical sense prove my claim is correct, but makes the case for it compelling, as our legal system would put it, beyond a reasonable doubt. This, in essence, is what happens when an experimental measurement of the electron's magnetic moment agrees with what theory predicts to eleven decimal places. This outcome, as Sokal says, would be utterly miraculous if quantum mechanics were not saying something at least approximately true about the world [and] . . . if electrons did not really exist in some sense or another. ^^^ CB: as our legal system would put it, beyond a reasonable doubt. Here we go again with a natural scientist using the law as a heuristic. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Review of Sokal's Beyond the Hoax
I thought Proyect hated Sokal. The review is hardly brilliant but it is to the point. I am sure Sokal got all his information about India from Meera Nanda, who has written numerous books and articles on the subject. I haven't read Sokal's books, though I have always been in sympathy with his aims. However, judging from the review, there comes a point where one ends up beating a dead horse to death. At 12:16 AM 2/22/2009, Charles Brown wrote: [Marxism] Brilliant review of Alan Sokal's Beyond the Hoax To: arch...@xx Subject: [Marxism] Brilliant review of Alan Sokal's Beyond the Hoax From: Louis Proyect l...@x Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:09:40 -0500 User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue46/Touger46.htm ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
