Date: 28 Oct 96 15:44:02 EST
Subject: M-TH: stalinism mode of production ?


Justin's quite right that this is an important question. It seems that  stalinst
Russia didn't fit the criteria for normal capitalism. And yet it certainloy
didn't fit the categories for socialism. I think at this point we're obliged to
go beyond appealing to authority. Marx certainly thought and so did Trotsky that
it was impossible to have a modern mode of production which was neither
capitalist nor socialist. 
	So we have to go back to the marxist method. I think Cliff's contribution
is good (State Capitalism in Russia, around 1950, reprinted in 1990 by Bookmarks
London). It really goes :

The Soviet Union was a class society.
There was a ruling class.
Their aim was to accumulate capital ( to be able to have an industry capable of
producing arms to prevent Russia becoming a colony of the West).
They exploited workers and peasants to do this. (and lived well while they were
at it).
I think the ruling class in stalinist Russia did own the means of production,
even though they didn't in LEGAL  form ...but why judge societies on their legal
fictions ?

Given all these things, what description fits stalinist society. various people
have suggested "bureaucratic state socialism" "bureaucratic collectivism" etc. I
think that state capitalism fits better, because "bureaucratic" is not a
definition of a society : all modern societies are bureaucratic. And 'state
capitalism' suggests 1) that a workers revolution is possible still and 2) that
the system is not more progressive than capitalism. I think this analysis was
given a boost when the eatsern bloc collapsed. It seems to me that they
collapsed because of a capitalist crisis : modern multinational capitalism was
more efficient, and the USSR LTd went bankrupt.

John Mullen
Socialism International 
France






     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---