Juan R. Fajardo
fajardos at ix.netcom.com
Sun May 27 09:15:17 MDT 2001
"Austin, Andrew" wrote:
> Considering that the Soviet Union's relations with its satellites were
> anti-imperialistic (in the capitalist sense) the idea of a "dependent
> socialism" seems a bit silly.
They were anti-imperialistic, but the workers' states in Easter Europe
were established, not so much by autoctonous revolutions, but by the Red
Army and that their economies were developed in such a way that they
were dependent on the USSR. Of course, I consider that the assitance
and subsidies that the USSR gave to various revolutionary regimes around
the world a fulfilment of internationalist duty on part of the CPSU.
But in the case of the Eastern European economies, such aid was not
simply a greater proportional contribution by a senior partner in an
exchange betwen equals, but those economies developed into, or were
developed as, -as you say- satellites of the USSR. Given that, the
notion of a "dependent" socialism may not be so far-fetched. It may
bear greater consideration before being rejected off-handedly.
More information about the Marxism