dependent socialism?

Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at
Sun May 27 09:43:44 MDT 2001

> From: Austin, Andrew <austina at>
> To: 'marxism at'
> Subject: RE: dependent socialism?
> Date: Saturday, May 26, 2001 11:11 PM
> Considering that the Soviet Union's relations with its satellites were
> anti-imperialistic (in the capitalist sense)

Explain this, Andy. Soviet Union's relations with its satellites were _not_
anti-imperialistic in the capitalist sense. It was anti-imperialistic in
the socialist sense. Even Stalin's idea of  "socialism in one country" was
a pragmatic solution to self protect socialism against capitalism in the
context of Cold War.

 >the idea of a "dependent
> socialism" seems a bit silly.

I would not consider Soviet Union dependent socialism either (nor its
satellites), but not for the reasons you mention above. The regime in the
Soviet Union was anti-systemic/anti-imperialist/socialist. It attempted to
establish a united socialist block against the capitalist West. The only
difficulty with such regimes was that the world system in which they were
operating was capitalist, with the number of capitalist countries exceeding
the number of socialist countries. This dependency on the world system
complicated the sustainability of socialist regimes, if not made it
impossible. Cuba is still trying to survive, albeit with difficulties. This
is not because Cuban socialism failed (or that the socialist model was
inadequate). It was because of an external threat complicating the process
of socialism on a national basis (as well as internationally)

> Andrew Austin
> Assistant Professor
> Social Change and Development
> University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
> Green Bay, WI 54311-7001
> (920) 465-2791
> Webpage:
> ---
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Ph.D Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Snedeker [mailto:snedeker at]
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 10:02 PM
> To: marxism at
> Subject: dependent socialism?
> What is surprising is that Marxists have yet to come out with a theory of
> dependent socialism. Its time we did it, so as to have a truly global
> worldview.
> DEPENDENT SOCIALISM? is dependent socialism "socialism"? is it really
> capitalism? i'm not sure I understand the question...

More information about the Marxism mailing list