(fwd from Ted Pearson) Soviet economic performance: a re-evaluation

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Sun Nov 16 12:36:18 MST 2003


In a message dated 11/16/03 9:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
schaffer at optonline.net writes:

>Interesting.  Have you read the book?  I'm increasingly convinced that the
fundamental factor behind the stagnation of the Soviet economy was its
inability to mobilize the revolution in the means of production represented
by IT (RITMP-IT).  Whether this was fundamentally an outgrowth of the
voluntarism upon which the economy was based, and therefore inevitable, or a
result of hidebound and dogmatic economic concepts that burdened the CPSU is
not clear.  I think it was both but more the former than the latter.  The
Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban exceptions are very much related to the degree
they have allowed market forces to allocate resources independently of
bureaucratic intervention.<

Comment

I ordered the book earlier today.

In my opinion what you write makes no sense to anyone other than yourself.
Here is what is meant. You state:

>the stagnation of the Soviet economy was its
inability to mobilize the revolution in the means of production<

For the past two years I have written about what you state from the
standpoint of

a). The technological regime as it exist as a specific definable - material
existing stage of production. I generally define this specific definable stage
as the industrial system and the specific state of development of agriculture.
This includes why it is not possible to historically resolve the existence of
the collectivization of agriculture as the only - singular, form of
development open to a society that inhibits the law of value.

b). The specific and definable form of the social relations of production and
the administrative infrastructure that is a product of a distinct stage in
the development of the exponential growth of the industrial infrastructure.

"To mobilize the revolution in the means of production" means nothing until
one state exactly and definitively what is meant.

Please clarify.

Melvin P.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list