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

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Sun Nov 16 21:44:50 MST 2003


In a message dated 11/16/03 6:46:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jgperez at netzero.net writes:

>>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

The is no such thing as allocation of resources independent of bureaucratic
intervention. There is no such thing as allocation or adminstration of anything
in the sphere of social production without bureaucratic intervention.

The question of the evolution of the industrial infrastructure in the Soviet
Union rivets on the property relations as fundamental and the bureaucratic
intervention as a secondary factor between 1928 and say 1970.

Bureaucracy is not separate from or outside of property relations, but it has
a distinct evolution as a category in history that predates the universal
emergence of bourgeois property and the commodity form.

Why not start with the property relations of Soviet socialism and how this
shapes the circuit of the investment of capital as reproduction and why this is
different from say the circuit of capital reproduction under the bourgeois
property relations?

Bureaucratic intervention was most certainly a problem of Soviet socialism
and became an urgent problem in the post World War 2 era, but this was
relatively unimportant in terms of Soviet economic expansion before the outbreak of
WW2.

The basis of comparison is of course with the development of the industrial
infrastructure in the most developed imperial centers and the least developed
countries.


Melvin P.


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



More information about the Marxism mailing list