[Marxism] Re: State capitalism: some quick replies to Joe and Phil
Roger A. Baker
rabaker at cox-internet.com
Wed Dec 15 05:55:54 MST 2004
Comparing Sweden with the former USSR:
Sweden was neutral in the two world wars, and if fact profited from them.
I don't need to the horrors the people of the USSR endured in the two world
wars and how the influenced industrial development in the Soviet union, and
how the USSR was under endless attack by the capitalist powers from 1917
The Soviet Union and its satellite nations should more properly be compared
with S. American, the more developed countries of Brazil and Argentina who
were in approximately an equal state of development in 1917.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Re: State capitalism: some quick replies to Joe and
> Tom O'Lincoln:
>>But given most people on this list think Soviet society was more advanced
>>than capitalism, it seemed relevant to measure it against an advanced
>>capitalist country. Surely after 50 years of industrialisation, Actually
>>Existing Socialism should be able to withstand such a comparison.
> No, I think it would be much more useful to compare Cuba to Jamaica, for
> example. The Soviet economy was hobbled by bureaucratic mismanagement.
> Cuba has been free of these distortions. Apple. Apple.
>>The issue isn't egalitarianism, but what proportion of surplus value goes
>>to the social wage. My guess is, Sweden would come out ahead, which means
>>on Joe's reckoning, the USSR must have been more capitalist.
> Did Sweden subsidize the economies of other capitalist nations in the same
> way that the Soviet Union subsidized Cuba, Vietnam and other Comecon
> nations? Apple. Apple.
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
More information about the Marxism