Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 2 months ago

What about the Soviet Union was still “state capitalist” after they adopted collectivization policies in the late 1920s?

Libertarian socialists often proclaim that the USSR was simply an example of state capitalism, overly bureaucratic and not a state directed by the proletariat, but rather an elite minority. What was still capitalistic about the USSR once they collectivized agriculture?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago

    The proletariate at the time of the Revolution was mostly made up of peasants. Collectivist policies such as those in Marxism-Leninism with an emphasis on agriculture weakened during WWII. At that point under Stalin, it became clear that the society can't function like that because the USSR needs to industrialize, people can no longer think of themselves a peasants. The next step was Socialism. Because the USSR moved beyond farming & agriculture, some elements of Capitalism (such as banking, money, economy) had to be mixed into Socialism and were seen trough the Socialist lens.

    The USSR had a huge amount of bureaucracy. It might appear as if it was run by an "elite minority" for a number of reasons. One of them is in the event of disagreement between the representative of the Communist party and a local leader (such as a factory director or a general on the battlefield), the representative of the Communist party would win because he represents white policy that was planned. There was more emphasis on what was written on paper over what happened in real life.

    Also, the USSR didn't want to have economic classes, but it had other classes and other systems of ranking.

  • 2 months ago

    Typical question form a badly educated Yank.

    Try reading Mikhail Gorbatjov's Perestrojka. It might give you an insight in to, how democratic the USSR actually was.

    And the same goes for the other brainless comments that have been made here.Do your home work. Make sure that your brain in engaged, before operating your pen.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    It is simple. The state owned the means of production so it was state capitalism, not communism. I am not stopping you from reading Marx and Engels. 

    If the workers truly owned the land they could either A. Sell their shares. B. Decide what to plant on the land. It is the same for factory workers. The workers at a state factory could not choose what the factory would make. 

    Therefore the state and not the workers owned the means of production of wealth. My interpretation is that Marx intended something much more like the Ocean Spray Cranberry cooperative. Yes, people drink communist cranberry juice all the time. 

    The dairy industry is much the same. Who owns dairies? People with many cows, that's who. If milk is not flying off the shelves, they can convince consumers to have three shots of cream in their latte. They own the means of production of their wealth and have a car race to prove it. 

  • 2 months ago

    Well, the ussr printed money and had nationwide monetary and postal systems.  The soviet government printed paper rubles and determined their value.  also, the ussr  was a signatory of the 1929 Warsaw Convention regarding international transportation and mail service.  You can also argue that the soviet penal system was an example of state capitalism due to its massive size.  What so called libertarian socialists fail to recognize is that there is no difference between a small number of elite socialists running a dictatorship of the proletariat and a small number of capitalists controlling the means of production in a so called free market economy. Remember the difference between capitalism and communism or socialism.  In capitalism, man oppresses man.  With communism or socialism, it is the other way around.  Down with the commies, all the way down.  

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    Yes, it was still state capitalist, with a wages system, class division and production for sale. 

  • 2 months ago

    To imply that state enterprises were capitalist requires those enterprises to be for profit and have some degree of independence. We're talking about examples like Japan, South Korea, and China. The USSR would still be around if their state owned enterprises were actually state capitalist.

  • Matt
    Lv 5
    2 months ago

    what we commonly call communism in the US is Bolshevik Communism, this is the communism of Stalin and Lenin and is the opposite of Capitalism, Marxist Communism, or Unionism, was meant to give the power to the workers, the idea was that as the structures of Unionism became more firm the government would gradually pull out and the workers would be ruling themselves, This would actually end up being a kind of warped form of Socialism, this never happened because without central organization of a federal government there is nothing holding it together, and then this was corrupted and turned into Bolshevik Communism, So, possibly these  people are talking about Marxist Communism, though it is more likely they have no idea what they are talking about.  

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Most on this political site are focused on current events of the US. You should probably try the history section. 

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Do your own homework. You'll never learn anything if we do all the work for you.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.