Also, notice the Soviet state did not kill a lot of people when it went away. That's another characteristic of the process that fits the term "whither". Away not with a bang but a whimper.
CB --- On Sun, 2/22/09, Jim Farmelant <farmela...@juno.com> wrote: > From: Jim Farmelant <farmela...@juno.com> > Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? > To: cdb1...@prodigy.net, marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 12:53 AM > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:35:43 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown > <cdb1...@prodigy.net> writes: > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant > <farmela...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Jim Farmelant <farmela...@juno.com> > > > > > > > > The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been > insistent > > > that Russia remains a kind of "workers > state." > > > Their formulations > > > strike me as nutty, but I think that they have > stumbled on > > > to > > > a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further > > > exploration, > > > which is that many aspects of the Soviet system > have > > > managed > > > to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. > Indeed, given > > > the recent economic downturn which has now begun > to > > > impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might > see > > > Russia > > > reverting back to Soviet-style economic and > social policies > > > in order to maintain order. > > > > > > It also seems to be the case that the same is > true for > > > some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as > well. > > > The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 > been > > > governed mostly by rightwing governments that > have > > > been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic > > > policies, and yet I have read that much of the > social > > > safety net that was built up under the Communist > > > regime has remained more or less in place since > > > 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing > > > existence of this social safety net that made it > > > possible for the post-Communists governments > > > to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses > > > in the creation of a market economy there. > > > > ^^^^^^ > > CB: It is interesting that the social > > safety net remained, because as I understand > > it, neo-liberalism is supposed to strip > > away welfare and the social safety net. > > So, perhaps the name was "neoliberalism" > > but the facts on the ground were not so > > neo-liberal. > > > > It really will be interesting to see > > what happens now if the world wide > > recession/depression batters > > what ever free-market institutions > > that were actually established in > > Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest > > of the former Soviet Union. Their > > stock markets are likely to be more > > fragile and limited than those in the > > US and Western Europe. A crash of > > neo-phyte stock markets could be > > their end or lead to their permanent > > limitation. Besides the social safety > > net, how far could they really go > > in privatizing basic means of production > > and basic necessities > > industries, such as food, utilities, mass > > transit, water, gas, electricity, telephone? > > Those are only half private in the > > US. It probably wouldn't be a very > > big step to nationalize them - permanently. > > The same with the banking system. > > Well in Russia the state renationalized most > of the energy industry several years ago. > Putin, as president, went a long way towards > reestablishing the leading role of the state in > the management of Russia's economy. The > state is a major stockholder in many of > Russia's largest companies. One of Putin's > big achievements was to rein in the oligarchs > who had taken control of much of Russia's > economy under Yeltsin. > > All this course takes us back to a lot > of the old debates over the nature of > the former Soviet Union: was it socialist? > was it state capitalist? a degenerate workers > state? a bureacratic collectivism? > > And to those old debates we can now > can add debates over the nature of contemporary > post-Soviet Russia. The post-Soviet regimes > of Yeltsin and Putin had the avowed aim of > restoring capitalism, but it seems that the > reality there is perhaps more complex. > They never could entirely obliterate Soviet-era > institutions and practices, and now, I suspect, > that the current world economic practice may > force the current government of Medvedev > and Putin to revive many of the old Soviet policies. > I suppose that we might characterize the > current Russian economy as a kind of > state capitalism with some socialist characteristics. > > Jim F. > > > > > In Eastern > > Europe, and countries like Latvia, > > Estonia and Lithuania with no Russian > > troops there anymore, there may be > > little reason to resent socialist > > organization, socialist _self_organization > > and self-determination. > > > > Perhaps socialism will come as a > > negation of the negation of the > > first experience of socialism. > > > > They don't have to call it > > "socialism" or "communism" Just > call it > > "economic democracy and freedom" > > or social democracy or > > democratic socialism. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click to learn about options trading and get the latest > information. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIzQaKvxIf3DBA25LiPu2eb9Q41M598mi7DN3UwE3ACH5iXTnhfDC/ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
