Louis Proyect wrote: > "Although it is impossible precisely to evaluate the gains and losses in > intra-Comecon trade it is generally agreed that the USSR was subsidizing > Eastern Europe and that over time this subsidy was rising largely > because of the growing opportunity costs involved in supplying the group > with 'hard' commodities such as oil. on--Cuba, Mongolia and most > recently Vietnam." ...... > (Vladimir Sobell, "The Red Market : Industrial Co-operation and > Specialisation in Comecon" (Aldershot, 1984) >
The quote shows that both the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were in deep economic trouble, and that their plans to get out of it didn't work. But this doesn't refute that the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was imperialist; it only shows that it was an ailing imperialism. The Soviet Union wasn't the only imperialist power that suffered such problems. One might note: * the fact that imperialism has an economic base doesn't mean that the imperialist projects necessarily make a profit for the government or even for the economy as a whole. * one needs to assess whether groups within the Soviet Union benefited from the domination of Eastern Europe. By way of comparison, if I remember right, a common complaint was that the British government was losing money on the domination of India. But in fact, many British capitalists, aristocrats, and military personnel were extracting profits, careers, and status from the domination of India So one needs to examine what the domination of Eastern Europe meant overall to the Soviet bourgeoisie. * One also needs a better assessment of Soviet relations with Eastern Europe, not just a discussion of whether oil was sold beneath world prices. Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after World War II began with stripping Eastern Europe of many industrial goods and resources in the name of providing reparations for the immense devastation the Nazi armies inflicted on the USSR. And, for example, right up to the end, the Soviet Union made East Germany pay the cost of Russian troops stationed there. I presume it's likely the same thing was done elsewhere in Eastern Europe, but I don't know for sure -- perhaps someone on PEN-L can provide an answer. As well, and probably the most important, the Soviet Union determined the basic outlines of economic policy in its empire. All this has to be looked at together. If one leaves it at saying just that the Soviet Union lost the "opportunity cost" of selling some oil at world market prices, it's a bit like Western economists saying that the world is providing tremendous aid to Africa, and ignoring the draining of African countries via debt, trade agreements, and the imposition of market fundamentalism.. -- Joseph Green _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
