Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

When did the Soviet Union became a capitalist country?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.

.

before 1985
3
14%
1985
0
No votes
1986
1
5%
1987
3
14%
1988
1
5%
1989
0
No votes
1990
2
10%
1991
2
10%
after collapse
9
43%
 
Total votes : 21
Post 25 Jul 2012, 03:33
I think
1985~1986:socialism
1987~1988:mixed economy with more socialist elements
1989:mixed economy with more capitalist elements
1990~:virtually capitalism
Post 25 Jul 2012, 12:05
Well, I voted 1988, but not because I'm sure about that particular year. What I want to say is this: The whole process of restoration began in the mid-50s. From the mid-60s to the mid-80s, it was slowed down, but not stopped. Then, with Gorbachev, a new major offensive was started, and somewhen in the mid of his rule (therefore 1988), the restorers finally accomplished their goal. That's what I think.
Post 25 Jul 2012, 12:12
1987

It was by this time that liberalism both in politics and economy had begun its process towards the final event which was the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Post 25 Jul 2012, 22:24
I don't think a complete switch was made until 1992 and shock therapy, after the USSR collapsed. Still, all the dates and reasons listed so far have a logical foundation behind them, although I cannot agree with Ralph's contention that capitalist restoration began in the 1950s.
Post 26 Jul 2012, 03:01
Political Interest wrote:
1987

It was by this time that liberalism both in politics and economy had begun its process towards the final event which was the collapse of the Soviet Union.


I think 1987 was the year that the soviet union had began to chage form socialism to capitalism.
but soviet union was still on a planned economy until 1989.
in may 1987 private shops were limitedly allowed. but it was illegal to hire other peoples until 1990.
in march 1990 soviet union allowed the private ownership of lands and factorys
and in may 1990 the soviet union officially adopted the market economy.
I think the soviet economy in 1987~1989 was similar to the hungrian socialism in the 70s
Post 26 Jul 2012, 06:03
Quote:
I think 1987 was the year that the soviet union had began to chage form socialism to capitalism.
but soviet union was still on a planned economy until 1989.
in may 1987 private shops were limitedly allowed. but it was illegal to hire other peoples until 1990.
in march 1990 soviet union allowed the private ownership of lands and factorys
and in may 1990 the soviet union officially adopted the market economy.
I think the soviet economy in 1987~1989 was similar to the hungrian socialism in the 70s


I think so. However there were economic reforms under Gorbachev which oriented the economy more towards market systems.
Post 04 Jan 2013, 20:27
The Soviet Union was a degenerated Socialist state, also known as a revisionist state, since the so-called "destalinisation" of 1956. This revisionism was further worsened in the 1980s by the open anti-Socialist and hostile policies of the traitor Gorbachev and his minions. Yet for all its degeneration, I believe it goes to far to accuse the USSR of being truly "capitalist" at any moment of its existance. Capitalism was reintroduced by Boris Yeltsin in Russia in 1991, after the fall of the USSR.

The idea that the USSR had been degenerated completely back to capitalism has in my view been the cause of wrong gauchist policies by certain Maoist and Third-Worldist parties and movements in the 1960s and 1970s.
Post 04 Jan 2013, 21:36
If the USSR had ever become capitalist then its dissolution would never have been necessary for the so-called "Soviet Bourgeoisie".
Post 05 Jan 2013, 00:02
Dagoth Ur wrote:
If the USSR had ever become capitalist then its dissolution would never have been necessary for the so-called "Soviet Bourgeoisie".


rofl no. You can have capitalism without having individuals own, pass on, and use that capital as they will, for the same reason workers' co-operatives fully remain in the realm of capitalism: there is wage-labor and accumulation of capital. It's just not 'private' (relative to liberals anyway), but certainly so from the point of view of the proletariat because it is a form of property.

It's no coincidence many of today's russian oligarchs are former functionaries in the soviet state. State capitalism with the state part axed, nothing more. All without the slightest resistance from soviet workers, who, unless devoid of mental faculties, ought to be able to realize and defend their interest in the socialist system if it was so, right?

If we accepted your logic it would make no sense why there have ever been political changes in bourgeois states. They're already capitalist, what more can they do?

The other issue for the USSR is nations in a capitalist world are inclined towards achieving statehood, and this extends to the 'socialism' in one country. No amount of the fraudulent 'soviet' identity pushed by bureaucrats is going to transform them. The USSR was a nation-state that failed because it wasn't much of a nation and had no idea what it was. Just a 'motherland of the world proletariat'


Unfortunately some nostalgics want to revive it, they are no different from byzantium-fetishists. Another 'cool' state.
Post 05 Jan 2013, 00:45
Conscript wrote:
It's no coincidence many of today's russian oligarchs are former functionaries in the soviet state. State capitalism with the state part axed, nothing more. All without the slightest resistance from soviet workers, who, unless devoid of mental faculties, ought to be able to realize and defend their interest in the socialist system if it was so, right?


Soviet capitalists emerged from among forces active in the black market for decades, from those active beginning with the reforms of 1987 and 1988 laws on state enterprise and cooperatives, and from among outright criminals that stole and murdered their way to accumulation in the late 1980s. These were the forces holding the primary accumulative capital in the USSR and later the FSU, and they emerged into existence and legality only in the late Soviet period after the beginning of reforms. The vast majority of important state functionaries were not ideologically motivated enough or clever enough to switch allegiances, and first hand accounts presented by scholars like Ellman and Kontorovich amply demonstrate this. They show that the vast majority of the planning apparatus was in absolute shock and disarray once Gosplan was scheduled to be forcibly ripped out of the economy at the 1988 Party Conference. The vast majority of the former functionaries you mention are Komsomol leaders and the like that had just begun their party life when the reforms began, not long-serving party bigwigs.

With regard to the lack of 'resistance of soviet workers', the fact that beginning in late 1986 the state began using its total control of the media, the arts, and academia to promote counterrevolutionary consciousness among workers and the mass intelligentsia resulted in this eventuality. Even though scholars like Vladimir Shlapentokh have demonstrated that Soviet blue collar workers demonstrated loyalty to the primary values and ideals of the Soviet system virtually until its end, the majority of the mass intelligentsia, comprising 50-60 million people and residing primarily in the centres of government, was converted to counterrevolutionary ideals by Yakovlev and his band of liberal anticommunists. These are the people that took to the streets and to the offices of power when the centre began collapsing in the late 1980s, and consisted of nationalists, capitalists, and other counterrevolutionaries.

Finally, it's not possible for the USSR to have even the spores of capitalism before the late 1980s because along with individuals being unable to own, pass on and use capital as they pleased, capital as an economic indicator existed in a world in many ways completely separate from that which exists among capitalist economies. In other words, although it was an economic indicator among a dozen or so others calculated by Gosplan, the Soviet economy did not operate according to the rules of capitalism, resulting in the promulgation of enterprises considered 'unprofitable' and nonsensical to the capitalist economist. These included prices on certain basic goods, the organization of industry (with enterprises regularly providing 'useless and loss-making' services to their workers), and even the USSR's trade relations with the outside world, which were often based on political and ideological, rather than ideological, calculations. Western economists striving to calculate by the capitalist standards of profit and loss will never understand the economic system of the USSR, where labour, money, and prices functioned in ways fundamentally different from how they work in a capitalist economy.
Post 05 Jan 2013, 01:34
soviet78 wrote:
Soviet capitalists emerged from among forces active in the black market for decades, from those active beginning with the reforms of 1987 and 1988 laws on state enterprise and cooperatives, and from among outright criminals that stole and murdered their way to accumulation in the late 1980s. These were the forces holding the primary accumulative capital in the USSR and later the FSU, and they emerged into existence and legality only in the late Soviet period after the beginning of reforms. The vast majority of important state functionaries were not ideologically motivated enough or clever enough to switch allegiances, and first hand accounts presented by scholars like Ellman and Kontorovich amply demonstrate this. They show that the vast majority of the planning apparatus was in absolute shock and disarray once Gosplan was scheduled to be forcibly ripped out of the economy at the 1988 Party Conference. The vast majority of the former functionaries you mention are Komsomol leaders and the like that had just begun their party life when the reforms began, not long-serving party bigwigs.


Excuse me, 'primary accumulative capital'? First of all from the start the USSR was accumulating capital (not like it could do anything else), but after the 1965 reforms which gauged state investment in industry according to profitability, how can there be any discussion of capital 'primarily' being accumulated by criminals and such in the death throes of the USSR? Sounds like a convenient nationalist myth.

Quote:
With regard to the lack of 'resistance of soviet workers', the fact that beginning in late 1986 the state began using its total control of the media, the arts, and academia to promote counterrevolutionary consciousness among workers and the mass intelligentsia resulted in this eventuality.


No, this began far earlier under the great russian chauvinist, stalin, who promoted a culture based around a 'soviet' nation that was the 'motherland' of the proletariat, and that the soviet state embodied the interests of workers so it was nonsensical to fight it.

If you believe the results of the march referendum in 1993 are legitimate, WHY did soviet workers, supposed to be the most advanced and conscious in the world if they fought for and built such a revolutionary and 'socialist' state, let it crumble without a sound? Why was there no hint of defense or mourning of the USSR until yeltsin made it clear how much of a harsh reactionary he was?

Quote:
Even though scholars like Vladimir Shlapentokh have demonstrated that Soviet blue collar workers demonstrated loyalty to the primary values and ideals of the Soviet system virtually until its end, the majority of the mass intelligentsia, comprising 50-60 million people and residing primarily in the centres of government, was converted to counterrevolutionary ideals by Yakovlev and his band of liberal anticommunists. These are the people that took to the streets and to the offices of power when the centre began collapsing in the late 1980s, and consisted of nationalists, capitalists, and other counterrevolutionaries.


This is completely anti-marxist, a use of the great man theory. Good lord.

The idea that an 'intelligentsia' within the state could make it counter-revolutionary with different 'values' only evidences how the 'communists' in the state at the time and the 'liberal counterrevolutionaries' are on different sides of the same coin, they represent bourgeois factions within the politics of a capitalist state. The only difference, one is a traditionalist, the other is reformist. One might support the 'soviet' nation, and the other one or all of the nations that make up the USSR.

Quote:
Finally, it's not possible for the USSR to have even the spores of capitalism before the late 1980s because along with individuals being unable to own, pass on and use capital as they pleased,


That is not a requirement for capitalism to exist.

Quote:
capital as an economic indicator existed in a world in many ways completely separate from that which exists among capitalist economies. In other words, although it was an economic indicator among a dozen or so others calculated by Gosplan, the Soviet economy did not operate according to the rules of capitalism, resulting in the promulgation of enterprises considered 'unprofitable' and nonsensical to the capitalist economist.


Stalin disagrees.

Stalin in Economic Problems of the USSR wrote:
It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system.

Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist.

In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.


Of course he is wrong that it is intrinsic to socialism.

Quote:
These included prices on certain basic goods, the organization of industry (with enterprises regularly providing 'useless and loss-making' services to their workers), and even the USSR's trade relations with the outside world, which were often based on political and ideological, rather than ideological, calculations. Western economists striving to calculate by the capitalist standards of profit and loss will never understand the economic system of the USSR, where labour, money, and prices functioned in ways fundamentally different from how they work in a capitalist economy.


Hardly. The USSR provided subsidies for various things funded by surplus value it extracts from workers, to increase relations with it and its people, and it and nations around it. That is nothing new.

You forget the state is a mediator of class antagonisms. Thought some ventures wouldn't make economic sense, they did make social sense. It is like this in all bourgeois states, the USSR included. Ultimately, there is no rate of profit at all if workers rise up and abolish property.

The very fact you're even talking about commodities, prices, and socialism in the same post is baffling. Not only are the former 2 concepts incompatible with the latter, but such a system would never last without the rest of the capitalist world doing the economic calculating, yet ironically, it can't survive indefinitely with it either. The soviet state is akin to a large corporation, and without a market, it hasn't the slightest idea what value is. It is an exchanger, and without the system of exchangings that help calculate prices and costs in commodity production, it is helpless.

At the end of the day, the USSR did not know what it was, and soviet nostalgics/patriots like yourself don't either. (Wage) Labor, money, and prices did not fundamentally work differently from a capitalist economy (as if it could). All three of those are nonexistent in a socialist economy, and instead intrinsic to capitalism, something the USSR could not leave behind because a superstructure cannot supersede its base. The USSR was a bourgeois nation-state in a world of them, integrated into world capitalism and the imperialist politics it produces. It cannot escape it. Why? Because socialism is impossible in one country.
Post 05 Feb 2013, 02:03
1987, Because most of Gorbachev's policies took some time to come into full effect. Also you can see a drastic decline in the Soviet Union during the year so that alone is an indicator.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
[ Top ]