Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

The Soviet Union...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
...was not state "capitalist".

Capitalism:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


1. The means of production were not privately owned. A command economy state being "capitalist" contradicts this part of the definition of capitalism.

2a. Objectives were not the accumulation of profit for reinvestment.
2b. Investment was impossible under the Soviet economic system.
2c. A huge proportion of industrial processes consumed far more input than they produced output.

3. Goods were distributed by the state without a pricing mechanism, a pricing mechanism being key to the private distribution of goods.

4. What was to be produced was decided by the state not market signals hence private investment was non existant.

5. There was no legal free market.

Conclusion: The Soviet Union was not state capitalist. Nothing was state capitalist, infact the phrase contradicts itself.

Discuss.
«134

Comments

  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Sigh. :rolleyes:

    You ignore the term state capitalist, by ignoring the word "state" there... the state intended to make the profit. The state invested. The state chose prices... the state WAS the market.

    See... State Capitalist... it's a self explanatory. What would otherwise be private, is now state. When you look at it like that... it makes sense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the state intended to make the profit.

    No it didn't.
    The state invested.

    No it didn't.
    The state chose prices

    Which were always kept articially low, hence breadlines, lack of lardas etc. If this was so how did they make thier profit to reinvest? Why would they need to invest when it was a command economy?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and thats ignoring points 1, 3 and 4.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah it was state capitalist.

    The state acted as a monopoly on all markets. Money, it's accumulation and it's use as capital was still used, just by only one group.

    1. The means of production were not privately owned. A command economy state being "capitalist" contradicts this part of the definition of capitalism.

    They were privately owned, just by only one set of people. You are ascribing mysterious powers to those in the "state" when they are just men and women.
    2a. Objectives were not the accumulation of profit for reinvestment.

    Yes it was, for the corporation known as "the party".
    2b. Investment was impossible under the Soviet economic system.

    Yes it was, just only for one group of people.
    2c. A huge proportion of industrial processes consumed far more input than they produced output.

    No, they didn't. They were relatively inefficient compared to other economic models, this is not to say they didn't work at all. Crap cars are still cars.

    Oh and it's a basic law of the universe that you can't ever have less than what you started with.
    3. Goods were distributed by the state without a pricing mechanism, a pricing mechanism being key to capitalism distribution of goods.

    Party favours are a pricing mechainsm. Money is that which is most frequently used to transfer goods. In the case of communist russia, arse kissing became a form of money.
    4. What was to be produced was decided by the state not market signals hence private investment was non existant.

    True, but not actually relevent to the question of state capitalism.
    5. There was no legal free market.

    Law can only stop the free market from occuring.

    I'm done. Next!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont mean to sound daft here but could u explain the argument to me.

    Ive heard of soviet union but dont know what your talkin about tbh.

    lol sorry
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont mean to sound daft here but could u explain the argument to me.

    basically communists and other left whingers see the soviet experiment as somehow "not communism" but "state capitalism". Capitalism being totally evil to them and not the reason they are sat with full bellies by a PC in a well heated house.

    As capitalism is the only system that is in place in the world and is also the only system that can be in place in the world they are on a sticky wicket. It's only through violence that capitalism can be slowed or perverted.

    On the other hand capitalists don't like the idea of capitalism being used in the soviet way.

    that's how I see it anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I miss the old Soviet Union. Life was so much simpler back then. All you had to fear was a Nuclear war between them and the USA. And by the later years even that was a non-issue. *sighs* Bring back the USSR!
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    minimi38 wrote:
    No it didn't.

    Yes it did. And it did make plenty of profit. Partly off selling weaponry to other countries, whom other countries such as America refused to export to - or charged large prices for shit. And still do - e.g: F-22 Raptor, or JSF.
    minimi38 wrote:
    No it didn't.

    Yes it did. Stalin invested hugley into the economy, making, possibly, the most radip progress ever - although at a terrible cost. Either way, it was an impressive achievment, with huge investment.
    minimi38 wrote:
    Which were always kept articially low, hence breadlines, lack of lardas etc. If this was so how did they make thier profit to reinvest? Why would they need to invest when it was a command economy?

    As above. And they need to invest as progress needs to be made - or you end up in a situation like the Tsars did, with a large but hopelessly backward county which can't even defend itself with huge numbers as it is that backwards. The Soviet Union invest huge amounts of money, which it made from exports and suchlike. Larda? It's Lada, btw. :rolleyes: The USSR made plenty of exporting products, Military stuff, and Resources. Mainly invested after Stalin, into making better Military stuff - Stalin put huge investment into the Economy - that was how he managed to survive WW2 - his agricultural policy failed though - the Peasants had only just got their own land, and as such, were naturally reluctant to give it up, refusing to work. And, who can blame them? The peasants in Russia have, and still do, get a shit deal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    What would otherwise be private, is now state.

    :D
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    minimi38 wrote:
    :D
    Yes, it's an answer that makes sense. That is the REASON it is called:
    STATE Capitalist.
    See? Yes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Yes it did. And it did make plenty of profit. Partly off selling weaponry to other countries, whom other countries such as America refused to export to - or charged large prices for shit. And still do - e.g: F-22 Raptor, or JSF.

    A seperate point. Because of the severe iliquidity of commuist currency they needed foreign currency. Anyway, i'm talking about the state internally not externally.

    Yes it did. Stalin invested hugley into the economy, making, possibly, the most radip progress ever - although at a terrible cost. Either way, it was an impressive achievment, with huge investment.

    He did not accumulate profit from a free market and reinvest it.

    Larda? It's Lada, btw. :rolleyes:

    one trillion apologies. I'm afraid i don't have the time to obsess over the country and pick up little things like this.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    minimi38 wrote:
    A seperate point. Because of the severe iliquidity of commuist currency they needed foreign currency. Anyway, i'm talking about the state internally not externally.

    That is just not the point - it was money from the economy, made from an extrenal source, yes. But the product, was amde internally and the money used, internally. As such, it directly related to the internal economy.
    minimi38 wrote:
    He did not accumulate profit from a free market and reinvest it.

    The arms market is quite free, the country chose to buy Soviet arms and not any other ones.
    minimi38 wrote:
    one trillion apologies. I'm afraid i don't have the time to obsess over the country and pick up little things like this.

    It's hardly a small point, its the end of the world! :p Hell, its written on every single Lada! Well, the ones it hasn't fallen off, anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Yes, it's an answer that makes sense. That is the REASON it is called:
    STATE Capitalist.
    See? Yes?

    See the error in your assertions? Yes i do!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    That is just not the point - it was money from the economy, made from an extrenal source, yes. But the product, was amde internally and the money used, internally. As such, it directly related to the internal economy.

    The money was not profit from a domestic free market. Foreign currency was also not used internally. Communist states needed foreign currency to obtain things that couldnt be made themselves. They couldn't use thier own currency because it was almost useless.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    See the error in your assertions? Yes i do!

    Nope.
    minimi38 wrote:
    The money was not profit from a domestic free market. Foreign currency was also not used internally.

    Yes it was. Most of the money the USSR made and used itself was from abroad.
    minimi38 wrote:
    Communist states needed foreign currency to obtain things that couldnt be made themselves. They couldn't use thier own currency because it was almost useless.

    Well one doesn't take Pounds on Holiday to the USA, do you? That'd be daft. In this principle, you are saying that any currency except the dollar is useless - because nearly all international trade is in, the dollar.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Nope.



    Most of the money the USSR made and used itself was from abroad.

    Hang on, i thought you said they made profit from thier populace? Money they used to reinvest in more capital.....

    It seems you are as contradictory as the term "State Capitalist" itself.

    In this principle, you are saying that any currency except the dollar is useless - because nearly all international trade is in, the dollar.

    No. Capitalist currencies are highly liquid...

    Anyway to sum so far

    Distribution of goods were "once private but are now state"

    Production of goods were "once private but are now state"

    They do not turn a profit to spend on capital for a financial gain...

    And last but not at all least...there was no free market.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    minimi38 wrote:
    Hang on, i thought you said they made profit from thier populace? Money they used to reinvest in more capital.....

    It seems you are as contradictory as the term "State Capitalist" itself.

    The USSR needed foreign profit... just as any country does.
    minimi38 wrote:
    No. Capitalist currencies are highly liquid...

    Anyway to sum so far

    Distribution of goods were "once private but are now state"

    Production of goods were "once private but are now state"

    They do not turn a profit to spend on capital for a financial gain...

    And last but not at all least...there was no free market.

    Yes. So do see, how now, the State has become the capitalist instead of a private man? All profit made goes to the state.
    Let us compare in the Military terms. Lockheed Martin are making the JSF (Which it had to ask Yakolev, the Russian Company, for help with, and use their Yak-141 as the basis for) for the US Army today. It won against Boeing. They are a private company. As such, the US Government pays them for the planes, and they cost more than the production cost for the profit, so as they can stay "in business", or rather, rich. But also, they will likley sell them abroad. To Israel first, no doubt.
    Now, in Soviet Russia, MiG was comissioned to make a Long-Range interceptor, which was the MiG-25. MiG was state owned. They made them for the Soviet Airforce at a zero-profit basis. All costs evened themselves out. The profit that was made selling them abroad, went straight into state coffers rather than to MiG. If a new plane were needed, the state would give MiG money to make it. All profit, that with Boeing, goes to the guys up top, with MiG in the Soviet times, went to - the State.
    So, the chap running Boeing is a Capitalist.
    The State ran MiG. So, the State assumes the role of the Capitalist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely the Fact even Lenin realised TRUE communism was impossible economically with in Russia let alone outside of Russia and re-introduced the monetary system means it was a Capitalist State, it was merely the case of Capitalism controled by the State which made it State Capitalism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't care if it was communist or not. Using money does not make it capitalist. There was a lack of private distribution, production and free market. Hence it was not capitalist.

    "what was once private is now state" says it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Then why did that not apply to the farmers in the pre-Stalin and post-Stalin periods?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    I don't care if it was communist or not. Using money does not make it capitalist. There was a lack of private distribution, production and free market. Hence it was not capitalist.

    By your logic, NS Germany wasn't National Socialist because it didn't fit the definition of socialist.

    'State capitalism' and 'capitalism' are not lexically co-terminist because they have a word in common as you're suggesting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    I don't care if it was communist or not. Using money does not make it capitalist. There was a lack of private distribution, production and free market. Hence it was not capitalist.

    "what was once private is now state" says it.

    That's why it was state capitalist, not free market capitalist. The commodity form of labour, circulation of capital and accumulation of surplus value via M-C-M' still held, with the state acting as one capitalist. Therefore it was state capitalist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This thread's got me completely baffled. How anyone can claim that the Soviet Union was somehow a "capitalist" society is beyond me. The truth is it was a dangerous communist regime. Millions died under dogmatic rule. I have yet to see anything which can persuade me communist Russia was nothing other than a spectacular failure.

    ***waits for lefties to start trying to shout me down***
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    This thread's got me completely baffled. How anyone can claim that the Soviet Union was somehow a "capitalist" society is beyond me. The truth is it was a dangerous communist regime. Millions died under dogmatic rule. I have yet to see anything which can persuade me communist Russia was nothing other than a spectacular failure.

    ***waits for lefties to start trying to shout me down***
    The USSR WAS a great failure, it was defeated by the superior forces, both economic and moral, of the USA. However I can see a case for maintaining that Russia will eventually pose an even greater threat to the world than the old bloated corrupt USSR ever did. Perhaps Bush baby should add them to his hit list, or perhaps they're on there already!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    This thread's got me completely baffled. How anyone can claim that the Soviet Union was somehow a "capitalist" society is beyond me. The truth is it was a dangerous communist regime. Millions died under dogmatic rule. I have yet to see anything which can persuade me communist Russia was nothing other than a spectacular failure.

    ***waits for lefties to start trying to shout me down***

    It was a huge failure! that is undeniable and any lefty who says, if America wasnt Capitialist and "forcing" the world to be capitalist, the USSR might have succeeded is an idiot. But it was still a capitalist state, hence the debate above. America even sold the Grain to feed the starving citizens of the USSR in secret during the height of the Cold War.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm for a start, all systems must be capialist.

    It's how the real world works. All you can do is subvert certain natural laws for your own benefit.

    The closer you become to letting the market and mutual voluntary relations sort everything out, the happier and freer the bulk of humanity becomes.

    Any intervention just fucks it up, no matter how well intentioned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    This thread's got me completely baffled. How anyone can claim that the Soviet Union was somehow a "capitalist" society is beyond me. The truth is it was a dangerous communist regime. Millions died under dogmatic rule. I have yet to see anything which can persuade me communist Russia was nothing other than a spectacular failure.

    ***waits for lefties to start trying to shout me down***

    That'll be because you don't understand what the terms "capitalist" and "communist" fundamentally mean.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I like the Soviet Union (or at least Russia as it is now known).

    Loads of people here actually think life was a lot better back then and in a lot of areas, I tend to agree. I also completely agree with the large amount of people who believe Stalin to be the best leader that this country has ever had.

    Viva Stalin!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stalin was a mass murdering scumbag. Russia at the moment is fucked though. A good example of how unfettered capitalism is a really bad idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess you have to weigh up at what price does taking a backward, almost exclusively agrarian society, with no real industry to speak of, that may as well have been 200 years in the past, and turning it into a country that resisted and some might say, broke the back of Nazi Germany, the most industrialised country at the time and became a superpower with nuclear weapons and a space program in 30 years?

    The answer is 30 million people dead but Stalin did acheive something quite phenomenal in terms of social and scientific progress. Plus under him, everyone was given a house and the reason it all fell apart, apart from Gorbachev, was that no-one after Stalin was a natural leader.
Sign In or Register to comment.