[ show plain text ]
Ernesto,
>From this and other postings of yours I think we basically agree, but may
have differences on the "finer" points. I'm not trying to push anything,
but while I also came to the conclusion that the Soviet Union was
capitalist ("The Development of State Capitalism in the Soviet System",
*RiPE*, Vol. 13, 1992) I found that the issue is not a "yes" or "no" but
rather the trend (which I'm not precisely defining here).
I would agree that "accumulation of capital" is heavily involved in the
issue, but I may pose the issue of what that would be rather differently
than yourself. I'm not on sure footing, however, because I would need
more elaboration of your position first.
Paul
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Ernesto Screpanti <screpanti@unisi.it> said, on 03/22/00 at 01:16 PM:
>Paul wrote in [2559]
>>If one posing the question this way, the Soviet Union would not be a class
>>society because workers 1) did "own" the means of production (at least
>>seemingly, at least "de jure"), but 2) surely did not "control" the means
>>of production. Paul
>In my opinion the SU was a capitalist society, precisely because: 1) the
>workers were controlled and exploited by virtue of the obligation to
>obedience they undertook by accepting the employment relation, 2) the
>goal of production was capitalist accumulation.
>In solidarity
>Ernesto
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT