> We were talking about the USSR
Hi Paul C:
Yes, I am aware of that. The idea that the USSR
was a "transitional economy" in which the law of value
and the "law of primitive socialist accumulation" (LPSA) were
both in play and in competition with each other was
advanced by Preobrazhensky in _The New Economics_.
>From his perspective - and that of the Left Opposition at
the time - the question of which mode of production
would eventually become the dominant one was still an
open question (as indeed was the question of whether the
USSR could survive for much longer). Even the Right
Opposition at the time didn't claim that socialism was then the
dominant mode of production in Soviet society. It was only
years later that the victory of socialism was proclaimed - by
Stalin.
In solidarity, Jerry
> > Even if you say it was a social formation with multiple modes of > production, you need to characterise the dominant mode.> > > Hi Paul:> > It could be that at a certain moment in history in a particular> society there is no "dominant" mode of production: rather, there> could be different modes of production (and hence, classes) in combat> with each other for dominance.> > In solidarity, Jerry>
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Sep 3 21:19:35 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 15:12:31 EST