> I can understand that you don't want to classify it as socialist, and it was certainly not capitalist.
> But why assume that these are two only two possibilities?
Hi Dave:
I wouldn't assume those are the only two possibilities. There are others.
You mentioned bureaucratic collectivism (in a post dated 9/1). I wasn't
impressed when I read it many years ago by Burnham's analysis and
I don't recall reading what Rakovsky had to say about this. You said that
you thought it was a "bit more sharp" than the theory that the USSR
was state capitalist but you stopped short from writing that it was
bureaucratic collectivist: do you think it was?
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Sep 5 10:01:47 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 15:12:31 EST