From: SCIABRRC-AT-ACFcluster.NYU.EDU Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 15:36:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Back in the USSR My, my... it seems that my comments on "Hayek, USSR, and All that..." have inspired a mini-avalanche of criticisms. I will try to address some of these in this posting. Paul Cockshott writes that my "attitude to the counter revolution reminds me of that of some leftists to the revolution. When it does not turn out to be the utopia that they expect, they claim that it was betrayed, that it was not socialism, etc. The project that Hayek and his political followers have been following quite explicitly . . . is one of capitalist reprise or counter revolution. Well now you have your counter revolution, but the Russians it seems are too uncultured for it to succeed, the same reason given by western leftists for an alleged failure of the Russian revolution in the 20s." Forget my Hayekian predilections for a moment, and just think about the original Marxian perspective on communism. Marx argued that there was a two-stage process toward communism. The first stage can be loosely defined as a proletarian dictatorship, in which state power is maximized IN THE INTERESTS OF THE WORKING CLASS. The second stage leads to the withering away of the state. BOTH of these stages - however utopian - were to emerge out of the massive potential provided by ADVANCED capitalism. The Soviet Union MOST CERTAINLY did not attain advanced capitalism. It was an almost feudal "third world" country run by autocratic Czars, steeped in the millenia of Russian orthodoxy and Russian apocalypticism. (Hence, it doesn't surprise me that, as Paul puts it, most "proletarian activists" continue to reside in the `Third World'.) The popular "success" of the Bolsheviks was made possible because their movement integrated several Marxist revolutionary concepts WITH endemic Russian mystic and authoritarian cultural forms. While there were a few progressive reforms brought about by the revolution, that "revolution" remained a `dialectical' outgrowth of its historical and cultural context. And this context was NOT what Marx had in mind when he spoke of communism as the product of a long, evolutionary, "spontaneous" development out of advanced capitalism. Let me settle another issue: I never said that the Russians or the British were too "uncultured to have benefitted from Hayek's advice." That's REALLY twisting my words. I merely restated a central concept of BOTH Hayekian AND Marxian analysis: there is no such thing as an economic system which can be analyzed IN THE ABSTRACT. Every economic system must be understood and explained IN THE CONCRETE. The concrete INCLUDES the historical and systemic context. We cannot engage in an analysis of the on-going changes in the former Soviet Union without grasping its context. The USSR was a country plagued with devastating problems, structural economic decay, environmental devastation, a top-heavy militarist political structure, inefficacious state "planning," and bubbling ethnic strife. The Soviet ideology may have paid lip service to technological and industrial progress, but Russian culture has always been notoriously antithetical to "reason," "individualism," "science," and "private property." It is no coincidence, that without the illusion of unity provided by a totalitarian state, a post- Communist Russia is an ethnic and religious battleground. One cannot evaluate the movement toward "Hayekian markets," in the absence of this broader historical and cultural context. The former Soviet Union has NOT embraced free markets, the Hayekian "rule of law," the free flowing price mechanism, the decentralization of communication, banking, and finance, OR private property. It stands opposed to Marx's vision of communism AND Hayek's vision of capitalism. What emerges from the ruins of Soviet statism is anyone's guess; it may be a new virulent form of nationalism and corporativism. And while we are on the subject, WHAT record of Soviet achievements are we talking about? Like most modern dictatorships, the Soviet Union was adept at promoting military-related `growth.' For nearly every non-military, consumer good, the Soviets suffered their own equivalent of relative, structurally-entrenched price inflation, as expressed through massive systemic shortages. As for any `legitimate' growth in the Soviet economy, please remember that such `growth' did not take place in a "socialist" vacuum. After the devastating period of War Communism, which wiped out markets, money, and production, the New Economic Policy opened up Russia to Western-style industrialization. Eventually, however, the Soviets expropriated all domestic and foreign firms. In the war years, they slurped at the trough of Western Lend Lease. (Contrary to Paul's belief, the Soviet Red Army did not "almost single handedly" defeat fascism.... without Western aid, the Soviets could NEVER have survived.) The infusion of Western technology continued not through the achievement of countless Five Year Plans, but through industrial espionage, the looting of post-World War II Europe and the Far East, the expropriation of German scientists, etc., etc., etc. And if it weren't for the mass proliferation of the entrepreneurial activities of the "tolkach" on the black market, the Soviet economy would have experienced near total collapse a long, long time ago. In addition, let us not forget the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture and the annihilation of "counter-revolutionaries" which led to the deaths of anywhere between seven and forty-five million people (depending upon whose estimates you believe). The Soviet Union was a closed society, a police state; it terrorized its inhabitants with censorship, the cancer ward, the gulag, the informants, the knock at the door in the middle of the night. And yet, Paul tells us that one's perspective on the Soviet "revolution" is "all a matter of class viewpoint." Which class??? The Soviets may have destroyed the `capitalist' class (and the `kulaks' and the `peasants,' and the `Old Guard', etc.), but their dictatorship was surely not representative of the `proletariat.' Nor was it, for shame, "closer to a democracy than any other state." Not even if we view a "democracy" as "mob rule," does this suggestion hold true. The suggestion in fact, would probably make Marx spin in his grave! The Soviets established a "new class" of state bureaucrats and party officials who redistributed economic resources NOT to poor workers, but to those in heavy capital- intensive and military industries. Talk about the Permanent War Economy!!! If THIS is the record of "overwhelming . . . success" that progressive radicals should emulate, I'll remain a card-carrying Hayekian until the day I die!!! Marketization is NOT the cause of poverty and starvation in socialist (or FORMER socialist) countries. Marketization, privatization, and the introduction of the price system is PART of the solution. Prices and markets REVEAL distortions and chaotic calculational conditions; they do not CAUSE them. The shortages were there long before markets were introduced, and they will be there long after. It may take generations to turn around the economic, political, cultural, and socio- psychological damage done by Soviet (and Sino, and Cuban, etc.) statism. - Chris ============================================================Dr. Chris M. Sciabarra Visiting Scholar, N.Y.U. Department of Politics INTERNET: sciabrrc-AT-acfcluster.nyu.edu BITNET: sciabrrc-AT-nyuacf ============================================================= ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005