I’m of the opinion that the Soviet Union- for all that it worked (it did) and all that it achieved countless successes, did not have a system which adapted to the demands (not needs, but demands) of the public, not in the same way that capitalist markets did.
This isn’t an indictment of the Soviets- their system was under siege by the global capitalist order from its inception, and their development was a triumph, its scale and successes only comparable in all of human history (and only in the past decade or two, perhaps outshined by) to that of communist China’s. But- while not claiming to be anything akin to a scholar myself, I can’t help but feel that some of the slanders against the Soviets held some (greatly warped) slivers of truth- for instance, it is undeniable, after the fall of the Soviet Union- after the betrayal that its people suffered, and the shock therapy afterwards- that a nomenklatura had emerged, an economic class of opportunistic bureaucrats. And I think it is also undeniable that (for all that the Soviets had been playing a game of catch-up, as a formerly war-torn, besieged, feudal society to competing with the imperialist west) market reforms were necessary- while the foundations of Soviet industry and production should have remained the same, the energies of capital lay largely untapped, and public demand for various consumer goods was not necessarily met (and we can rail on consumption all we want- personally I’m on the fence on that, as the bulk of consumption I will argue is primarily good; we are seeking to improve the material conditions of people, not promote some minimalist asceticism; it is a matter of creating a just and sustainable system around it).
These circumstances were more than understandable. Every society struggles with corruption (or is defined by it, as with, I’d argue, capitalism in the neoliberal/“finance capitalism”/late stage capitalism form); and the specific formulas for industrializing, harnessing the dynamic powers of markets to their fullest potential, while retaining proletarian rule (or even just national interests, as was the case with India’s “license raj”) were not a proven thing then, and remain a massively challenging thing to this day, despite the Dengist model (which itself could not have existed without the forebears, the examples of Mao, Stalin, and Lenin).
But I digress- basically, the Soviets didn’t have anywhere near as robust a consumer market, at least that’s my understanding of it. And this lack is particularly pronounced when one looks at their consumer technology… Which is an absolute shame. If only their system had maintained its integrity for another decade or two to then learn and adapt their own approach to Dengism, such a beautiful world could have emerged with the first proletarian state there to see it…
Why didn’t it catch on?
Clearly because no one could use the tiny rotary dial.
I’m of the opinion that the Soviet Union- for all that it worked (it did) and all that it achieved countless successes, did not have a system which adapted to the demands (not needs, but demands) of the public, not in the same way that capitalist markets did.
This isn’t an indictment of the Soviets- their system was under siege by the global capitalist order from its inception, and their development was a triumph, its scale and successes only comparable in all of human history (and only in the past decade or two, perhaps outshined by) to that of communist China’s. But- while not claiming to be anything akin to a scholar myself, I can’t help but feel that some of the slanders against the Soviets held some (greatly warped) slivers of truth- for instance, it is undeniable, after the fall of the Soviet Union- after the betrayal that its people suffered, and the shock therapy afterwards- that a nomenklatura had emerged, an economic class of opportunistic bureaucrats. And I think it is also undeniable that (for all that the Soviets had been playing a game of catch-up, as a formerly war-torn, besieged, feudal society to competing with the imperialist west) market reforms were necessary- while the foundations of Soviet industry and production should have remained the same, the energies of capital lay largely untapped, and public demand for various consumer goods was not necessarily met (and we can rail on consumption all we want- personally I’m on the fence on that, as the bulk of consumption I will argue is primarily good; we are seeking to improve the material conditions of people, not promote some minimalist asceticism; it is a matter of creating a just and sustainable system around it).
These circumstances were more than understandable. Every society struggles with corruption (or is defined by it, as with, I’d argue, capitalism in the neoliberal/“finance capitalism”/late stage capitalism form); and the specific formulas for industrializing, harnessing the dynamic powers of markets to their fullest potential, while retaining proletarian rule (or even just national interests, as was the case with India’s “license raj”) were not a proven thing then, and remain a massively challenging thing to this day, despite the Dengist model (which itself could not have existed without the forebears, the examples of Mao, Stalin, and Lenin).
But I digress- basically, the Soviets didn’t have anywhere near as robust a consumer market, at least that’s my understanding of it. And this lack is particularly pronounced when one looks at their consumer technology… Which is an absolute shame. If only their system had maintained its integrity for another decade or two to then learn and adapt their own approach to Dengism, such a beautiful world could have emerged with the first proletarian state there to see it…