Restoring Capitalism to Communist States

Supposing the Soviet Union survived as a unified state with a single government, how could they have restored capitalism without the problems they historically developed? Destroyed economy, rule by oligarchs. In more general terms, how does one go about restoring capitalism without favoring the powerful disproportionately?
 
Maybe don’t plunge full-on into balls-out capitalism and go with a lesser degree of socialism at first. Maybe transition the nation to employee-owned companies and implement a kickass healthcare system and social safety net while we’re at it.

And keep the country from falling into the hands of a power-mad shithead.
 
I think you need to check your thesis, bud.
I don't think I do. You see, my question isn't "how do we keep everyone equal in the long term," but "how do we make sure everyone starts out equal." The United States, at one point, started everyone out equal: zero. Then it stratified, and the classes tend to reproduce themselves, but even now corporations and individuals rise and fall. So my question really concerns the best way to start everyone out, not how to keep them there, and thus does not contradict anything by not favoring the powerful. In time, those naturally skilled economically will rise above the others, and the powerful will once again rule. Until then, I want to know the best way for starting everyone at the same level.
 
You simply cannot have capitalism without favouring the powerful disproportionately.

A basic principle of capitalism is that capital always gravitates towards capital, inevitably favouring the wealthy and powerful over the poor and dispossessed.
 
You simply cannot have capitalism without favouring the powerful disproportionately.

A basic principle of capitalism is that capital always gravitates towards capital, inevitably favouring the wealthy and powerful over the poor and dispossessed.
Oh, for God's sake.

Yes. I know. I thought I made this clear in my previous post. I'm not aiming for a capitalist society that is equal for all time, just one that STARTS equal. One where politically powerful figures garner huge amounts of wealth due to their position, and then hang on to it. Colonel Zoidberg seems to have the best idea: transition to employee-owned corporations. That puts the capital in the hands of the people to do with what they will, and eventually stratify into a stable state of powerful and weak, with substantial regulation to keep the gap smaller than what the United States currently experiences.
 
I don't think I do. You see, my question isn't "how do we keep everyone equal in the long term," but "how do we make sure everyone starts out equal." The United States, at one point, started everyone out equal: zero.
I'm pretty sure that the landlords and the colonial elites had the edge when the USA became independent.
 
Oh, for God's sake.

Yes. I know. I thought I made this clear in my previous post. I'm not aiming for a capitalist society that is equal for all time, just one that STARTS equal. One where politically powerful figures garner huge amounts of wealth due to their position, and then hang on to it. Colonel Zoidberg seems to have the best idea: transition to employee-owned corporations. That puts the capital in the hands of the people to do with what they will, and eventually stratify into a stable state of powerful and weak, with substantial regulation to keep the gap smaller than what the United States currently experiences.
The thing is that it's not possible for everyone to start out as equals.
And I'm not sure that what you seem to propose (cooperativism) fits into what everyone thinks when thinking about capitalism. I mean, there would not be individual initiative, but cooperative initiative.
 
Capitalism begins with the bloody expropriation and blood filled appropriations from previous economic forms. It has never started from zero.

How exactly are you going to stop the nomenklatura who already “own” social property from selling the profitable bits to themselves?
 
Supposing the Soviet Union survived as a unified state with a single government, how could they have restored capitalism without the problems they historically developed? Destroyed economy, rule by oligarchs. In more general terms, how does one go about restoring capitalism without favoring the powerful disproportionately?

Why is having the USSR survive a necessary POD? After all, Russia was more than half the USSR and if there was some better way of restoring capitalism than that tried in OTL it could be used by an independent Russia (and other republics like Ukraine could follow its example--but even if they didn't there would still be a successful restoration of capitalism in more than half of the former USSR).
 

manav95

Banned
Well it's simple: keep Gorbachev in power and implement a European style social democracy and promote innovation and growth of educated labor force. The brain drain from Russia and other former Soviet republics crippled their ability to adjust to global competition, making the decline even worse. If they had better leadership and subsidized industries, then these countries/Union would better adjust to the future.
 
I don't think it is possible. When you change from one system to another there will always be pain. It is unavoidable. Change is hard. No matter how crappy it was people were used to the old system. Huge economic and political changes can't happen with the flip of a switch. Russia did about as well as you could reasonably expect. It could have been far, far worse.
 
Capitalism begins with the bloody expropriation and blood filled appropriations from previous economic forms. It has never started from zero.

How exactly are you going to stop the nomenklatura who already “own” social property from selling the profitable bits to themselves?

Last time I checked Communism began with the bloody expropriation of property that was handed to a self-appointed elite and then maintained by that same self-appointed elite by power. I guarantee every Soviet leader from Lenin down to Gorbachev lived far, far better than peasants living in State Farm #3345. They effectively owned the entire country.
 
They effectively owned the entire country.

Yes, this was my point in relation to the sale of nominally social property in the Soviet Union.

I am finding it hard to find your contribution in this post other than emotionally offended and distracting what-about-ism. The thread isn’t about reducing the power of the nomenklatura in 1919 or 1921, as interesting as such threads are.
 
Yes, this was my point in relation to the sale of nominally social property in the Soviet Union.

I am finding it hard to find your contribution in this post other than emotionally offended and distracting what-about-ism. The thread isn’t about reducing the power of the nomenklatura in 1919 or 1921, as interesting as such threads are.

The point is that in EVERY system the elites have the majority of the property. There is no way around it. Monarchies, Republics, Theocracies, Oligarchies, Communists it doesn't matter. Whoever is in charge gets most of the money. It is human nature.
 
The point is that in EVERY system the elites have the majority of the property. There is no way around it. […] It is human nature.

You would agree however that different elites work differently. The American and French elites of 1793 provide a contrast in terms of political violence amongst the elite, and the forms of mass violence against the lowest status productive labourers.

Unless the Soviet elites transfer of property historically was the conceivable optimal, how could that elite have chosen or been forced to behave differently.
 
Supposing the Soviet Union survived as a unified state with a single government, how could they have restored capitalism without the problems they historically developed? Destroyed economy, rule by oligarchs. In more general terms, how does one go about restoring capitalism
Same way China and Vietnam do it : SEZ, Maintain State Control of critical industries, encouraging Nationalism as alternative ideologies, etc

You would agree however that different elites work differently.
There are several different conditions that change how society and its elites behave :
- availability of free capital : homesteading in US enable even the poorest to go to West and acquire land, making labour expensive and capital cheap
- Nationalism : if elites perceive themselves as part of society that include middle and poor, they more likely to limit themselves
- Democracy and Representation : when government not owned by elites, elites forced to maintain popularity and government less likely to support elites
- presences of middle class strong enough to destroy elites
- presence of cheap military technology that enables untrained militia to be serious threat to trained soldier
- large "commons" : from common lands, national health care, to state factories that limit and balance power of elites
 
Same way China and Vietnam do it : SEZ, Maintain State Control of critical industries, encouraging Nationalism as alternative ideologies, etc
Convert to State Capitalism to grow the economy, retain the name of Communism, retain a large amount of censorship and a one party state and further strengthen Nationalism you mean.
There are several different conditions that change how society and its elites behave :
- availability of free capital : homesteading in US enable even the poorest to go to West and acquire land, making labour expensive and capital cheap
>True, and it helped

- Nationalism : if elites perceive themselves as part of society that include middle and poor, they more likely to limit themselves
>You certainly need to get rid of a true aristocracy for one thing.

- Democracy and Representation: when government not owned by elites, elites forced to maintain popularity and government less likely to support elites

Also true
- presences of middle class strong enough to destroy elites
Yep, that is what helped destroy feudalism. The Black Death caused wages to rise which made the lower and middle classes stronger.

- presence of cheap military technology that enables untrained militia to be serious threat to trained soldier
Nationalism helps here too. It makes troops more reluctant to fire on fellow citizens.
- large "commons" : from common lands, national health care, to state factories that limit and balance power of elites
The elites tend to run those things from behind closed doors by making sure the "right people" run them
""
 
I know I’ve said this a number of times elsethread: the Soviet Union cannot copy the SEZ model, largely due to working class resistance.

China and Vietnam had large rural populations capable of proletarianisation and reproletarianisation respectively. The chief primitive accumulation being of labour itself. The Soviet Union devastated these reserves in the 1930s for obvious reasons.

On farm and in factory the Soviet deal from 1932 was “you pretend to pay us, we pretend to work,” with most modifiers of this being social production of leisure or welfare *through the factory itself.* (film nights, nkvd soccer team, etc). Thus with the social commons being firm based the nomenklatura had a strong incentive to liquidate firms and sell the assets minus the liquidated welfare liabilities to itself. Think of the classic western pension fund collapse as a typifying example of this mode of firm failure.

SEZs would be resisted by worker indifference and an inability to supply commodities for consumption (they pretend to pay us). While commentators immediately point to the effective military sector this was not a low wage sector and the goods produced were not consumption goods. Even if the western powers suddenly purchased goods made in Soviet factories: the wage differential was not adequately large. The Chinese and Vietnamese SEZ relied on penury, not wages, as a motivator.

Impoverish Soviet workers back to late Stalin standards and you’ll get a new 1956. Oh wait, solidarity.
 
Maybe don’t plunge full-on into balls-out capitalism and go with a lesser degree of socialism at first. Maybe transition the nation to employee-owned companies and implement a kickass healthcare system and social safety net while we’re at it.

And keep the country from falling into the hands of a power-mad shithead.
There's a reason the soviet system fell, I don't see an advantage from hanging on to a water-down version of command economics. If someone had their hand on a hat pan, I wouldn't tell them to slowly take their hand off of it to make the transition more gradual.
 
Top