We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2009
What does the Soviet record tell us about the viability, effectiveness, and efficiency of socialism?
There are several questions that arise if one examines the Soviet experience, in addition to the comparative systems aspect (i.e., the comparison between capitalism and socialism). One question relates to the impact of the experience of the Soviet Union on theories of socialism, and also vice versa: the impact and relevance of socialist theory in assessing the Soviet system. Then there is the important issue of the role of specifically Soviet-Russian circumstances: traditions, political culture, and work ethic. A poet, Voloshin, wrote, “Velikii Pyotr byl pervyi bolshevik” (Peter the Great was the first bolshevik). The eminent philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev also remarked that “Peter's methods were purely bolshevik.” Leftists of a Trotskyist persuasion argue that the Soviet Union under Stalin took the wrong turn, that the Soviet Union is not socialist at all, that it is “state capitalist” – run by a “new bourgeoisie,” a bureaucratic ruling class—and continue to manufacture other variants on this theme.While official Soviet ideology claims that the U.S.S.R. is socialist and is following the principles laid down by Marx and Lenin, this can be questioned. One can indeed show that many aspects of the Soviet economic and political scene are at variance with the anticipations of Marx and of Lenin. But from this, one need not draw the conclusion that there was a “revolution betrayed,” but rather that some of these anticipations were unreal or unrealizable.
1 Nove, Alec, The Soviet Economy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1961), p. 22.Google Scholar
2 Hahn, Frank, “On Involuntary Unemployment,” Conference Papers: supplement to Economic Journal, vol. 97 (1987), p. 14.Google Scholar
3 Radner, Roy, “The Internal Economy of Large Firms,” Conference Papers: Supplement to Economic Journal, vol. 96 (1986), p. 3.Google Scholar
4 ibid., p. 17.
5 Medvedev, Pavel, “Ekonomiko-matematicheskie metody v plamrovanii,” Voprosy ekonomiki, 12 (1986), p. 49.Google Scholar
6 ibid., p. 49.
7 Matthews, R. C. O., “The Economics of Institutions and the Sources of Growth,” Economic Journal, vol. 96 (December 1986), p. 907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 The so-called “Kosygin” reform of 1965 had as its declared objective the strengthening of enterprise autonomy and of the profit motive. However, Soviet economists now agree that it was half-hearted and inconsistent, and had little or no effect. The “reform” of 1979 stressed quantitative planning from above and tended to downgrade profits as a success indicator.
9 Wrote, Bazarov, “The tendency to relative underproduction should be recognized as inherent for our social structure, just as a tendency to overproduction is for capitalism.” Vladimir, Bazarov, Kapitalisticheskiye tsikly i vosstanovitel'nyi protsess Khozyaistua SSSR (Capitalist Cycles and the Reconstruction Process in the U.S.S.R.) (Moscow: “GIZ,” 1927), p. 99.Google Scholar
10 Kornai, J., The Economics of Shortage (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1980).Google Scholar
11 Vikulov, S., “Chto zavisit ot rukovodibelya”, Pravda, February 4, 1987.Google Scholar
12 See Kirzner, Israel M., “Some Ethical Implications for Capitalism of the Socialist Calculation Debate,” Social Philosophy & Policy, vol. 6, no. 1 (Autumn 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Hahn, , “Of Marx and Keynes and Many Things,” Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 38 (July 1986), p. 360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Vaksberg, Arkadi, “Pravda v glaza,” Literaturnaya gazeta, no. 51 (December 1986), p. 13.Google Scholar
15 Skvorrsova, V., “Dogovor…,” Selskaya zhizn, (January 2, 1987), p. 3.Google Scholar
16 Nove, Alec, The Economics of Feasible Sosialism (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
