User:RD/9k/Economic Problems of the USSR (Q618)

Main entry

618. 618Economic Problems of the USSR (Stalin 1951)
618. 618Economic Problems of the USSR chapter 13

Motifs and claims (Chapter 13)

2213. 2213

      Yaroshenkoism

      / pseudo-Marxist model that relations of production (class territories or industrial structures) are contained inside productive forces instead of productive forces that include physical businesses and chunks of workers being contained inside relations of production in a contradictory relationship (1952) / (9k)
618. 618Soviet-Union production relations are intelligently designed (Yaroshenko 1952) / Inside a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, the workers have full control of the relations of production (Yaroshenko) -> that is clearly not true just because of uneven development. the NEP is one example of this, they had to have a phase of constructing free-floating corporations because there were no larger structures and the workers had no way to control those structures as processes.
618. 618Never "strawberry" production relations / If strawberry Marxisms present models of parts of society and those particular models are to be called "Marxism" at all, one thing they must not do is try to "un-crimson" and "strawberry" the basic concepts of what productive forces and relations of production are; at the moments a strawberry ideology understands this correctly it is doing Marxism, while at the moments it tries to "strawberry" relations of production it is not doing Marxism / (9k)
2104. 2104Men enter into definite relations not of their choosing / (9k)
618. 618Productive forces and production relations are inseparably connected
618. 618Production relations are graph links / Relations of production include connections between workers, connections from workers to owners or specific business territories, and connections between separate enterprises / (9k) -> it's knowing the abilities of each of those connections and not merely putting a Marxist party over the country that makes particular chunks of workers able to change from earlier relations of production to more solid relations of production. Stalin was very violet in this text, surprisingly. he's usually solid on crimson concepts and not very violet but he will go to the violet scale when small-scale phenomena materially count. maybe there was a small possibility of the Soviet Union fully quantizing Marxism if Khruschev didn't take over.
618. 618Productive forces are connections between human beings and the surrounding material world where humans obtain what they need
618. 618Abundance will not be reached without the right small-scale relations of production that keep the development of productive forces moving
618. 618At the moment new relations of production are put in place to remedy the problems of old ones they aid productive forces rather than hindering them (Stalin) / The point of anarchology within the economic aspects of the socioeconomy is to actually identify or quantify impediments to productive forces and free productive forces from them / (9k)
618. 618During transition to upper-phase communism the post-structuralist character of markets will be abolished and a different form of product exchange will be created where people contribute products to an overall mono-structure and get the products they need without really worrying much about the detailed logistics of exactly how much everyone produced and exactly what products have to go to exactly what town and exactly what store; this is implied to be a very coarse description of all the small-scale changes that happened in the historical transition from state capitalism to upper-phase communism to allow people to build and operate the one or 14 mono-structures efficiently enough that the actions of individuals and isolated chunks are no longer handed such "heavy-lifting" tasks to solve daily problems
618. 618In 1952 the Soviet Union was just beyond the horizon of commodities -> this is a very important observation because it seems there were a lot of fatal missteps in what was and wasn't creating commodities. Stalin was exactly tuned in as far as the concept that socialist transition was actually about making smaller structures into larger structures and a lot of other people in the central party just weren't. disregard the 'profitability' of the smaller structures and maybe focus on the increasing productivity of much larger ones, is the impression I'm getting. very typical to the patterns of how good the Soviet Union's theorists were in basically every era, but tragic, because oh my god out of Stalin you got the most lucid description of the basics of what exiting Bolshevism to post-Bolshevism is, it was right there, and then somehow nobody did it. I feel like there had to be external factors in play here because otherwise this development doesn't make any sense. Stalin was even catching the people introducing commodities and kicking them out of the party while he was there?? [1] they had the examples, they should have had at least some idea what was going on and what the good and bad patterns were even without him.

Related

618. time-certificates / time-chits / labor vouchers [2] -> interesting how the moment you drill into money you start to see the Bolshevik mono-structure appear that buys all the goods and separate businesses fall away. it's like.... a goods-bank? there used to be a money bank but it turned into a bank of goods.
     gosh before I looked at Stalin's 1952 text I was treating all this kind of superficially, thinking 'state businesses are an example of how to build a mono-structure', while if you dig into Marx more and look closer at Stalin's attempt to very nearly molecularize his Marxism and create like an entire account of what uneven small scale transitions through each kind of "property" (production structure) generally are, everything makes so much more sense as far as visualizing how big or small a crimson workers' state is. like the further along it gets the more the central bank and its goods-bank layer define the border and size of the population. as transitions go on, having countries divided properly becomes more important, but if you've already done it and like France or Germany was the right size, it would facilitate socialist transition by creating a solid central bank with various branches that all the producers connect to causing it to become a goods-bank.
     to be clear Marx says in this text that if you only changed the bank and goods exchange first and nothing else it would do nothing. but as you see Bolshevism developing further and further you see conditions emerge that look more like the conditions where creating the goods-bank described in this text is not actually a problem; it seems it's actually just one of the very late transitions you can never do early.
     gosh if all of this is so clear when you're standing on 1952 why isn't North Korea further along and what's with it turning into Deng Xiaoping Thought? North Korea should be in a weirdly ideal position to create socialism because it's very insular, it's very much just connected to itself thanks to sanctions and due to its own cultural character, so I don't understand why that doesn't facilitate things becoming better connected internally than they are. when I first read about the Juche idea I was like.... huh, it's about keeping everything connected and unified, maybe they have a chance at building a national culture that encourages all the businesses to converge together and build this central bank or central goods exchange. of course Stalin points out that the uneven development of the country and these different local structures lying around that one by one have to transition to other local structures can slow things down because you have to transition each form up to the next one before you finally get up to the largest structures. so there must be some weird patchwork situation going on in North Korea where some parts of it are super undeveloped or something.
618. 618During transition to upper-phase communism the post-structuralist character of markets will be abolished and a different form of product exchange will be created where people contribute products to an overall mono-structure ... -> marx does say himself that at least before there is capitalism commodities lead to capitalism, and to get rid of capitalism commodities have to be actually replaced with something else. [3] [4]

Ideologies or fields

• DX / Yaroshenkoism
• ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism
• ML / dialectical materialism
• MX / meta-Marxism
• ML onto DX
• MX onto DX