2 ms·

Communist economics is Marxist economics. Of course there have been multiple waves of revisions of Marxism, but fundamentally it's based on Marx's theory of val

by simonh 5y ago

Communist economics is Marxist economics. Of course there have been multiple waves of revisions of Marxism, but fundamentally it's based on Marx's theory of value as it's core axiom. In practice communists sometimes play the cards they are dealt in terms of the economy they start with and what's achievable, depending on how patient they are. Lenin viewed foreign investment as a necessary evil, a temporary measure while the economy was in a transitional state. Do you think Lenin viewed allowing foreign investment and private property as being long term, essential aspects of a well functioning, mature communist economy? Of course not. Stalin was a lot less patient on this and instituted forced mass collectivism, with catastrophic consequences.

sudosysgen 5y ago
What do you mean by private property? Do you mean that word in a Marxian sense? Or do you mean it in a classical/neoclassical sense and thus projecting non-Marxist economics on Marxist economics? No one believes that foreign investment is anything more than a necessary evil - being reliant on foreign investment means that you can't mobilize your own capital. The idea that markets are necessary for some industries is not at all incompatible with Marxist economics. Lenin's side of Marxist economics would be fine with markets as long as the property was owned cooperatively, until a post-scarcity society. Stalin's turn towards state planning was out of perceived necessity, not because he was less patient. He, and others in the party, decided that it was acceptable to sacrifice overall economic development in order to develop the heavy industries necessary for war with capitalist countries, that he thought was inevitable if they were too weak. That, and he thought agricultural development was too slow. While it was a failure for agricultural output, it was objectively a massive success in its primary goal, and development of heavy industries at the speed of the NEP would have probably led to the USSR losing WW2.

by simonh 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago

What do you mean by private property? Do you mean that word in a Marxian sense? Or do you mean it in a classical/neoclassical sense and thus projecting non-Marxist economics on Marxist economics? No one believes that foreign investment is anything more than a necessary evil - being reliant on foreign investment means that you can't mobilize your own capital. The idea that markets are necessary for some industries is not at all incompatible with Marxist economics. Lenin's side of Marxist economics would be fine with markets as long as the property was owned cooperatively, until a post-scarcity society. Stalin's turn towards state planning was out of perceived necessity, not because he was less patient. He, and others in the party, decided that it was acceptable to sacrifice overall economic development in order to develop the heavy industries necessary for war with capitalist countries, that he thought was inevitable if they were too weak. That, and he thought agricultural development was too slow. While it was a failure for agricultural output, it was objectively a massive success in its primary goal, and development of heavy industries at the speed of the NEP would have probably led to the USSR losing WW2.