Search results

Attempts to discover an internal logic in the high‐speed events taking place in the former Soviet Union. In addressing the problems of the country′s disintegration, examines the issue in its socioeconomic, political and territorial‐administrative aspects. Analyses, for this purpose, the nature of Soviet society prior to Gorbachev′s reforms, its present transitional stage and its probable direction in the near future.

The purpose of this research paper is a theoretical understanding of the most general trends of Russian economic development during the country's pre‐Soviet, Soviet and post‐Soviet time frames.

The objectives are designed in such a way as to include a historical aspect in the research. An attempt is made to grasp (rather cursorily) a logical internal progression in all stages of the Russian development for the last 150 years. In this, the paper shows no need for so‐called great historical personalities to explain the great historical events.

In the course of the work, it was found that Russia had experienced alternatively five different socioeconomic systems of: late mixed feudalism which was on its way to democratic mixed capitalism (the 1850s‐October 1917); state feudalism which was pregnant with authoritarian mixed capitalism (1918‐1921); authoritarian mixed capitalism in whose womb there was ripening totalitarian state capitalism (1921‐1928); totalitarian state capitalism which was carrying within itself the seeds of authoritarian state capitalism (1928‐1990); finally, authoritarian state capitalism which was moving toward authoritarian mixed capitalism (1991‐present).

The original value of the paper is in its fresh approach to the great events that have been taking place in Russia since the 1850s. The events have been analyzed not as they should be according or despite some theory but as they were and are. The paper, therefore, will be valuable to those who are interested in the socioeconomic development of Russia and who would like, one way or another, to attempt to predict the country's nearest future.

Addresses two major problems. Argues first that the Stalinist model of socio‐economic development, with its actual emphasis on production for the sake of production, has been Ricardian in its nature. As a result, its dominant features have been the sellers′ market of shortages. Maintains, second, that the essence of the current transformation of the Stalinist system is its movement from the Ricardian to the modified Marxian model of capitalism. Since the latter′s proclaimed goal is production for the sake of profits, the “reformed” Soviet socio‐economic structure will have to end up as the buyers′ market of plenty.

The traditional analysis of the Soviet‐type economies denies the existence of markets to these economies. The usual argument is that these economies lack freedom and are characterized by the absence of private property. Additionally, the conventional analysis implies that theory of markets is a theory of free markets, one characterized by free economic interaction among economic units (individuals or businesses) regardless of the degree of market perfection. Argues that the conventional economic analysis is wrong in denying the existence of markets and capitalism to certain modern societies (e.g. the former Soviet bloc countries). The central thesis is that the environment in which buyers and sellers interact does not have to be free in the Western sense to be considered as a market. Points out that the economic systems of the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and others, may be characterized to totalitarian state capitalism.

The purposes of this paper is purely theoretical. Its goal is to establish some rules governing the short‐run employment of productive resources by the enterprise in the Soviet and post‐Soviet setting. Accordingly, the paper is divided into two parts. The first portion of the paper deals with the behavior of the enterprise as the short‐run user of productive resources within a framework of the Soviet economic model of state ownership of non‐labor economic resources and mandatory central planning. Such an enterprise is termed the Soviet enterprise. In the second part, the paper examines how the former Soviet enterprise exploits factors of production during the current transitional period of the disintegration of the Soviet economic model in modern Russia. This enterprise is called the post‐Soviet enterprise. The paper utilizes the marginalist microeconomic tools of the analysis. In this, the paper applies the traditional neoclassical approach to the nontraditional economic structure of the Soviet and post‐Soviet periods.

The fate of a country like the Soviet Union concerns not only its leaders and its population. Whatever happens to the Soviet system, the directions which that nation follows will affect the whole world. Therefore, an understanding of the Soviet regime, its limitations and potentials, and the options available to that country, would give the rest of the world the intellectual weapon necessary to meet challenges presented by Soviet development. The stakes may be very high; if the full productive capacity of the Soviet Union were developed, the Japanese economic miracle and the serious problems it has created for the United States might fade into relative insignificance.

Attempts to find answers to such theoretical questions as the character of Soviet‐type societies and the major tendency of their development. Argues that, as long as the analysis is conducted in convenient and extreme terms of “either capitalism or socialism or communism”: as long as the yardstick for the comparison remains capitalism of laissez‐faire; and as long as the general trend and the particular forms of the world economic development are ignored ‐no satisfactory answer to the nature and fate of such societies can be found. If, however, one looks at Soviet‐type systems as socio‐economic and political structures destined to solve the problem of the industrial revolution and modernization of backward and peasant nations under the conditions of the twentieth century, then the enigma disappears. Soviet‐type societies become what they are in reality: a variety of capitalism that, having fulfilled the “archaic” act of industrialization, is moving into its post‐industrial era.

Was the October Revolution inevitable? If yes, what was its real character? If not, could it have been avoided or taken a different course? What was the role played in it by Lenin? Using the dialectical method of analysis, an attempt is made to provide answers to these questions. The following points are stressed: (1) Given the general and particular conditions of Russian life created by the First World War and the February Revolution, the break with the old democratic mixed capitalist form and the establishment of the new totalitarian state capitalist form of the social development were inevitable. (2) The fact that this process was headed by Lenin was accidental and, hence, avoidable. (3) But Lenin individualised the general and particular features of the October Revolution in terms of the names of the events associated with the revolution, of the time of its occurrence, of its participants and of their positions during and after the revolution.

Gorbachev′s book Perestroika is used to explain why the author believes the new policy of restructuring of the Soviet economy cannot and will not work. The policies of Perestroika are introduced and evaluated and the existing socio‐economic system presented. At the end of this sceptical Western analysis, it is concluded that the policy is cosmetic restructuring and Gorbachev′s downfall, like Khruschev′s, is assured.

The year 1988 marks a special anniversary for Russia. Exactly 1,000 years ago Christianity was officially introduced into Russia from Byzantium. This was accomplished when, in 988, Prince Vladimir of Kiev ordered a mass baptism of the Russian people