Class Societies: The Soviet Union and the United States. Two Interviews with Paul Sweezy

By Okonogi, Kiyoshi; Weissman, Robert | Monthly Review, December 1991 | Go to article overview

Class Societies: The Soviet Union and the United States. Two Interviews with Paul Sweezy


Okonogi, Kiyoshi, Weissman, Robert, Monthly Review


I.

Kiyoshi Okonogi: On September 6, Gorbachev and Yeltsin stated the failure of their socialist model in the televised interview with Peter Jennings of ABC. How do you observe their response?

What started out as an attempt to establish a socialist society did not succeed in actually achieving that result. So that to judge the possibilities of socialism by that particular historical experience seems to me to be methodologically incorrect. It is true that the Soviet Union and some of the other postrevolutionary societies did attempt to implement some of the ideas which are integral to socialism. But they never did succeed in achieving those goals beyond a rudimentary stage. And then what has to be always remembered is that these changes took place under extremely adverse conditions. The capitalist powers, the imperialist powers, were attempting to overthrow the system. They were afraid it might succeed, and it would set a very bad example for their own exploited and discriminated-against classes.

Gorbachev apparently thinks that the model has failed. But I don't see that that's relevant. And as far as the idea that the socialist project is dead, I think that's not valid at all. The socialist project arose out of opposition to capitalism. And the ideas of socialism are basically a negation of capitalism. So, the existence of socialism is in effect a reflection of the existence of capitalism. The Russian Revolution did not take hold and succeed. But that's not the death of socialism.

How would you define their "failure," and what do you see as their failure?

There is a large literature about the type of society which emerged from the Russian Revolution. My own view, and I think that of a majority of people who consider themselves to be socialists, is that it's not socialism. It's rather a class society, an exploitative society, but also not a capitalist society. That model, a class-exploitative society, failed not only because of its own internal weaknesses and contradictions but also because it was confronted by a more powerful rival which put enormous pressure on it, militarily and economically. Both kinds of pressure contributed to the downfall of the system.

How is it different from socialism? And how do you characterize the present situation?

From a Marxist point of view--and I speak of Marxist--socialism has to be thought of first and foremost as the antithesis of capitalism. Since the defining characteristics of capitalism are private ownership of the means of production and allocation of productive resources and distribution of products through a system of competitive markets, it follows that necessary conditions for existence of socialism are public ownership of at least the decisive means of production and the substitution of planning for allocation and distribution by means of competitive markets. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the existence of socialism. It is also essential that the public that owns the means of production and controls the planning process should be the actual producers of goods and services and not a separate class of bosses and managers. In other words, from the Marxist perspective socialism is not only an economic system of state ownership and planning but also a political system of workers' democracy.

In my view the Russian Revolution actually did realize the first two necessary conditions of socialism--state ownership of the means of production and economic planning. The Bolshevik leaders of the revolution originally intended to realize workers' democracy as well, but for reasons too numerous and complicated to be analyzed here, they did not succeed. Instead what happened under Stalin and his successors was precisely the emergence of a new ruling class of bosses and managers. This new ruling class organized and reproduced itself through the Communist Party and its peculiar creation the nomenklatura; and it arrogated to itself undisputed control over the economy and the country's armed forces and security apparatuses.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Class Societies: The Soviet Union and the United States. Two Interviews with Paul Sweezy
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.