Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Three Traditions? Marxism and the USSR

Three Traditions? Marxism and the USSR Historical Materialism , volume 14:3 (207–243) © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Also available online – www.brill.nl 1 Haynes 2002, p. 322. 2 Resnick and Wolff 2002. 3 Haynes 2004, p. 29. 4 Haynes 2004, Chattopadhyay 2004, Haynes 2002. Mar tin Thomas Three Traditions? Marxism and the USSR To classify critical-Marxist writing about the USSR into three ‘positions’ or ‘traditions’ – ‘degenerated workers’ state’, ‘bureaucratic collectivism’, and ‘state capitalism’ – is usual, tidy and, so I will argue, misleading. 1 For example, Mike Haynes welcomes the recent book by Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff 2 as reinforcement to the ‘capitalist/state- capitalist view of the USSR . . . becoming a major paradigm on the left.’ 3 But, in substance, Haynes’s ‘state-capitalist’ views, or mine, are closer both politically and in intellectual filiation to those of many revolutionary anti-Stalinists who would reject the term ‘state capitalism’ than to Resnick-Wolff’s. Again, the recent debate between Mike Haynes and Paresh Chattopadhyay shows that, although Haynes and Chattopadhyay share the term state capitalism, their substantive evaluations are very different. 4 To rejoice at the increasing numbers who cheer the state-capitalist colours obscures more than it clarifies. HIMA 14,3_f8_207-243II 8/11/06 3:16 PM Page http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Historical Materialism Brill

Three Traditions? Marxism and the USSR

Historical Materialism , Volume 14 (3): 207 – Jan 1, 2006

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/three-traditions-marxism-and-the-ussr-lYxTnizj0A

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1465-4466
eISSN
1569-206X
DOI
10.1163/156920606778531734
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Historical Materialism , volume 14:3 (207–243) © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Also available online – www.brill.nl 1 Haynes 2002, p. 322. 2 Resnick and Wolff 2002. 3 Haynes 2004, p. 29. 4 Haynes 2004, Chattopadhyay 2004, Haynes 2002. Mar tin Thomas Three Traditions? Marxism and the USSR To classify critical-Marxist writing about the USSR into three ‘positions’ or ‘traditions’ – ‘degenerated workers’ state’, ‘bureaucratic collectivism’, and ‘state capitalism’ – is usual, tidy and, so I will argue, misleading. 1 For example, Mike Haynes welcomes the recent book by Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff 2 as reinforcement to the ‘capitalist/state- capitalist view of the USSR . . . becoming a major paradigm on the left.’ 3 But, in substance, Haynes’s ‘state-capitalist’ views, or mine, are closer both politically and in intellectual filiation to those of many revolutionary anti-Stalinists who would reject the term ‘state capitalism’ than to Resnick-Wolff’s. Again, the recent debate between Mike Haynes and Paresh Chattopadhyay shows that, although Haynes and Chattopadhyay share the term state capitalism, their substantive evaluations are very different. 4 To rejoice at the increasing numbers who cheer the state-capitalist colours obscures more than it clarifies. HIMA 14,3_f8_207-243II 8/11/06 3:16 PM Page

Journal

Historical MaterialismBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.