Re: [OPE] Question to Marxologists: Mode of production

From: Paul Cockshott <>
Date: Tue Sep 02 2008 - 06:06:56 EDT

> > From this follows that what existed in the Soviet Union was a distinct
> > mode of production.
> Hi Dave:
> No, that doesn't necessarily follow: one could, for example, conceive
> of the USSR as a "transitional" economy where elements of different
> modes of production were in contention. It was certainly a distinct
> social formation, but that doesn't mean that it represented a new
> (or old) mode of production. But, I guess that gets us into the
> distinction between mode of production and social formation.

This position was most cogently argued in Bordigas book 'The economic
and social structure of Russia today', with 'today' being about 1956.

But if you say transitional you have to describe the new mode of production.
Even if you say it was a social formation with multiple modes of
production, you need to characterise the dominant mode.

> In solidarity, Jerry
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Tue Sep 2 06:08:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 15:12:31 EST