Re: dependent socialism?

[Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Re: dependent socialism?,
el 27 May 01, a las 8:15, Juan R. Fajardo dijo:

>
>
> "Austin, Andrew" wrote:
> >
> > Considering that the Soviet Union's relations with its satellites were
> > anti-imperialistic (in the capitalist sense) the idea of a "dependent
> > socialism" seems a bit silly.
>
> The workers' states in Easter Europe
> were established, not so much by autoctonous revolutions, but by the Red
> Army

With one important exception. Yugoslavia.

> and ... their economies were developed ... into, or were
> developed as, -as you say- satellites of the USSR.

That economic planning in the COMECON had serious flaws may probably
be out of any debate. But what is the meaning of a "satellite" economy
when the level of living of the "satellized" country is better off
than that of the core of the system?  In a sense, under a truly
socialist system there should have been a voluntary transfer of
surplus from the Western areas of COMECON to the Eastern ones, SU
included...

> Given that, the
> notion of a "dependent" socialism may not be so far-fetched.  It may
> bear greater consideration before being rejected off-handedly.
>
> - Juan



Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx