New Poll: critical moment for Germany

[lwd]

Well it depends on what you mean by free. Inherently free markets will tend toward monoplies at which point they are no longer free. The best roll for governemnt IMO is keeping the playing field as level as possible. How succesful we are in this regard is a matter of some debate.

[Vic Dale]

To all.

Karl Marx wrote that the economy is the base cause of all that happens in human society, but the relationship between the social and the economic is not a direct one. He described the relationship as society being a superstructure which rested on the economy and the desciption he then gave gives the impression of a jelly on a plate. If you move the plate suddenly to one side, the jelly remans where it is momentarily, due to inertia, but then swings in the same direction as the plate, only it then overtakes the plate due to it's momentum.

Practically put, the economy lurches into crisis but social developments do not exactly match the economic. There is a delay, but as society catches up it goes far farther into crisis. This may or may not cause war, however war itself has it's cause only in economic developments, even though the actual trigger is often seen as the result of a personal insult or an untmely murder. Oddly too, war and revolution ofthen spring from the same cause.

I based myself on Marx, for this part of the discussion because he did write the most comprehensive study of capitalism and even showed the captains of industry things about their own system which they did not previously know. That is why he was voted "the thinker of the millenium". The Finacial Times and the Wall Street Journal employ very similar methods of analysis to Marx and they seem able to arrive at mostly the same conclusions which a correct Marxist method of analysis would give. I see them as bastions of the capitalist system since they are the daily bible of the stock-broker and the industrailist alike.

Incidentally to finally nail the SWP; they and their like arrived at a completely false formula by which to describe the USSR, calling it "State Capitalist", which it most certainly isn't and never was. It is typical of them that they denigrate everything which resembles capitalism without understanding anything about what Marx is supposed to have taught them. They choose the easy slogan and avoid detailed analysis.

If you think logically about it, the only gains or losses made from war are economic. You only go to war if you think you will benefit economically. ALl talk of ridding us of nasty dictators or religious crusades is propaganda designed to appeal to ignorant masses. By ignorant I mean those unaware of the true situation.

This is why Britain and it's elite representatives abroad were able to do business with Mussolini and Stalin whilst denigrating Hitler. Why Milosevich and Saddam were singled out for special treatment when others qually hideous in their treatment of their people and their neighbours were left unmolested. Until 1941, although he was ready to murder anoyone who got in his way, Hitler paled into insignificance when compared to the murderer Stalin, yet Britain tried to keep Stalin in alliance with the West whilst preparing for war with Hitler.

Vic Dale

[lwd]

...If you think logically about it, the only gains or losses made from war are economic. ...

This isn't logic it's dogma. And fallacious dogma at that. While economics play a part in most wars they are far from the sole reason for all wars.

[RF]

Inherently free markets will tend toward monoplies at which point they are no longer free.

Not under conditions of perfect competition, there are no barriers to new entrants in the market.

What I think you are alluding to are the effects of ''globalisation'' on a world market based on monopolistic competition. That is not a genuine free market as the imperfections cause market failure, and concentrations of economic power.

[RF]

The idea that Chamberlain and others could steer the ship of state through the mess is laughable. They lurched from crisis to crisis and were utterly driven by events - just like the donkeys who hold the reins at present.

So Britain was doing well but for all the unemployment eh? This is precisly the sort of nonsense I would expect of the 1930s politicians. If workers are idle they are economically disengaged and unable to play their part as consumers. The workers and their families are the bulk consumers, so if a sizeable section of them are not buying, the economy canot grow.

Vic Dale

The last sentence is very Keynesian.

The period 1936 to the start of WW2 in 1939 saw a rate of economic growth in Britain of nearly 4% per annum, unemployment was steadily falling (albeit from a very high level) and inflation, which had been on a minus rate prior to 1935 was practically zero. This is not nonsense espoused by 1930's politicians but empirical fact recognised by most economists and also frequently overlooked in analyses of the 1930's. It is a record not emulated by any British government in the last 45 years.
Yes the growth was uneven, yes there were areas of extreme deprivation, but overall conditions were improving, principally because the slack of spare capacity in the economy was being taken up, before inflationary pressures on the supply side were building up.

I appreciate that this does not go down very well with concepts of capitalism in continuous crisis, but this is fact without ideological import. You can argue that the growth was little to do with Chamberlain, all he did was balance the budget (in fact he ran a small deficit), but happened as part of the run of the normal trade cycle. But not a bad record, considering the economic problems over my lifespan, which I don't see in terms of a crisis in capitalism. Problems in managing it yes, of legitimation no.

[RF]

To all.

Karl Marx wrote that the economy is the base cause of all that happens in human society, but the relationship between the social and the economic is not a direct one.

I based myself on Marx, for this part of the discussion because he did write the most comprehensive study of capitalism and even showed the captains of industry things about their own system which they did not previously know. That is why he was voted "the thinker of the millenium".

Incidentally to finally nail the SWP; they and their like arrived at a completely false formula by which to describe the USSR, calling it "State Capitalist", which it most certainly isn't and never was. It is typical of them that they denigrate everything which resembles capitalism without understanding anything about what Marx is supposed to have taught them. They choose the easy slogan and avoid detailed analysis.

If you think logically about it, the only gains or losses made from war are economic. You only go to war if you think you will benefit economically. ALl talk of ridding us of nasty dictators or religious crusades is propaganda designed to appeal to ignorant masses. By ignorant I mean those unaware of the true situation.

This is why Britain and it's elite representatives abroad were able to do business with Mussolini and Stalin whilst denigrating Hitler. Why Milosevich and Saddam were singled out for special treatment when others qually hideous in their treatment of their people and their neighbours were left unmolested. Until 1941, although he was ready to murder anoyone who got in his way, Hitler paled into insignificance when compared to the murderer Stalin, yet Britain tried to keep Stalin in alliance with the West whilst preparing for war with Hitler.

Vic Dale

Vic,

In writing the top two paragraphs I quote here you are presenting or at least implying a political programme. I have no problem or complaint about that as we are supposed to live in what Karl Popper calls an ''open society'' with freedom of speech and expression.
I also read marxist economics and political sociology on my degree. Marx held that all things economic are political, nothing is value free and you cannot split the two. In saying that wars are economic then by definition they are political, the economic circumstances of dictators/despots are political. If you take that wide a definition then I agree with you.
However having studied marxism I am not a marxist at all. My own view is that Karl Popper was right in his analysis in his book ''The Poverty of Historicism.''
I also read far right political ideology as well so I am familiar with all the views on fascism, indeed fascism is so vague and romanticist that I would question whether it is a valid ideology at all - the fascists indeed never had their Marx and Engels.

I am inclined to agree with the SWP view on the USSR. Whether Lenin (who introduced the ''new economic policy''), Stalin (the state collectivist), Kruschev or Brezhnev, we have in my view a capitalist economy, and certainly in its latter years it was an economic system in crisis to the extent that its legitimation was eventually questioned by its own leaders (Gorbachev, Yeltsin).
Paradoxically in my view Marx's views on capitalism in crisis were more relevant to the COMECON bloc than western capitalism. If you say the USSR was not state capitalist then what was it? Indeed when i studied the Soviet economy in the early 1980's one statistic always stood out in my mind - the one per cent of agricultural land in private hands (yes, private property in a communist system!) produced 30% of total agricultural output. This is a fact to me which transcends all propaganda between left and right - the bolsheviks could never replace capitalism, they nationalised it into Gosplan.

Moving on to Britain's relationship with Stalin in 1939, this was something akin to a Monty Python farce. The British wanted the USSR to protect Poland from German aggression. But along with the Poles they didn't want the Red Army to enter Poland to fight the Germans. The British military mission sent to negotiate the arrangements for an alliance was so incompetent and slow moving that the much quoted catchphrase of John McEnroe comes to mind, ''you cannot be serious.'' Quite what this was for is difficult to fathom in my mind, the British seemingly both pro and anti USSR at the same time.

[lwd]

Inherently free markets will tend toward monoplies at which point they are no longer free.

Not under conditions of perfect competition, there are no barriers to new entrants in the market.

What I think you are alluding to are the effects of ''globalisation'' on a world market based on monopolistic competition. That is not a genuine free market as the imperfections cause market failure, and concentrations of economic power.

No. There's a tendency in at least some fields for larger oranizations to be more efficient. Thus the free market creates it's own barriers to entrance. IE if my company can make a profit selling a widget for $1 and you want to start a business selling a similar widgit but it's going to cost you $2 to make it that's a significant barrier. Even if you get in maybe my company can still make enough of a proffit at $.8 so I can drop prices to further under cut you. That sort of thing was what occasioned the anti trust regulations in the US. They are in some ways a step away from free markets but they encourage competition.

Perhaps it's a matter of the difference between theory and practice. That's also where Marx and his ilk fall IMO. Socialism is, in some senses at least, a good system theortically. However it just doesn't work well in the real world except in certain small special cases.

[RF]

lwd,

Under perfect competition there is perfect or absolute mobility of the factors of production and there is perfect knowledge within the market. Hence production costs between firms will not vary.
What you describe may well happen in the real world. But it is not the model of perfect competition that underlies most of microeconomics, which is why a lot of that subject is somewhat unrealistic. For example if you had perfect mobility of the factors of production there cannot ever be any unemployment - the labour market, like all other markets, must clear. The fact that in the real world they don't formed the basis for the emergence of macroeconomics in the 1930's.

[lwd]

Sounds like it also ignores differences in skill and location. IE it has little bearing on the real world just like a lot of socialist theory.

[Vic Dale]

I don't recall seeing a political programme being presented in Das Kapital. Marx's 3 volume book is a technical document, as is the Grundrisse compliation of essays which follwed it.

I would not attempt to insert a political programme in the pages of this forum, since it really is not the place. However, certain elements of political ideology have influenced world events, and to that extent are relevant, though we seem to be way off topic at present.

For the record; State capitalism is a term used to describe the operation of a state-run industry in a CAPITALIST economy. The nationalised industries in Britain for example were state capitalist, in that although state owned were not immune from the vagaries of the system in operation. They had to account for profit and loss and they could not produce commodities for sale at below the cost of production. Their consumption of raw materials had to match sales according to the capitalist production cycle and they had to pay for everything including bank charges, for credit extended by the banks to cover flat spots in the production cycle. They operated exactly like capitalist enterprises even though they were state-owned.

The planned economy of the USSR and it's satellites relied simply on production according to dictat. Raw materlals would be supplied regardless of abiliity to pay and the industries did not pay bank charges either. Money still operated in the USSR, but no vestige of capital was in operation.

Money has two purposes in a capitalist society;

1. Money is the transmission belt by which to circulate commodities. Wages and salaries are paid so that consumers can buy what they need. We might call this the consumption mode.

2 In it's production mode, money is used as capital, whereby a surplus of money is set aside to buy nothing other than labour timem raw materials and productive capacity. The labour and plant are used to turn raw materials into commodities. Having produced the commodities and hopefully sold them at a profit, the whole is ploughed back into the production cycle again. Commodities are not bought with the bulk of this money, only labour and production plant.

The industrialist begins the production cycle with money capital which he turns into labour with the intention of creating more capital. Money - Labour - Capital.

The worker having only his labour time and power to sell, sells it to the industrialist. In return he gets his wages, which all have to be spent on food clothing and housing and perhaps a little leisure, in effect all the things which will keep him and his family alive and happy - Hopefully. Effectively what he earns keeps him as a worker and he must go back each week to keep himself and his family alive. His prduction cycle then, consists of Labour - money - labour.

When we compare the two examples;

money - labour - money (the capitalist)
Labour - money - labour (the worker)

we see an opposed yet utterly symbiotic relationship between the two. The capitalist cannot exist without the worker and the worker is equally dependent on the capitalist, though their ways of life are diametrically opposed.

In the USSR no such relationship existed, since the state demanded production and it also set the wages which would be paid regardless of whether or not the product actually sold.

Since the SWP with their superior attitude to theory insisit that the USSR was state capitalist and ignore the true workings of each system I will continue to ignore them.

In defence of the above post, I would plead that a falilure to properly understand the USSR capitalism and nazism tends to cloud the issue regarding what was going on during WWI, between the wars and during WWII. Capitalism and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed and had no similarities at all in terms of how they operated economocally. Nazism although carrying the socialist label was a capitalst system. Hitler had no influence on the economy, which was run by Dr Schacht who had held the reins of the German economy since long before Hitler came to power. It was capitalst then, it was capitalist under Hitler and it is capitalist now.

When capitalist nations go to war, they agree war credits, making it possible for the government to make industrial demands for it's military, thus relieving the army from the constraints of it's budget. The government can now borrow what it likes from the banks. This if you like, is an element of socialist production, since natural market forces are partially suspended in regard to military spending.

The USSR had to make no changes to the way it operated when preparing for war. It already had a command economy and could simply step up production accordng to what the army needed, though when buying from abroad, it did have to pay market prices.

Vic Dale

[lwd]

...
In the USSR no such relationship existed, since the state demanded production and it also set the wages which would be paid regardless of whether or not the product actually sold.

Or was actually produced. Demand does not equal production and that was one of the most serious problems the Soviets had. Indeed they created unrealistic demands which encouraged sub standard work and inaccurate production reports.

.... Hitler had no influence on the economy,...

I'll agree it was capitalist but Hitler clearly had significant influence on the economy. The Wages of Destruction makes it clear that he made most of the key decisions.

...The USSR had to make no changes to the way it operated when preparing for war. It already had a command economy and could simply step up production accordng to what the army needed, though when buying from abroad, it did have to pay market prices...

Again just because you demand somebody produce something doesn't mean that they do and if they do it doesn't mean that it works well or at all. The Soviets had problems with this for their entire history.

[RF]

Sounds like it also ignores differences in skill and location. IE it has little bearing on the real world just like a lot of socialist theory.

Perfect competition is a simplised model used to explain the theory of how markets work (or should work). It was used by Adam Smith to demonstrate the ''invisible hand'' in that there was always a point of market equilibium.
Obviously it has little bearing on the workings of modern economies, but there again we are talking about theories developed in the late eighteenth century and prior.

[RF]

For the record; State capitalism is a term used to describe the operation of a state-run industry in a CAPITALIST economy. The nationalised industries in Britain for example were state capitalist, in that although state owned were not immune from the vagaries of the system in operation. They had to account for profit and loss and they could not produce commodities for sale at below the cost of production. Their consumption of raw materials had to match sales according to the capitalist production cycle and they had to pay for everything including bank charges, for credit extended by the banks to cover flat spots in the production cycle. They operated exactly like capitalist enterprises even though they were state-owned.

The planned economy of the USSR and it's satellites relied simply on production according to dictat. Raw materlals would be supplied regardless of abiliity to pay and the industries did not pay bank charges either. Money still operated in the USSR, but no vestige of capital was in operation.

Vic Dale

I think we have a difference in the definition of capital. By capital I mean an economy based on capital accumulation.

I would describe the USSR as a state capitalist economy because it is the state itself which performs the role of the capitalist. The difference between the nationalised industry in the UK and the Gosplan industries in the USSR is that in the UK we have a mixed economy with a dominant private sector coupled with a degree of political accountability. In the USSR political power is concentrated, there is no public accountability and no large private sector (at least officially), so the state operates a very visible hand and acts as dictator. I don't see any difference in the relationship of the worker to the boss or capitalist in Britain or the USA to the worker in the USSR, except that in the USSR the worker has far fewer rights, no free trade unions, no real means to organise because all the workers organisations are under state capitalist control. A socialist ideology about the ''dictatorship of the proletariat'' is used to legitimate this power relationship, but the reality is that it is the proletariat that is being dictated to by the state capitalist. In other words commumism in the USSR was one big scam which kept the workers in the conditons described by Marx and Engels for the most severe forms of capitalist exploitation.

The point I would make about Marx is that his analysis of capitalism may be accurate but his conclusions that capitalism would collapse under its own contradictions is wrong. He underestimated capitalisms ability to adapt and create new avenues of capital accumulation; he also failed to see that there would be a filtering down process whereby some redistribution of wealth would occur so that everyone is better off under capitalism. I know that marxists dispute this interpretation and say that Marx anticipated such things as a temporary aberation in capitalism that would delay but not prevent its downfall - I think they are wrong in that conclusion and that they are altering the theory to fit the facts in an attempt to explain why capitalism hasn't collapsed.

I think the success of capitalism as an ideology is that it has managed to subsume socialism into a capitalist system - no matter how much socialists deny that. And I think that is why the British Labour Party has never been truly socialist.

[Vic Dale]

Hi RF.

It seems to me that you are down the same ideological hole as the SWP.

Capitalism relies on a social class for it's existence and since no such class existed in the USSR it is impossible for it to be a capitalist system. The USSR was a worker's state and it had a planned economy. Capitalists play an esential part in the production cycle, whereas the Russian bureacracy played no part in production. They invested no personal assets, yet creamed off a fat living for themselves. They controlled the economy form above and never got teir hands dirty.

Who were the capitalists there? It is certain that the bureacrat consumed more wealth than captalist or feudal king, but that is not the criterion for gauging an economic system. Slave society had a rich ruling class but there is no one with any sense who would call the Roman empire a capitalist society. Capitalism is a very distinct economic form, as is the worker's state and whatever we think of the two, unless we can distinguish between them, we will undertsnd nothing.

A planned economy, which is the essential ingredient in the worker's state enabled consistent growth at a rate in excess of 12% each year over a period of 60 years. This is not possible under capitalism since every so often the market shrinks due to the economic cycle and the system goes into recession. No such recessions are evident in the USSR.

Marx never said that Capitalism would collapse, only that from it's own internal contradictions it goes into crisis at a relatively predictable rate, conditioned by the economic cycle and at certain times it goes into a state of collapse. Marx was a revolutionary and he knew that capitalism would not disappear of it's own accord, it would have to be pushed.

It is precisely from this difference between the two eocnomies that the troubles of the world in the 20th century became so exacerbated. Whereas in the past the capitalst economies facing the most desperate crises, could resort to the solutions of the old feudal kings by going to war, to eradicate competitiors in the world market, now they had to contend with internal problems which thrtreatened to rob them even of the ability to wage war.

The relatively even development of the USSR through the successive economic crises of the 20s and 30s, highlighted the plight of the capitalist economies and showed up the flaws in the system. This of course is not to say the USSR was perfect, but at least the Bureacrats were able to plan their way out of trouble. This was seen and each time the capitalist economies went into crisis, the workers who might periodically challenge for power, were now encouraged more strenuous challenges by the advent of the Russian revolution where they could see a solution.

How sweet things must have looked in Russia to those America families forced out of their farms and homesteads by the economic crisis, or those bankrupted by the inflation in Germany of the 1920s and those workers in Britain who had to live under the threat of unemployment or spend their lives living off charity. They of course could not know the full truth about the misery suffered by the Russian worker, driven so hard by an incompetent bureaucracy. Althought he USSR developed at a phenomenal rate, this development was bought only at huge cost in human lives and misery.

There were periods when Europe was beset by continuing class conflict and branches of the "comintern" flourished in every capital. It is sometimes difficult to see how capitalism managed to survive, but the fact is, it did. In places like Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain a special force was needed to eradicate social opposition to capitalism and those societies were taken to civil war by fascist agents to preserve the existing order.

In Britain, France and the USA, the class forces were not right to support the development in sufficient strength of fascist organisations able to take power, even though strenuous efforts were made to develop them. The fascists were defeated by the industrial working class and it's organisations and those countries had to continue to exist with a strong body of opposition within.

Britain and France being capitalist were distinct from the workers' state and Germany and Italy were special in that although capitalist themselves, they had eradicated mass opposition to capitalism and their industrialists enjoyed special circumstances, by which to conduct their affairs. The economic imperative drove the various state leaders in different ways. The USSR had no need to expand geographically in order to grow economically and it was growing fast. Britain and France had empires of their own on which to rely, but beneath the diplomatic surface their antagonism was great and each sought the demise of the other to bolster their own position in the world market.

Hitler and Mussolini having mustered mass opposition to communism and defeated it, could now rest on their state power and rule over a capitalist nation where industrialists could enjoy cheap wages and long working hours, few safety restraints and no strikes. Some could even use slave labour provided by the work camps.

During the 1930s, Europe's capitalist economies were relatively stagnant and nobody seemed to have a clue as to how to get out of this situation. War had again become inevitable since the markets could not provide the conditions for a boom. The dictators of Germany and Italy had no answers and typically looked to territorial conquest to make them look good. The leaders of France and Britain cast juandiced eyes on each other's colonial possessions and Stalin sitting astride one of the strongest economies of the world, or at least the fastest growing, looked to preserving it's borders, fearing invasion from Germany and/or Poland. The USSR had already been invaded in 1919 after the gruesome war of 14-18, so Stalin was beset with an urgent need to build protective alliances albeit with capitalist powers.

Germany had been permitted to develop and to occupy considerable industrial power in Europe, at best taking advantage of the antagonism between Britain and France and at worst with Chamberlain's connivance, against France. France was no longer dominant having been ousted by Germany. Germany was still partitioned and therefore in a weakened state and would remain so as long as the Polish corridor existed intact. Hitler could still be controlled through economic sanction by the Western European powers and the changes during the late 30s gave Britain greater influence in Europe than she had hitherto enjoyed.

When Hitler tried to get Poland to agree to the link road between East and West Prussia and agree Germany's access to the Free port of Danzig, he was clearly trying to gain independence from the restraining hand of what remained of Versailles. Given the end of partition and access to a major port outside Germany, Hitler's economic power would grow and Britain's influence over him would diminish. There would be nothing to stop him, in alliance with Poland, overrunning the Ukraine and holding it's vast grain growing capacity to ransom. Hitler might then eliminate Poland and have all that grain for his own people with no need to buy from the world market and he could even have some control over world grain prices. Such a move would hit trade and the world economy still in a parlous state might spiral into a deeper crisis. Grain once occupied the place of oil in the minds of those with their eyes on the world economy

Hitler had to be stopped, but the German public now had a taste for unity between East and West Prussia. Hitler's reputation and future as a leader would hang on this question and he could not back away. The pact between Britain and Poland made war inevitable and this fact was recognised by the leaders of Europe at least - Chamberlain belatedly it seems.

Hilter went back to his generals and told them to prepare for war, thinking that Britain probably would not risk war over Poland. Chamberlain went away thinking that a cunning devil like Hitler would find a way out of the diplomatic impasse. France stood aghast and Stalin watched as he saw the shifting sand of Europe's alliances. He needed a friend to protect him from invasion by Poland, who had openly declared her intentions rgarding the Ukraine and perhaps Germany might go in with them. In the event, he saw his best chances of safety in alliance with Hitler. Now the Poles wouldn't dare touch him. Hitler having now secured the USSR as an ally felt himself to be in a stronger position and was able to put more pressure on the Poles to give ground.

Chamberlain saw that his own neck was on the block and strove to put the war-genie back into the bottle. He knew full well that Hitler did not want war with Britain. The question was; how seriously did he take Chamberlain's threats? He knew that he had given Hitler a lot of leeway and had appeared to lack resolve in the past, so he upped the stakes, making it clear that Britain would honour it's pact with Poland. Hitler it seems took this as bluster. Well of course, Chamberlain would say that, but the poor old duffer would find a
way to back down.

So as 1939 wore on towards September, everything hung on somebody backing down - Hitler could not and nor either could Chamberlain. Poland felt emboldened by Britain's approach and ever stronger promises of help - Hilter would not dare to attack. Poland developed an inflated notiton of her military power and publicly displayed it's armed forces, thumbing it's nose to Hitler and from all of this we can see how the situation knocked on and it became impossible for Europe to avoid war. The declaration was heard with a sense of relief. Europe had been holding it's breath for months and when war came it seemed like a total anti-climax, as if some formality had been served and life could now return to normal.

Europe's leaders were driven to war by differing considerations. Hilter needed to Unite Germany and Chamberlain needed to stop him. Poland wanted Ukraine's grain for herself and was not willing to share the spoils with Germany. Hitler had been slapped in the face, Chamberlain had been shown up and weakened diplomatically, the Poles had been flattered and emboldened way beyond their military and economic strength and Russia needed a friend. Oh, and I almost forgot, France could hardly stand by and see Germany become further dominant over Europe, so belatedly she threw in with Britain and Poland against Hitler - more as a make-weight than anything else.

The war was caused by economic antagonism, though the triggers were personal dignity.

Europe having played "musical beds" with shifting alliances for a time, was once again in perfect balance and everyone was safe, with the exception that they were now at war.

Vic Dale

[lwd]

....Capitalism relies on a social class for it's existence and since no such class existed in the USSR it is impossible for it to be a capitalist ...system.

No and no. Captialism doesn't require social classes and indeed has decreased the barriers beteen them. Further more it is hardly accurate to say that no social classes existed in the USSR.

The USSR was a worker's state...

Was it really? From what I've read of it I would hardly characterize it in that way.

... and it had a planned economy...

or an attempt at one.

... Capitalists play an esential part in the production cycle, whereas the Russian bureacracy played no part in production. They invested no personal assets, yet creamed off a fat living for themselves. They controlled the economy form above and never got teir hands dirty.

You say this after calling the USSR a workers state?????

... Slave society had a rich ruling class but there is no one with any sense who would call the Roman empire a capitalist society...

Why not?

Capitalism is a very distinct economic form, as is the worker's state and whatever we think of the two, unless we can distinguish between them, we will undertsnd nothing.

Capitalism in rality is a broad spectrum of economic forms and I'm not sure a real worker's state has ever existed although certain small comunities might qualify.

A planned economy, which is the essential ingredient in the worker's state enabled consistent growth at a rate in excess of 12% each year over a period of 60 years...

Documentation please. Alos why is a planned economy required for a worker's state?

This is not possible under capitalism since every so often the market shrinks due to the economic cycle and the system goes into recession. No such recessions are evident in the USSR....

Are you serious? In many ways the USSR was one long recession.

The relatively even development of the USSR through the successive economic crises of the 20s and 30s, highlighted the plight of the capitalist economies and showed up the flaws in the system.

If you're saying the history of the USSR during the 20s and 30s pointed to flaws in the western system you either have a very different defintion of "flaw" or have come from a not very parallel universe.

This of course is not to say the USSR was perfect, but at least the Bureacrats were able to plan their way out of trouble.

Plan there way by letting millions starve and shooting thousands of others. I'll do without such planning.

How sweet things must have looked in Russia to those America families forced out of their farms and homesteads by the economic crisis, or those bankrupted by the inflation in Germany of the 1920s ...

!!! You have got to be kidding.

.... The fascists were defeated by the industrial working class and it's organisations and those countries had to continue to exist with a strong body of opposition within.

Just how did the "industrial working class" defeat facism? The workers were in most cases as likely to support the fascist as they were to socialist.

...
During the 1930s, Europe's capitalist economies were relatively stagnant and nobody seemed to have a clue as to how to get out of this situation.

Sorry they were recovering nicely by the late 30s.