Epitaph for the USSR: A Clock Without a Spring

Jul 6, 2026

The article examines the continuing relevance of debates about the Soviet Union for socialist theory and socialist practice after the “fall,” arguing that lessons from the failed transition from capitalism to the USSR extend beyond any Russian extreme. It frames the Marxist demand to explain what went wrong through a dialectical analysis of form and content. The discussion distinguishes matter from form and content from form, then applies these categories to capitalism, treating capital as self-valorising value realized through production.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages33

Reading Time1 h 23 min

Epitaph for the USSR

Transition from capitalism to the USSR

Dialectic of form and content

Capitalism and the role of capital

This article was downloaded by:[New York University]On:14 June 2015,At:02:21Publisher:Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH,UK Critique:Journal of Socialist Theory Publication details,includinq instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcso20 # Epitaph for the USSR:A clock without a spring Christopher J.ArthurPublished online:18 May 2009. To cite this article:Christopher J.Arthur(2002)Epitaph for the USSR:A clock without a spring,Critique:Journal of Socialist Theory,30:1,91-122,DOl:10.1080/03017600508413476 Tn link to this article:httn·//dx doi orn/101080/03017600508413476 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor &Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”)containedin the publications on our platform.However,Taylor &Francis,our agents,and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness,or suitability for any purpose of theContent.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses,actions,claims,proceedings,demands,costs,expenses,damages,and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content. This article may be used for research,teaching,and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematicreproduction,redistribution,reselling,loan,sub-licensing,systematic supply,or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Downloaded by [New York University] at 02:21 14 June 2015 # EPITAPH FOR THE USSR:A CLOCKWITHOUTA SPRING CHRISTOPHER J.ARTHUR It is important following the ‘fall'to point out that the debate over thenature of the Soviet Union is still germane to socialist theory and practice.Analysis of no-longer-existing socialism is significant more generally,for itis clear that the lessons are not specific to the extremes of the Russiansituation,but are relevant to the theory and practice of transition in general. Indeed the question of what a real and permanent supersession of capitalismrequires is now more pressing.Anyone interested in such a question mustdraw from the lessons of this failed attempt.And,anyone who is a Marxistmust give an account of ‘what went wrong'consonant with Marxist theoryitself.In the second part of this paper I sketch some views on thesequestions.In part three I consider the views of István Mészáros,which areembedded in his larger work,Beyond Capital.But first let me set the scenefor this analysis of the transition from capitalism to the USSR by addressingthe question of the dialectic of form and content. I It is necessary first to distinguish between matter and form on the one hand,and content and form on the other.If I cut a gingerbread man out of dough Downloaded by [New Yrk University] at 02:2114 June 2015 ## Epitaph for the USSR the dough is the matter out of which the form is made but it is not a content;the same form could be made out of any workable material;and the matteris indifferent to the form externally imposed on it.(A more interesting caseis the logical form of a proposition being independent of the variables in it.)We speak here then of the two sides indifferently united.²When we have acase of form and content the two sides penetrate one another such that justthis form fits just this content.We require this of a book in which thecontents should take the form of an orderly arrangement.However,whatcounts as orderly is not

FAQs

Why does the article treat the debate about the Soviet Union as still relevant?

Because, after the “fall,” analysis of no-longer-existing socialism still matters to socialist theory and practice and offers general lessons for transitions beyond the specific Russian case.

What methodological distinction does the article rely on before applying it to socialism?

It distinguishes matter from form and content from form, arguing that form and content mutually fit such that orderly arrangement depends not only on formal rules but also on the content’s requirements.

How does the article relate capital to form and content?

Capital is presented as form self-valorising value, with valorisation understood as embodied in production; capitalism becomes concrete only when capital takes control of production and produces itself through appropriating surplus labour.

Jul 6, 2026

Upload by Theodora