> Lenin's (and later Stalin's) government was revolutionary in nature,
> its historic mission was the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
> So my point remains, I agree that Stalin's rule was a (long)
> transition to capitalism, but your assertion that it was a transition
> "from one stage of capitalism to another" appears to be at odds with
> the fact that Russia wasn't capitalist to begin with. (If you
> continue to assert it was already capitalist, when did the transition
> to capitalist rule take place?)
>
> It is also at odds with logic in that it is essentially asserting
> that the transition was from capitalism to capitalism. Which wouldn't
> be a transition at all of course, yet most surely some form of
> transition took place.
The two things are not mutually exclusive, because absolutism and feudalism are basically political systems, whereas capitalism is an economic one. Capitalism is more accurately described as the antithesis of subsistence agriculture and/or "small commodity production".
Even though the Russian Empire's population was ~70% peasants in 1917, and feudal social relations persisted, I think I'm right in asserting its GDP was already dominated by capitalist production. Clearly a society in transition _and_ one in which capitalism was winning. History elsewhere has shown that an absolutist monarchy can be as compatible with capitalism as oligarchy, liberal democracy, fascism and pseudo-communism (as in present-day China).
regards,
Grant.