Yes, the soviet economy was a system of exchange. At no point did the fundamental system of the wage in exchange for labor get replaced, nor did the system of workers purchasing their primary needs get replaced. No doubt, there were some different form of exchange occurring on the black market, and with more regularity in the agriculture sector, but the official logic of the economy never abolished the commodity form. This is a different question then the one of who is involved in controlling relations of production.
To follow in Carrol's tradition, you might want to look at the Postone book, which criticizes 'traditional marxism' for tending to focus on distribution, rather than the production process itself. robert wood
> wrobert at uci.edu wrote:
>
>> The mistaken premise behind this argument is that the USSR got rid
>> of
>> the commodity. I don't even think Soviet economists would make that
>> argument. robert wood
>>
>
> Hmm. In the Dictionary of Marxist Thought entry for "Commodity," it says
> commodities are "products produced for a system of exchange." Was the
> Soviet economy a system of exchange? In any event, the way I originally
> phrased the issue, before slipping into a shorthand version, was:
> "Commodity exchange was abolished (at least as the dominant form of
> economic activity) in the Soviet Union."
>
> It's true that goods were exchanged, despite the fact that the exchange
> of goods was frowned upon by official dogma. Why do you think that is?
>
> SA
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>