Debunking a myth: What did Lenin mean when he applied the term "state capitalism"?

[Led Zeppelin]

A lot of people here keep repeating the lie that Lenin "wanted state capitalism" because he "believed it was progressive". Actually, that's not true, or rather, it's not true when you totally disregard the context in which he was using and applying the term.

Since I keep seeing people posting Lenin quotes with a certain pride because they think they've exposed him as a supporter of state capitalism - even after I pointed out several times in the past that they are disregarding the context in which he used the term - I've decided to make this thread and use it as a point of reference for whenever I see someone doing that in the future.

Here's the chapter from an article by Trotsky exposing that lie and myth and explaining why, how and when Lenin used the term "state capitalism", and it also shows how even back in the 30's people tried to use that against him:

The Economy of the USSR

However, what interests us most within the limits of this analysis is the fact that Urbahns attempts also to include the economy of the USSR under the term “state capitalism.” And while so doing he refers – it is hardly believable! – to Lenin. There is only one possible way of explaining this reference: as the eternal inventor who creates a new theory a month, Urbahns has no time to read the books he refers to. Lenin did actually apply the term “state capitalism” but not to the Soviet economy as a whole, only to a certain section of it: the foreign concessions, the mixed industrial and commercial companies and, in part, the peasant and largely kulak [rich peasant] cooperatives under state control. All these are indubitable elements of capitalism, but since they are controlled by the state, and even function as mixed companies through its direct participation, Lenin conditionally, or, according to his own expression, “in quotes,” called these economic forms “state capitalism.” The conditioning of this term depended upon the fact that a proletarian, and not a bourgeois, state was involved; the quotation marks were intended to stress just this difference of no little importance. However, insofar as the proletarian state allowed private capital and permitted it within definite restrictions to exploit the workers, it shielded bourgeois relations under one of its wings. In this strictly limited sense, one could speak of “state capitalism.”

Lenin came out with this very term at the time of the transition to the NEP, when he presupposed that the concessions and the “mixed companies,” that is, enterprises based upon the correlation of state and private capital, would occupy a major position in the Soviet economy alongside of the pure state trusts and syndicates. In contradistinction to the state capitalist enterprises – concessions, etc., that is – Lenin defined the Soviet trusts and syndicates as “enterprises of a consistently socialist type.” Lenin envisioned the subsequent development of Soviet economy, of industry in particular, as a competition between the state capitalist and the pure state enterprises.

We trust that it is clear now within what limits Lenin used this term that has led Urbahns into temptation. In order to round out the theoretical catastrophe of the leader of the “Lenin(!)bund,” we must recall that, contrary to Lenin’s original expectations, neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role whatsoever in the development of the Soviet economy. Nothing has now remained generally of these “state capitalist” enterprises. On the other hand, the Soviet trusts whose fate appeared so very murky at the dawn of the NEP underwent a gigantic development in the years after Lenin’s death. Thus, if one were to use Lenin’s terminology conscientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one would have to say that the Soviet economic development completely bypassed the stage of “state capitalism” and unfolded along the channel of the enterprises of the “consistently socialist type.”

Here, however, we must also forestall any possible misunderstandings, and this time of just the opposite character. Lenin chose his terms with precision. He called the trusts not socialist enterprises, as the Stalinists now label them, but enterprises of the “socialist type.” Under Lenin’s pen, this subtle terminological distinction implied that the trusts will have the right to be called socialist not by type, not by tendency, that is, but by their genuine content – after the rural economy will have been revolutionized, after the contradiction between the city and the village will have been destroyed, after men will have learned to fully satisfy all human wants, in other words, only in proportion as a real socialist society would arise on the bases of nationalized industry and collectivized rural economy. Lenin conceived that the attainment of this goal would require the successive labors of two or three generations and, moreover, in indissoluble connection with the development of the international revolution.

To summarize: under state capitalism, in the strict sense of the word, we must understand the management of industrial and other enterprises by the bourgeois state on its own account, or the “regulating” intervention of the bourgeois state into the workings of private capitalist enterprises. By state capitalism “in quotes,” Lenin meant the control of the proletarian state over private capitalist enterprises and relations. Not one of these definitions applies from any side to the present Soviet economy. It remains a deep secret what concrete economic content Urbahns himself puts into his understanding of the Soviet “state capitalism.” To put it plainly, his newest theory is entirely built around a badly read quotation.

Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The revolutionary elements of the Second International (Lenin included) were very much influenced by a certain "schoolmaster" on socialist society and the transition to it, and you continue that tradition of The Social Revolution.



Contrast this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch18.htm


In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.

We see that inasmuch as the need for money-capital originates in the length of the working period, it is conditioned by two things: First, that money in general is the form in which every individual capital (apart from credit) must make its appearance in order to transform itself into productive capital; this follows from the nature of capitalist production and commodity-production in general.

And this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-we-need-t112805/index.html


Yet, when we examine the society that ‘revolutionary’ social democrats want to build immediately after their Revolution, it is most peculiar. The wages system is to be retained under socialism. This is a bit like the black slaves of pre-Civil War USA rising up against their slave masters – but once they have expelled them, not proceeding to abolish slavery! Instead, slavery would remain, but the slaves would elect and emancipate a select few of their number to manage the affairs of the plantation. The job of this new management would be to organise the slaves with a view to increasing production, promising a much fairer distribution of the resulting produce afterwards!

[...]

Crucially, in the lower phase of communism, there is no necessity for the intervention of a centralised administration of ’socialist’ planners to allocate consumption items according to some ‘socialist’ wages, taxation and pricing policy. Therefore, the significance of planning production and distribution on the basis of the measurement of labour hours is also political for it underlines workers’ real, rather than the nominal control of production and distribution, which occurs when these functions are separated.



With your conception of "socialism":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/understanding-economic-calculation-t92043/index.html?p=1285846


I speak here of the wages of labor. What, it will be said, will there be wages in the new society? Shall we not have abolished wage labor and money? How then can one speak of the wages of labor? These objections would be sound if the social revolution proposed to immediately abolish money. I maintain that this would be impossible. Money is the simplest means known up to the present time which makes it possible in as complicated a mechanism as that of the modern productive process, with its tremendous far-reaching division of labor, to secure the circulation of products and their distribution to the individual members of society. It is the means which makes it possible for each one to satisfy his necessities according to his individual inclination (to be sure within the bounds of his economic power). As a means to such circulation money will be found indispensable until something better is discovered. To be sure many of its functions, especially that of the measure of value, will disappear, at least in internal commerce.

So no matter how much you wish to sugar-coat your conception of "socialism," it is (albeit worker-controlled) state capitalism through and through.

[Wait a minute! I just made a major criticism of a certain "schoolmaster" - the horror! :glare: ]

[Dave B]

Well I think I will go one better and backwards from the linked articles of October 1, 1933 and provide one from Leon from November 14, 1922. Just to show that I read my Trotsky as well if nothing else.

Leon Trotsky

The First Five Years of the Communist International

Volume 2

The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia and
the Perspectives of the World Revolution

Delivered at the November 14, 1922 Session of
the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern [1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1492841#n1)

(Part I)

The Course of the Civil War





The alleged "capitulation" of the Soviet power to capitalism is deduced by the Social Democrats not from an analysis of facts and figures, but from vague generalities, as often as not from the term "state capitalism" which we employ in referring to our state economy. In my own opinion this term is neither exact nor happy. Comrade Lenin has already underscored in his report the need of enclosing this term in quotation marks, that is, of using it with the greatest caution.

The term "state capitalism" was thus put forward, or at all events, employed polemically by revolutionary Marxists against the reformists, for the purpose of explaining and proving that genuine socialization begins only after the conquest of power by the working class. The reformists, as you know, built their entire program around reforms. We Marxists never denied socialist reforms.

But we said that the epoch of socialist reforms would be inaugurated only after the conquest of power by the proletariat. There was a controversy over this. Today in Russia the power is in the hands of the working class. The most important industries are in the hands of the workers’ state. No class exploitation exists here, and consequently, neither does capitalism exist although its forms still persist.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/20.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/20.htm)


So there we have part of it at least, the forms of capitalism still persist.

But then we have the idea that ‘state capitalism’ as ‘employed polemically’ or which ‘which we employ in referring to our state economy’ is being taken out of context.

However Lenin himself puts the ‘form’ of ‘state capitalism under Soviet power’ firmly in the context of state capitalism in Germany and of the ‘accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out’.Thus;

Thus, V. I. Lenin, SESSION OF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C. APRIL 29, 1918



What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation.

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SAR18.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SAR18.html)

Now this business of whether or not Lenin put state capitalism in inverted comma’s or not can be a bit tedious and I would suggest that generally he didn’t and you can indeed quote Lenin state capitalist quotes without inverted comma’s until hell freezes over thus for instance from the Manchester Guardian my local rag;

V. I. Lenin, Interview With Arthur Ransome, Manchester Guardian Correspondent

October 27 - November 5, 1922





It is because one possible way to proceed to communism is through state capitalism, provided the state is controlled by the working class. This is exactly the position in the "present case".
we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism



http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm)


That is not to say the Lenin never put the term state capitalism in inverted comma’s however;

V. I. (http://www.revleft.com/1922/jan/21.htm)Lenin (http://www.revleft.com/1922/jan/22.htm), 597, To: L. D. TROTSKY




Comrade Trotsky:

I have no doubt that the Mensheviks have now intensified and will go on intensifying their most malicious agitation. I think, therefore, that there is need to intensify surveillance over and reprisals against them. I have already spoken about this with Unschlicht, and request you to find ten minutes or so for a conversation with him not by telephone. As for the substance of the matter—I think I agree with you. I now seem to be developing an urge to write an article on topics close to those you have referred to, but I shall nevertheless be hardly able to do this before a fortnight is out.

Therefore, it would be perhaps extremely useful if you were to join open battle in the press right away, naming this Menshevik, explaining the malicious whiteguard character of his speech, and issuing an impressive call to the Party to pull itself together. The term "state capitalism" is, in my opinion (and I have repeatedly argued with Bukharin about it), the only theoretically correct and necessary one to make inert Communists realise that the new policy is going forward in earnest.

But, of course, such malicious helpmates of the whiteguards, as all Mensheviks are, can pretend that they do not understand that state capitalism in a state with proletarian power can exist only as limited in time and sphere of extension, and conditions of its application, mode of supervision over it, etc



http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works//1922/jan/21b.htm (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works//1922/jan/21b.htm)

And when it came to discussing the ‘need to intensify surveillance over and reprisals against them’ ie the Mensheviks and S.R.’s, Lenin was also in the habit of dropping his inverted comma’s as well;


ON THE TASKS OF THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE UNDER THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY February 20, 1922





Intensification of reprisals against the political enemies of the Soviet power and the agents of the bourgeoisie ( specifically the Mensheviks and S.R.s); mounting of these reprisals by revolutionary tribunals and people’s courts in the swiftest, most revolutionary and expedient manner; compulsory staging of a number of model (as regards speed and force of repression, and explanation of their significance to the masses of people through the courts and the press) trials in Moscow, Petrograd, Kharkov and several other key centres;

influence on the people’s judges and members of revolutionary tribunals through the Party in the sense of improving the activity of the courts and intensifying the reprisals—all of this must be conducted systematically, persistently, with doggedness and mandatory reports (in the most concise, telegraphic style but business-like and exact, with obligatory statistics of how the P.C.J. chastises and learns to chastise the "communist" scoundrels who predominate among us and who know how to chatter and put on airs, but not how to work).

There is no evidence of any understanding of the fact that we recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is we— we conscious workers, we Communists—who are the state.

We allow only state capitalism, and as has been said, it is we who are the slate


P.S. There must not be the slightest mention of my letter in the press. Let anyone, who so wishes, write in his own name, without any mention of mine, and provide as many concrete data as possible.


http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm)


So what are we arguing now then that Bolshevik Russia went from Feudalism to state capitalism and presumably some time, after November 1922, to the lower phase of communism; to revert back again according to the Cliffists to state capitalism by 1928,





"The best known among them was a small fat pig named Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movements, and a shrill voice. He was a brilliant talker, and when he was arguing some difficult point he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white."

[Led Zeppelin]

However Lenin himself puts the ‘form’ of ‘state capitalism under Soviet power’ firmly in the context of state capitalism in Germany and of the ‘accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out’.Thus;

I was hoping someone would quote that, and I'm glad you did. Instead of us arguing about what Lenin meant when he used that term in 1918, it would be much better to quote Lenin himself saying what he meant at the time:


Whenever I wrote about the New Economic Policy I always quoted the article on state capitalism which I wrote in 1918 ["Left-Wing” Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality; part III]. This has more than once aroused doubts in the minds of certain young comrades but their doubts were mainly on abstract political points.

It seemed to them that the term “state capitalism” could not be applied to a system under which the means of production were owned by the working-class, a working-class that held political power. They did not notice, however, that I use the term “state capitalism", firstly, to connect historically our present position with the position adopted in my controversy with the so-called Left Communists; also, I argued at the time that state capitalism would be superior to our existing economy. It was important for me to show the continuity between ordinary state capitalism and the unusual, even very unusual, state capitalism to which I referred in introducing the reader to the New Economic Policy. Secondly, the practical purpose was always important to me. And the practical purpose of our New Economic Policy was to lease out concessions. In the prevailing circumstances, concessions in our country would unquestionably have been a pure type of state capitalism. That is how I argued about state capitalism.
Link (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm)

State capitalism not terrible but desirable.
Examples:
1) Concessions.
2) Co-operatives.
3) Commission agents.
4) Leases.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/x01.htm)

Notice how he puts it back in inverted comma's again because he wants to avoid confusing more people? So yes, when Trotsky says that Lenin was referring to the concessions, mixed industrial and commercial companies, peasant and largely kulak cooperatives under state control when he used that term, he was right. Lenin himself said it as well. Let me quote again what Trotsky said specifically:


Lenin did actually apply the term “state capitalism” but not to the Soviet economy as a whole, only to a certain section of it: the foreign concessions, the mixed industrial and commercial companies and, in part, the peasant and largely kulak [rich peasant] cooperatives under state control. All these are indubitable elements of capitalism, but since they are controlled by the state, and even function as mixed companies through its direct participation, Lenin conditionally, or, according to his own expression, “in quotes,” called these economic forms “state capitalism.” The conditioning of this term depended upon the fact that a proletarian, and not a bourgeois, state was involved

Also, he later clarified that he did not believe that "state capitalism" under Soviet power was the same as "state capitalism" in bourgeois countries:


The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.

Those to whom the question of our New Economic Policy—the only correct policy—is not quite clear, I would refer to the speeches of Comrade Trotsky and my own speech at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International[1] devoted to this question.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm)


Now this business of whether or not Lenin put state capitalism in inverted comma’s or not can be a bit tedious and I would suggest that generally he didn’t and you can indeed quote Lenin state capitalist quotes without inverted comma’s until hell freezes over thus for instance from the Manchester Guardian my local rag;

Well see above for an explanation of that. When Lenin used it without the inverted comma's, a lot of people were confused by it; "This has more than once aroused doubts in the minds of certain young comrades but their doubts were mainly on abstract political points".

I don't doubt that there were cases where he used the term without inverted comma's though, I just want to point out that in the article you quoted him doing that he also says this later on:


The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this—firstly, the proletarian state has given small producers freedom to trade ; and secondly, in respect of the means of production in large-scale industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of the principles of what in capitalist economics is called “state capitalism ”.
Link (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm)

He puts it back in inverted comma's, and explains what he means by applying the term. He's referring to the concessions, the mixed companies, the kulak and peasant cooperatives operating under the NEP, i.e., those things Trotsky said he referred to when applying the term.


So what are we arguing now then that Bolshevik Russia went from Feudalism to state capitalism and presumably some time, after November 1922, to the lower phase of communism; to revert back again according to the Cliffists to state capitalism by 1928,

No, we're not arguing that, at least I'm not. Trotsky argued that Lenin was wrong in originally believing that "state capitalism" would be the next stage of development, because the concessions, mixed companies and cooperatives were rooted out by what Lenin himself called "enterprises of the consistently socialist type (the means of production, the land on which the enterprises are situated, and the enterprises as a whole belonging to the state)":


We must recall that, contrary to Lenin’s original expectations, neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role whatsoever in the development of the Soviet economy. Nothing has now remained generally of these “state capitalist” enterprises. On the other hand, the Soviet trusts whose fate appeared so very murky at the dawn of the NEP underwent a gigantic development in the years after Lenin’s death. Thus, if one were to use Lenin’s terminology conscientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one would have to say that the Soviet economic development completely bypassed the stage of “state capitalism” and unfolded along the channel of the enterprises of the “consistently socialist type.”

But, I'll allow Lenin himself to say it:


In the course of the argument with these comrades I said, among other things: State capitalism is nothing to fear in Russia; it would be a step forward. That sounded very strange: How could state capitalism be a step forward in a Soviet socialist republic? I replied: Take a close look at the actual economic relations in Russia. We find at least five different economic systems, or structures, which, from bottom to top, are: first, the patriarchal economy, when the peasant farms produce only for their own needs, or are in a nomadic or semi-nomadic state, and we happen to have any number of these; second, small commodity production, when goods are sold on the market; third, capitalist production, the emergence of capitalists, small private capital; fourth, state capitalism, and fifth, socialism. And if we do take a close look we shall find all these relations in Russia’s economic system even today. In no circumstances must we forget what we have occasion to see very often, namely, the socialist attitude of workers at state factories, who collect fuel, raw materials and food, or try to arrange a proper distribution of manufactured goods among the peasants and to deliver them with their own transport facilities. That is socialism. But alongside is small enterprise, which very often exists independently of it. Why can it do so? Because large-scale industry is not back on its feet, and socialist factories are getting perhaps only one-tenth of what they should be getting. In consequence, small enterprise remains independent of the socialist factories. The incredible havoc, the shortage of fuel, raw materials and transport facilities allow small enterprise to exist separately from socialism. I ask you: What is state capitalism in these circumstances? It is the amalgamation of small-scale production. Capital amalgamates small enterprises and grows out of them. It is no use closing our eyes to this fact. Of course, a free market means a growth of capitalism; there’s no getting away from the fact. And anyone who tries to do so will be deluding himself. Capitalism will emerge wherever there is small enterprise and free exchange. But are we to be afraid of it, if we have control of the factories, transport and foreign trade? Let me repeat what I said then: I believe it to be incontrovertible that we need have no fear of this capitalism. Concessions are that kind of capitalism.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/09.htm)

What does Lenin refer to as companies and enterprises, or trusts, of the socialist type? He's referring to the ones that are entirely state owned, wherein no concessions have been granted and there are no "mixed" types of ownership. The fact is that this type of economy won out decisively over the state capitalist, patriarchal, small commodity production and purely capitalist types of economy by the 1930's. By the end of the 30's they were virtually non-existent.

So yes, Lenin did originally believe it was necessary for "state capitalism" to develop before companies of the socialist type could dominate the economic system. He believed this based on the numbers, which showed that the country was in ruins after the civil war. He correctly saw the struggle between the socialist part of the economy and the capitalist, and he correctly estimated the possibilities:


We retreated to state capitalism, but we did not retreat too far. We are now retreating to the state regulation of trade, but we shall not retreat too far. There are visible signs that the retreat is coming to an end; there are signs that we shall be able to stop this retreat in the not too distant future.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/nov/05.htm)

There is one important distinction to keep in mind however. The above argument is entirely based on the fact that there was a proletarian state being discussed and not a bourgeois or reactionary state. The arguments of the later state-capitalist theorists (Cliffites as you called them) can hold some validity when we take the historical context into account, because they claim that the Stalinist state was no longer proletarian, and therefore the "purely state owned" economy had become capitalist. When you take out the arbiter role the proletarian state played in the economic system, this is a valid conclusion to arrive at, even though I personally do not agree with it.

EDIT: I apologize for the many quotes, but given the nature of this discussion (what did Lenin write on this subject and what did he mean by it?) it is necessary to post them.

[Dave B]

Well thank you led Zeppelin for that almost amicable reply, I was expecting you to bite my head off. I can’t see any problem in providing windy quotes from Lenin and Trotsky in a section on theory on Leninism and state capitalism etc.

The links you have given I have provided before on this list I think , I have them on file anyway.

There is another one that may be of some interest, just trying to provide info and background rather than being antagonistic at the moment.

V. I. Lenin, Role and Functions of the Trade Unions, Under The New Economic Policy, Decision Of The C.C., R.C.P.(B.), January 12, 1922


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm)

I don’t think you gave it unless I missed it.

[robbo203]

What does Lenin refer to as companies and enterprises, or trusts, of the socialist type? He's referring to the ones that are entirely state owned, wherein no concessions have been granted and there are no "mixed" types of ownership. The fact is that this type of economy won out decisively over the state capitalist, patriarchal, small commodity production and purely capitalist types of economy by the 1930's. By the end of the 30's they were virtually non-existent.

So yes, Lenin did originally believe it was necessary for "state capitalism" to develop before companies of the socialist type could dominate the economic system. He believed this based on the numbers, which showed that the country was in ruins after the civil war. He correctly saw the struggle between the socialist part of the economy and the capitalist, and he correctly estimated the possibilities:.

The problem with your entire thesis is that despite what you say or what Lenin said, the trusts of the so called "socialist" type ARE examples of state capitalism. In point of fact Lenin himself specifically said that "socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". In describing socialism thus, he broke with the marxian tradition which made no distinction between socialism and communism.

So even in Lenin's view the "socialist type" trusts are examples of state capitalism because according to Lenin, "socialism" is state capitalist monopoly made to serve the whole people. That is still state capitalism however uncomfortable the term may be to you

[Led Zeppelin]

The problem with your entire thesis is that despite what you say or what Lenin said, the trusts of the so called "socialist" type ARE examples of state capitalism.

That's an entirely different claim than the one you put forward before on this forum, which was that Lenin actually "desired" state capitalism and believe it was necessary because he "wanted it".

That is the myth refuted above.

I'm not interested in debating whether or not you believe the "socialist element" of the Soviet economy was state capitalist or not. That's not the point of this thread.


In point of fact Lenin himself specifically said that "socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". In describing socialism thus, he broke with the marxian tradition which made no distinction between socialism and communism.

Either that, or you are doing what you usually do when you quote Lenin on this subject; ripping what he says and argues out of context, not just of his own writings but also of its historical setting.

For example, take the above quote. In my discussion with Dave B we covered that issue and it was already dealt with. Lenin wrote the piece you quoted from above in 1917, so even if we take it at face value like you do it would be irrelevant given his other writings later on which indicate a total reversion of his earlier position.

But even disregarding that, how about the context he wrote it in? He writes before that quote, the part which you conveniently left out:


Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm)

A capitalist monopoly that becomes a state monopoly (notice the term "capitalism" being left out all of a sudden?) and is run by a revolutionary democratic state, serves whose interests?

"Either the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism."

The entire point of Lenin here is that state capitalist monopolies and practices, which have "prepared the way for socialism" in terms of development, should be taken over by a revolutionary democratic workers' state and when that happens it becomes a step towards socialism.

Do you not believe that capitalism has paved the way for socialism in this manner? Do you not believe that capitalist monopolies have created a type of system that makes it easier for socialism to be introduced, given its material superiority over early mercantile or non-monopoly capitalism? Then you are going against the writings and theories of Marx and Engels, for they understood that the more advanced capitalism becomes, the more it "hands over tools" to the proletariat for effectively transforming the economy into a socialist one when those tools are socialized and taken over by the proletariat.

Further proof of this (and also taking into account the role of the proletarian revolutionary democratic state as opposed to a capitalist or reactionary one) is what he wrote in the same article about universal labour conscription, and the difference in using it in a capitalist state, in the interests of the capitalists, and in a revolutionary democratic state, in the interests of the working-class:


What is universal labour conscription?

It is a step forward on the basis of modern monopoly capitalism, a step towards the regulation of economic life as a whole, in accordance with a certain general plan, a step towards the economy of national labour and towards the prevention of its senseless wastage by capitalism.

In Germany it is the Junkers (landowners) and capitalists who are introducing universal labour conscription, and therefore it inevitably becomes war-time penal servitude for the workers.

But take the same institution and think over its significance in a revolutionary-democratic state. Universal labour conscription, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism. It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.

What Lenin is saying is that introducing socialism in an advanced capitalist state like Germany, which was dominated by state capitalist monopolies, would be a hell of a lot easier than in Russia, which wasn't developed as much as the former. He's also saying that using the "tools" created by capitalism and socializing them is a step towards socialism, and that means that those "tools" are no longer capitalist; "will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism".

If your understanding of socialism does not include the element of material advancement being a step closer towards "attaining" it, then you are not a Marxist.


So even in Lenin's view the "socialist type" trusts are examples of state capitalism because according to Lenin, "socialism" is state capitalist monopoly made to serve the whole people. That is still state capitalism however uncomfortable the term may be to you

Well no, according to Lenin state capitalist monopoly becomes "state monopoly" and is no longer capitalist when it is socialized, i.e., when it is taken over by a revolutionary democratic state.

Just to point out once more in greater detail how you ripped that quote out of context and tried to falsify what Lenin meant by doing so:


For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking.

Notice how he leaves out "capitalist" when he moves from referring to a capitalist state to referring to a revolutionary democratic state.

He doesn't even stop there (perhaps he knew that someone like you would still misinterpret it...) and goes on to say:


In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

After this, he writes the part that you quoted (isn't it odd how you left out the part that precedes it which explains what he means here?):


For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

Once again; when socialized by a revolutionary democratic state, state-capitalist monopoly becomes state monopoly, without the "capitalism", or in other words, it has to that extent "ceased to be capitalist monopoly " because it "serves the interests of the whole people".

Just take his point on universal labour conscription for which he uses the same argument and change it with state monopoly capitalism:


State monopoly capitalism, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism. (as he says above, it will just be "state monopoly") It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.

Notice how at the end he is talking about "a retreat back to capitalism". According to your take on his position he's referring here to retreating back to something that already existed and he wanted the revolutionary democratic state to introduce, that is, capitalism.

Quite odd isn't it?

It would be ridiculous for Lenin to refer to socialized parts of the economy as "capitalist" given his reference to them as: "Enterprises of the consistently socialist type (the means of production, the land on which the enterprises are situated, and the enterprises as a whole belonging to the state)". He only referred to the concessions, mixed companies, kulak cooperatives as "capitalist elements" of the Soviet economy, or "state capitalist" specifically (a lot of times with the quotation marks, especially later on because it confused some "young comrades" when he used it before).

If you wanted to find quotes of Lenin saying that "state capitalism" was a necessary step to take in the Soviet economy before the socialist element could become predominant you can scroll up and find them in the posts made by myself and Dave B. You'll also notice how we put them in historical context and the context of the rest of his writings, so that won't do you any good either.

I'm sorry but this myth is busted, and the reason I started this thread, I might add, is because I saw you posting it in another thread not too long ago.

[robbo203]

That's an entirely different claim than the one you put forward before on this forum, which was that Lenin actually "desired" state capitalism and believe it was necessary because he "wanted it".

That is the myth refuted above.

.

But he did want state capitalism and said so

In "Left Wing" Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality he insisted that :
"state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will become invincible in our country".

Elsewhere he noted that:

"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in coming forth, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it (Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 27, page 340.)

There are many other quotes to the same effect and critical of those who questioned the need for state capitalism. How else can you interpret these remarks except to think that Lenin must have" wanted" state capitalism

[Devrim]

I think that it is pretty clear that Lenin did 'want' state capitalism. Not because he thought that it was a good thing in itself, but because he believed it could be a step on the road to socialism. On this point, as on many others, history has proved him to have been completely wrong. State capitalism was established in Russia and it wasn't a step on the road to socialism. Lenin had no conception of the dangers that came with this policy despite constant warnings from within the party.

"We stand for the construction of the proletarian society by the class creativity of the workers themselves, not by the ukases of the captains of industry. . . if the proletariat itself does not know how to create the necessary prerequisites for the socialist organisation of labour no one can do this for it and no one can compel it to do this. The stick, if raised against the workers, will find itself in the hands of a social force which is either under the influence of another social class or is in the hands of the soviet power; but the soviet power will then be forced to seek support against the proletariat from another class (e.g. the peasantry) and by this it will destroy itself as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism and socialist organisation will be set up by the proletariat itself, or they will not be set up at all - something else will be set up - state capitalism".
Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

But he did want state capitalism and said so

In "Left Wing" Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality he insisted that :
"state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will become invincible in our country".

Elsewhere he noted that:

"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in coming forth, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it (Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 27, page 340.)

There are many other quotes to the same effect and critical of those who questioned the need for state capitalism. How else can you interpret these remarks except to think that Lenin must have" wanted" state capitalism


First of all, the quotes you posted in his arguments with the Left Communists? Yeah, if you had read the thread you'd have noticed me quoting Lenin explaining what he meant there (after some "young comrades" got a bit confused).

Here, I'll repost it for you:


Whenever I wrote about the New Economic Policy I always quoted the article on state capitalism which I wrote in 1918 ["Left-Wing” Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality; part III]. This has more than once aroused doubts in the minds of certain young comrades but their doubts were mainly on abstract political points.

It seemed to them that the term “state capitalism” could not be applied to a system under which the means of production were owned by the working-class, a working-class that held political power. They did not notice, however, that I use the term “state capitalism", firstly, to connect historically our present position with the position adopted in my controversy with the so-called Left Communists; also, I argued at the time that state capitalism would be superior to our existing economy. It was important for me to show the continuity between ordinary state capitalism and the unusual, even very unusual, state capitalism to which I referred in introducing the reader to the New Economic Policy. Secondly, the practical purpose was always important to me. And the practical purpose of our New Economic Policy was to lease out concessions. In the prevailing circumstances, concessions in our country would unquestionably have been a pure type of state capitalism. That is how I argued about state capitalism.

Secondly, you are missing the point.

Did you even bother to read my posts in this thread before you replied to it, or are you just going to rely on a few quotes you've googled while ignoring everything else Lenin wrote on the subject? Because that's what you are doing now.

When I said that he didn't "want" or "desire" state capitalism, I was referring to "state capitalism" without the quotation marks, that is, not simply the concessions which he talked about but also state capitalism as it exists in a capitalist state.

Once again, here you go:


Lenin did actually apply the term “state capitalism” but not to the Soviet economy as a whole, only to a certain section of it: the foreign concessions, the mixed industrial and commercial companies and, in part, the peasant and largely kulak [rich peasant] cooperatives under state control. All these are indubitable elements of capitalism, but since they are controlled by the state, and even function as mixed companies through its direct participation, Lenin conditionally, or, according to his own expression, “in quotes,” called these economic forms “state capitalism.” The conditioning of this term depended upon the fact that a proletarian, and not a bourgeois, state was involved; the quotation marks were intended to stress just this difference of no little importance. However, insofar as the proletarian state allowed private capital and permitted it within definite restrictions to exploit the workers, it shielded bourgeois relations under one of its wings. In this strictly limited sense, one could speak of “state capitalism.”

Again, a proletarian, and not a bourgeois state was involved. When you say: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!" you are distorting what he meant by using the term, and are turning the whole matter into a joke, and a rather bad one at that.

Yes, both before and after the failure of War Communism, which was described as "pure socialism", Lenin did call for temporary concessions, and the introduction of "state capitalism", because the material base for socialism did not exist. The country was in ruins after the Civil War and War Communism had proven to be a total failure in all respects.

I suppose that in this sense and referring to that definition of "state capitalism", you can say that he "wanted it" or "desired it", but that's a bit deceitful, or at least comes over as such. Because you claim that this was the be-all end-all of his views on "state capitalism". You claim that he wanted only "state capitalism", that "state capitalism" was his only objective, that he did not distinguish it from socialism, and all this while you don't even know what he meant when he used the term.

So when you claim that, as the quotes have proven, you are perpetuating a myth, and when a myth is perpetuated after the person who is doing so knows it is a myth, he has become a liar.

Furthermore:


We must recall that, contrary to Lenin’s original expectations, neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role whatsoever in the development of the Soviet economy. Nothing has now remained generally of these “state capitalist” enterprises. On the other hand, the Soviet trusts whose fate appeared so very murky at the dawn of the NEP underwent a gigantic development in the years after Lenin’s death. Thus, if one were to use Lenin’s terminology conscientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one would have to say that the Soviet economic development completely bypassed the stage of “state capitalism” and unfolded along the channel of the enterprises of the “consistently socialist type.”

Not that Lenin didn't severely downplay his "original expectations" (which you have quoted "without comprehension") later on.


Not because he thought that it was a good thing in itself, but because he believed it could be a step on the road to socialism.

Yes, that is true. That is actually the point I was making.

Though, you must take something into account here. The "state capitalism" Lenin spoke of is not the same as the state capitalism seen in capitalist states, at least not according to Lenin himself, because a proletarian state was involved and not a bourgeois one. According to Lenin, when the proletarian state was able to "contain" the "state capitalism", it could use it for its own purposes to advance the economic conditions of the country and in such a manner prepare the enterprises of the "consistently socialist type" to predominate the Soviet economy.

Those companies to which Lenin referred to as "state capitalist" actually were bypassed entirely by the ones that were entirely state-owned. Also, his "original expectations" as Trotsky refers to it were later toned down quite a bit (see the quotes I posted above from 1923 for example).

I know your contention is then probably that those entirely state-owned enterprises weren't "of the consistently socialist type" either but were capitalist, but that is not the "myth" this thread intends to deal with.

We seem to agree on the point that Lenin's end goal was not state capitalism over socialism, like some people (robbo for example) seem to believe.

On another point though that I find interesting:


Lenin had no conception of the dangers that came with this policy despite constant warnings from within the party.

Actually it seems like he did, because he warned that if the state was unable to preserve "complete democracy" it would fail:


It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.

[robbo203]

Secondly, you are missing the point.

Did you even bother to read my posts in this thread before you replied to it, or are you just going to rely on a few quotes you've googled while ignoring everything else Lenin wrote on the subject? Because that's what you are doing now.

When I said that he didn't "want" or "desire" state capitalism, I was referring to "state capitalism" without the quotation marks, that is, not simply the concessions which he talked about but also state capitalism as it exists in a capitalist state.


Again, a proletarian, and not a bourgeois state was involved. When you say: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!" you are distorting what he meant by using the term, and are turning the whole matter into a joke, and a rather bad one at that.I suppose that in this sense and referring to that definition of "state capitalism", you can say that he "wanted it" or "desired it", but that's a bit deceitful, or at least comes over as such. Because you claim that this was the be-all end-all of his views on "state capitalism". You claim that he wanted only "state capitalism", that "state capitalism" was his only objective, that he did not distinguish it from socialism, and all this while you don't even know what he meant when he used the term.:


You are making heavy weather of this and only succeeding in further tying yourself up in knots.

Look, I am well aware that Lenin distinguised by state capitalism under the capitalist state and state capitalism under the proletarian state - even though in practice I would contend that they are one and the same thing and that the "proletarian state" (so called) would in fact be a capitalist state in any case. But, as you say, this is not the point of this thread which is about what Lenin himself was thinking...

I am simply stating the plain fact that the state capitalism under the proletarian state variety was still neverthless state capitalism - obviously!! - and that Lenin equated this with socialism. "Socialism" was as Lenin said, state capitalism run in the interests of the whole people. What you are trying to do is suggest that I am saying Lenin advocated state--capitalism-under-the-capitalist-state variety or at least that this was all that he advocated. Not so. I did not suggest this. If you are going to ciritcise get your facts straight.

Talking of which I dont recall ever having said: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!"

Did Lenin "want" state capitalism. Of course he did! It is ridiculous to deny this. The quotes are all there for everyone to see in black and white. The fact that he meant by this something other than state capitalism under the capitalist state is not the point at issue since I havent denied this. But it was still state capitalism albeit of an (allegedly) different kind that he wanted. Are you seriously denying this? As for maintaining that Lenin distinguised state capitalism from socialism, while I dont "even know what he meant when he used the term", well, I gave you Lenin's own defintion of socialism "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". Please explain to me in simple plain English, if you can, how this definition of "socialism" does not equate socialism with state capitalism abeit a state capitalism "made to serve the interests of the whole people"


Whether he saw this state capitalism as a means to an end - communism - is a different matter . Contrary to what you state I did not actually claim Lenin " wanted only "state capitalism", that "state capitalism" was his only objective", but this does not preclude him wanting state capitalism, (if only for instrumentalist reasons as a means to end), does it now? My point was different : Even if Lenin wanted communism (and I am not denying he did), the Bolsheviks were doomed for objective historical reasons to pursue only one course of action - to develop capitalism - since communism (aka socialism) was simply not on the cards. In that sense Lenin was quintessentially a bourgeois revolutionary

[Led Zeppelin]

Look, I am well aware that Lenin distinguised by state capitalism under the capitalist state and state capitalism under the proletarian state - even though in practice I would contend that they are one and the same thing and that the "proletarian state" (so called) would in fact be a capitalist state in any case. But, as you say, this is not the point of this thread which is about what Lenin himself was thinking...

Actually that was partly the point of this thread. In other threads you have been going on and on ad nauseum about how Lenin was an evil state capitalist dictator, and when someone challenges you on it you quote those same pieces you quoted to me.

Other people may not have the patience or desire to argue with you about it any further when you do that, but I do, at least, up to this point I do.

Those quotes, when ripped out of context of his other writings and of the historical setting, are all you presented when you are confronted by this issue. Now it has been pointed out to you by explaining the historical setting and quoting the writings in full to bring back the context, that you were wrong.

So in the future, whenever you call Lenin a "state capitalist dictator", please be so kind to point out that you understand that when he referred to state capitalism he wasn't doing so in the same sense as it exists in capitalist nations with a bourgeois state, nor that he believed state capitalism to be the same as socialism.


I am simply stating the plain fact that the state capitalism under the proletarian state variety was still neverthless state capitalism - obviously!! - and that Lenin equated this with socialism. "Socialism" was as Lenin said state capitalism run in the interests of the whole people. What you are trying to do is suggest that I am saying Lenin advocated state--capitalism-under-the-capitalist-state variety. This is not actually what I was saying

Lenin never equated state capitalism with socialism. Did you even bother to read the entire article you quoted from in your previous post? Did you even bother to read this thread at all? Or are you just relying on those out of context quotes you probably snatched from some petty article?

Since you don't like reading articles you quote from, let me quote the parts that you "missed". From Left Wing" Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality, the piece you quoted from:


But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.

Let us enumerate these elements:

1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;

2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);

3) private capitalism;

4) state capitalism;

5) socialism.

Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific features of the situation.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)

Do you see number 5? Can you read what it says behind that number? Yeah, it says socialism. Amazing isn't it, he distinguished socialism from state capitalism. What a shock this must be to you. It really shouldn't have been if you had just bothered to read the pieces you quote from.

As for the other quote you rely on, the "state capitalism run in the interests of the whole people", I already dismantled your "point" on that in my previous post to which you did not bother to reply (because you couldn't), so there is no point in me repeating myself.


I dont recall ever having said: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!"

Do you recall saying this:


He [Lenin] wasnt an "anti-revolututionary". He was a capitalist revolutionary! Its as simple as that.

the Bolshevik revolution was a capitalist revolution and Lenin was, to all intents and purposes, a bourgeois revolutionary.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1493665&postcount=41)

By the way, about getting in those "knots", do you care to explain how Lenin, a bourgeois capitalist revolutionary according to you, could not want state capitalism like it exists in other bourgeois nations? I mean, you said above that you "didn't mean that".

Should I give you a knife to cut the rope so that you don't have the untie that knot? Because I don't think you can, it's too tangled at this point.


Did Lenin "want" state capitalism. Of course he did. It is ridiculous to deny this. The quotes are all there for everyone to see in black and white.

Sure, all the quotes are there to see in black and white, but it also requires people to read and comprehend them, and also take into account the historical context of course.

But yes, they can read all the quotes provided in this thread, in context, and they will draw their conclusions based on them. It is a lot better than drawing conclusions from a few snippets here and there.


The fact that he meant by this something other than state capitalism under the capitalist state is not the point at issue since I havent denied this.

I like this. You are again saying that you haven't denied this.

My above challenge stands:

Do you care to explain how Lenin, a bourgeois capitalist revolutionary according to you, could not want state capitalism like it exists in other bourgeois nations?


But it was still state capitalism albeit of an (allegedly) different kind that he wanted. Are you seriously denying this?

No. In fact I nor Trotsky in his article have denied this.

You would have known this if you had read what was posted...should I quote the specific parts wherein this is pointed out because you can't be bothered to read the posts in their entirety? If that is the case though, why bother posting in the thread in the first place?


Whether he saw this state capitalism as a means to an end is a different matter but it does not preclude him wanting state capitalism, (if only for instrumentalist reasons), does it now?

Wow, talk about knots.

In the same post; you first say that he equated state capitalism with socialism, then say that he might have seen it as a means to an end, and then also say that you agree that he didn't use the term state capitalism to describe the same thing in the context of bourgeois states.

Ok, that's great.

To answer your question, no it doesn't preclude that. You asked a question about something I had already answered:


Yes, both before and after the failure of War Communism, which was described as "pure socialism", Lenin did call for temporary concessions, and the introduction of "state capitalism", because the material base for socialism did not exist. The country was in ruins after the Civil War and War Communism had proven to be a total failure in all respects.

I suppose that in this sense and referring to that definition of "state capitalism", you can say that he "wanted it" or "desired it", but that's a bit deceitful, or at least comes over as such. Because you claim that this was the be-all end-all of his views on "state capitalism". You claim that he wanted only "state capitalism", that "state capitalism" was his only objective, that he did not distinguish it from socialism, and all this while you don't even know what he meant when he used the term.

If you want your claim to not come over as deceitful, you would also post the conditions in which he used that term and what he meant by it, which you are now aware of (and seemingly agree with even though it contradicts your "he was a bourgeois capitalist revolutionary" comment).


My point was different : Even if Lenin wanted communism (and I am not denying he did), the Bolsheviks were doomed for objective historical reasons to pursue only one course of action - to develop capitalism - since communism (aka socialism) was simply not on the cards. In that sense Lenin was quintessentially a bourgeois revolutionary

Well I don't want to divert this thread, but are you aware of the Trotskyist position regarding this matter? We were the ones who opposed the idea of "socialism in one country" because that is a contradiction in terms. We were the ones who pointed out that it was impossible for socialism to exist within one nation, let alone a backward one, because the material conditions for it did not exist.

Actually, are you even aware of Lenin's position on this? He said repeatedly that if the revolution failed to spread, the Russian cause was lost.

I really really really don't want this thread to turn into a "socialism in one country" debate, because that would just bury the original topic of the thread, but you seem to not be aware of Lenin and Trotsky's own positions regarding these matters, which is really odd because they actually agreed with the point you are making here.

EDIT: You edited your post and added something to which I have, unsurprisingly, already replied to. I'll quote what you posted and repost my reply just so people won't think that I'm unable to reply to it (that is, do the opposite of what you did which was not bothering to reply to 99% of my replies):


I gave you Lenin's own defintion of socialism "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". Please explain to me in simple plain English, if you can, how this definition of "socialism" does not equate socialism with state capitalism abeit a state capitalism "made to serve the interests of the whole people"

For example, take the above quote. In my discussion with Dave B we covered that issue and it was already dealt with. Lenin wrote the piece you quoted from above in 1917, so even if we take it at face value like you do it would be irrelevant given his other writings later on which indicate a total reversion of his earlier position.

But even disregarding that, how about the context he wrote it in? Just to point out once more in greater detail how you ripped that quote out of context and tried to falsify what Lenin meant by doing so, he writes before that quote, the part which you conveniently left out:


For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking.

Notice how he leaves out "capitalist" when he moves from referring to a capitalist state to referring to a revolutionary democratic state.

He doesn't even stop there (perhaps he knew that someone like you would still misinterpret it...) and goes on to say:


In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

After this, he writes the part that you quoted (isn't it odd how you left out the part that precedes it which explains what he means here?):


For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

Once again; when socialized by a revolutionary democratic state, state-capitalist monopoly becomes state monopoly, without the "capitalism", or in other words, it has to that extent "ceased to be capitalist monopoly " because it "serves the interests of the whole people".

Just take his point on universal labour conscription for which he uses the same argument (and writes in the same article, of course) and change it with state monopoly capitalism:


State monopoly capitalism, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism. (as he says above, it will just be "state monopoly") It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.

Notice how at the end he is talking about "a retreat back to capitalism". According to your take on his position he's referring here to retreating back to something that already existed and he wanted the revolutionary democratic state to introduce, that is, capitalism.

Quite odd isn't it?

[robbo203]

Actually that was partly the point of this thread. In other threads you have been going on and on ad nauseum about how Lenin was an evil state capitalist dictator, and when someone challenges you on it you quote those same pieces you quoted to me. .


Perhaps you would care to let me know when I said Lenin was an evil state capitalist dictator or more precisely "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!"
This is not the first time you have attributed to me words that I have not uttered.



Those quotes, when ripped out of context of his other writings and of the historical setting, are all you presented when you are confronted by this issue. Now it has been pointed out to you by explaining the historical setting and quoting the writings in full to bring back the context, that you were wrong.

So in the future, whenever you call Lenin a "state capitalist dictator", please be so kind to point out that you understand that when he referred to state capitalism he wasn't doing so in the same sense as it exists in capitalist nations with a bourgeois state, nor that he believed state capitalism to be the same as socialism..

Strewth. How many times do I have to repeat that quote to you where Lenin says as plainly as can be that socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. What is this if not equating socialism with state capitalism. True it is not the state capitalism of the capitalist state but it is still a variant of state capitalism isnt it. Yes or no? Instead of you evading this point, let me have a straight answer from you on this



Since you don't like reading articles you quote from, let me quote the parts that you "missed". From Left Wing" Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality, the piece you quoted from:
Do you see number 5? Can you read what it says behind that number? Yeah, it says socialism. Amazing isn't it, he distinguished socialism from state capitalism. What a shock this must be to you. It really shouldn't have been if you had just bothered to read the pieces you quote from.

On the contrary it is no shock to me at all. By state capitalism here (number 5) he is talking about the state capitalism under the capitalist state. I have never denied he distinguished this from the state capitalism of the proletarian state which for him is what constituted socialism. Has this not occured to you?

In response to my point


I dont recall ever having said: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!"

You say "Do you recall saying this: "

Originally Posted by You
He [Lenin] wasnt an "anti-revolututionary". He was a capitalist revolutionary! Its as simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You
the Bolshevik revolution was a capitalist revolution and Lenin was, to all intents and purposes, a bourgeois revolutionary.
Yes I do recall saying the above two things but I did not say Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!" . Be honest, you invented this quotation didnt you?



By the way, about getting in those "knots", do you care to explain how Lenin, a bourgeois capitalist revolutionary according to you, could not want state capitalism like it exists in other bourgeois nations? I mean, you said above that you "didn't mean that"..

Sigh. Becuase I have already explained to your not once but several times that irrespective of what he - the individual called Lenin - might have wanted , he and the Bolsheviks were DOOMED to only one course of action - to develop capitalism. It was in this objective sense that Lenin's role was to be a bourgeois revolutionary (notwithstanding the marxian sounding rhetoric he employed). I have further explained to you several times that although Lenin made a contrived distinction between the state capitalism under the proletarian state and the state capitalism under the bourgeois state this is an utterly bogus distinction in my view - even if Lenin imagined that it had some basis in reality.

You are a fine one to talk about me quoting Lenin out of context but you are constantly quoting me out of context to make a tendentious point!!




Wow, talk about knots.

In the same post; you first say that he equated state capitalism with socialism, then say that he might have seen it as a means to an end, and then also say that you agree that he didn't use the term state capitalism to describe the same thing in the context of bourgeois states."..

Well lets try and unravel this shall we? All ducks are birds. All geese are also birds. Now if I said Lenin defined a goose as a bird, you would no doubt be indignant at the very thought of it since according to you I had clearly overlooked that in Lenin's great opus, Traditional Cooking among the Russian Peasant Classes (see chapter 86, para 125) he had clearly stated that ducks were birds and that it was mere bourgeois revisionism and left wing childishessness to deny this most illuminating insight





If you want your claim to not come over as deceitful, you would also post the conditions in which he used that term and what he meant by it, which you are now aware of (and seemingly agree with even though it contradicts your "he was a bourgeois capitalist revolutionary" comment).


No it doesnt at all and it would be you who was being deceitful if you were to suggest that it does in the context of what I have written



Well I don't want to divert this thread, but are you aware of the Trotskyist position regarding this matter? We were the ones who opposed the idea of "socialism in one country" because that is a contradiction in terms. We were the ones who pointed out that it was impossible for socialism to exist within one nation, let alone a backward one, because the material conditions for it did not exist.

Actually, are you even aware of Lenin's position on this? He said repeatedly that if the revolution failed to spread, the Russian cause was lost.

Yes I am aware of this but are you aware that that was in 1917 and that a few years later he had changed his mind on this and was articulating a position much much closer to the "socialism in one country" perspective of Bukharin and Stalin. Trotsky followed Lenin some way along this conversion to the "socialism in one country" perspective but then went back to the original position he and Lenin shared in 1917.

There now , see, I can put Lenin in context too.....

[Led Zeppelin]

Perhaps you would care to let me know when I said Lenin was an evil state capitalist dictator or more precisely "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!"
This is not the first time you have attributed to me words that I have not uttered.

I've already quoted you saying that he was a state capitalist and bourgeois, and can probably dig up a quote by you saying that he was not democratic.

Do you want me to admit that you didn't specifically call him "evil"?


How many times do I have to repeat that quote to you where Lenin says as plainly as can be that socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. What is this if not equating socialism with state capitalism. True it is not the state capitalism of the capitalist state but it is still a variant of state capitalism isnt it. Yes or no? Instead of you evading this point, let me have a straight answer from you on this

Are you being serious at this point or has this just become a total joke to you?

I have specifically replied to that one sentence quote that you keep repeating like a parrot over two times now. I even added an edit to my previous post to do just that!

Either reply to what I said in my reply, or stop repeating that misrepresentation, because if you do, you are consciously misrepresenting a quote. People who do that are called liars.



On the contrary it is no shock to me at all. By state capitalism here (number 5) he is talking about the state capitalism under the capitalist state.

Wow, it seems as though you can't even read properly. Number 5 said socialism, not state capitalism. That was number 4.

And saying that by that he is referring to state capitalism under a capitalist state? He was referring to the economic situation of Russia at the time.

Do you ever read posts in their entirety before you reply to them?


In response to my point

I dont recall ever having said: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!"

Be honest, you invented this quotation didnt you?

Oh my...are we trying to dodge the issue now by making something entirely unrelated up?

I never posted it as a quotation, nor did I claim it was one, I said:

"In other threads you have been going on and on ad nauseum about how Lenin was an evil state capitalist dictator, and when someone challenges you on it you quote those same pieces you quoted to me."

And to repeat: I've already quoted you saying that he was a state capitalist and bourgeois, and can probably dig up a quote by you saying that he was not democratic.

Do you want me to admit that you didn't specifically call him "evil"?


Becuase I have already explained to your not once but several times that irrespective of what he - the individual called Lenin - might have wanted , he and the Bolsheviks were DOOMED to only one course of action - to develop capitalism. It was in this objective sense that Lenin's role was to be a bourgeois revolutionary (notwithstanding the marxian sounding rhetoric he employed). I have further explained to you several times that although Lenin made a contrived distinction between the state capitalism under the proletarian state and the state capitalism under the bourgeois state this is an utterly bogus distinction in my view - even if Lenin imagined that it had some basis in reality.

You are a fine one to talk about me quoting Lenin out of context but you are constantly quoting me out of context to make a tendentious point!!

Oh right, I guess that would make sense to some people, though I'm not sure what type of people or for what reason, I'm sure it does...

Basically what you said here is; It's irrelevant what Lenin wanted or believed, that was subjective, he was objectively a capitalist. Oh, but I am going to quote him saying that he supports state capitalism and argue that in this thread. Why? I don't know, I just feel like it.

I am starting to not take you seriously anymore.


Well lets try and unravel this shall we? All ducks are birds. All geese are also birds. Now if I said Lenin defined a goose as a bird, you would no doubt be indignant at the very thought of it since according to you I had clearly overlooked that in Lenin's great opus, Traditional Cooking among the Russian Peasant Classes (see chapter 86, para 125) he had clearly stated that ducks were birds and that it was mere bourgeois revisionism and left wing childishessness to deny this most illuminating insight

Nope, sorry, that lame attempt at wit didn't work.

Here, take this knife and cut the rope already:

http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/upload//8000/600/60/4/58664.jpg


No it doesnt at all and it would be you who was being deceitful if you were to suggest that it does in the context of what I have written

The only way that argument may work is if you admit you were wrong before, because what you said and argued then totally contradicts what you are (at some times) saying and arguing now.

If your position is the faux Orthodox Marxist one of: "Lenin was a state capitalist, even though he might have been genuine about his desire to want communism, because objective material conditions required him to be one", then fine. Stand by that and argue that. Don't come in here defending the myth that Lenin equated state capitalism with socialism or that he was himself a proponent of state capitalism as a be-all end-all goal.


Yes I am aware of this but are you aware that that was in 1917 and that a few years later he had changed his mind on this and was articulating a position much much closer to the "socialism in one country" perspective of Bukharin and Stalin. Trotsky followed Lenin some way along this conversion to the "socialism in one country" perspective but then went back to the original position he and Lenin shared in 1917.

There now , see, I can put Lenin in context too.....

No I am not aware of that because that never happened.

Send me the quotes via PM if you believe you have any and I will reply to you there, or start a new thread on it. I don't want to divert this thread any further, as I said.

[robbo203]

I've already quoted you saying that he was a state capitalist and bourgeois, and can probably dig up a quote by you saying that he was not democratic.

Do you want me to admit that you didn't specifically call him "evil"?.

Look, here is what you wrote:

"When you say: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!" you are distorting what he meant by using the term"

Now any reasonable person would assume that because you put this quotation in inverted commas that you were referring to something I actually wrote. I did not write these words. They are your invention. All I wanted to get you acknowledge was that this was the case. But as is usual in your case its like trying to get blood from a stone



I have specifically replied to that one sentence quote that you keep repeating like a parrot over two times now. I even added an edit to my previous post to do just that!

Either reply to what I said in my reply, or stop repeating that misrepresentation, because if you do, you are consciously misrepresenting a quote. People who do that are called liars."?.

Ehem ... how can I break this to you gently without you working yourself up into a tizz. Look, when I use a direct quote from Lenin I am hardly "misrepresenting" him. Unlike you (apparently) when I quote something I make use of the inverted commas to denote that this is what the person actually said or wrote. And this is the quote from Lenin I gave :

"socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly"


Now for the love of all that is holy and sacred , how the hell is this not saying socialism is state capitalism made to serve the interest of the whole people, eh? I mean , come on! This is getting surreal. There the words are - in black and white - staring you in the face and STILL you do not want to acknowlege what they say.

Yes I know know Lenin distinguished between "state capitalism" under capitalist state and "state capitalism" under the proletarian state. (In The Impending Catastrophe he said "But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts) And yes I know that when he talked of "state capitalism" he normally referred to the former. But as the above quote makes absolutely clear, he saw an essential continuity between state-capitalism-under-the-capitalist-state, and what he called socialism ,in terms of what they BOTH had in common - namely "state monopoly capitalism". In fact , just before this sentence Lenin writes this: "given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!" He then defines socialism as also being state capitalist monopoly but different in form from the state capitalist monopoly of the capitalist state insofar as it was "made to serve the interests of the whole people"

All this is as clear as can be yet perversely you still resist the argument that socialism was for Lenin a form of state capitalism albeit not the state capitalism of the capitalist state variety






Wow, it seems as though you can't even read properly. Number 5 said socialism, not state capitalism. That was number 4.

And saying that by that he is referring to state capitalism under a capitalist state? He was referring to the economic situation of Russia at the time.

Do you ever read posts in their entirety before you reply to them?


Yes I am very careful about reading my political opponents' posts in their entirety before delivering the final devastating counterblast blow :rolleyes:

According to you Lenin did not equate socialism with state capitalism because because in this case state capitalism and socialism were clearly differentiated in terms of being numbers 4 and 5. I responded by pointing out that in this case by "state capitalism" Lenin was clearly referring to the state capitalism of the capitalist state to which you retorted "He was referring to the economic situation of Russia at the time." Presumably what you mean by this is that since Russia was (allegedly) not a capitalist state but rather a so called proletarian state this means that I must be wrong. In other words since there was no capitalist state in your view this means that could not have been state capitalism of the capitalist state variety.

The problem with this argument is twofold. Firstly Lenin was quite candid about the proletarian state applying unquestionably "state capitalist" principles - in particular at the time the NEP Thus he said:
"The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this - firstly, the
proletarian state *has given small producers freedom to trade*; and
secondly, in respect to the *means of production in large-scale
industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of principles
of what in capitalist economies is called 'state capitalism*" Sostate capitalism of the capitalist state variety could still in principle exist under a socialled proletarian state

Secondly, you dont seem to have realised that you have fallen into a trap of your own making. If by saying of Lenin that "He was referring to the economic situation of Russia at the time" you mean he was talking about there being a proletarian state in Russia at the time and therefore there could not have been state-capitalism-of-the-capitalist-state variety then what precisely was the nature of the "state capitalism" that Lenin claimed existed in Russia at the time???? You do not say but since you are so resistent to the idea that lenin equated socialism with the form of state capitalism made to serve the interests of the whole people, you are left with only one option which is to admit that state-capitalism-of-the-capitalist-state variety must have existed alongside state-capitalism-of-the-propetarian-state variety which Lenin equated with socialism.

Incidentally while I say Lenin equated socialism with state capitalist monopoly made to serve the interests of the whole people, his defintion of socialism was not always consistent but changed over time. He also argued at one point that socialism was the "lower phase of communism" which radically departed from the traditional Marxian schema which regarded these terms as synonomous



Basically what you said here is; It's irrelevant what Lenin wanted or believed, that was subjective, he was objectively a capitalist. Oh, but I am going to quote him saying that he supports state capitalism and argue that in this thread. Why? I don't know, I just feel like it.

er.. nope thats not quite how I would put it. Lenin might have paid lip service to the idea of communism but insofar as he was the leader of a revolution that could not possibly be anything other than a capitalist revolution for the reasons I have already stated, he himself could not be anything other than a bourgeois revolitionary in the final analysis. In fact, more and more his ideas came to reflect the bourgeois nature of the revolution he headed. For example, he criticised taylorism in the pre revolutionary era but post revolution he fetishised worker discipline oin a way that is almost hyper capitalist. He urged workers to learn from the capitalist amongst them if they were to (supposedly) take over the running of the economy. More and more Lenin became an outright promoter of capitalist ideology and capitalist institutions. Look at what he said about banking for example: "A single State Bank, the biggest of the big . . .will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus." Now the notion that banks would exist in socialism. let alone be help up as something to be admired would be laughed out of court by any self respecting Marxist but this does give us some clue as to the ever shfting defintion of socialism that Lenin had in mind



If your position is the faux Orthodox Marxist one of: "Lenin was a state capitalist, even though he might have been genuine about his desire to want communism, because objective material conditions required him to be one", then fine. Stand by that and argue that. Don't come in here defending the myth that Lenin equated state capitalism with socialism or that he was himself a proponent of state capitalism as a be-all end-all goal.

I am not denying Lenin might have been "genuine about his desire to want communism" but objective circumstances compelled him instead to push forward a state capitalist agenda. But you are not being entirely honest here. Objective circumstances were also what forced Lenin to redefine what he meant by socialism which he did equate at one point with state capitalist monopoly made to to serve the interests of thre whole people however much you try to deny this point or brush it under the carpet. Nor is it particularly honest on your part to attribute to me the view that Lenin regarded state capitalism as the "be-all end-all goal". I never said this but on the contrary, argued instead that he saw state capitalism as the route to ultimately achieving a classless society. My argument is quite simply that state capitalism is not a route to communism at all but is a complete dead end and that by advocating it Lenin was effectively renouncing communism even if it were possible to achieve communism at the time which it was emphatically not.

[KC]

Look, here is what you wrote:

"When you say: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!" you are distorting what he meant by using the term"

Now any reasonable person would assume that because you put this quotation in inverted commas that you were referring to something I actually wrote. I did not write these words. They are your invention. All I wanted to get you acknowledge was that this was the case. But as is usual in your case its like trying to get blood from a stoneIt's called parody.


I am not denying Lenin might have been "genuine about his desire to want communism" but objective circumstances compelled him instead to push forward a state capitalist agenda.I suggest you read this:

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n97/bfernando4466/what-is-to-be-done-lg.jpg

It's good to know, though, that you would have stood on the side of the capitalists and against the workers in the Russian Revolution, as they were trying to 'go too far'. Damn those workers for attempting to emancipate themselves; it wasn't their turn!

[Hyacinth]

It's good to know, though, that you would have stood on the side of the capitalists and against the workers in the Russian Revolution, as they were trying to 'go too far'. Damn those workers for attempting to emancipate themselves; it wasn't their turn!
Rather than substantively respond to the post the best you can muster is a strawman and ad homienem? As well, it doesn't matter what Lenin, or the workers, or anyone wanted, insofar as objective conditions impose limits on what is actually possible. Lenin may well have had the best of intentions, but at the time it was simply technically impossible to implament an actual socialist economy, and the administrative necessities of running a state capitalist economy forced greater and greater power into the hands of bureaucrats thus resulting in a, very rapid, dissolusion of what little worker's control there was. And, as the experience of the Soviet system showed, state capitalism, in whatever form you want to spin it, is not the way to build socialism, and certainly not something that we want to repeat today, especially when we have better alternatives available (i.e., going directly to a socialist planned economy). Now, no one can really fault Lenin for pursuing state capitalism, insofar as there were no other viable alternatives, i.e., he didn't have a choice and didn't know any better, but, given the benefit of hiendsight, Leninists have no excuse today.

[robbo203]

It's good to know, though, that you would have stood on the side of the capitalists and against the workers in the Russian Revolution, as they were trying to 'go too far'. Damn those workers for attempting to emancipate themselves; it wasn't their turn!

And how do you figure this out, eh? I mean there I was arguing strenuously that the Bolshevik Revolution was in the final analysis a capitalist revolution since its outcome was the establishment of a system of state capitalism that brutally crushed the Russian proletariat and you have the nerve to say I would have stood on the side of the capitalists!!! The Bolsheviks were the party of state capitalism par excellence and it is precisely for that reason that I would have opposed them

[Led Zeppelin]

Look, here is what you wrote:

"When you say: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!" you are distorting what he meant by using the term"

Now any reasonable person would assume that because you put this quotation in inverted commas that you were referring to something I actually wrote. I did not write these words. They are your invention. All I wanted to get you acknowledge was that this was the case. But as is usual in your case its like trying to get blood from a stone

I see what you are doing now. I know exactly what I'm dealing with here, I have dealt with people like you before on this forum. You are one of those members who believe that replying for the sake of replying has any meaning, regardless of what the reply says. You are one of those who believe that having the last post in a thread or in a discussion means that you are "victorious" (oops, I used quotation marks again...).

That is not how it works. You have shown with your replies to me what your debating "style" (if it can even be called that) is. It consists of diverting the discussion from the main issue towards side-issues which are meaningless, pedantic and childish.

Therefore I will no longer be addressing you personally in my replies, but I will address the general reader, and expose to them your intellectually dishonest "technique" of debating.

So let me proceed. Robbo is here focusing on a sentence I wrote, for which I used quotation marks. In my previous reply, I pointed out two facts to him which he completely ignored, only to repeat his pedantic accusation once more. The sentence in question is this one: "Lenin was a state capitalist like the bourgeois are state capitalists! He was evil!", and I used that sentence as an illustration of what his position is on the issue.

The first fact that I pointed out was this:

I've already quoted you saying that he was a state capitalist and bourgeois, and can probably dig up a quote by you saying that he was not democratic.

Do you want me to admit that you didn't specifically call him "evil"?

The meaning of this is, of course, self-evident. I have quoted him to this effect (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1494052&postcount=12), so the illustration presented of his views in that sentence is correct, unless he recants his position and says he was wrong, which he has not done.

The second fact was this:

I never posted it as a quotation, nor did I claim it was one, I said:

"In other threads you have been going on and on ad nauseum about how Lenin was an evil state capitalist dictator, and when someone challenges you on it you quote those same pieces you quoted to me."

When I said here that I never posted it as a quotation, I mean that I never posted it as a direct quotation of him, of course, not that I didn't post it within quotation marks. Originally I had posted it without the quotation marks, but later I added them to it to, once again, illustrate a point and condense his position into that one sentence, while also adding the "evil" bit for the purpose of parody.

Any other person on this forum to whom this is done understands this simple thing. They also understand parody, naturally. To be fair, Robbo might have had a point here if what I wrote in that sentence was factually inaccurate. For example, if I had written: "You said; 'Hitler was great and Jews are evil!'", then yes, that is quite an intellectual dishonest thing of me to do, since he never held such a position.

However, the positions expressed in that sentence I wrote are held by him. I have quoted him to this effect, and he has not recanted what he said in those posts. Therefore, the whole "demand" of me to clarify something or admit that it wasn't a direct quote is a means of diversion.

The reason he does this is to take attention away from the elephant in the room of the discussion we had, which was the huge contradictions he put himself in, and can't get out of, because he refuses to admit that any contradicting statement he has made is wrong.

For example, when I say that I like eating pizza, but never eat donuts, then I have made a specific statement on the issue. When I say 5 minutes later that I actually like eating donuts as well as pizza, the other might say; "Wait, you said 5 minutes ago you never eat any?", then I can do two things. I can either say that I have changed my mind and my former statement was wrong, or I can say that no, actually, that statement still stands.

The other person would of course think I'm insane, and rightly so.

It's an embarrassment that I had to spend time responding to this pedantic tangent.


Look, when I use a direct quote from Lenin I am hardly "misrepresenting" him. Unlike you (apparently) when I quote something I make use of the inverted commas to denote that this is what the person actually said or wrote. And this is the quote from Lenin I gave :

"socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly"


Now for the love of all that is holy and sacred , how the hell is this not saying socialism is state capitalism made to serve the interest of the whole people, eh? I mean , come on! This is getting surreal. There the words are - in black and white - staring you in the face and STILL you do not want to acknowlege what they say.

This part reminds me of Glen Beck when he seemingly can't understand something like a scientific fact about Global Warming when it is presented to him by a scientist, and as a result thinks the world has gone mad and reality has turned into surreality.

Then when the person repeats the fact, he starts crying and appealing to emotion, eventually saying something like; "Cow farts are CO2 as well!".

Here Robbo is doing the same thing. He has taken one sentence out of a whole article written by Lenin, and claims that based on that sentence, his position on the issue is set. Anything else doesn't enter the equation. Nothing else exists. Not even the sentences written directly before or directly after that one sentence he has plucked out.

No, there is nothingness besides that one sentence.

Naturally, I have already replied to this absurd way of "thinking" (wishful thinking) several times now, like the scientist tried to explain repeatedly to Glen Beck that Cow farts do not cause global warming.

My reply was pretty simple to understand too; just read the whole article, including the sentences written before that one and after it to know what he means when Lenin says "and has to that extent ceased to be state capitalism".

What does he mean by it? Well, we can be like Robbo and say that we know what he meant by it because it's Lenin, the obvious state capitalist. We can also simply read the preceding sentences, or better yet, the whole article.

Seems like a better approach for a mature, developed human being to take.

So what do those preceding sentences say and what does the article as a whole argue? That I have already posted several times now, so I'll just go ahead and repost it once more since some people can't seem to grasp the concept of reading and comprehending a the same time.


Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

For example, take the above quote. In my discussion with Dave B we covered that issue and it was already dealt with. Lenin wrote the piece quoted from above in 1917, so even if we take it at face value like Robbo does, it would be irrelevant given his other writings later on which indicate a total reversion of his earlier position.

But even disregarding that, how about the context he wrote it in? Just to point out once more in greater detail how he ripped that quote out of context and tried to falsify what Lenin meant by doing so, he writes before that quote, the part which he conveniently left out:


For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking.

Notice how he leaves out "capitalist" when he moves from referring to a capitalist state to referring to a revolutionary democratic state.

He doesn't even stop there (perhaps he knew that someone like Robbo would still misinterpret it...) and goes on to say:


In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

After this, he writes the part that Robbo quoted.


For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

Isn't it odd how he left out the part that precedes it which explains what he means here? Also, isn't it odd how he left out the sentence directly preceding it which says that socialism is "the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly"? I wonder how something can be a "next step forward" from something else, when it is already the same thing? Oh never mind, I was wondering how that would work in the real world, as opposed to Robbo's imaginary one.

Once again; when socialized by a revolutionary democratic state, state-capitalist monopoly becomes state monopoly, without the "capitalism", or in other words, it has to that extent "ceased to be capitalist monopoly " because it "serves the interests of the whole people".

Just take his point on universal labour conscription for which he uses the same argument (and writes in the same article, of course) and change it with state monopoly capitalism:


State monopoly capitalism, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism. (as he says above, it will just be "state monopoly") It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.

Notice how at the end he is talking about "a retreat back to capitalism". According to Robbo's take on his position he's referring here to retreating back to something that already existed and he wanted the revolutionary democratic state to introduce, that is, capitalism.

Quite odd isn't it?

Though it isn't odd if you base your view of a whole article on a single sentence you've plucked from it. That's true.


In fact , just before this sentence Lenin writes this: "given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!"

It seems like Robbo has gotten his quote notepad in a mix. It is in fact a lie (yet another!) that preceding the sentence discussed above Lenin wrote that. In fact, Lenin wrote that in an entirely different article. The former is from 1917, the latter is from 1918, from his polemic with the Left-Communists.

That polemic has, incidentally, already been covered in this thread, though some may have missed it:


Whenever I wrote about the New Economic Policy I always quoted the article on state capitalism which I wrote in 1918 ["Left-Wing” Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality; part III]. This has more than once aroused doubts in the minds of certain young comrades but their doubts were mainly on abstract political points.

It seemed to them that the term “state capitalism” could not be applied to a system under which the means of production were owned by the working-class, a working-class that held political power. They did not notice, however, that I use the term “state capitalism", firstly, to connect historically our present position with the position adopted in my controversy with the so-called Left Communists; also, I argued at the time that state capitalism would be superior to our existing economy. It was important for me to show the continuity between ordinary state capitalism and the unusual, even very unusual, state capitalism to which I referred in introducing the reader to the New Economic Policy. Secondly, the practical purpose was always important to me. And the practical purpose of our New Economic Policy was to lease out concessions. In the prevailing circumstances, concessions in our country would unquestionably have been a pure type of state capitalism. That is how I argued about state capitalism.
Link (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm)



All this is as clear as can be yet perversely you still resist the argument that socialism was for Lenin a form of state capitalism albeit not the state capitalism of the capitalist state variety

The perverse speak of perversity, that is quite amusing. In Robbo's world, when Lenin makes a distinction between socialism and state capitalism, he is in fact not making such a distinction at all.

For example, when Lenin lists the economic categories of the Soviet Union, and numbers them even, giving two separate numbers to "state capitalism" and "socialism", this actually is the same thing. In Robbo's world, of course. The same world in which the sky is purple, pigs fly, and Marxism is treated as a misunderstood religion.

In the real world however, when Lenin speaks of socialism being the next step of state capitalism, he does so for a specific purpose. Not because he believes the former is the same as the latter, but because he believes the latter will develop the material conditions sufficiently for the former to be able to exist: "State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm)".

The reader might think that I am making this all up, because when they read Robbo's posts they may get the impression that everyone who posts here does it.

So I'll do what I have been doing throughout this thread when I say something was the position of Lenin; I'll quote him on it, and as an addition, a special treat to exhausted Robbo, I'll do it from the same article he quoted from (falsely) above:


Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).

At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state. This also is ABC.

[...]

It is because Russia cannot advance from the economic situation now existing here without traversing the ground which is common to state capitalism and to socialism (national accounting and control) that the attempt to frighten others as well as themselves with “evolution towards state capitalism” (Kommunist No. 1, p. 8, col. 1) is utter theoretical nonsense
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)

What's this? Lenin is speaking of traversing the ground which is common to both state capitalism and socialism, but did he not believe that both were one and the same? Oh, sorry, once again I mistook Robbo's world for the real one.

Moving on:


In the course of the argument with these comrades I said, among other things: State capitalism is nothing to fear in Russia; it would be a step forward. That sounded very strange: How could state capitalism be a step forward in a Soviet socialist republic? I replied: Take a close look at the actual economic relations in Russia. We find at least five different economic systems, or structures, which, from bottom to top, are: first, the patriarchal economy, when the peasant farms produce only for their own needs, or are in a nomadic or semi-nomadic state, and we happen to have any number of these; second, small commodity production, when goods are sold on the market; third, capitalist production, the emergence of capitalists, small private capital; fourth, state capitalism, and fifth, socialism.

And if we do take a close look we shall find all these relations in Russia’s economic system even today. In no circumstances must we forget what we have occasion to see very often, namely, the socialist attitude of workers at state factories, who collect fuel, raw materials and food, or try to arrange a proper distribution of manufactured goods among the peasants and to deliver them with their own transport facilities. That is socialism. But alongside is small enterprise, which very often exists independently of it. Why can it do so? Because large-scale industry is not back on its feet, and socialist factories are getting perhaps only one-tenth of what they should be getting. In consequence, small enterprise remains independent of the socialist factories. The incredible havoc, the shortage of fuel, raw materials and transport facilities allow small enterprise to exist separately from socialism.

I ask you: What is state capitalism in these circumstances? It is the amalgamation of small-scale production. Capital amalgamates small enterprises and grows out of them. It is no use closing our eyes to this fact. Of course, a free market means a growth of capitalism; there’s no getting away from the fact. And anyone who tries to do so will be deluding himself.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/09.htm)

This quote I had already posted in my first reply in this thread. The people who can read know what Lenin is saying here. There is no need for me to go into details to explain it. He is showing which economic systems existed in Russia at the time (in the real world, not Robbo's, so socialism and state capitalism are not considered the same), he then proceeds to explain, in detail, how the socialist economic system functioned, and then proceeds to show how the state capitalist system functioned.

There are no if's, ands or buts about it. It is plain fact. It is all in context. There is no denying it unless you want to behave like an ostrich and bury your head in the sand.

That's how you back up what you say. Most people here already know it so they don't need a lesson in it, but I know of at least one here who does, and I hope he's taking notes (but I don't get my hopes up, given his history here).

Moving on:



According to you Lenin did not equate socialism with state capitalism because because in this case state capitalism and socialism were clearly differentiated in terms of being numbers 4 and 5. I responded by pointing out that in this case by "state capitalism" Lenin was clearly referring to the state capitalism of the capitalist state

Caught in the act of falsifying yet again!

If the person who replied to the thread had read the posts in it, he would have noticed the above quote (which I had posted before) where Lenin clearly beyond any doubt does the same thing as when he "numbered" the economic systems, while adding that he is specifically talking about the situation in Russia, and even going into detail to explain what those systems each entailed.

Saying that makes me feel like when I step on a worm. It's a strange kind of feeling; guilt mixed with indifference because what you have just stepped on was weak and meaningless to begin with.


The problem with this argument is twofold. Firstly Lenin was quite candid about the proletarian state applying unquestionably "state capitalist" principles - in particular at the time the NEP Thus he said:
"The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this - firstly, the
proletarian state *has given small producers freedom to trade*; and
secondly, in respect to the *means of production in large-scale
industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of principles
of what in capitalist economies is called 'state capitalism*" Sostate capitalism of the capitalist state variety could still in principle exist under a socialled proletarian state

Secondly, you dont seem to have realised that you have fallen into a trap of your own making. If by saying of Lenin that "He was referring to the economic situation of Russia at the time" you mean he was talking about there being a proletarian state in Russia at the time and therefore there could not have been state-capitalism-of-the-capitalist-state variety then what precisely was the nature of the "state capitalism" that Lenin claimed existed in Russia at the time????

Third time you got caught in the act of falsifying in the same post!

This is incomprehensible clutter. He refers to a Lenin quote wherein Lenin says "the proletarian state has....", and then claims that there was no difference between the state capitalism enacted in the nation ruled by the proletarian state and the one enacted in a nation ruled by a bourgeois state.

Probably because he believes that the "...what in capitalist economies is called 'state capitalism" sentence proves a contradiction.

That is actually a falsification of the quote since Lenin said "...what it capitalist economics is called 'state capitalism'", so once again Robbo is lying:


The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this—firstly, the proletarian state has given small producers freedom to trade ; and secondly, in respect of the means of production in large-scale industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of the principles of what in capitalist economics is called “state capitalism ”.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm)

I suppose when one has no arguments based on facts, they have to start relying on lies and falsifications.


He also argued at one point that socialism was the "lower phase of communism" which radically departed from the traditional Marxian schema which regarded these terms as synonomous

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said that in Robbo's world Marxism is a misunderstood religion.

[robbo203]

When I said here that I never posted it as a quotation, I mean that I never posted it as a direct quotation of him, of course, not that I didn't post it within quotation marks. Originally I had posted it without the quotation marks, but later I added them to it to, once again, illustrate a point and condense his position into that one sentence, while also adding the "evil" bit for the purpose of parody..
Nice try but it wont wash. You only declared that you never posted it as a quotation ( even though it conforms precisely to formal appearance of a quotation complete with inverted commas), when your little ruse was rumbled and you were made to look completely silly. Still the matter has now been settled. You now agree I didnt write these words. Mission accomplished.



This part reminds me of Glen Beck when he seemingly can't understand something like a scientific fact about Global Warming when it is presented to him by a scientist, and as a result thinks the world has gone mad and reality has turned into surreality.
Then when the person repeats the fact, he starts crying and appealing to emotion, eventually saying something like; "Cow farts are CO2 as well!".
Here Robbo is doing the same thing. He has taken one sentence out of a whole article written by Lenin, and claims that based on that sentence, his position on the issue is set. Anything else doesn't enter the equation. Nothing else exists. Not even the sentences written directly before or directly after that one sentence he has plucked out.
No, there is nothingness besides that one sentence...


Instead of rambling on like a half wit about cows farting Co2 and Glen Beck's denial of global warming with a few assorted ad hominens thrown in for good measure, why not just stick to the point, eh? Did Lenin say "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". Yes or No? If yes, please explain how this does not mean he is equating socialism with a form of state capitalist monopoly. Oh and dont go on about how you have already answered this point. You haven't. You have constantly shied away from it and nearly bored us all to death with your tedious circumlocutions in the process



Naturally, I have already replied to this absurd way of "thinking" (wishful thinking) several times now, like the scientist tried to explain repeatedly to Glen Beck that Cow farts do not cause global warming....

No you haven't . That is just wishful thinking. Your whole argument has been exposed as bunkum and now you are desparately trying to save face by pretending that the point has already been covered



My reply was pretty simple to understand too; just read the whole article, including the sentences written before that one and after it to know what he means when Lenin says "and has to that extent ceased to be state capitalism".
What does he mean by it? Well, we can be like Robbo and say that we know what he meant by it because it's Lenin, the obvious state capitalist. We can also simply read the preceding sentences, or better yet, the whole article...

Sigh. Ive already explained this not once but severeal times. When Lenin talked about "state capitalism" and differentiated it from socialism he was talking about the state capitalism under the capitalist state.You know, like the "state capitalism" of the German wartime economy that he so admired and urged Russia to emulate. THIS is what he meant by "state capitalism" in contraditcintion to "socialism". Socialism was for him a step forward from this state capitalism but which neverthless incorporated a state capitalist essence.

If you still havent twigged this by now after all your long winded rambling irrelevant remarks then I have little hope for you. But I tell you what, I'll reproduce the quote in full and in context so you cannot accuse me yet again of "misrepresentation". Here it is from The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It:

"For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?
Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.
Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.
For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.
There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism. "

See? "Socialism" for Lenin is the next step forward from state capitalism and it entail a STATE CAPITALIST monopoly - not a socialist , or a communist or any of other kind of monopoly but "merely" a state capitalist monopoly - but one which is different in form from the state capitalist monopoly that is run in the interests of the "capitalists and landowners". But it is still a STATE CAPITALIST monopoly. Do you finally get it now. Has a little bell start to tinkle in your head. Am I making myself clear. Do you need me to repeat it once again. We can go through as many times as you wish. I am very very patient. Just tell me what part of the above do you dont understand. Do you not understand that when Lenin is talking about a state capitalist monopoly he means by this that that there is something called state capitalism, the essence of which is incorporated in his definition of socialism



Isn't it odd how he left out the part that precedes it which explains what he means here? Also, isn't it odd how he left out the sentence directly preceding it which says that socialism is "the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly"? I wonder how something can be a "next step forward" from something else, when it is already the same thing? Oh never mind, I was wondering how that would work in the real world, as opposed to Robbo's imaginary one....

Its very simple -they are not the same things. In the one case he is referring to state capitalist monopoly exercised in the interests of the "capitalists and landowner" under a capitalist state; in the other , he is referring to the state capitalist monopoly exercised in the interests of "the whole people" in his so called "socialist society". These two forms of state capitalist monopoly share in common the fact that - obviously - they both entail state capitalism but differ from each other in the way they are administered or rather in whose interests they are purportedly administered.

Elementary my dear Mr Watson!

[Led Zeppelin]

Still the matter has now been settled.

If the meaning of paraphrasing and parody had been known to Robbo, he would have been able to deduce what was meant by me writing that sentence.

The facts stand; his position on Lenin is that he was a capitalist bourgeois revolutionary dictator, and the quotes have been provided above.


Did Lenin say "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". Yes or No. If yes, please explain how this does not mean he is equating socialism with a form of state capitalist monopoly. Oh and dont claim you have already answered this point. You haven't. You have constantly shied away from it

Once again he takes out a snippet from my post and entirely ignores the part which contained the actual reply.

Then he has the audacity to demand a different response from me! "Don't say you have already replied to it! I don't care that you already have! Reply with something I can agree with! Give me a break!".

Childish pedantry.

If Robbo insists on repeating his lies and falsifications, I will insist on repeating my expositions of them:

He has taken one sentence out of a whole article written by Lenin, and claims that based on that sentence, his position on the issue is set. Anything else doesn't enter the equation. Nothing else exists. Not even the sentences written directly before or directly after that one sentence he has plucked out.

No, there is nothingness besides that one sentence.

Naturally, I have already replied to this absurd way of "thinking" (wishful thinking) several times now, like the scientist tried to explain repeatedly to Glen Beck that Cow farts do not cause global warming.

My reply was pretty simple to understand too; just read the whole article, including the sentences written before that one and after it to know what he means when Lenin says "and has to that extent ceased to be state capitalism".

What does he mean by it? Well, we can be like Robbo and say that we know what he meant by it because it's Lenin, the obvious state capitalist. We can also simply read the preceding sentences, or better yet, the whole article.

Seems like a better approach for a mature, developed human being to take.

So what do those preceding sentences say and what does the article as a whole argue? That I have already posted several times now, so I'll just go ahead and repost it once more since some people can't seem to grasp the concept of reading and comprehending a the same time.


Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

For example, take the above quote. In my discussion with Dave B we covered that issue and it was already dealt with. Lenin wrote the piece quoted from above in 1917, so even if we take it at face value like Robbo does, it would be irrelevant given his other writings later on which indicate a total reversion of his earlier position.

But even disregarding that, how about the context he wrote it in? Just to point out once more in greater detail how he ripped that quote out of context and tried to falsify what Lenin meant by doing so, he writes before that quote, the part which he conveniently left out:


For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking.

Notice how he leaves out "capitalist" when he moves from referring to a capitalist state to referring to a revolutionary democratic state.

He doesn't even stop there (perhaps he knew that someone like Robbo would still misinterpret it...) and goes on to say:


In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

After this, he writes the part that Robbo quoted.


For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

Isn't it odd how he left out the part that precedes it which explains what he means here? Also, isn't it odd how he left out the sentence directly preceding it which says that socialism is "the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly"? I wonder how something can be a "next step forward" from something else, when it is already the same thing? Oh never mind, I was wondering how that would work in the real world, as opposed to Robbo's imaginary one.

Once again; when socialized by a revolutionary democratic state, state-capitalist monopoly becomes state monopoly, without the "capitalism", or in other words, it has to that extent "ceased to be capitalist monopoly " because it "serves the interests of the whole people".

Just take his point on universal labour conscription for which he uses the same argument (and writes in the same article, of course) and change it with state monopoly capitalism:


State monopoly capitalism, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism. (as he says above, it will just be "state monopoly") It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.

Notice how at the end he is talking about "a retreat back to capitalism". According to Robbo's take on his position he's referring here to retreating back to something that already existed and he wanted the revolutionary democratic state to introduce, that is, capitalism.

Quite odd isn't it?

Though it isn't odd if you base your view of a whole article on a single sentence you've plucked from it. That's true.


circumlocutions

Put down the dictionary and stop googling for synonyms. We can tell you're bullshitting by your poor grammar and terrible writing style.


No you haven't.

By the count of sane people, it has been replied to five times now in the thread in general, and once in this specific post (see above).

If people are illiterate or unable to reply and therefore have to deny that a reply was made, that is not the problem of others.


Ive already explained this not once but severeal times. When Lenin talked about state capitalism and differentiated it from socialism he was talking about the state capitalism under the capitalist.

This was proven to be a lie and falsification above, and Robbo produced a doctored quote from Lenin to back it up (notice how he didn't reply to any of the expositions of his lies).

I shall have to reproduce this, since Robbo keeps reproducing his lies:

Moving on:


In the course of the argument with these comrades I said, among other things: State capitalism is nothing to fear in Russia; it would be a step forward. That sounded very strange: How could state capitalism be a step forward in a Soviet socialist republic? I replied: Take a close look at the actual economic relations in Russia. We find at least five different economic systems, or structures, which, from bottom to top, are: first, the patriarchal economy, when the peasant farms produce only for their own needs, or are in a nomadic or semi-nomadic state, and we happen to have any number of these; second, small commodity production, when goods are sold on the market; third, capitalist production, the emergence of capitalists, small private capital; fourth, state capitalism, and fifth, socialism.

And if we do take a close look we shall find all these relations in Russia’s economic system even today. In no circumstances must we forget what we have occasion to see very often, namely, the socialist attitude of workers at state factories, who collect fuel, raw materials and food, or try to arrange a proper distribution of manufactured goods among the peasants and to deliver them with their own transport facilities. That is socialism. But alongside is small enterprise, which very often exists independently of it. Why can it do so? Because large-scale industry is not back on its feet, and socialist factories are getting perhaps only one-tenth of what they should be getting. In consequence, small enterprise remains independent of the socialist factories. The incredible havoc, the shortage of fuel, raw materials and transport facilities allow small enterprise to exist separately from socialism.

I ask you: What is state capitalism in these circumstances? It is the amalgamation of small-scale production. Capital amalgamates small enterprises and grows out of them. It is no use closing our eyes to this fact. Of course, a free market means a growth of capitalism; there’s no getting away from the fact. And anyone who tries to do so will be deluding himself.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/09.htm)

This quote I had already posted in my first reply in this thread. The people who can read know what Lenin is saying here. There is no need for me to go into details to explain it. He is showing which economic systems existed in Russia at the time (in the real world, not Robbo's, so socialism and state capitalism are not considered the same), he then proceeds to explain, in detail, how the socialist economic system functioned, and then proceeds to show how the state capitalist system functioned.

There are no if's, ands or buts about it. It is plain fact. It is all in context. There is no denying it unless you want to behave like an ostrich and bury your head in the sand.

That's how you back up what you say. Most people here already know it so they don't need a lesson in it, but I know of at least one here who does, and I hope he's taking notes (but I don't get my hopes up, given his history here).

Moving on:



According to you Lenin did not equate socialism with state capitalism because because in this case state capitalism and socialism were clearly differentiated in terms of being numbers 4 and 5. I responded by pointing out that in this case by "state capitalism" Lenin was clearly referring to the state capitalism of the capitalist state

Caught in the act of falsifying yet again!

If the person who replied to the thread had read the posts in it, he would have noticed the above quote (which I had posted before) where Lenin clearly beyond any doubt does the same thing as when he "numbered" the economic systems, while adding that he is specifically talking about the situation in Russia, and even going into detail to explain what those systems each entailed.

Make no mistake about it, I will continue posting my expositions of Robbo's lies and falsifications for as long as he keeps repeating them. In fact, he is the main reason I started this thread. I saw his inane ramblings about the evil state capitalist bourgeois revolutionary Lenin, and got sick and tired of it, in the same manner that I get sick and tired of other people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about but think they do because they've read some "Leninism for 'Orthodox' Marxist dummies" articles and books (the doctored quote he posted above, replacing "capitalist economics" with "capitalist economies" traced back to some pathetic newsgroup discussion).

When you bury yourself deep enough in a hole, you'll end up having to use whatever you can find to get out of it. When you're in too deep and you're desperatively trying to claw your way out with your fingernails, the rest of us who are looking down at you just point and laugh.

And that is what I am doing at this point.

Now I know why Comradeom didn't reply to Robbo in that other thread. He knew that replying to Robbo is like bouncing a ball off a wall; you keep getting the same thing back, only with each throw it's a bit older, dirtier, and boring.

[robbo203]

OK so effectively what you are saying is you are not going to bother answering my point that when Lenin referred to "state capitalist monopoly" he meant by this, two things - State capitalist monopoly run in the interests of capitalists and landowners and state capitalist monopoly run in the interests of the whole people. It was the latter which Lenin clearly meant by "socialism".

Frankly it doesnt bother that you prefer to bury your head in the sand and ignore the arguments presented. Its your prerogative. This argument is clearly not going to go anywhere so I think we will just have to agree to disgaree. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on someone who thinks that an intelligent way to conduct a debate is copy and paste vasts screed of irrelevant guff that he already posted.

[Led Zeppelin]

Your sleight of hand is not going to work on anyone here. I already know what you're all about:

You are one of those members who believe that replying for the sake of replying has any meaning, regardless of what the reply says. You are one of those who believe that having the last post in a thread or in a discussion means that you are "victorious" (oops, I used quotation marks again...).

That is not how it works.

You have failed to reply to my posts consistently, and that is the only thing you have been consistent in.

[Dave B]

State capitalism 180709

I think Robbo has some justification in stating that Lenin appeared or accepted the ‘usual’ definition of the lower phase of communism as socialism. Although I don’t have that much interest here in going into the minutiae of that argument.

V. I. LENIN, THE STATE, AND REVOLUTION




"But in striving for Socialism we are convinced that it will develop into Communism and, hence, that the need for violence against people in general, for the subordination of one man to another, and of one section of the population to another, will vanish altogether since people will become accustomed."

"And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called Socialism) "bourgeois right" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois right" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property.


To that extent -- and to that extent alone -- "bourgeois right" disappears. However, it continues to exist as far as its other part is concerned; it continues to exist in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labour among the members of society. The socialist principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat," is already realized; the other socialist principle: "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour," is also already realized.

But this is not yet Communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois right," which gives to unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labour, equal amounts of products."


http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SR17.html#c5s3 (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SR17.html)

I think in 1917 Lenin certainly did consider that nationalised industries or state capitalism under the control of a ‘workers government’ would be directly transformed into socialism.


In fact it was written into the Party Programme in October 1917 contemporary with the Impending Catastrophe pamphlet. It was also written under the minimum programme section and there is no suggestion that it involved any change in the way they would operate ‘economically’.



V. I. Lenin, REVISION OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME

Written October 6-8, (19-21), 1917





This is the objective state of affairs. In a revolutionary situation, during a revolution, however, state monopoly capitalism is directly transformed into socialism. During a revolution it is impossible to move forward without moving towards socialism -- this is the objective state of affairs created by war and revolution.

It was taken cognisance of by our April Conference, which put forward the slogans, "a Soviet Republic" (the political form of the dictatorship of the proletariat), and the nationalisation of banks and syndicates (a basic measure in the transition towards socialism).


http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/RPP17.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/RPP17.html)


We can see all the ‘dialectical’ confusion here that runs through the whole thing as in the same sentence the nationalisation of ‘state monopoly capitalism is directly transformed into socialism’ whilst being ‘a basic measure in the transition towards socialism’.

Anyway I think what is being argued by Led is that when Lenin was singing the praises and advantages of state capitalism after 1917; that he was just referring to one form of ‘state capitalism’, I am putting it in italics and inverted comma’s in an attempt not to prejudice the debate to early at this point.


The form of ‘state capitalism’ that he was allegedly only referring to post 1917 was; where nationalised means of production and natural resources eg factories, mines and forests etc were rented or leased out to real capitalists for them to exploit and make a profit out of the workers in their own way etc.



(How similar this was to the German state capitalism that Lenin was still copying after 1917 I will l leave alone.)

In this system;

The profit would be split between the capitalist who in this case would be a ‘functioning capitalist’ and would receive ‘profit of enterprise’. And the rest would go to the state as technically ‘interest’ or rent on loaned capital and ‘surplus profit’ due to differential ground rent or as Lenin seems to put it ‘superprofits’, which could be an adequate Russian translation of ‘surplus profit’.

Whether or not Lenin fully understood these subtleties of volume III is questionable but I am sure Sokolnikov did.


Anyway lets allow Lenin to put it his own way;



Concessions are the simplest example of how the Soviet government directs the development of capitalism into the channels of state capitalism and "implants" state capitalism. We all agree now that concessions are necessary, but have we all thought about the implications? What are concessions under the Soviet system, viewed in the light of the above-mentioned forms of economy and their interrelations?

They are an agreement, an alliance, a bloc between the Soviet, i.e., proletarian, state power and state capitalism against the small-proprietor (patriarchal and petty-bourgeois) element.

The concessionaire is a capitalist. He conducts his business on capitalist lines, for profit, and is willing to enter into an agreement with the proletarian government in order to obtain superprofits or raw materials which he cannot otherwise obtain, or can obtain only with great difficulty. Soviet power gains by the development of the productive forces, and by securing an increased quantity of goods immediately, or within a very short period.


We have, say, a hundred oilfields, mines and forest tracts. We cannot develop all of them for we lack the machines, the food and the transport. This is also why we are doing next to nothing to develop the other territories. Owing to the insufficient development of the large enterprises the small-proprietor element is more pronounced in all its forms, and this is reflected in the deterioration of the surrounding (and later the whole of) peasant farming, the disruption of its productive forces, the decline in its confidence in the Soviet power, pilfering and widespread petty (the most dangerous) profiteering, etc.


By "implanting" state capitalism in the form of concessions, the Soviet government strengthens large-scale production as against petty production, advanced production as against backward production, and machine production as against hand production. It also obtains a larger quantity of the products of large-scale industry (its share of the output), and strengthens state regulated economic relations as against the anarchy of petty-bourgeois relations. The moderate and cautious application of the concessions policy will undoubtedly help us quickly to improve (to a modest extent) the state of industry and the condition of the workers and peasants.


We shall, of course, have all this at the price of certain sacrifices and the surrender to the capitalist of many millions of poods of very valuable products. The scale and the conditions under which concessions cease to be a danger and are turned to our advantage depend on the relation of forces and are decided in the struggle, for concessions are also a form of struggle, and are a continuation of the class struggle in another form, and in no circumstances are they a substitution of class peace for class war. Practice will determine the methods of struggle.


Compared with other forms of state capitalism within the Soviet system, concessions are perhaps the most simple and clear-cut form of state capitalism.


http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TXK21.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TXK21.html)


That would imply that there was a less clear cut form of state capitalism within the Soviet system at least. And it isn’t always clear cut that when Lenin is advocating state capitalism; that he isn’t also including the less clear cut variety.

You could argue I suppose that even if state-capitalist enterprises and the general economy are permeated with the principles of capitalist economy that they are not state capitalist only because they are run in the interests of the working class.


That was clearly an argument that a recently reconciled Nikolai Bukharin put in 1922 to square the circle so speak;



Enterprises of the Proletarian Government. – These embrace the enterprises nationalized by the Proletarian Government. They are a state monopoly. However, they are not state capitalist monopolies, since, in case of the latter, the bourgeoisie, as controllers of the government, would be the true owners of the enterprise. In our case, the working classes are the owners of nationalized undertakings.

Since forms of production are characterized by ownership, it is perfectly clear that we cannot designate enterprises belonging to a laboring man’s government as state capitalist undertakings.

On the other side, these enterprises are not Socialist units of production in the strict sense of the word; for a Socialist economy, it goes without saying, assumes a complete and harmonious system of production and distribution. In Russia, however, especially under the conditions amid which we are now working, a systematic and harmonious plan of production, accommodated to the consumptive demands of the country, is of minor significance.

The circumstances that our undertakings copy the methods of capitalist enterprises, pay wages, and sell their products in the market, do not make them capitalist so far as ownership is concerned.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1922/economic-organisation.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1922/economic-organisation.htm)

Now I know Bukharin isn’t Lenin but it is at least clear and succinct and perhaps helps to fill in the gap concerning Lenin’s less clear cut form of state capitalism as well in the same article clearly laying out the other ‘systems’ within the soviet economy.

Some of us who don’t think Lenin had many pretensions when it came to working class control of industry can probably better appreciate why Lenin might have wanted to give that one a wide birth.

The argument obviously reappeared 30 years later with Cliff, eg;


http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch05.htm)



Sokolnikov the peoples commisar of finance was perhaps a bit more blunt, courtesy of Stalin.



Our foreign trade is being conducted as a state-capitalist enterprise. . . . Our internal trading companies are also state-capitalist enterprises. And I must say, comrades, that the State Bank is just as much a state-capitalist enterprise. What about our monetary system? Our monetary system is based on the fact that in Soviet economy, under the conditions in which socialism is being built, there has been adopted a monetary system which is permeated with the principles of capitalist economy."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/12/18.htm#7._Concerning_State_Capitalism_ (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/12/18.htm)

When it comes to evil Lenin, state capitalism, democracy etc etc. We can side step a direct counter attack by merely quoting someone else;

Karl Kautsky, Social Democracy versus Communism

4. Lenin and the Russian Revolution of 1917




Upon the ruins of democracy, for which Lenin had fought until 1917, he erected his political power. Upon these ruins he set up a new militarist-bureaucratic police machinery of state, a new autocracy. This gave him weapons against the other Socialists even more potent than shameless lies. He now had in his hands all the instruments of repression which czarism had used, adding to these weapons also those instruments of oppression which the capitalist, as the owner of the means of production, uses against wage slaves. Lenin now commanded all the means of production, utilizing his state power for the erection of his state capitalism.

No form of capitalism makes the workers so absolutely dependent upon it as centralized state capitalism in a state without an effective democracy. And no political police is so powerful and omnipresent as the Cheka or G.P.U., created by men who had spent many years in fighting the czarist police, and knowing its methods as well as its weaknesses and shortcomings, knew also how to improve upon them
.

http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1930s/demvscom/ch04.htm (http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1930s/demvscom/ch04.htm)

I am sure Jacob will appreciate that.

However it wouldn’t be fair to not allow Lenin to answer back perhaps anachronistically to these kind of allegations ;
V. I. LENIN, THE, PROLETARIAN, REVOLUTION AND THE, RENEGADE, KAUTSKY

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/RK18.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/RK18.html)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Dave, Kautsky was a senile renegade when he wrote that shit. That's why, instead, I quoted his monetary remarks in The Social Revolution (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debunking-myth-did-t113046/index.html?p=1492841), and Lenin's continuity (and the continuity of Trotsky, Luxemburg, and at least some left-communists in the Second International) with those remarks.

In this thread, LZ has deliberately ignored the broader historical context of Lenin's confused-at-best musings on "state capitalism" and on bourgeois capitalism (which he merely calls "capitalism").

[Led Zeppelin]

The only person's "musings" (he still hasn't grown tired of that term yet huh?) which are confused, to say the least, are JR's own. Which is why no one here bothered to reply to it. You can't force a reply by linking to your own post or repeating what you said.

Accept it and move on.


I think Robbo has some justification in stating that Lenin appeared or accepted the ‘usual’ definition of the lower phase of communism as socialism. Although I don’t have that much interest here in going into the minutiae of that argument.

I had actually forgotten that he was the person I had the discussion with on that subject. If I had known that I would have probably not replied to him here, because I still remember his childish antics from that thread.

Anyway, not to derail this thread, but yes I know Lenin accepted that definition. I dealt with this issue sufficiently here: Distinction between socialism and communism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/distinction-between-socialism-t104147/index.html)

You can see how he did the same thing there as he does in this thread with the falsifying, faux nitpicking, semantics-play, pedantry etc. It appears to be a particular trait of his.