Difference between 'state capitalism' and current capitalism?

[Leaf]

Difference between 'state capitalism' and current capitalism?

in both the aim is to produce profit, correct?

is the difference that in neoliberal capitalism, the government stays out of the economy where as in state capitalism, the government controls the economy. (I get the feeling I have been hoodwinked by some propaganda) I find this confusing because in Russia and so on, a bougieosie class emerged and the government served its interests, right? so what's the difference?
I always thought I understoood it but when I thought more deeply I got confused, please help :) Thanks.

[FSL]

Difference between 'state capitalism' and current capitalism?

in both the aim is to produce profit, correct?

is the difference that in neoliberal capitalism, the government stays out of the economy where as in state capitalism, the government controls the economy. (I get the feeling I have been hoodwinked by some propaganda) I find this confusing because in Russia and so on, a bougieosie class emerged and the government served its interests, right? so what's the difference?
I always thought I understoood it but when I thought more deeply I got confused, please help :) Thanks.


State capitalism is the most abused concept there is. It depends on whose definition you're interested in.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Basically
Capitalism: Companies abuse labor and resources in order to make more and more profit. Government isn't involved, except for certain things the companies don't want to do.

State Capitalism: The Government manages the economy, but they do it in the same way a company would: All dirty tricks are done for efficiency (and profit) with no regards for human rights and worker's wellbeing. Examples might be Fascism or, according to some, Stalinism.

[el_chavista]

I find this confusing because in Russia and so on, a bougieosie class emerged and the government served its interests, right? so what's the difference?
While the USSR existed they originally were a petty bourgeois layer of "managers in charge" -more akin to executive officers than bourgeoisies- who had the effective control of the enterprises -not their property. But with a little help from Gorvachóv and Reagan they could launch a final onslaught on the Soviet State and became real bourgeoisies.

[therockman]

Would you consider the current economic model in China "state capitalism?"

[Vendetta]

Would you consider the current economic model in China "state capitalism?"

Yes, more or less.

[FSL]

Basically
Capitalism: Companies abuse labor and resources in order to make more and more profit. Government isn't involved, except for certain things the companies don't want to do.

State Capitalism: The Government manages the economy, but they do it in the same way a company would: All dirty tricks are done for efficiency (and profit) with no regards for human rights and worker's wellbeing. Examples might be Fascism or, according to some, Stalinism.


Nothing dirty in efficiency and profit itself didn't show up as a guiding force until 1965.



While the USSR existed they originally were a petty bourgeois layer of "managers in charge" -more akin to executive officers than bourgeoisies- who had the effective control of the enterprises -not their property. But with a little help from Gorvachóv and Reagan they could launch a final onslaught on the Soviet State and became real bourgeoisies.


"Managers in charge" aren't a petty bourgeois layer, they're a specialized, mental labor layer.



Would you consider the current economic model in China "state capitalism?"


It's closer to capitalism. Not neoliberal capitalism when for example all banks remain state owned but capitalism nontheless. USSR under NEP was state capitalist. Before all the abuse what state capitalism meant is an economy where private property and the market still exist in a large degree along with an increasingly big state sector that must also obey the market forces. In China the state sector becomes less and less dominant and the trent remains irreversible for the time being.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Nothing dirty in efficiency and profit itself didn't show up as a guiding force until 1965.

It depends on if that efficiency goes to benefit the workers or the capitalist class. Whether we call it profit or not is just semantics. It was surplus on the national level instead of at the enterprise level which the workers had no control over, and they were super-exploited in the interests of accumulation.


"Managers in charge" aren't a petty bourgeois layer, they're a specialized, mental labor layer.

Except that managers tended to support more liberalization and undermined the planned economy.


Before all the abuse what state capitalism meant is an economy where private property and the market still exist in a large degree along with an increasingly big state sector that must also obey the market forces.


Except for the fact that the "abused" usage precedes Lenin's usage of the term and has a basis in both Marx and Engels.

[FSL]

It depends on if that efficiency goes to benefit the workers or the capitalist class. Whether we call it profit or not is just semantics. It was surplus on the national level instead of at the enterprise level which the workers had no control over, and they were super-exploited in the interests of accumulation.

Efficiency is not the same as profit, if you think it's only semantics calling it that way you need to take a better look at it.
Accumulation isn't a person and has no interests. If you think that the workers had no control over the economy, then explaining why did the economy improve their lives and at that rate becomes harder for you.



Except that managers tended to support more liberalization and undermined the planned economy.

Yes they sure did, but still that doesn't make them petty bourgeois, that requires a certain relation with the means of production they didn't have.



Except for the fact that the "abused" usage precedes Lenin's usage of the term and has a basis in both Marx and Engels.


In which it essentially meant the same thing as it did when Lenin used it.
People abuse it when they use the Cliffite term saying that the bureaucracy evolves into a new capitalist class that opresses the workers to serve its own interests, despite not owning the means of production, nor the industry's products and without necessarily being in position to even direct the economy anymore.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Difference between 'state capitalism' and current capitalism?

in both the aim is to produce profit, correct?

is the difference that in neoliberal capitalism, the government stays out of the economy where as in state capitalism, the government controls the economy. (I get the feeling I have been hoodwinked by some propaganda) I find this confusing because in Russia and so on, a bougieosie class emerged and the government served its interests, right? so what's the difference?
I always thought I understoood it but when I thought more deeply I got confused, please help :) Thanks.

Hi Leaf,

You pose your question in terms of state capitalism versus "current capitalism" (what you later refer to as "neoliberal capitalism"). I think this way of posing the question is incorrect. This is for two reasons, firstly, especially since the beginning of the current global economic crisis "current capitalism" can hardly be called "neoliberal". But secondly, and more importantly, because, I would argue, "current capitalism" is state capitalism.

The division between 'convential capitalism' and state capitalism as two concurrent and competing systems on the world market, the latter represented by the Stalinist and Fascist nations, is a feature most representative of the superficial analysis made by Tony Cliff and the International Socialist Tradition.

A more penetrating analysis of the question of state capitalism has been made by groups of the communist left. To quote from the 'Capitalist Decadence - A Restatement (http://cbg.110mb.com/decadence.pdf_14.pdf)', Communist Workers Bulletin no. 14, 1989:

"So what is state capitalism? It is the condition of capitalism in the era of imperialism; it is the necessary way in which capital organising itself in decadence; it is a form which expresses the way in which the economic and political imperative of decadence play upon capitalism.

"It is not nationalisation. If it were then Russia (to date) would be more state capitalist than France, whilst the U.S.A. would hardly be state capitalist at all. Undoutbedly nationalisation is a factor in state capitalism as is-was the related policy of Keynesianism. [...]

"Keynesianism was a product of decadent capitalism; it was not decadence itself. For a moment it best expressed the ideological and political needs of state capitalism. The fact that it and its nationalised face was such a prominent feature of capitalism for over forty years tended to lead revolutionaries into the trap of believing that these two elements were the essence of state capitalism. But they were not and are not.

[...]

The essence of state capitalism is found in the way that the world economy has been parcelled among a few major capitalist powers which force the state to intervene and direct economic and social life."

The article goes on to argue that Thatcherism and the corresponding ideology of neo-liberalism were just as much products of state capitalism as was Keynesianism or the extreme statification which existed in the former 'socialist states'.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, the term 'state-capitalism' is used in different ways. In Dunayevskaya's sense, it wouldn't be distinct from current capitalism. An explanation of this usage, and its application to modern capitalism, is done by Andrew Kliman here (http://akliman.squarespace.com/writings/New%20Forms%20Appear%20SCism%20web.doc). There's also the ICC's view, which is different, already displayed.

Its usage by the SPGB, and many anarchists, is to specify the USSR and such, and its use is mainly to specify that the state can be a capitalist producer, that is, its purpose is to illustrate their position in the debate on the USSR being capitalist and such. Here, the emphasis is on 'capitalism', and the word 'state' only serves to point out that the nationalization in the USSR and such is compatible with capitalism. Paresh Chattopadhyay, who puts forward a 'state capitalist' analysis, generally just uses 'capitalism', as there's no real need for the 'state' in there. Though it can be used to emphasize how the aforementioned economies exemplify Marx's point about the 'abolition of private property within the limits of the capitalist mode of production itself', that is, the forming of a 'capitalist collective' rather than individual property, another example (which Marx used) being joint stock companies.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Efficiency is not the same as profit, if you think it's only semantics calling it that way you need to take a better look at it.
Accumulation isn't a person and has no interests. If you think that the workers had no control over the economy, then explaining why did the economy improve their lives and at that rate becomes harder for you.

I didn't say efficiency was profit, I said the state drew a surplus whose distribution workers didn't control, and that whether or not we call it profit makes no difference. Of course accumulation isn't a person, but the necessity of accumulation lead to the super-exploitation of the workforce.
As for increases in the standard of living, how does that change anything? The economy of the US also lead to increased living standards, but obviously the proletariat didn't have political power.


In which it essentially meant the same thing as it did when Lenin used it. From Liebknecht's to De Leon's to Connoly's use of state capitalism before the 20th century, and Marx and Engels use of universal capitalism and national capitalism, it referred to state ownership where the relation of capital to labor remained unchanged because the working class lacked control over the MoP. There's no abuse at all involved in people like Cliff's usage.


People abuse it when they use the Cliffite term saying that the bureaucracy evolves into a new capitalist class that opresses the workers to serve its own interestsCliffite? The term was used before him in the same way by people like CLR James and before him by Left Communists and before them by...


despite not owning the means of production, nor the industry's products and without necessarily being in position to even direct the economy anymore.No, that's the point. They do own the means of production, or else no one would call it state capitalism.