State Capitalism – Oh Noes!

[RED DAVE]

This is a diversion of a derail that began here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ucpn-m-led-t135748/index.html?p=1755618#post1755618

I think I got it all. I apologize if i missed anything.


state capitalism is a bullshit theory
Well I guess that settles it.

I'll just give up the theoretical basis that underpins my understanding of Russia, China, etc., and adopt your notion that, somehow, from somewhere, sneaky revisionists infiltrated those sterling parties decades after their revolutions.


This is perhaps a debate for another thread, but I am curious, at what point did the Soviet Union become state capitalist? And whar shoudl we learn from that?
I'll just give up the theoretical basis that underpins my understanding of Russia, China, etc., and adopt your notion that, somehow, from somewhere, sneaky revisionists infiltrated those sterling parties decades after their revolutions.
As opposed to what, state-capitalists infiltrating those parties ??

Anyway you're looking at it too much as a case of good and bad individuals. We don't believe that some individuals in the party are good and some are evil revisionists; its more a case of revisionism as a phenomenon that arises in the party once it takes power, a force of wrong ideas. Thats why revisionism cant be eliminated by purging people, it can only really be destroyed through the battle of ideas. Well thats my view anyway
This is perhaps a debate for another thread, but I am curious, at what point did the Soviet Union become state capitalist? And whar shoudl we learn from that?
Revolutionary Russia had elements of state capitalism before 1922 and NEP, after let's say 1934 it was completely replaced by the socialist economy. And the rest is just pure bullshit.
Revolutionary Russia had elements of state capitalism before 1922 and NEP
Okay.
after let's say 1934 it was completely replaced by the socialist economy. And the rest is just pure bullshit.
What you are saying is that after 1934 the workers controlled the economy is the USSR. And, by extensions, those bad-ass Khrushevites took it away sometime after 1953.

You must sleep with a stuffed Stalin.
"State capitalism" basically refers to the state enterprises acting on the basis of the foreign licenses in the framework of capitalist economy. It may be controlled by workers, cleaners, Trotskyists, accountants or even eternal forces - it doesn't change its character of the state capitalist enterprise.
What you are saying is that after 1934 the workers controlled the economy is the USSR. And, by extensions, those bad-ass Khrushevites took it away sometime after 1953.
What we are saying is that Soviet economy was socialist until 1991 when it was privatized and became capitalist. There is no conspiracy here This concept is quite widely accepted apart from few sectarians.
Revolutionary Russia had elements of state capitalism before 1922 and NEP, after let's say 1934 it was completely replaced by the socialist economy. And the rest is just pure bullshit.
Well, I am aware of NEP, but in the same manner as I would question the definition of the soviet union as "state capitalist" (in there that the actual capitalist class was lacking) I would also profusely question any defintion of the SU as socialist. It was a state under bureaucratic control, not without i's contradictions, of course. If I take a somewhat critical stance towards the maoists in nepal is because I know what paths it might, note that I say might not must, lead to.
You may want to have a look at the what Lenin said about Soviet economy in 1922:
Thus, in 1918, I was of the opinion that with regard to the economic situation then obtaihing in the Soviet Republic, state capitalism would be a step forward. This sounds very strange, and perhaps even absurd, for already at that time our Republic was a socialist republic and we were every day hastily—perhaps too hastily—adopting various new economic measures which could not be described as anything but socialist measures. Nevertheless, I then held the view that in relation to the economic situation then obtaining in the Soviet Republic state capitalism would be a step forward, and I explained my idea simply by enumerating the elements of the economic system of Russia. In my opinion these elements were the following: “(1) patriarchal, i.e., the most primitive form of agriculture; (2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of the peasants who trade in grain); (3) private capitalism; (4) state capitalism, and (5) socialism.” All these economic elements were present in Russia at that time. I set myself the task of explaining the relationship of these elements to each other, and whether one of the non-socialist elements, namely, state capitalism, should not be rated higher than socialism. I repeat: it seems very strange to everyone that a non-socialist element should be rated higher than, regarded as superior to, socialism in a republic which declares itself a socialist republic But the fact will become intelligible if you recall that we definitely did not regard the economic system of Russia as something homogeneous and highly developed; we were fully aware that in Russia we had patriarchal agriculture, i.e., the most primitive form of agriculture, alongside the socialist form. What role could state capitalism play in these circumstances?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/04b.htm

Basically, socialism and state capitalism are distinguished as two different forms. There is no mention about "bureaucracy" (probably because all industry have to be controlled by the bureaucracy since the complexity of the division of labour). Therefore in this case it is your choice: you may follow Lenin or you may follow Trotsky. None both of them.More, presumably later, from various parties.

RED DAVE

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

"State capitalism" basically refers to the state enterprises acting on the basis of the foreign licenses in the framework of capitalist economy. It may be controlled by workers, cleaners, Trotskyists, accountants or even eternal forces - it doesn't change its character of the state capitalist enterprise.


This is an idiotic semantic argument. You're ignoring the concept to which the term is being applied in different contexts. State capitalism as used to describe the economy of the USSR means that it retained the same basic antithesis between labor and capital that existed in all other capitalist societies, even if capital was expressed in the form of state property. You are ignoring the argument entirely.

[bie]

State capitalism as used to describe the economy of the USSR means that it retained the same basic antithesis between labor and capital that existed in all other capitalist societies, even if capital was expressed in the form of state property.You are ignoring the argument entirely
Simply because it is not true. There was no contradiction between capital and labour in socialist societies. Capital and labour were integrated parts of the planned economy. Capital belonged to workers and worked for the workers, not other way around.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Simply because it is not true. There was no contradiction between capital and labour in socialist societies. Capital and labour were integrated parts of the planned economy. Capital belonged to workers and worked for the workers, not other way around.

Capital can not have belonged to the workers or it wouldnt have been capital. I don't think anyone is going to take seriously the argument that the citizens of the USSR had any meaningful democratic control over the means of production and the surplus that accrued to the state until 1991, after which they gave it up without a fight.

[bie]

Capital can not have belonged to the workers or it wouldnt have been capital.
Let's call it "capital" anyway. If it did not belong to worker, to who than?

I don't think anyone is going to take seriously the argument that the citizens of the USSR had any meaningful democratic control over the means of production and the surplus that accrued to the state until 1991, after which they gave it up without a fight.
Too be honest with you, I have never met anyone from the former socialist state who could support this idiotic theory of "state capitalism". It is only popular among intellectuals in the West, who can actually believe in most of bullshit that was told about socialist societies. I may answer shortly to your point of "lack of fight". There was a significant fight for all 1917-1991. And if you want to know why some of the workers went against socialism - it was because of false consciousness. A false consciousness may be a powerful tool in the hand of the counterrevolution. Superstructure develops slower than a base. I hope that it will answer your doubts if you think about it.

[Blake's Baby]

I have met people from Eastern Europe who agreed with the State Capitalist analysis. I discussed it with someone who was brought up in Czechoslovakia, and she agreed that 'State Capitalism' was the best fit for her experience of the Eastern Bloc economies. None of the people I know from Poland, East Germany, Estonia or Czechoslovakia have ever experessed to me the idea it was 'socialism' they lived under, because none of them believed that the working class held power.

That's not to say that they all thought the experience of living under the Stalinist regimes was entirely negative (some of them did, but not all of them). Job security is mentioned as something that was better pre-1989, but to say that 'no-one from Eastern Europe accepts State Capitalism' is just rubbish.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Let's call it "capital" anyway. If it did not belong to worker, to who than?

The state.


Too be honest with you, I have never met anyone from the former socialist state who could support this idiotic theory of "state capitalism". To be honest with you I have never met anyone from a former "socialist state" that actually thought those states were democratic. But this is just a fallacious appeal to popularity anyway.


It is only popular among intellectuals in the West, who can actually believe in most of bullshit that was told about socialist societies.What bullshit? That there was a lack of democracy? It's not as if it's characterization as state capitalist depends in any way on, say, Stalin killing millions.


Superstructure develops slower than a base. I hope that it will answer your doubts if you think about it.The transformation of the relations of production in the direction of socialism already assumes the political supremacy of the working class, so I really don't see what you're trying to argue here.

[bie]

The state.
Ok, so what is wrong with it?

To be honest with you I have never met anyone from a former "socialist state" that actually thought those states were democratic

What bullshit? That there was a lack of democracy?
You mean the lack of "bourgeoisie parliamentary democracy"? Ok, the political system was quite different. But if you mean the democracy as the participation of citizens in decision making process - today there is much less democracy than it used to be under socialism. The people's (or worker's) participation in trade unions, different organizations, societies, committees etc. is faaar lower now than under "evil communism". Worker had much more to say in his workplace. If 1 person was fired it was made into a political case (by the reactionaries, of course). Now there are hundreds thousands people laid off every year, and no one seem to be too much concerned.


The transformation of the relations of production in the direction of socialism already assumes the political supremacy of the working class, so I really don't see what you're trying to argue here.
Political supremacy of working class dosn't always mean complete ideological and cultural hegemony. In Poland, for example, socialism was introduced by rather a minority of vanguard workers after the 2 world war. The consciousness of many of the peasants or workers were far behind. Even if they supported the regime (which brought significant progress in their life), they were still vulnerable to manipulations due to some national, religious sentiments still present. The vanguard, ideologically conscious part of the working class was all the time present within WP (Workers Party).


but to say that 'no-one from Eastern Europe accepts State Capitalism' is just rubbish.
I didn't say that "no one" but that I have never met such a person.

[Wolf Larson]

Originally Posted by Mayakovsky " This is perhaps a debate for another thread, but I am curious, at what point did the Soviet Union become state capitalist? And whar shoudl we learn from that? "

Well, if you're a Marxist you may want to think if Russia went through the industrial capitalist phase which Marx saw as necessary for true communism to manifest in the future. Dialectical materialism. From the seed to the plant to the flower. capitalism/state socialism/communism/anarchism. Some people think Russia tried to go into the state socialism phase without first fully developing under the industrial capitalist phase and this is why it failed.

[Blake's Baby]

Socialism in one country is impossible. Russia did not need to become entirely capitalised to take its place in the world revolution. However, by 1914, Russia actually was heavily industrialised with the biggest and most capital-intrensive factories on the planet, the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world and some of the biggest concentrations of workers anywhere. Doesn't matter. The 'plan' was never to take power in Russia and run it as a red fortress.

Russia became state capitalist when the state took over the economy. That happened progressively from 1917. It never broke out of the contradiction of a workers' revolution and a capitalist world - how could it? Without the overthrow of capitalism, how could socialism be built? It was eventually (I'd argue after the defeat of the Shanghai Uprising marked the end of the world revolution in 1927) definitively lost as an aquisition of the working class (I think, in reality, it was 1927 that marked the impossibility of bringing the USSR back, though the Soviet Union itself had degenerated by the early '20s).

[Panda Tse Tung]

So... what exactly is the 'state-capitalists' relation to the means of production?



The 'plan' was never to take power in Russia and run it as a red fortress.


Situations change, plans change. So what?
The plan was to destroy the fascists before they got a decent foothold. However, they did get a foothold. Would've been rather silly had they held on to that plan would it?

[robbo203]

Let's call it "capital" anyway. If it did not belong to worker, to who than?.

By the class that controls capital in de facto terms - how it is allocated and the distribution of the proceeds of investment. Control and ownership are inseparable. To own something is to control its usage and disposal. Ownership of the means of production equates with ultimate control of those means and not even you - rank apologist for state capitalism that you are - can deny that a tiny class (the nomenklatura) in the pseudo socialist countries exercised monopolistic control over the means of production as a class. This state capitalist class made all the important decisions in the economy which the rest of the popluation were expected to comply with. This is undeniable.

[Kléber]

You mean the lack of "bourgeoisie parliamentary democracy"?
Actually, since the 1936 Constitution, the USSR was indeed moving towards the bourgeois parliamentary model, and the People's Republics were based on the bourgeois form of government.

But no, I'm pretty sure he was talking about proletarian democracy..


But if you mean the democracy as the participation of citizens in decision making process - today there is much less democracy than it used to be under socialism. The people's (or worker's) participation in trade unions, different organizations, societies, committees etc. is faaar lower now than under "evil communism". You put "evil communism" in quotes as if someone wrote it - who said anything about "evil communism?" You are not going to convince anyone by slandering them and stuffing words in their mouths.


Worker had much more to say in his workplace. If 1 person was fired it was made into a political case (by the reactionaries, of course).What is this "by the reactionaries?" Anyone who stands up for workers' rights is reactionary? The reason Solidarity were restorationists is not because "workers' rights = capitalism," it's because the Stalinist regimes killed their left-wing opponents while pandering to rightists and social-democrats, paving the way for restoration.


Now there are hundreds thousands people laid off every year, and no one seem to be too much concerned.The great Stalinist bureaucrats weren't very concerned when they restored capitalism and made themselves into capitalists.


Political supremacy of working class dosn't always mean complete ideological and cultural hegemony. In Poland, for example, socialism was introduced by rather a minority of vanguard workers after the 2 world war. The Soviet economic form was extended to Eastern Europe by an unholy alliance of the Soviet army, social-democrats, and yes, a handful of local Stalinists.


The consciousness of many of the peasants or workers were far behind. Even if they supported the regime (which brought significant progress in their life), they were still vulnerable to manipulations due to some national, religious sentiments still present.Sentiments restored capitalism? Gee, I suppose there was no aristocracy in the medieval merchant republics of Venice and Novgorod, either, feudal rule was restored there simply by some "revisionist" ideas..


a tiny class (the nomenklatura) in the pseudo socialist countries exercised monopolistic control over the means of production as a class
It was not a bourgeois class, it was an elite caste, the bureaucrats were overpaid but they got paid by the hour and, despite corruption and bonuses, I still haven't seen any proof that they personally extracted surplus value from enterprises as unearned income. Significant vestiges of proletarian rule and checks on private accumulation continued until the capitulations of 1989-91.

[robbo203]

It was not a bourgeois class, it was an elite caste, the bureaucrats were overpaid but they got paid by the hour and, despite corruption and bonuses, I still haven't seen any proof that they personally extracted surplus value from enterprises as unearned income. Significant vestiges of proletarian rule and checks on private accumulation continued until the capitulations of 1989-91.

This is a legalistic rather than a materialist analysis of class which examines class relations in its de facto sense. Granted the state capitalist class did not have individual legal or formal entitlement to capital in the Soviet Union but my point is that it does not need to have this to constitute itsaelf as a capitalist class. This class class had control over the extraction of surplus value and its allocation. That is what ultimately matters and why this class constituted itself as a distinct state capitalist class

As it happens some of this surplus value clearly did go into the private hands of the nomenklatura in the form of massively inflated (and often multiple) so called "salaries" but also in the huge range of perks available to these people like dachas, chauffer driven limos and subsidised or free holidays. The higher up on the salary scale you went the more significant these perks

According to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account both these "salaries" and their accompanying in-kind benefits the income ratio between low and high earners in the Soviet Union was something like 1:100. Some studies of post war soviet union have revealed a degree of inequality comparable to most OECD countries. Some amongst the nomenklatura became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success.


But even this may be understaing the degree of inequality in the Soviet Union since there was some evidence of members of the red bourgeosie" teaming up with parallel economy businesses in what became known as the 'Soviet mafia' " ("The Rise and Fall of Post-Communist Oligarchs: Legitimate and Illegitimate Children of Praetorian Communism" Serguey Braguinsky, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINVTCLI/Resources/JUNE7&8PAPERBraguinsky.pdf)