Non-workers governments that also are not capitalist?

[gorillafuck]

Is it possible that there could be a government that is not capitalist that is also not a workers government? This idea has been in my head. I don't buy into "state-capitalist" arguments, but I also have a lot of trouble buying into the idea that, say, The Peoples Republic Of Poland was a workers government, since it was clearly not controlled by the working class and there was not workers democracy there.

Is this a possible theory?

Edit: I am not referring to feudalism or other pre-capitalist systems. I am mostly thinking of the former eastern bloc.

[Paulappaul]

Feudalism?

[Armchair War Criminal]

I think state socialist societies are best understood as having a sui generis class structure, so those would count (though that's a whole can of worms to itself.) As Paul notes, governments can also be beholden to landlords, &c.

[gorillafuck]

Feudalism?
Not what I meant.

[Paulappaul]

It answered your question regardless.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Not what I meant.
What did you?

[gorillafuck]

What did you?
OP edited to be more clear.

[Aurora]

Are you refering to workers government as meaning socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[gorillafuck]

Are you refering to workers government as meaning socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat?
I am not quite sure. But it's an odd thing, because eastern bloc states weren't under the control of the working class, but they did not have capitalist (free-market, private profit driven) economies either.

[Paulappaul]

Sounds like you may want to read "What was the USSR? (http://libcom.org/library/what-was-the-ussr-aufheben-1)"

It's analysis' of a bunch of different theories, not just the classic "THE USSR WAS STATE CAPITALIST".

[Armchair War Criminal]

I am not quite sure. But it's an odd thing, because eastern bloc states weren't under the control of the working class, but they did not have capitalist (free-market, private profit driven) economies either.
Right. This is why I consider their class structure sui generis. Additionally, while there are planned economies under which the law of value might apply, those weren't implemented - planning was heavily irrational, in the technical sense (which isn't incompatible with planning succeeding at its intended purpose.)

Depending on how you define your terms, Actually Existing Socialisms might have been capitalist, but the economic, social, and political dynamics were very, very different than in traditional capitalist states. It's best for analytic clarity to shunt it off, especially as "was it capitalist? was it socialist?" gets laden with normative baggage.

[Aurora]

I am not quite sure. But it's an odd thing, because eastern bloc states weren't under the control of the working class, but they did not have capitalist (free-market, private profit driven) economies either.

Ya i completely agree, i believe that the fSU had the same character as the paris commune that of a society in transition.

I think it wasnt a case of was it capitalism or was it socialism but of the transformation of the one into the other,the dictatorship of the proletariat, the problem of course was that it stagnated and no longer moved forwards but succumbed to the pressure pushing it back to capitalism

Anyway that might be a bit off topic im not sure. You might want to look up bonapartism in general or Trotsky's view of the Soviet thermidor

[Apoi_Viitor]

Has anyone else ever noticed the similarities between the 'Asiatic Mode of Production', and the fSU?

[Armchair War Criminal]

Has anyone else ever noticed the similarities between the 'Asiatic Mode of Production', and the fSU?
In extreme cases, like Tawatinsuyu, there are striking similarities. But other than that and maybe a few Greek polities - Mycenae, maybe? - I can't think of any premodern states that practiced comprehensive planning. The stuff that typically gets labelled as "the Asiatic Mode" is more "like European feudalism, but with actual breaks between wars."

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, a country can have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat without it being socialist. Though, we would then have to ask which direction it's going. Either through collectivization or privatization. There's only two ways one can go from this. Take the Soviet Union for example. During the 1920's, it was definitely not Socialist yet, but it did have a DoTP operating under the interests of said workers. That's the best that I can think of on any country having a worker's state without there being Socialism.

[Paulappaul]

Well, a country can have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat without it being socialist.

No it can't, when the Proletarian class overthrows the former ruling class it does so with former economic relations.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No it can't, when the Proletarian class overthrows the former ruling class it does so with former economic relations.

When a proletarian class overthrows the bourgeois state, this does not imply that the economy will right there & then be predominantly collectivized. During the state of revolution, it is a battle of who controls the state - either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. When the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois state, they are then inheriting a society in which the predominant mode of production is capitalism. The proletariat then gradually works its way of developing socialism in order minimize the disruption of those who reside of said backwards society. When the bourgeoisie takes over the State through a socialist society, it is then where within months to years, the predominant mode of production is still socialism, because the bourgeoisie had inherited a society of such. Though, the process from socialism to capitalism would be much quicker than the process from capitalism to socialism, because the bourgeoisie do not care about the disruptions of those of said society like the proletariat does.

[Coggeh]

When a proletarian class overthrows the bourgeois state, this does not imply that the economy will right there & then be predominantly collectivized. During the state of revolution, it is a battle of who controls the state - either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. When the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois state, they are then inheriting a society in which the predominant mode of production is capitalism. The proletariat then gradually works its way of developing socialism in order minimize the disruption of those who reside of said backwards society. When the bourgeoisie takes over the State through a socialist society, it is then where within months to years, the predominant mode of production is still socialism, because the bourgeoisie had inherited a society of such. Though, the process from socialism to capitalism would be much quicker than the process from capitalism to socialism, because the bourgeoisie do not care about the disruptions of those of said society like the proletariat does.
The transition to capitalism from socialism(or a degenerated workers state mode of production) after 1990 came almost overnight with Yeltsins vouchers .

[The Vegan Marxist]

The transition to capitalism from socialism(or a degenerated workers state mode of production) after 1990 came almost overnight with Yeltsins vouchers .

Yes, this is true. It all depends really. There's many different factors varying the the dismantling of a Socialist nation. Some can take overnight, others longer. Depends really. But you just showed that the transition will be a lot quicker than it would from capitalism to socialism.

[Paulappaul]

When a proletarian class overthrows the bourgeois state, this does not imply that the economy will right there & then be predominantly collectivized. During the state of revolution, it is a battle of who controls the state - either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. When the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois state, they are then inheriting a society in which the predominant mode of production is capitalism.

Proletarian Revolutions happen when the mass of Proletarians become conciseness of class distinctions and establish there own organization with which to overthrowing the preexisting state.

Why would an entire class seek to perpetuate preexisting forms of Exploitation? It's not logical. When a Mass overthroughs the state, when it strikes with economic and political power, the bourgeois losses it's legitimacy with the new state of things, industry becomes collectivized.

So Yes, the economy with the overthrowing of the existing Political State comes under the control of the entire mass of society.


The proletariat then gradually works its way of developing socialism in order minimize the disruption of those who reside of said backwards society.

Backwards societies are a Social construct of Capitalism, with which is used to remain it's hegemony over class. No society is "backwards" anymore, their are laborers and industry everywhere.

Capitalism has reached every corner of the globe. It exists has a global phenomena. It is more advanced everywhere, then in the times of Marx who foresaw the possibility of a Revolution in his lifetime.


When the bourgeoisie takes over the State through a socialist society, it is then where within months to years, the predominant mode of production is still socialism, because the bourgeoisie had inherited a society of such.

Any society where that has happened was never Socialist in the first place. Council Republics, Federations of Anarcho - Syndicalist Unions and Communes were destroyed overnight in European history.

Even if we presume you are correct, it's for the reason that the Bourgeois is a minority, and acts through legal means rather then violent means - and the other reason you outlined.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Why would an entire class seek to perpetuate preexisting forms of Exploitation? It's not logical. When a Mass overthroughs the state, when it strikes with economic and political power, the bourgeois losses it's legitimacy with the new state of things, industry becomes collectivized.

It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of what is possible within the confines of single nations in the immediate aftermath of the seizure of political power. Socialism can't simply be willed into existance.

Socialism in one country is an impossibility. Maybe you missed the memo?

Nic.

[Paulappaul]

It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of what is possible within the confines of single nations in the immediate aftermath of the seizure of political power. Socialism can't simply be willed into existance.

Socialism in one country is an impossibility. Maybe you missed the memo?

When did I say otherwise? Even in the most immediate sense, the means of production would become Social Property.

[Niccolò Rossi]

When did I say otherwise? Even in the most immediate sense, the means of production would become Social Property.

I'm not following you. Are you agreeing with what I'm saying now?

Of course the property of bourgeoisie will be expropriated by the collective will of the working class and in-roads made upon capitalist social relations, but are no more abolished than they are within the confines of an ordinary workers' co-operative.

Nic.

[Paulappaul]

Workers' Co-Operatives mean that property is under the ownership the Workers who participate in production, within a Capitalist system.

By overthrowing the Political State and with it, the legitimacy of the Bourgeois, property rather then vested in a minority, turns into social property i.e. ownership by an entire society.

So no, in an International revolution Private Property becomes Social Property following the victory of the working class.

[Niccolò Rossi]

So no, in an International revolution Private Property becomes Social Property following the victory of the working class.

Lets work with your assumption here. What is the conclusion of this? Has capitalism been otherthrown? If so, what social relations exist in such a society? Is it socialism? What of 'socialism in one country' which we agree is an impossibility? Why do we even need an international revolution?

Nic.

[Paulappaul]

What is the conclusion of this?

Property comes into ownership of a society at large, thus ending Property all together.


Has capitalism been otherthrown?

Yes. Capitalism can't continue to exist when the means which perpetuate it come to an end.


If so, what social relations exist in such a society?

If you mean Class distinctions, none. When a society boggles down to two opposing classes, a extreme minority - bougeosis and a extreme majority - Proletariat - when the gap left by the minority is taken by the majority a society becomes classless - as there is only one class remaining.

If you don't mean Class distinctions, please give me an example of what you mean.


That of 'socialism in one country' which we agree is an impossibility?

Socialism can only be achieved on an International Scale. A country by itself is doomed to fail as it's forced to turn back Capitalism as a means to perpetuate it's existence.


Why do we even need an international revolution?

To secure the safe and honest development of Socialism?

Kinda a private message question :sleep:

[Niccolò Rossi]

This really isn't going anywhere... I suggest you re-read what you and I have said.

Nic.