Why is state capitalism a trend of global capital?

[Lyev]

I was going to discuss this in the usergroup 'State Capitalist theorists', but I think it will be more open here, and also get some more varying opinions. If we understand Keynesianism, the New Deal and whatnot as a form of state capitalism (albeit slightly different from the regimes in China or the former USSR) is the reason, then, that state intervention is vital for a capitalist economy to recover from crisis? I can see this as a reason for the existence of state capitalism outside the USSR (for example, Keynesianism etc.), but then was the state capitalist road the only route for Russia, considering famine, civil war, imperialist embargo and intervention etc.? Thanks for your responses.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As the size of individual capitals grows out of all proportion, the state cannot allow any of them to go under. [We saw that with the banks recently.]. So, they have to be 'nationalised', or part 'nationalised', to prevent serious/fatal damage to the 'free market'. [Ha!]

In the examples you quote, this happened so that they could compete with the older established capitalist economies. As Stalin said, "Either we make up the difference in 20 years or they will crush us."

[Comrade_Stalin]

I was going to discuss this in the usergroup 'State Capitalist theorists', but I think it will be more open here, and also get some more varying opinions. If we understand Keynesianism, the New Deal and whatnot as a form of state capitalism (albeit slightly different from the regimes in China or the former USSR) is the reason, then, that state intervention is vital for a capitalist economy to recover from crisis? I can see this as a reason for the existence of state capitalism outside the USSR (for example, Keynesianism etc.), but then was the state capitalist road the only route for Russia, considering famine, civil war, imperialist embargo and intervention etc.? Thanks for your responses.

As a M-L I disagree that The Soviet Union and China at one point of time, was State Capitalist as used by both the left and the right. But capitalism has always needed a state to control the masses and to tell each other what to produces. The state does this, thought Specaial Interest Groups, which tell the state what to buy. Because the state is the biggest consumer, meaning it has market power, or the power to set "prices" in one form or other. Some of wat it consumes is use to control the masses the rest to control the market.

[Comrade_Stalin]

As the size of individual capitals grows out of all proportion, the state cannot allow any of them to go under. [We saw that with the banks recently.]. So, they have to be 'nationalised', or part 'nationalised', to prevent serious/fatal damage to the 'free market'. [Ha!]

In the examples you quote, this happened so that they could compete with the older established capitalist economies. As Stalin said, "Either we make up the difference in 20 years or they will crush us."

We did not nationalize any of the banks. We just gave them money with nothing in return. The ones we 'nationalised' had already failed, and all we were doing is giving money to said failed bank to pay back the debt that they owned. After which, the state closed said failed bank. This is not "nationalization", but "Privatization" of "tax pay dollor" to pay for individual debt.

[Aurora]

You may be interested in this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
I certainly found it very interesting, the main point i think is that in capitalism there is a contradiction between socialized production and individual appropriation Engels goes into how this came about and how capitalism attempts to solve it through joint-stock companies, trusts and state property.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Actually, the more that capital has become global the more this trend has reversed. State intervention is more aimed at containing crises than recovering from them.

[Psy]

Actually, the more that capital has become global the more this trend has reversed. State intervention is more aimed at containing crises than recovering from them.
Not if you include security spending, if you factor state security spending (military, intelligence, police,prisons,ect) as economic stimulus then the trend has always been towards more and more state intervention in the economy with the state throwing more money at security as the private sector suffers from falling rate of profits.

Also politicians defend security spending as economic stimulus i.e one can't cut back on the US military spending primary because it would harm the US economy (basically the primary reason politicians support so many ICBMs is economic stimulus as even they admit the US way more then is needed for deterrence).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was going to discuss this in the usergroup 'State Capitalist theorists', but I think it will be more open here, and also get some more varying opinions. If we understand Keynesianism, the New Deal and whatnot as a form of state capitalism (albeit slightly different from the regimes in China or the former USSR) is the reason, then, that state intervention is vital for a capitalist economy to recover from crisis? I can see this as a reason for the existence of state capitalism outside the USSR (for example, Keynesianism etc.), but then was the state capitalist road the only route for Russia, considering famine, civil war, imperialist embargo and intervention etc.? Thanks for your responses.

I think the term "state capitalism" is abused here. There's a spectrum that covers a few terms.

1) For example, some right-wing economists scream at government spending as a percentage of GDP. If it's high enough, they'll scream "SOCIALIST!" If it isn't, they'll be more dismissive, like a Reuters article on the Venezuelan economy ("Despite Chavez, Venezuela economy not socialist"). The user Comrade Stalin above referred to the state as the biggest consumer, for example. That left-coms call this "state capitalism" is just plain abuse, though there should be a proper term bandied out there to describe the high spending phenomenon.

2) Four more terms come in handy: protectionism, mercantilism, neo-mercantilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-mercantilism) (more reliance on market pricing and less emphasis on military development), and dirigisme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme). The links are handy when considering Singapore and China, respectively. Mainstream economists apply "state capitalism" to both neo-mercantilism and dirigisme.

3) If we go by official "Marxism-Leninism," the economies of Eastern Europe when under Soviet influence were heterogenous. Only two of them "achieved socialism" while the others remained "people's democracies":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Constitution_of_Czechoslovakia#Overview

Therefore, the term state monopoly capitalism or state-capitalist monopoly apply to the remaining "people's democracies."