Originally posted by
[email protected] 27 2003, 07:36 AM
Sorry but none of the above are complete, and several of them betray the writers antipathy towards anything which is not Communism or socialism acccording to the witers personal preferences. In other words the writers want to claim that only 'their' Socialism is 'true Socialism'.
State Capitalism is indeed where it is the state that appropriates surplus value. But this is true of all forms of Socialism except the 'final destination' ones like Anarchism and Communism. These two are based on assuming not only a change in the whole way that economies run but depend upon both a quite fundamental change in human attitudes and relationships and an undifined means of communicating / co-ordinating supply, and demand.
The defining features of State Capitalism apart from the state appropriating surplus value are :
1) That the state either does not function as the representative of society as a whole or does so poorly. This could be because it was in effect Fascist (denying the importance of society at all) or because it is 'vanguard Socialist' (where it is, at least in intention, being run so as to benefit society in the future, but is being administered by people who dont yet trust the population to make decisions for themselves).
2) That although surplus value is appropriated by the state a great deal of the detailed setting of costs and prices for commodities and especially production goods is allowed to be governed by market forces.
It can be seen from the above that State Capitalism differs from Market Socialism in the nature of the state. Where the state does not really act as instructed by society, where its officers and leaders have greater influence a system can perhaps better be described as state Capitalism. Where it has less (or ideally virtually none) it is better described as Market Socialism.
Note that in neither case is the system well categrised as 'Captalism'. 'Capitalism' used without qualification always implies a free market in means of production, rights to other peoples surplus value for individuals, rights to peoples future output. Neither 'State Capitalism' not 'Market Socialism' allows this.
The arguments about whether the USSR was or was not State Capitalist (and whether China is) are the sort of arguments that always arise whenever somebody bets obsessed with pidgeon holing a real socio-economic system into an idealised compartment. The fact is that real societies (of any sort) are almost never fully described by any single ideological ideal. They are always mixtures of many. If you are going to categorise them at all then to be accurate you should say 'is most like........'.
The USSR , for example, intervened in commodity pricing and supply far more than an idealised 'State Capitalist' would; while China allows a limited amount of 'individual capitalism' (particualrly from outside) as well.
The USSR could probably be almost equally well described as 'Fascist' (but with many atypical features); 'State Capitalist' (but with far more direct input); 'Centrally planned Socialism' (but with quite a bit of distributed planning); and in several other ways.
Arguments about exactly what to call a real state are always semantic. The USSR was the USSR and combined elements of sevearl ideilaised positions, as do all real states.
A very general point connected to the above is that one should try to appreciate at a really deep level that definitions exist to help promote understanding and communication, not for their own sake. One cannot mess around with them and argue about whether they ough to be this, or ought to be that without destroying their purpose. All definitions are abstract concepts. Some , of course, have a much clearer objective referent than others (usually those that refer to a self contained physical object with distinctive properties), others, regrettably, are so complex or general that arguments arise about defining the definition. The latter sort are very common in Socio-economics.
Hope this helps. When one learn that absolutes almost ever exist one has progressed far in wisdom I feel (but then I would would I not :)
May all roads lead to understanding and joy for you.
One hundred percent correct comrade.
When a socialist nation exists under conditions where capitalism still is a factor in the global market, you cannot simply supply the workers with the entire amount of the suplus value gained from commodity and domestic good production. If this were the case, any socialist nation would experience a low .5-1% annual growth rate on the natiinam GDP. What socialist market value economics DOES provide is a 20-30% of increase in the surplus value going right back to the proletariat with an additional 60-70% of the curplus value being re-invested back into the economy. This is necessary to pay for the socialised programmes (healthcare, housing, food) that make up a socialised political environment.
Once capitalism is no longer a factor in global economics, the entire portion of surplus value can be directed right back to the proletariat as conventional GDP calculations ceases to be a relevant guage on how the economic growth of a nation is determined.
Under socialist economics existing in global conditions where capitalism is still present, the national economy is guaged by total value of government and consumer spending added to the total value of exported commodites and the total value of national suplus value invested back into the national economyMINUS the total value of imported goods, the total value of suplus value invested into another nation's economy and the total value of over-supply of goods that are not usable to following fiscal year.
Under global socialist economics, the economy would be guaged by the market value of labour added to the output created by automation, the total value of commodities exported for trade, the total value of government and consumer spending MINUS the total value of commodities exported and the total value of over-supply that is not usable in the following fiscal year.
As you can clearly see, from an economic standpoint the differences in platforms are enormous. Socialist enonomics in global socialist conditions is the final step into the transition into Marxist economics, making surplus value in general irrelevant as under marxist economic conditions, the monetary unit is abolished, completely dissoving concept of GDP based on surplus value, exported and imported goods, government and consumer spending, and investment.
To simply attempt to "jump" directly into Marxist economics will in chaos as the GPD will plummet at an alarming rate since the conditions to provide a reasonable model to how products are produced and distributed along with the guage of how much is to be produced without creating extensive over-supply.
The proletariat my "own" a much larger percentage of the means of production, however they will never truly own the entire means of production as surplus value will inevitably be required to operate the political platform necessary to keep the GDP growing above a cummulative base of 5% annually (increased by .3 to .5% avery fiscal year)
There is no other way to work the economic platform without social and economic disaster.