State Capitalism as a transition?

[jediknight36]

Ok, I'm one to believe that incremental change to capitalism is not the revolution. But if socialism can be the transition between capitalism and Communism, then would state run capitalism be the transition between full blown, laze faire (sp) Capitalism and Socialism? Just something have been pondering this week.

In solidarity and peace

[hatzel]

Some of us on here would be rather controversial and suggest that your description matches communism exactly. Others might suggest that, just because Stalin did it, doesn't mean it's communism. Some might say Stalin didn't do that. Good luck getting an answer to this one, but I doubt anybody is going to say it's a particularly great idea. They'd much sooner be explaining why their favourite example of state capitalism wasn't state capitalism. Yup!

[BogdanV]

There are more ways than one to reach a certain point, right ?
Well, the problem with reaching Communism via State Capitalism is right in its name : Capitalism.

Even if its state-run, its still Capitalism. Sure, a smooth transition is easier for the vast majority; imho, people need time to adjust to their new-found power, so, a nice and easy road to Communism is probably the best solution.

The bad side here is that since the system is esentially capitalistic, it is much easier for it to fall back, to regress into a bourgeoise democracy than to give birth to a Communist society.

The ruling bureaucracy is in a pretty fragile state of equilibrium : it can either fight for their interests and turn burgeoise, or gradually relinquish their power until they cease to exist as a class.

The former goes quite against "class survival instincts", with history showing us how others failed on such a path. Its better than a "shock-transition", but someone's gotta' keep the party in check pretty good.

[Rafiq]

Realize you cannot jump from capitalism to socialism through revolution. You must slowly introduce socialism in the economy until all bits of capitalism is abolished. State capitalism isnt socialism because its lack of worker control over the means of production. It is not necessary and should be avoided

[Sixiang]

Realize you cannot jump from capitalism to socialism through revolution. You must slowly introduce socialism in the economy until all bits of capitalism is abolished. State capitalism isnt socialism because its lack of worker control over the means of production. It is not necessary and should be avoided

Then how is the proletariat supposed to gain control?

[BogdanV]

Realize you cannot jump from capitalism to socialism through revolution. You must slowly introduce socialism in the economy until all bits of capitalism is abolished

EDIT: Oops! I thought you said "from capitalism to communism".

If it was towards me : I'm aware of this, but I was talking about a "shock-transition" as a purely theoretical idea. It doesn't stop anyone from trying, but none would succeed.

The state would be neccessary to establish a framework upon which socialism can be build, like the establishment of workers councils and the legal definition of their powers and role.

These councils should act as counterweights against the state, while the former would act as a supervisor, making sure things are being kept on track, slowly relinquishing its powers until it would have only a advisory role towards the councils, and, finally, be phased out.

[jediknight36]

But if socialism is slowly introduced (has been in various forms for over a century) isn't that just modifying capitalism? Using socialism to prop up capitalism? If not, what is the difference? And wouldn't those in power feed their own interests if Capitalism is still a force, as was described above with state capitalism? I guess when I was thinking of it, I was thinking of proletarian controlled state capitalism but now I see the same issues can arise.

In solidarity and peace