state capitalism vs degeneration vs capitalism

[Black Sheep]

Hello comrades, help me clarify this cloudy topic please.
Define degenerated state a la Trotskyism ,state capitalism and .. capitalism and point out their differences.

I'll give it a shot, correct me where i m wrong:
Degenerated worker's state:
A state where the economic part of the revolution is complete (the means of production have been expropriated from the cappies,and are theoretically the people's property.
However distribution,management etc is done by a minority which evolved by certain conditions in which the revolution happened,and they end up getting the lion's share.

Capitalism:
A society where a minority legitimately owns means of production, rents people to work them,and claims surplus value of their labor.Ownership of the MoP leads to manipulation of economical and political power in the society.

State capitalism:
A society where the MoP are nationalized, owned by the state, by they function still with capitalist plan and goals.The state is not democratically controlled by all the society.


----
I thought state capitalism was just capitalism with a high degree of Comrades, clarify.

[graymouser]

Trotsky laid out four criteria for a workers' state: the nationalization of the means of production, central planning in the economic sphere, state monopoly of foreign trade, and workers' democracy. He claimed that the first three - the forms of proletarian economy - existed in the USSR, and merited defending as the gains of the revolution. Since it had done away with workers' democracy, it was not a healthy workers' state but a degenerated one, which required a political revolution to restore to health. The distribution and management were usurped by a bureaucratic caste which did not act as a unified class.

The term "state capitalism" was originally used to denote the actions of capitalist states owning large trusts directly and acting as capitalists. This continues to happen in certain places like China and Singapore where the states have huge investment portfolios in specialized enterprises. It was used by some to describe the USSR pejoratively, but the economics of this were never worked out in a comprehensive fashion. Personally, I'd say the term "state capitalism" makes more sense applied to China today than to the USSR at any point in its existence.

[Savage]

For those of us that advocate the state capitalist critique, the trotsykyist concept of a 'workers state' is indeed state capitalist, not something detached from state monopoly capitalism. After the demise of the soviets, Lenin at times refereed to the USSR as state capitalist, sometimes as an even less developed form of capitalism.

[graymouser]

For those of us that advocate the state capitalist critique, the trotsykyist concept of a 'workers state' is indeed state capitalist, not something detached from state monopoly capitalism. After the demise of the soviets, Lenin at times refereed to the USSR as state capitalist, sometimes as an even less developed form of capitalism.
Lenin referred to a lot of things in various ways, often to make a polemical point. He also said soviets plus electrification equals socialism. It doesn't mean that there is a comprehensible critique of the economy of what "state capitalism" is or was aside from Bukharin's somewhat impressionistic and definitely tentative account in Imperialism and World Economy, which of course dealt with Germany in WWI and not Russia after the revolution. I maintain that to describe Russia as "state capitalist" at any phase other than the early 1990s is primarily a way of avoiding the problems of a bureaucratically-dominated collectivized economy.

[Black Sheep]

I'd like advocates of the state capitalism critique to define it though.

[RED DAVE]

I'd like advocates of the state capitalism critique to define it though.State capitalism is a stage of capitalist development in so-called under-developed countries where for a period of time the state acts in lieu of the capitalist class. State capitalism is followed by private capitalism when the society in question acquires sufficient capital through forcible extraction of surplus value or foreign investment to make private ownership profitable.

As examples, the USSR post-1928 to approximately 1990 and China post-1949 to about 1995 were state capitalist. Both these societies are now private capitalism but with strong state components. Cuba is in the process of transforming from state capitalism to private capitalism. The program of the Maoists in Nepal is a state capitalist program.

RED DAVE

[Savage]

The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry : the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state. Second, we find that a condition is defined as state capitalism (or state socialism) under which capitalist enterprises are controlled by the state. This definition is misleading, however, as there still exists under these conditions capitalism in the form of private ownership, although the owner of an enterprise is no longer the sole master, his power being restricted so long as some sort of social insurance system for the workers is accepted. -Anton Pannekoek

[scarletghoul]

The Cliffite idea of 'state capitalism' simply takes the convenient opportunistic shell of Trotskyist criticism and hollows out any socialistic content, replacing it with a middle class liberalism. This way they can appreciate communism as a 'noble ideal' or even marxism as a correct theory, but completely dissociate themselves from any revolutionary practice (because that always involves uncomfortable things like 'mass murder' or whatever). I've come across one cliffite who didnt agree with any of trotsky's theories except for 'stalin is bad'; he didnt like Terrorism and Communism or the theory of degenerated workers state..

The whole theory is completely un-Marxist, un-Leninist, and while not a fan of Trotsky I'm sure that if I was I would condemn it as un-Trotskyist.

[Zanthorus]

The idea that Russia was in a process of evolution towards state-capitalism was first outlined by the Left-Communist fraction of the Bolshevik party (Which included Bukharin and Radek among it's membership) in 1918. Outside Russia, the first to articulate the idea that 'actually-existing socialism' was merely state-capitalism were members of the German and Dutch Council Communist movement. Off the top of my head the 'irreconcilables' of the Left Opposition also advanced the idea that Russia was bourgeois, as did Raya Dunayevskaya and C. L. R James about nine or ten years before Cliff did. It's even questionable whether Cliff's theory is actually a theory of Russia as a form of capitalism or whether 'state-capitalism' in Cliff actually takes the form of a 'third society' between capitalism and socialism. For example, the law of value in Cliff's 'state-capitalism' is no longer based on the act of commodity exchange but rather on military competition between states. Cliff also held a defencist position with regard to Russia in the Second World War whereas the majority of those currents which put forward the idea of state-capitalism argued for revolutionary defeatism. Finally, Cliff actually did accept 'degenerated workers' state' as an accurate characterisation of Russia until 1928.

In my personal opinion, the most coherent theories of 'state-capitalism' were put forward by members of the Bordigist current, although it would be slightly erroneous to say that they were theories of 'state-capitalism' per se, since Bordiga himself put forward the idea that Russia was a regime in transition between feudalism and capitalism, rejected the idea that classes existed in the fSU and instead put forward the idea that classes were still in the process of formation (Since he accepted that to say that the state as an independent entity without any class basis could introduce a mode of production was thoroughly un-Marxist). The International Communist Party (Il Programma Comunista), also takes the approach that the Russian economy was not, in fact, a 'planned economy' of any sort, whereas most 'state-capitalist' theories begin by taking that fact for granted (See their text: The myth of «socialist planning» in Russia (www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipo/lipoebubie.html)).

[Savage]

Lenin can be considered a 'state capitalist theorist', I was even told that the official Stalinist line is that the USSR was state capitalist until Stalin's collectivization. It's Un-Marxist believe that socialism can be accomplished in isolation, especially when the isolation occurs in a country that is far from advanced capitalism. You don't have to be anti-Lenin to believe that socialism was impossible in the USSR after the failure of the German Revolution, because it's in fact what he believed.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Cliff also held a defencist position with regard to Russia in the Second World War whereas the majority of those currents which put forward the idea of state-capitalism argued for revolutionary defeatism.

In his defence, Cliff only had the epiphany after WWII.

Nic.

[graymouser]

In his defence, Cliff only had the epiphany after WWII.

Nic.
For the prosecution, Cliff had the "epiphany" just in time to take up the cause of a non-existent "Third Camp" during the Korean War rather than defending the DPRK against imperialism. This has been the clear thread of Third Camp politics: it tends to come up most strongly when there is a question of war.

[S.Artesian]

Lenin can be considered a 'state capitalist theorist', I was even told that the official Stalinist line is that the USSR was state capitalist until Stalin's collectivization. It's Un-Marxist believe that socialism can be accomplished in isolation, especially when the isolation occurs in a country that is far from advanced capitalism. You don't have to be anti-Lenin to believe that socialism was impossible in the USSR after the failure of the German Revolution, because it's in fact what he believed.

Yes, comrade: " It's Un-Marxist believe that socialism can be accomplished in isolation, especially when the isolation occurs in a country that is far from advanced capitalism."

But at the same time, one can argue that it's also "Un-Marxist" to believe that state capitalism can be created without a specifically capitalist class; that it's Un-Marxist to believe that state capitalism can be constructed on an edifice other than private capitalism; that it's Un-Marxist to consider the bureaucracy a class, when by its very existence the bureaucracy has no unique, no originating, no essential relationship to the means of production.

If we are going to embrace uneven and combined development, which alone explains the origin, development, and course of the class struggle to October 1917, then the very conflicts, barriers to a "bourgeois revolution" which propelled the proletariat to power tend to disqualify the creation in isolation of state capitalism after the revolution.

Nor should we mis-identify the war production boards of Germany, Britain, the US, or nationalizations, as "state capitalism," when those forms required a bourgeois class in order to come to life.

Just some thoughts...

[Savage]

Yes, comrade: " It's Un-Marxist believe that socialism can be accomplished in isolation, especially when the isolation occurs in a country that is far from advanced capitalism."

But at the same time, one can argue that it's also "Un-Marxist" to believe that state capitalism can be created without a specifically capitalist class; that it's Un-Marxist to believe that state capitalism can be constructed on an edifice other than private capitalism; that it's Un-Marxist to consider the bureaucracy a class, when by its very existence the bureaucracy has no unique, no originating, no essential relationship to the means of production.

If we are going to embrace uneven and combined development, which alone explains the origin, development, and course of the class struggle to October 1917, then the very conflicts, barriers to a "bourgeois revolution" which propelled the proletariat to power tend to disqualify the creation in isolation of state capitalism after the revolution.

Nor should we mis-identify the war production boards of Germany, Britain, the US, or nationalizations, as "state capitalism," when those forms required a bourgeois class in order to come to life.

Just some thoughts...
Well I haven't completely made my mind up about the USSR, the theory of it being 'in between feudalism and capitalism' has me interested, but i suppose a lot of this depends on your understanding of socialism and whether you consider the 'neither capitalism or socialism' argument to be valid. For me, socialism is an early stage of communism, the absence of the state and market would be minimum requirements.

[S.Artesian]

Well I haven't completely made my mind up about the USSR, the theory of it being 'in between feudalism and capitalism' has me interested, but i suppose a lot of this depends on your understanding of socialism and whether you consider the 'neither capitalism or socialism' argument to be valid. For me, socialism is an early stage of communism, the absence of the state and market would be minimum requirements.

There isn't any argument from me that the fSU was socialism. It wasn't.

I don't buy the "feudalism to capitalism" as in certain areas, the productivity of labor in the fSU exceeded that of most capitalist countries, and in an isolated instance or two exceeded that of the most advanced capitalist country. Railroads, for example in the fSU, really put those in the US to shame, up until about 1989 I guess, or maybe even 1991. Record keeping gets awfully spotty.

But there was a revolution, it was led by the working class, the bourgeoisie was expropriated, landowners were expropriated. It's all about uneven and combined development.

[Savage]

There isn't any argument from me that the fSU was socialism. It wasn't.

I don't buy the "feudalism to capitalism" as in certain areas, the productivity of labor in the fSU exceeded that of most capitalist countries, and in an isolated instance or two exceeded that of the most advanced capitalist country. Railroads, for example in the fSU, really put those in the US to shame, up until about 1989 I guess, or maybe even 1991. Record keeping gets awfully spotty.

But there was a revolution, it was led by the working class, the bourgeoisie was expropriated, landowners were expropriated. It's all about uneven and combined development.
I agree with you on the nature of the revolution, I think it's important to separate intention from result. In your opinion and with regards to 'uneven and combined development' do you consider the USSR to have been 'neither socialism or capitalism'(or 'neither feudalism or capitalism')?

[S.Artesian]

I agree with you on the nature of the revolution, I think it's important to separate intention from result. In your opinion and with regards to 'uneven and combined development' do you consider the USSR to have been 'neither socialism or capitalism'(or 'neither feudalism or capitalism')?

Not socialist, not capitalist. Or not socialist, not yet capitalist back in the day before the fSU was the fSU.

Could not do either on its own, IMO. Obviously couldn't become socialist, and equally, could never produce by itself a bourgeoisie without the pressure of the world market and the sledgehammer impacts of international capitalism.

I think Yeltsin's assault on the parliament which was resisting those Friedmaniacs eager to liquidate what little assets remained of October sealed the deal.

For me the issue is simply class-- I just don't see how you get a state capitalism after expropriating the bourgeoisie-- unless you bring them back through "importing" their big international brothers a la China