The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience by Paresh Chattopadhyay

[Zanthorus]

Paresth Chattopadhyay's book elaborating on Marx's concept of capital and applying it to the economy of the 'Soviet' Union, attempting to show how the production, reproduction and accumulation of capital continued within 'actually-existing socialism', as well as critiquing alternative theories of the fSU as 'socialism' or 'neither socialism nor capitalism', is now online in PDF format on the libcom library:

http://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good work, even though I used to agree with the overly "state capitalist" label.

[red cat]

Paresth Chattopadhyay's book elaborating on Marx's concept of capital and applying it to the economy of the 'Soviet' Union, attempting to show how the production, reproduction and accumulation of capital continued within 'actually-existing socialism', as well as critiquing alternative theories of the fSU as 'socialism' or 'neither socialism nor capitalism', is now online in PDF format on the libcom library:

http://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience

Who is this person ? I don't remember hearing his name in connection with any big workers or peasants movement. Where does he live ?

[Zanthorus]

Well, this is the biographical information given on his page on the Marx Myths and Legends site:


Paresh Chattopadhyay teaches political economy at the Department of Sociology at University of Quebec at Montreal. He mainly offers courses on Marx, but also on the political economy of development and on quantitative methods in social sciences. His interest is in Marx’s critique of political economy and is explicitly based on the Marxist categories as they appear in Marx’s original works. He has also extensively written on the question of the development of the third world, the agrarian question in India, and on the (ex)soviet economy in the light of Marx’s Capital, and the theory of accumulation of capital. He is involved in the project of multi-volume Marx-Engels Historisch Kritisches Woerterbuch published under the sponsorship of the Philosophy Department of the Free University of Berlin and is connected with the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences in Berlin. His most recent publication is The Marxian Category of Capital and the Soviet Experience, Praeger, 1994. His work has been published in English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Japanese.http://marxmyths.org/paresh-chattopadhyay/index.php

[S.Artesian]

Who is this person ? I don't remember hearing his name in connection with any big workers or peasants movement. Where does he live ?

Had a brief meeting and discussion with him about 18 months ago-- he said that in his initial "entry" into radical politics was as a Naxalite which got him busted and sentenced to prison [can't recall in what year, or for how long] and that in prison is when he first started to actually read Marx-- and that caused him to stop reading or adhering to Maoism.

I think [since my memory for personal events that can't be reduced to numbers sucks so bad you can hear the wind whistle] he stated that he thought Lenin [and the Bolsheviks] were capitalists, or acting for capitalism, from the getgo of the October Revolution, which was kind of the moment in the meeting when I tuned out.

I think I have some correspondence between him, Loren Goldner, and myself which I'll try and track down and see if it has any relevancy to this book.

[Zanthorus]

I think [since my memory for personal events that can't be reduced to numbers sucks so bad you can hear the wind whistle] he stated that he thought Lenin [and the Bolsheviks] were capitalists, or acting for capitalism, from the getgo of the October Revolution, which was kind of the moment in the meeting when I tuned out.

Yes, this is the position he puts forward in The Marxian Concept, that the October revolution was not a proletarian revolution in the Marxist sense. The main focus of the book is on the post-1928 stalinist economy however, and I don't think his analysis of the economy of the fSU should stand or fall on the basis of his views on the immediate class character of the Russian revolution.

[S.Artesian]

Couldn't find my correspondence with him. Sorry.

[Amphictyonis]

Yes, this is the position he puts forward in The Marxian Concept, that the October revolution was not a proletarian revolution in the Marxist sense.

I think I remember saying that to you in another thread which for some reason warranted your scorn.

[Savage]

Hopefully this will help combat the Stalinist/Trotskyist strawman that says state capitalist theories have no theoretical or empirical basis and are just pejorative slurs against non-'idealist' socialism.

[S.Artesian]

I don't know. Haven't read the book yet. Have you? Can anyone summarize the argument.

Never one for state capitalist arguments, but I dont think there's no empirical or theoretical basis for the argument. I just think the empirical evidence does not support the theoretical conclusion.

But then, I'm no Stalinist or Trotskyist.

[Savage]

No, I'm just about to read it, so I can't vouch for the strength of the argument put forth, but the fact that there even are arguments is contrary to what a lot of Leninists tend to suggest.

[Zanthorus]

Can anyone summarize the argument.

Probably not particularly well, I've only read up to the chapter where he starts applying his categories to the Soviet Union empirically. The basic point so far seems to be that what differentiates labour under capitalism from non-capitalist forms of labour, what essentially means the existence of capital, is the seperation of labour from the conditions of labour. In contrast to pre-capitalist societies, the labourer under capitalism is a 'free' labourer with respect to the individual capitalists, she can choose her own employer. But he points out further that this category of 'free' labour only applies to individual capitalists, the individual worker is not free with respect to the capitalist class as a whole. This was largely the situation of labourers for the majority of the Soviet Union's existence, they were dispossessed from the means of production and free to choose between various employers, in fact he points out the fSU had relatively high turnover rates. During the Stalin period there were restrictions on this free movement of labour as well as the existence of GULAG labour but he points out firstly that there were also restrictions on the free movement of labour within countries which we would refer to as capitalist without any problems, because of the Second World War, and secondly that state intervention on a large scale is anyway a characteristic of other historical regime's undergoing the phase of the primitive accumulation of capital.

He also points out that it is not actually the Marxist view that capitalism is based on individual private ownership, but that it is rather the historical mission of capital to destroy individual ownership within the means of production, hence Marx and Engels' comments with regards trusts and joint-stock companies. Capital can continue to exist even with 'public' ownership of the means of production by the state, since there is a difference between functional and property-owning capitalists. This division is already latent in the division between financial and industrial capitalists, where the relation between capital and labour is brought to a different level, and now the capitalist himself is a labourer with respect to financial capital. But this division appears as a false one when compared with modern corporations where the functional capitalist is not really a capitalist at all but an actual wage-labourer hired out by the associated capitalists to enforce the will of capital within the enterprise. It would theoretically be possible for every enterprise in an economy to come under the ownership of the state, yet retain the existence of competing functional capitals. He points out that Marx actually repeatedly makes similar points, for example he cites a passage from I think volume III where Marx imagines a situation where one capitalist owns five different competing functional capitals. Again, there were seperate enterprises within the Soviet Union and they competed with one another despite being all owned by the state.

Again, I haven't read the book all the way through, or even had time to let the initial arguments sink in. He does make a very strong case to my mind though.

EDIT: I should point out that Chattopadhyay simply talks about capital and capitalism, never 'state-capitalism', seemingly following Bordiga's usage. I do wonder if Chattopadhyay ever had any experiences with Bordigist groups, he has the same habit of referring to himself as 'we', and emphasises the point that he polemicises not against individuals but only against individuals insofar as they represent a defininite trend.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Again, there were seperate enterprises within the Soviet Union and they competed with one another despite being all owned by the state.

I don't know if such competition existed under Stalin and Khrushchev. However, I did cite the "anti-revisionist" Bill Bland saying that such competition was formalized into law courtesy of Kosygin.

[Jose Gracchus]

Right, the idea that competition of enterprises ends under nigh-universal nationalization and planning belies the reality that however 'soft' budget limits are, they do exist. Some enterprises will fail to perform according to the political or bureaucratic standards they are judged by, and will suffer accordingly since there is still scarcity of state revenues. Furthermore, since state revenues in the USSR were acquired via a form of indirect taxation on enterprises (incidentally putting the central apparatus in the position of collective capitalist - as Zanathorus explains - vis-a-vis labor as a whole), they also would compete as performers in terms of raising state revenues.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right, the idea that competition of enterprises ends under nigh-universal nationalization and planning belies the reality that however 'soft' budget limits are, they do exist. Some enterprises will fail to perform according to the political or bureaucratic standards they are judged by, and will suffer accordingly since there is still scarcity of state revenues. Furthermore, since state revenues in the USSR were acquired via a form of indirect taxation on enterprises (incidentally putting the central apparatus in the position of collective capitalist - as Zanthorus explains - vis-a-vis labor as a whole), they also would compete as performers in terms of raising state revenues.

Bill Bland went further in his book. He said that property rights laws were granted to the individual "red directors." Alexander Lukashenko may not have owned the Gorodets state farm, but within the limits set by the external authorities he had more power than a corporate "senior management" and "board of directors" combined.

[HEAD ICE]

Finally got around to reading this and I have to say it is a really exceptional book. For a subject that may seem a little dry Paresh has a very briskful writing ability that I zoomed through this book in two days (I could have done it in one if I wanted). The strong point is his in depth analysis of Soviet accumulation of capital and the beginning chapters. Though I wouldn't recommend it to someone who is fresh, people with a very minimal understanding of Marx's critique of political economy will be able to grasp what he says with ease. The low point is definitely the last chapter though.

[Savage]

The low point is definitely the last chapter though.
Are you referring to his critique of Lenin and rejection of the Russian Revolution as socialist? Or just when he states the obvious about 'non-restoration' in the FSU? As for the stuff about the nature of the Russian Revolution, It really wasn't needed in this book, and it's taken, possibly verbatim from an article he wrote separate to this ( http://libcom.org/library/did-bolshevik-seizure-power-inaugurate-socialist-revolution-marxian-inquiry-paresh-chatt ), but he has also written quite exhaustively about Lenin's perceived revisionism,
http://libcom.org/library/economic-content-socialism-lenin-it-same-marx
http://libcom.org/library/socialism-marx-early-bolshevism-chattopadhyay

[HEAD ICE]

Are you referring to his critique of Lenin and rejection of the Russian Revolution as socialist? Or just when he states the obvious about 'non-restoration' in the FSU? As for the stuff about the nature of the Russian Revolution, It really wasn't needed in this book, and it's taken, possibly verbatim from an article he wrote separate to this ( http://libcom.org/library/did-bolshevik-seizure-power-inaugurate-socialist-revolution-marxian-inquiry-paresh-chatt ), but he has also written quite exhaustively about Lenin's perceived revisionism,
http://libcom.org/library/economic-content-socialism-lenin-it-same-marx
http://libcom.org/library/socialism-marx-early-bolshevism-chattopadhyay

Yeah, his critique of Lenin mostly. I will read those links though, this dude is one of the better modern writers on marx out there.

[Savage]

this dude is one of the better modern writers on marx out there.
He most certainly is, although he doesn't seem to have written that much, at least relative to people like Loren Goldner.