Could Someone That Believes The USSR Was State-Capitalist Please Respond To This?

[KC]

The krux of the issue is what one means when they use the term "imperialism" and "imperialist". Imperialism in the classical Marxist sense is a historical epoch in the development of capitalism characterized by the export of capital due to the "overripeness" of imperialist countries, the domination of finance capital and the development of a financial oligarchy as big bourgeoisie opposed to the former rule of industrial capital, the conclusion of the division of the world and the need to redivide it along other lines due to capitalist competition, etc...

In this system of imperialist capitalism, the imperialists are those countries where the financial oligarchy has become most dominant/pronounced, where conditions have become most "overripe" and which also hold a special position at the top of the world not only economically but politically as well.

Casting aside the gaping holes in this theory, the most obvious and simplest answer to your question is that the Soviet Union wasn't imperialist because it wasn't partaking in imperialist capitalism, at least in the way which would have it defined as imperialist. Territorial expansion was due to a variety of reasons but the export of capital and the rate of profit had nothing to do with it; the reasons for such expansion were primarily political.

That is not to say that there weren't economic reasons behind Soviet expansionism. The economic reasons, though, were not capitalist in nature.

Of course, you'll have someone come in here in a few posts who believes that the USSR was state capitalist and call it imperialist...

Posted that in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-expansionism-not-t148347/index.html?p=1992132#post1992132) thread. I'm interested in hearing a rebuttal from those who consider the USSR state capitalist, as I've never really bothered to pay attention to those debates on here in the past and even though I think the position of state capitalism is supremely idiotic writing this post just piqued my curiosity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, I don't think "state capitalist" is the proper term, but Stalin himself admitted that generalized commodity production existed. It was just in the bureaucratic form than the bourgeois form. I agree with you, though, that many who use the "state capitalist" label use that primarily as a means of trying to portray the USSR as "imperialist" or "social-imperialist" either during Stalin's time or after, and then side with reactionary scum fighting the Soviets.

I think I said in a couple of other threads that most of the satellite states themselves were properly state capitalist, yet none of them had imperialist dynamics or ambitions.

[Victus Mortuum]

Re: the S.U. having been imperialist...it all depends on how you define imperialist. Under the exclusive definition used within the context of historical materialism, they wouldn't be called imperialist (as they weren't fighting over markets etc.). However, under the more inclusive definition used within everyday language even Rome was imperialist, and they certainly weren't capitalist. 'Imperialist' will depend on the context of the conversation, I think.

On the S.U. being "state-capitalist". Eh, it's just a term used to describe the political and economic system present there. Like "bureaucratic collectivism" or any of the other clever terms used to describe it. Truth is, we all generally agree that the Russian Revolution was a legitimate socialist revolution which then was at some point relatively early on hi-jacked and turned into something very different that we generally do not support. Now what that was in particular and how it got there...those seem to be the more contentious questions for some reason.

[synthesis]

(as they weren't fighting over markets etc.)

:lol:


under the more inclusive definition used within everyday language even Rome was imperialist

:confused:

[Bethechange]

State capitalism has been use with many different meanings. Lenin, for instance, said : "Socialism is just state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people." He referred to Imperial German war capitalism that was highly controlled centrally by the state during World War I, which also happened in Russia and other belligerents. Lenin saw the expansion of capitalist firms and banks not as bad but good, since it would be the structure of his coming system.

The social anarchists and left Marxists see Lenin's "state capitalist" quote above as an accurate assessment of his system, but reject the idea it really changes things. Rather, the economy becomes essentially one huge capitalist enterprise, with the supposed benefits of "guaranteed" (forced) employment, steady income, medical care, pension, etc. but no control by actual workers at the point of production-nor anywhere else. Hence the "degeneration" and "deformation" of this "worker's state." If you just make every capitalist enterprise into one gigantic state monopoly, calling it "socialist" with the accompanying iron grip over the working class, that's always going to happen.

Imperialism, disregarding complicated Marxist-Leninist definitions, this is defined as control of one country by another, directly or indirectly. With that criteria, the USSR was obviously imperialist, whether for political or purely economic reasons. Both have occurred with imperialist powers, the USSR included. For instance the various subject nations of the Russian Empire were promised self-determination, then subjected once again by the new "socialist state".

After World War Two, Stalin controlled Eastern Europe and demanded massive reparations from these countries. Much of what became East Germany's industry was carted off to the USSR as part of this. Soviet shareholding or outright control of key industries occurred in these new satellites. Attempts to dominate Albania, Yugoslavia and China by trade in buying cheap and selling dear (classic imperialist countries policy to captive markets of their colonies) caused them to break away from the USSR. That said, it doesn't really matter whether they were imperialist in the old sense, and certainly not Lenin's conception of it. Conquering another country by force or control through economic policies qualifies. Both occurred.