Hilferding to blame for socialism's failure/"Stalinism"

[bailey_187]

So i been reading A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and CHange by Robert Bideleux and Ian Jefferies (which is a really good, indepth and readable text book on Eastern Europe btw, with many references ot Marxist theories on events)

Anyway, the authors make a claim about how Hilferding's writings in Finance Capital shaped the Communist states that were to come about in the 20th century.

So of course Hilferding says that increasing monopolies, cartels, mergers, concentration etc makes socialism easier to create:

"Once finance capital has brought the most importance branches of production under its control, it is enough for society, through its conscious executive organ - the state conquered by the working class - to seize finance capital in order to gain immediate control of these branches of production." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1910/finkap/ch25.htm)The authors however, claim that these ideas justified how the Communist takeovers in Eastern Europe happend. Hilferding's novel ideas "furnished the theoretical and programmaticon which Marxist-Leninist Communist parties subsequently proposed to seize power, capture control of the 'commanding heights' of the economy, and impose socialism 'from above'"

This method of getting power, the authors claim, created the conditions for the "authortarianism and commandism" of the socialist states.

Now obviously many Marxist-Leninists will disagree with the characterisation of these regimes, for the theory to make sense. But im interested in what people like Trots, Left Comms, "Orthodox Marxists" etc who think there was something wrong with the Communist states (be it state-capitalist or degenerated etc) think of this idea. Is it wrong to blame Hilferding's theories?

[Rafiq]

I don't know what you mean exactly.

I think conditions were bad enough to the point where states could actually have the decision to go by this theory, without the consent of the working class, let alone the state and the working class as different entitys.

I don't think Socialism failed at all. I don't even think their economic structures failed, State Capitalism was for the most part successful economically in many parts of Eastern Europe.

[bailey_187]

Hilfering said that now with the development of cartels etc, all that needs to be done for socialism is the seizure of ownership by the workers state, from above, rather than workers seizing control on the shop floor level.
Of course, this is what happened in Eastern Europe mostly (the latter can be argued happend in some places too i think), and so the Communist states had more of a commandist structure.

I dont want to debate the merits of the Communist states etc, and their character, but what i mean is that according to some, socialism never materialised or to others it did but it is not here now. Forgot i said failure though, i dont want to debate that here, but i may start a thread in history later about it

[Savage]

Trots, Left Comms, "Orthodox Marxists" etc who think there was something wrong with the Communist states (be it state-capitalist or degenerated etc) think of this idea. Is it wrong to blame Hilferding's theories?
Well of course, as Left Communists (Anarchists would generally agree with us), the notion of a 'communist/socialist state' is ludicrous, with even the very first stages of a communal society having the abolition of the bourgeois state on a world scale as a prerequisite, and of course, along with this, the abolition of commodity production (hence the absence of wage labor, the market, etc). As for the supposed examples of 'socialism', we see them as bourgeois states defending the hegemony of capital, just like their western enemies. So for us, the question of whether the 'socialist state' is something more easily achievable in modern times is really the question of whether the juridical abolition of private property is more easily achievable, and whether it is now easier for the state to be a capitalist producer, this topic being one that we are not particularly bothered with.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So for us, the question of whether the 'socialist state' is something more easily achievable in modern times is really the question of whether the juridical abolition of private property is more easily achievable, and whether it is now easier for the state to be a capitalist producer, this topic being one that we are not particularly bothered with.

If the working class cannot have a proper approach to the concept of law, then it isn't ready to seize ruling-class political power. Part of this proper approach is the juridical abolition of constitutional guarantees to private property.

[Savage]

But this question is about whether 'socialization from above' is easier in current times, this type of reform of course being nothing other than empty juridical labeling, and so even from the very start, of course we are not advocating the same 'revolutionary' practice as those who uphold the 'socialist states' of the 20th century. As for a Left Communist or Anarchist approach to proletarian socialist revolution, the winning over of the command of the bourgeois states is not what is advocated, and so a 'proper approach to the concept of law' is not the same thing as recognizing private and public property from a bourgeois perspective.

[bailey_187]

Well of course, as Left Communists (Anarchists would generally agree with us), the notion of a 'communist/socialist state' is ludicrous, with even the very first stages of a communal society having the abolition of the bourgeois state on a world scale as a prerequisite, and of course, along with this, the abolition of commodity production (hence the absence of wage labor, the market, etc). As for the supposed examples of 'socialism', we see them as bourgeois states defending the hegemony of capital, just like their western enemies. So for us, the question of whether the 'socialist state' is something more easily achievable in modern times is really the question of whether the juridical abolition of private property is more easily achievable, and whether it is now easier for the state to be a capitalist producer, this topic being one that we are not particularly bothered with.

I FUCKING KNOW THIS :cursing:

seriously, what are u trying to prove by telling me this. this isnt at all what im asking. neg repped for irelevence.

Now if u want to comment on to what extent Hilferding's writings influenced in the creation of these states that u class as state-capitalist, then please do, but i dont want to read ur agruments about the nature of these regimes, theres plenty on discussion on that

[Savage]

You asked what Left Communists thought of Hilfering's theories, I answered that Left Communists would generally not be interested in such theories that proclaim that in the modern world (wherein capital is globalized), programs of nationalization would be easier to accomplish. I would not be interested in whether nationalization is easier now, because nationalization is not a part of my agenda.
Your question was what I thought of his theories, my answer was that I believe that his theory is irrelevant to my particular brand of politics. I answered your question, hoping that you would understand my position, it was quite petty of you to give me negative reputation for it.

[PhoenixAsh]

What is it that you are asking? Is it wrong to blame the theory for being put into practice?

Lenin was influenced by his works. Perhaps that shaped his own theories and thoughts and consequently the entire course of the revolution.

[bailey_187]

Is it wrong [or right] to blame the theory for being put into practice?.

this is what i meant.

i mean really, ofc i know left comms dont want just nationalisation. No, im not asking what u think of hilferding's theories, but what it says in the book i mentioned about the impact of them in that they "furnished the theoretical and programmaticon which Marxist-Leninist Communist parties subsequently proposed to seize power, capture control of the 'commanding heights' of the economy, and impose socialism 'from above'", hence being to blame for how the Soviet Bloc states were shaped

[Savage]

But im interested in what people like Trots, Left Comms, "Orthodox Marxists" etc who think there was something wrong with the Communist states (be it state-capitalist or degenerated etc) think of this idea. Is it wrong to blame Hilferding's theories?
You did ask what I thought of this idea. But anyway, even If Lenin was marginally influenced by this guy, I wouldn't give it too much credit for this theories, which of course were bastardized by so many people over the years. Nationalization was never the sin qua non of Lenin's understanding of a socialist revolution, and the Russian Revolution did for a time constitute a 'revolution from bellow', or, a legitimate revolution. As for countries like China, Cuba, Albania, Libya, North Korea etc, where all there ever was constituted a 'revolution from above' I'm not sure how much of a role finance capital played in what was mostly successful nationalization, have you read anything where someone attempts to directly connects any 'socialist' states with his theories?

[bailey_187]

have you read anything where someone attempts to directly connects any 'socialist' states with his theories?

yes, in the book i metioned about Eastern Europe, and have quoted twice. It was that idea i asked people what they thought about.

[Savage]

The quotes that you mentioned don't specify any particularly states, I would like to know if the book says anything about particular regimes and how finance capital played a part in the nationalization process.

[Robespierre Richard]

The quotes that you mentioned don't specify any particularly states, I would like to know if the book says anything about particular regimes and how finance capital played a part in the nationalization process.

What he said. Even in the 1848 programme that Marx and Engels wrote they wanted:


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

[bailey_187]

The quotes that you mentioned don't specify any particularly states, I would like to know if the book says anything about particular regimes and how finance capital played a part in the nationalization process.

Well it doesnt mention any states in particular, it talks of Eastern Bloc states in general. Russia is not mentioned in the whole book other than through its relations with other Eastern European states, so i guess we can assume it does not mean Russia.

It isnt a large part of the book, just a few paragraphs in its section on Vienna's intellectual history, and it mentions Hilferding and discusses his ideas for a few pages.

When i have more time i will type up more from the book then hopefully the ideas in the book will be become clearer

[KC]

Just read the OP but this is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. It's sort of like blaming the Soviet State on Lenin's What Is To Be Done? It's preposterous.

[Thirsty Crow]

Now obviously many Marxist-Leninists will disagree with the characterisation of these regimes, for the theory to make sense. But im interested in what people like Trots, Left Comms, "Orthodox Marxists" etc who think there was something wrong with the Communist states (be it state-capitalist or degenerated etc) think of this idea. Is it wrong to blame Hilferding's theories?
I don't think it would be useful to blame this specific part of Hiferding's writings. If it were a sound approach, it would have to show just how did Hilferding's theories translate into practice (for instance, by showing specific documentation or theoretical works in which a Marxist-Leninist based his/her views on taking power on Hilferding's writings). I don't think it's a useful approach, and it kinda reeks of a specific form of idealism (a great theoretician produces a set of ideas which then automatically transpire into the workings of concrete political forces).