State Capitalism

[tradeunionsupporter]

What is State Capitalism ? Is State Capitalism were the Government or the State is ruling in the interest of Big Business/Big Corporations and of the Capitalists and of Capitalism if this one reason why the Rich/Wealthy Capitalists and the Big Corporations can get away with not paying a lot of taxes or none at all because they have Lobbyists ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[Die Rote Fahne]

The government/state ALWAYS rules in the interests of the ruling class.

You're run-on sentence is confusing me. Please use some grammar so I can read it.

[Revolution starts with U]

I thot state capitalism was when a state runns itself like a capitalist enterprise

[spice756]

What is State Capitalism ? Is State Capitalism were the Government or the State is ruling in the interest of Big Business/Big Corporations and of the Capitalists and of Capitalism if this one reason why the Rich/Wealthy Capitalists and the Big Corporations can get away with not paying a lot of taxes or none at all because they have Lobbyists ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism


some people say the USSR after Stalin was state Capitalism. No private property thus no business or Corporations but communist party ministers they are called are in charge of stuff and ran things in a capitalism way.

For capitalism there has to be competing of market private or state own that means there has to be 2 or more persons making a commodity for profit trying to out do the other.

If no 2 or more persons making a commodity for profit trying to out do the other it is not state Capitalism and called a deform worker state if the communist party misters become privilege class over the workers.

Some people say there was no private property in the USSR for the mass but a small number of communist party ministers where allowed private property and own stuff and run it in a state capitalism way.

[Rafiq]

Private Property existed in the USSR, even under Stalin, excluding 'ministers'.

Secondly, it wasn't a deformed workers state, it was, state capitalism, but if you don't like that, it was more so buerocratic collectivist.

So no, Trotsky's analysis is far from true.

[Tim Finnegan]

The government/state ALWAYS rules in the interests of the ruling class.
It's really more complex than that. Your tendency's namesake, in Reform or Revolution?, makes a point of arguing against the reductive idea of a "class state", instead pointing out that, in most circumstances, the state governs in pursuit of social harmony, and that it is the form of society, i.e. capitalism, which dictates its pro-bourgeois activities. This means that the state can act in both the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie simultaneously, i.e. through pro-worker reforms, when these two interests coincidence. Only when the proletariat organises itself as a movement actively pursuing the overthrow of capitalism does the bourgeois state marshal itself as a class state as such, e.g the fascist and quasi-fascism regimes of the early 20th century. (This is borne out by historical cases such as that of South Korea in the era of Park Chung-hee's regime, during which time the national bourgeois was heavily subjugated by the militarised state, in the interest of repressing capitalism's natural anarchy and forcing the rapid economic development of the country; the state here acted as the agent of capitalism, but not as the agent of capitalists.)
This is why revolution is, in fact, why necessary; the bourgeois state cannot be seized directly by the proletariat, as would be possible if the state was merely a tool of class rule, because it does not necessarily act on behalf of the bourgeoisie as such, but on behalf of the system of relations which sustain and empower the bourgeoisie.

[Jose Gracchus]

So what do you think the class character and productive character of the USSR, et al, were?

[Tim Finnegan]

So what do you think the class character and productive character of the USSR, et al, were?
Who, me?

If so, I have to say that I'm not sure; I certainly think that it represented a class society of some sort, but I'm still undecided as to whether I find the characterisation as "state capitalist" or "bureaucratic collectivist" more convincing. (I think my main problem is that I don't fully understand either the exact delineation of capitalism, specifically what makes it unique within the broader terms of generalised commodity production (if I'm right in understanding that there is a distinction?) or the exact social relations within the USSR. It's something which I certainly plan to address over time.)

[Jose Gracchus]

Have you read The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience (http://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience) by Paresh Chattopadhyay?

[Red_Struggle]

State capitalism:

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albeconint.htm
http://www.mltranslations.org/Ireland/ico.htm

[Rooster]

Imagine the state as being a conglomerate, with a board of directors (politicians), employees (population), with monopolies on factories, resources, distribution networks, the lot. How much personal freedom does a person have under employment? How much less do you think you'd have if your job could follow you home and you couldn't even find another employer?

[Tim Finnegan]

Have you read The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience (http://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience) by Paresh Chattopadhyay?
I'm afraid not, but I'll definitely look at it. At present I've only read relatively brief outlines of these theories, usually as part of a larger work (e.g. the description of the USSR given in Pannekoek's Workers' Councils), hence, no doubt, my ignorance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Just a warning in advance: I've read that work a few years ago, and I used to be a "state capitalist" subscriber.

[robbo203]

Who, me?

If so, I have to say that I'm not sure; I certainly think that it represented a class society of some sort, but I'm still undecided as to whether I find the characterisation as "state capitalist" or "bureaucratic collectivist" more convincing. (I think my main problem is that I don't fully understand either the exact delineation of capitalism, specifically what makes it unique within the broader terms of generalised commodity production (if I'm right in understanding that there is a distinction?) or the exact social relations within the USSR. It's something which I certainly plan to address over time.)

I think Lenin certainly took the view that there was state capitalism in the Soviet Union and that this was no bad thing. Thus we have comments like this from him:

"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in coming forth, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it (Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 27, page 340.

And from Left Wing Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality (1918) .....

State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will become invincible in our country



The confusion arises in part because Lenin departed radically from the old marxian definition of socialism in his infamous reformulation - in State and Revolution - of "socialism" as referring only to the lower phase of communism , which phase he described in terms quite different to how Marx saw it, with workers being transformed into paid hirelings of the state. It was never envisaged by Marx that the state would exist in communism whether in its lower or higher phase.


More to the point, Marxists had held hitherto that "socialism" was just an alternative term for "communism" - a synonym. In fact this old Marxian usage had prevailed among Russian social democrats themselves, prior to their break up into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, A key text called A Short Course of Economic Science, written by A Bogdanoff, talked of socialism being "the highest stage of society we can conceive", in which such institutions as taxation and profits will be non-existent and in which "there will not be the market ,buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution.". This book was published in 1897 and a revised edition, published in August 1919, was used as a textbook in schools and study circles of the Russian Communist Party (Russia 1917-1967: A Socialist Analysis, Socialist Party of Great Britain 1967). Stalin, too, in this early period talked of socialism in this way. For instance, in his book Anarchism or Socialism (1906) he wrote that

"Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed -- there will be only free workers".


In socialism, argued Stalin,


"Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.". (Anarchism or Socialism?J. V. Stalin,Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954, Vol. 1, pp. 297-391)



Lenin's attachment to state capitalism was based on the conviction that there was some kind of organic link between state capitalism and socialism almost to the extent that the latter took on some of the qualities of the former. Thus we find him declaring at the Third Congress Of The Communist International in June 22-July 12, 1921 :

But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/12.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/12.htm))

And of course there is that notorious quote from The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It,(1917) in which he argued that:

"socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly".

It is in quotes like these that we get a full sense of how and where the leninist perspective went drastically wrong and why it is of no use to socialists whatsoever. The idea that state capitalism was some kind of transitional arrangement expediting socialism has been comprehensively refuted. In practice it turned out to be just a recipe for a new form of exploitative class society.

It is interesting neverthless that the old usage of the term "socialism" unsullied by any association with state capitalism still breaks through from time to time in Lenin testifying to his social democratic past. Thus, in an interview with Arthur Ransome in 1922, Lenin conceded that socialism was still some way off:

Let us proceed further. Is it possible that we are receding to something in the nature of a "feudal dictatorship"? It is utterly impossible, for although slowly, with interruptions, taking steps backward from time to time, we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest stage of socialism), and certainly not back to feudalism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm)


My take on the matter is that state capitalism is just capitalism run by the state. And capitalism is defined classically as a system based on generalised commodity production and wage labour, features which certainly existed throughout the history of the soviet union. Notwithstanding attempts by people like Mandel to square the circle, not only consumer goods took a commodity form but, also, means of production which were bought and sold between state enterprises , which enterprises were moreover compelled to make profits and were penalised if they did not.


It was not a free market economy but it was still neverthless a market economy. It was not laissez faire capitalism but it was still capitalism

[Red_Struggle]

If you are going to make the case that the USSR was "state capitalist", then you have to prove that the state was the final recipient of surplus value.
While in any socialist country the state does recieve surplus value at some point in the process, the issue is to what application that surplus value is put. If that surplus value was (as it was in the USSR,) put to the application of infrastructure building and maintainance (roads, hydro dams, etc), essential and beneficial services ( healthcare, education, universal housing, public transportation, etc), paying salaries to millions, further developing the productive capacity of the nation... who was the ultimate benefactor of all toil? From the earliest days of Anti-communism, libertopians like Hayek sought to portray socialism as a kind of 'feudalism'. This is the similar archetype invoked in attacks on the Stalin era USSR, because if the party were the "bourgeoisie" of the state capitalist society, then surely the party were on the recieving end of all capital and profit generated by the toiling masses, specifically their general secretary J.V. Stalin. In reality, this is nonsense, of course. Far from the "Red Czar", Stalin and his family resided in an apartment (a far cry from the Winter palace of his predecessors).

[robbo203]

If you are going to make the case that the USSR was "state capitalist", then you have to prove that the state was the final recipient of surplus value.
While in any socialist country the state does recieve surplus value at some point in the process, the issue is to what application that surplus value is put. ).

You have just thereby proved to yourself that the so called socialist countires were in reality state capitalist - because the state received surplus value.

The fact that some of this surplus value funds things like healthcare is irrelevant. The same thing happens in the West where there is no pretence that we are talking about a so called "socialist" country. The National Health Service in the UK, for example, is paid for out of taxation revenue which, in the final analysis, is a cost born by the capitalist class and cuts into their profit margins (one reason why they are cutting back on public spending at a time of sluggish growth)

In the Soviet Union the capitalist class was a collective entity that collectively owned the means of production by virtue of its total control over the state apparatus. You cannot separate ownership and ultimate control . The nomenklatura who ran the state in the the Soviet Union were the de facto capitalist class. They had ultimate control over the disposal and allocation of surplus value and some of them became very welathy in their own right as result (see Reg Bishop's pamphlet on Soviet Millionaires) in what was a massively unequal society

[Chimurenga.]

State Capitalism is a political and economic system in which the means of production is privately owned and the bourgeoisie is in direct cooperation with the government apparatus. (This is why the United States is called State Monopoly Capitalism) The term has nothing to do with the Soviet Union as ownership of the means of production was either collectively owned or state owned.

The Soviet Union had four distinct characteristics of a workers state; the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, a monopoly on foreign trade, the overthrow of the bourgeois-landlord ruling class, and an economy based on a planned form. These characteristics remained intact during Stalin's regime, during the Kosygin reforms, and during Glasnost and Perestroika.

The term "state-capitalist" has been driven to the ground by Ultra-leftists and anti-Communists who want to degrade the Soviet Union (as well as the former Socialist camp) as not being socialist based on a rudimentary and narrow explanation of "the workers didn't control everything".

Was it pure socialism? No. Not in the least. There were many deficiencies, problems and contradictions that effected socialism in the Soviet Union. It was not a "workers paradise" but nevertheless, the Soviet Union was Socialist.

You can also look to the Principles of Communism and The Communist Manifesto where both Marx and Engels advocated for the seizure of the means of production into state ownership.

To sum up Engels,


State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm). I whole-heartedly agree.

[robbo203]

You can also look to the Principles of Communism and The Communist Manifesto where both Marx and Engels advocated for the seizure of the means of production into state ownership.

To sum up Engels,

I whole-heartedly agree.


You "agree" but you fail to include the sentences immediately preceding the Engels quote - namely

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. Socialism Utopian and Scientific"


The Communist Manifesto certainly did advocate certain reformist state capitalist measures - later downplayed , if not entirely retracted, in later prefaces to the Manifesto - but in no way did the authors of the Manifesto imagine that state ownership of the means of production was anything but capitalism. And that is the whole point isnt it? In no way does state ownership amount to socialism or figure in socialism at least as this was conceived in traditional marxism

And if by "private ownership" you mean ownership by individual capitalists Engels himself pointed out how this form of capitalism was being replaced by trusts and state ownership

[Jose Gracchus]

Those four conditions are just self-justifying props Stalin et al provided as a legalistic re-definition of a workers' society so that they could meet it. The USSR never really planned things in-kind, the central planning and state enterprise system was more anarchic and always depended on markets to function (for-profit "facilitators" hired by enterprises to meet production goals, hoarding workers and raw materials for production, turnover between enterprises in a shadow labor market).

Fixations with the officially planned state form of the USSR's economy are simply mystification caused by the bureaucracy's penchant for legal fictions. They even used shadow prices (long a secret) in order to coordinate the state-firms. As soon as the economy was no longer organized in a forced industrialization, war mobilization, or war reconstruction extraordinary mode, it started re-assigning legal powers by enterprise management in pattern of a bourgeois class.

What is interesting is how the USSR started out as the management of the armed camp which has presided over the extinguishing of the workers' revolution, and transmogrified itself in order to conform with productive and material tasks that the ruling class found itself subject too. I think the Soviet-type systems were unique instances of capitalism whereby the national capital in backward societies that failed to accomplish Bordiga's revolution in agrarian relations tried to forcibly overcome their backwardness via statification, bureaucratization, and autarky, as well as a social contract based on living standards with workers. The task of this historical system was the extensive growth tasks, involving accumulation of capital stock, expropriation of the peasantry, modernization of agricultural production, and urbanization and heavy industrialization. Once it outlived those tasks, it could not overcome its contradictions and was obliged to find a way to integrate itself in a new international capitalist system.

[Red_Struggle]

A central administration eliminates this problem by investing in different territories and supervising the distribution of products and resources. But while this is necessary, at least two things must exist to make sure modern central planning does not go the way of the old kind. (Of course any anarchist will tell you that if you can conceive of any possible problem with an anarchist society, it means you don't know enough and you have to go read the Anarchist FAQ, which will inform you that they don't believe the issue in question would be such a problem in an anarchist society.

Enterprises must have some kind of control at a local level, as they are closest to the masses in their area. The center should provide them with the info which is not readily available to them- not information they already know better than the center.

There is no logical reason why every community at a certain level(like a major city) should have a paper mill, textile plants, etc. So you start with uneven development and you never truly equalize everything because it just doesn't make sense for every community to have the exact same means of production. As a result, you have to set up trade and distribution of goods which are made in certain areas to other areas and vice versa. Of course to the anarchist it's all simple because everyone is freely associating in free communes in free exchange and a whole lot of other phrases and words with 'free' tacked on to the beginning of them. What happens when you stick 'free' in front of all your words? Well science tells us that it prevents any possible problem from arising.