Log in

View Full Version : the state



The Jay
26th October 2011, 02:25
If a socialist area wishes or needs to interact with capitalist areas for material reasons, is it possible to do so without state capitalism? If so, does that mean that true socialism can only exist through near total isolation or world wide revolution?

The Jay
26th October 2011, 04:15
Could this state capitalism be why the USSR degenerated to put it another way?

Misanthrope
26th October 2011, 04:23
Yes, the failure of the state to represent the workers well being is what caused socialism to have never developed in the USSR.

The Jay
26th October 2011, 04:27
I don't think that I worded my question correctly. Let me rephrase: Would using state capitalism as an umbrella to shield an island of socialism from outside influence lead to a corruption of said socialism towards capitalism if such an umbrella was even possible? Is that what was attempted in the USSR and Cuba?

Grenzer
26th October 2011, 04:33
State capitalism seems to be a very abused phrase these days.

I don't really think it's state capitalism when the means of production are collectively owned by the working class. I would say that simply because goods produced by collectivized industry are sold to capitalist countries does not mean that it is state capitalism. They key thing is whether it's really the workers that own the means of production, rather than a caste ruling in their name.

Certainly if a ruling elite whose interests are separate from that of the workers themselves controls the means of production, then I would say there is a huge risk of degenerating into full on capitalism.

Zav
26th October 2011, 04:35
I don't think that I worded my question correctly. Let me rephrase: Would using state capitalism as an umbrella to shield an island of socialism from outside influence lead to a corruption of said socialism towards capitalism if such an umbrella was even possible? Is that what was attempted in the USSR and Cuba?
Basically yes. No Authoritarian system can accurately represent the people, and therefore will degenerate.
An island of Communism would more likely influence the surrounding area than be influenced by it.
Yes, and in other places. It is a large part of the reasoning of Marxist-Leninism for the necessity of the State and a Vanguard Party. All of these attempts failed, some more quickly than others.

Rooster
29th October 2011, 19:19
Socialist production can not trade with capitalist production because the of value has changed. Under socialism, things aren't produced to for exchange value so the costs of production, relative to a capitalist economy, would be too high for the capitalist to trade with. You can't have a state capitalist organ of a socialist mode of production to trade with completely capitalist economies. That would imply that the contradictions of capitalism would still be able to exist, such as the antagonisms between the wage-labourer (and it could only be a wage labourer) and the owner of the enterprise, the capitalist.

Nox
29th October 2011, 19:23
If a socialist area wishes or needs to interact with capitalist areas for material reasons, is it possible to do so without state capitalism? If so, does that mean that true socialism can only exist through near total isolation or world wide revolution?

You're right.

That's why Authoritarian Socialism sucks.

Susurrus
29th October 2011, 19:29
I don't really think it's state capitalism when the means of production are collectively owned by the working class. I would say that simply because goods produced by collectivized industry are sold to capitalist countries does not mean that it is state capitalism. They key thing is whether it's really the workers that own the means of production, rather than a caste ruling in their name.

Certainly if a ruling elite whose interests are separate from that of the workers themselves controls the means of production, then I would say there is a huge risk of degenerating into full on capitalism.

Um, yes. That's what happened in the USSR. The party was the elite class who controlled the means of production.

tir1944
29th October 2011, 19:44
The party was the elite class who controlled the means of production.
Says who?
How about some sources?

Искра
29th October 2011, 19:47
Says who?
How about some sources?
http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Freedom-Raya-Dunayevskaya/dp/1573928194/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319914055&sr=8-1