M-L = State Capitalism .... ?

[JPSartre12]

Comrades, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day (he's very progressive, but I would not say that he is a socialist by any means) regarding the nature of the State under Marxist-Leninist rule, and several interesting thoughts came to mind. I was wondering what your opinions are on what he said.

He made three major arguments (I am paraphrasing him as best as I can according to my memory):

1) That Marxist-Leninism is an philosophical justification for government control, because any and all attempts to institute a socialist/communist mode of production (or a transition to one) have failed terribly. Any time that a self-described Marxist-Leninist political party or organization has come to power, it has instituted a harsh and authoritarian regime that ends up in a degenerate, state-capitalist system (he pointed to the well-intended revolutionaries in Russia eventually ending up with Stalinism, China's state capitalism, North Korea, Cuba, etc). No matter what Marxist-Leninist theory says in a book, it always translates into top-down state capitalism when put into practice.

2) "Communism" and "state capitalism" are essentially the same thing, because if the State controls all production and the entire economy, then class distinctions disappear and everything is equal. Complete nationalization results in everyone being the same, being economically equal, etc. He pointed to the Soviet Union and to China as examples of this, saying that everyone was forced to be same, and that this forced equality "is communism".

3) I made a point of arguing for a proletarian party to seize control of the government and enact the transition from capitalism to socialism, but he said that the USSR/China were such worker-governments because the political parties in charge of them (their Communist Parties, respectively) did so in the name of the proletariat, and therefore they did represent socialism/communism.

Disclosure - I am a Marxist but not a Leninist, and therefore not a Marxist-Leninist per se, so I was not sure how to accurately defend M-L theory against his first charge. As for the second, I did my best to reiterate that socialism/communism do advocate the dissolution of government in favor of worker control, but he continued to argue that state capitalism is socialism/communism in reality. As for the third, I argued that a party acting in the name of the proletariat is not the same as the proletariat acting themselves.

Your thoughts?

What are your thoughts as to these charges?

[ind_com]

State capitalism is a declared phase in the socialist construction. To defend ML-theory, compare the erstwhile socialist regimes with what those countries had been before the revolutions. Then refer to the number of starvation related deaths in capitalism per day, the pathetic conditions in the third world etc. to prove that capitalism has been the biggest failure in human history.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, as socialism in one country is impossible, it's difficult to see what else a 'proletarian party' could do if it takes control of a single isolated state, other than 'institute top-down state-capitalism'. Of course, M-Ls believe that socialism in one country is possible... but it isn't. State capitalism has always been the result because every single 'revolution' has failed.

No, communism isn't state capitalism, most marxist currents (Marxian socialists, Left Communists, Council communists, De Leonists, autonomists) don't seek to administer state capitalism. Really, it's just M-Ls and Trotskyists.

Furthermore, proletarian parties don't 'represent' the proletariat. If they seize power, they've already substituted themselves for the proletariat, and the revolution is already heading for disaster. Revolution is the task of the working class not some minority acting in its name.

[Let's Get Free]

It seems wherever Marxist-Leninists have seized power, they have only shored up state capitalism, with a veneer of social welfare replacing social justice.

[Sea]

Of course, M-Ls believe that socialism in one country is possible... que

[Blake's Baby]

It seems wherever Marxist-Leninists have seized power, they have only shored up state capitalism, with a veneer of social welfare replacing social justice.

Because socialism in one country is impossible. All previous revolutions have failed. That's not because M-Ls have the wrong theory (even though, they have the wrong theory...)

[Comrade #138672]

I don't think everyone was 'equal' under the rule of the Soviet Union. Workers didn't have a say in anything, so who controlled everything then? A layer of bureaucrats with Stalin at the top. The workers didn't even control the means of production. So these bureaucrats were actually Capitalists, because they controlled the means of production rather than the workers. That's Capitalism, not Socialism.

So the Soviet Union definitely had classes and people weren't actually 'equal'. It was Capitalism forcing the workers, not Socialism.

[JPSartre12]

State capitalism is a declared phase in the socialist construction. To defend ML-theory, compare the erstwhile socialist regimes with what those countries had been before the revolutions. Then refer to the number of starvation related deaths in capitalism per day, the pathetic conditions in the third world etc. to prove that capitalism has been the biggest failure in human history.

Why, though?
By this I mean why is state capitalism a phase in socialist construction? You make a very valid point on comparing/contrasting the living conditions under socialist regimes (I would have to dissent and disagree that there has ever been a regime that we can accurately describe as "socialist", at least to my limited knowledge), but why is there a need for state capitalism to come about during the transformation of capitalism into socialism?

It seems to me that we should be going about building parallel institutions and rendering the State as minimal and unnecessary as possible, rather than imbue it with additional power. I feel as if socialist construction should avoid state capitalism, rather than accept it.



I don't think everyone was 'equal' under the rule of the Soviet Union. Workers didn't have a say in anything, so who controlled everything then? A layer of bureaucrats with Stalin at the top. The workers didn't even control the means of production. So these bureaucrats were actually Capitalists, because they controlled the means of production rather than the workers. That's Capitalism, not Socialism.

Good point ^ This is more in line with what I'm thinking.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I highly doubt your liberal friend used the term "state capitalism". Yes, Stalinist countries were plainly capitalist. They had market economies (contrary to what trots who don't know what that means will tell you), generalized commodity production, an economy of labor exploitation, and a state not accountable to the workers but to the capital accumulators.

[ind_com]

Why, though?
By this I mean why is state capitalism a phase in socialist construction? You make a very valid point on comparing/contrasting the living conditions under socialist regimes (I would have to dissent and disagree that there has ever been a regime that we can accurately describe as "socialist", at least to my limited knowledge), but why is there a need for state capitalism to come about during the transformation of capitalism into socialism?

It seems to me that we should be going about building parallel institutions and rendering the State as minimal and unnecessary as possible, rather than imbue it with additional power. I feel as if socialist construction should avoid state capitalism, rather than accept it.

We define socialism as the transitional stage to communism, in which the proletariat exercises its dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. So, the USSR and PRC were socialist. State-capitalism is necessary because of some practical purposes, due to the uneven development always present in societies preceding socialism.

However, state-capitalism is merely the beginning of socialism. A socialist programme should consist of much more material than that. In a capitalist society, the capitalist is at the top of production, his managers below him, and the workers below everyone else. The managers and capitalists take the decisions concerning productions, and the workers labour under their terms. The socialist state can first start by putting some control over the factory. Then it can get rid of the capitalist altogether, and nationalize the company. However, the managers still are above the workers. This can be solved by employing the managers in the similar manner as workers. But still, if workers labour while managers take decisions, the latter have considerable control over the means of production to give birth to a new capitalist class. So, the next step is to have the same amount of labour and decision making for each worker, so that the workers themselves can manage. This is how the working class gains control of the means of production directly, and the economic remnants of capitalism are destroyed.

It has been observed, that the socialist state does not last enough to implement the above steps in a top-down manner. So it is necessary from the very beginning to maintain class-organizations among the proletariat to bring about these changes from below. In other words, class struggle at the very bottom of the society must always be given top priority. This programme is being worked upon in central India.

[JPSartre12]

I highly doubt your liberal friend used the term "state capitalism"

Actually, he did, he's one of my roommates :p Myself and one of my other roommates (he's a die-hard Chomsky fan) debate these sort of things quite often and he occasionally takes part, and we're trying to bring him around so that he's no longer just a Democrat.

[Comrade #138672]

We define socialism as the transitional stage to communism, in which the proletariat exercises its dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. So, the USSR and PRC were socialist. State-capitalism is necessary because of some practical purposes, due to the uneven development always present in societies preceding socialism.

However, state-capitalism is merely the beginning of socialism. A socialist programme should consist of much more material than that. In a capitalist society, the capitalist is at the top of production, his managers below him, and the workers below everyone else. The managers and capitalists take the decisions concerning productions, and the workers labour under their terms. The socialist state can first start by putting some control over the factory. Then it can get rid of the capitalist altogether, and nationalize the company. However, the managers still are above the workers. This can be solved by employing the managers in the similar manner as workers. But still, if workers labour while managers take decisions, the latter have considerable control over the means of production to give birth to a new capitalist class. So, the next step is to have the same amount of labour and decision making for each worker, so that the workers themselves can manage. This is how the working class gains control of the means of production directly, and the economic remnants of capitalism are destroyed.

It has been observed, that the socialist state does not last enough to implement the above steps in a top-down manner. So it is necessary from the very beginning to maintain class-organizations among the proletariat to bring about these changes from below. In other words, class struggle at the very bottom of the society must always be given top priority. This programme is being worked upon in central India.I believe that Russia was Socialist for a short while after the October revolution, but that it has been crushed and replaced by State Capitalism under the false flag of Socialism (there was no other way for the bourgeoisie to seize power).

It's true that Socialism is the transitional stage to Communism. However, this doesn't mean that the Soviet Union was actually in this stage.

[Engels]

Disclosure - I am a Marxist but not a Leninist, and therefore not a Marxist-Leninist per se, so I was not sure how to accurately defend M-L theory against his first charge.

If I may suggest, change tactics here - don’t feel obligated to defend Stalinists (or Maoists for that matter) just because they call themselves Marxists. Instead attack M-L theory yourself; use a Marxist analysis, show him why Socialism in One Country is nonsense.


As for the second, I did my best to reiterate that socialism/communism do advocate the dissolution of government in favor of worker control, but he continued to argue that state capitalism is socialism/communism in reality.

State capitalism is state capitalism in reality. He can play around with words, but calling a state capitalist bureaucracy ‘communist’ does not change its fundamental nature.

Also, explain how individual/private capitalists aren’t required for capitalism. Instead, you can have the State taking on that role and acting as the national capitalist. What does this have to do with the proletariat abolishing itself as a class, thereby creating a classless, communal society known as socialism/communism? Nothing!


As for the third, I argued that a party acting in the name of the proletariat is not the same as the proletariat acting themselves.

This is correct, continue this line of argument.

[ind_com]

I believe that Russia was Socialist for a short while after the October revolution, but that it has been crushed and replaced by State Capitalism under the false flag of Socialism (there was no other way for the bourgeoisie to seize power).

It's true that Socialism is the transitional stage to Communism. However, this doesn't mean that the Soviet Union was actually in this stage.

That depends on how you define socialism. I think that the isolated socialist revolutions in underdeveloped countries can continue for sometime with several remnants of capitalism. However, learning from our experiences in all the revolutions so far, we know that the Bolsheviks, and every other communist group in history, could have done much better.

[JPSartre12]

State capitalism is state capitalism in reality. He can play around with words, but calling a state capitalist bureaucracy ‘communist’ does not change its fundamental nature.


Also, explain how individual/private capitalists aren’t required for capitalism. Instead, you can have the State taking on that role and acting as the national capitalist. What does this have to do with the proletariat abolishing itself as a class, thereby creating a classless, communal society known as socialism/communism? Nothing!

The point that my roommate was making about the proletariat abolishing itself as a class probably wasn't articulated well, so let me try and explain it better.

He argued that, once the State assumes control of all production and does act as the "national capitalist", as you put it (which illustrates the concept really well, I think), there is essentially no more differentiation between public property, private property, personal property, or whatever else sort of property you can think of or conceptualize - it all becomes State property. And once everything is state property, we all have equal status when it comes to our relationship with the means of production, because no one owns them at all, and thus "class" is abolished. Everyone is equal, and because the people constitute the government (a horribly liberal argument that I disagree with!), we are in a classless society where we have collective State property.

He used this logic to show why regimes such as those in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc are socialist/communist (yes, I do understand that there/are elements of capitalism and markets in each).

[Blake's Baby]

...
He argued that, once the State assumes control of all production and does act as the "national capitalist", as you put it (which illustrates the concept really well, I think), there is essentially no more differentiation between public property, private property, personal property, or whatever else sort of property you can think of or conceptualize - it all becomes State property...

Engels outlined the idea of the 'national capitalist' in the 1880s. It forms one of the bases of state capitalist theory.


... And once everything is state property, we all have equal status when it comes to our relationship with the means of production, because no one owns them at all, and thus "class" is abolished...

Only class isn't abolished, because property isn't abolished, it's transformed into state property, which is still property; and not everyone administers the state, so not everyone administers the property either; and the state functionaries derive more benefits to their relationship to production; and other classes still exist anyway (peasantry for instance); and classes external to the 'socialist' country exist, property has only been collectivised in one area, like a national co-opertative; so there are distinctions in property relationships, and therefore classes.




... Everyone is equal, and because the people constitute the government (a horribly liberal argument that I disagree with!), we are in a classless society where we have collective State property...

Only we don't.



...He used this logic to show why regimes such as those in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc are socialist/communist (yes, I do understand that there/are elements of capitalism and markets in each).

Only what he's arguing about is state capitalism. As that's not what communism is, then, yeah, he's right, state capitalist parties who control countries and implement state capitalist policies are state capitalist.

Communism is different - it involves the working class (not 'the party') overthrowing capitalism and the state worldwide (not in one place) and creating a society based on freedom and solidarity (not militarisation of production and an authoritarian state). Oh, and it's never yet happened, so any 'examples' are invalid.

[Ostrinski]

I'm starting to lean back toward the state capitalist theory of the economic and class nature of the Soviet Union. I don't think it's a perfect theory or even a very good one but in my opinion it's the best one there is and explains best the exact ways in which the Stalinist regimes weren't socialist. DWS and non-mode of production evade the question because of their inability to answer it.

[Engels]

He argued that, once the State assumes control of all production and does act as the "national capitalist", as you put it (which illustrates the concept really well, I think), there is essentially no more differentiation between public property, private property, personal property, or whatever else sort of property you can think of or conceptualize - it all becomes State property.

From Engels’ “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” – an interesting read.


And once everything is state property, we all have equal status when it comes to our relationship with the means of production, because no one owns them at all, and thus "class" is abolished. Everyone is equal, and because the people constitute the government (a horribly liberal argument that I disagree with!), we are in a classless society where we have collective State property.

He used this logic to show why regimes such as those in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc are socialist/communist (yes, I do understand that there/are elements of capitalism and markets in each).

Incredible… is he actually trying to suggest that a privileged Party official in the Politburo and the average Soviet wage worker performing alienated labour had the same relations to the means of production?

He argues that the State acts as the national capitalist; this implies that there is a group of people who manage national capital – therefore, they have a different relationship to the means of production. In other words, nationalisation serves only to reconstruct capitalism (and the capitalist class) in another form. Nationalisation has absolutely nothing to do with socialism which is a process undertaken by the international working class.

[Comrade Hill]

I'm not buying any of these silly "state capitalist" and "non mode of production" arguments. So far, no one has even bothered to talk about the class nature of the Soviet "bureaucrats" in detail, or mention exactly what made the relations of production "capitalist" in nature. We all know that the NEP was a system of state capitalist production......even us "Stalinists" admit that. However, the industrialization after the 1930s had a much different character. The existence of profit doesn't imply capitalist relations, nor does a relatively miniscule "market" that is used by peasants to sell their crops. The peasants had to rely on the socialist state sector to obtain their tractors and technology to produce crops. What ultimately determines whether an economy is socialist or capitalist is how labour-power is distributed, as well as many other things. Karl Marx mentioned that what ultimately matters is "who obtains the surplus value."

Prior to around 1957, the Soviet economy had a socialist character. We can observe this by comparing the nature of the Soviet economy from the socialist and revisionist time periods. The abolition of centralized planning allowed the regulator of production to fall in the hands of capitalist "economic levers" that you see in many imperialist countries. These "reforms" also allowed the ownership of the means of productions to fall under individual directors rather than the state as a whole. Here are some important things to note:

"In the case of socialised production....society distributes labour-power and means of production in the different branches of production". (K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 2; London; 1974; p.362).


A commodity is a product which may be sold to any purchaser, and when its owner sells it he loses ownership of it and the purchaser becomes the owner of the commodity, which he may resell, pledge or allow to rot. Do means of production come within this category? They obviously do not. In the first place, means of production are not 'sold' to any purchaser;.. they are only allocated by the state to its enterprises. In the second place, when transferring the means of production to any enterprise, the owner -- the state -- does not at all lose the ownership of them; on the contrary, it retains it fully. In the third place, directors of enterprises who receive means of production from the Soviet state, far from becoming their owners, are deemed to be agents of the state in the utilisation of the means of production in accordance with the plans established by the state.

It will be seen, then, that under our system means of production can certainly not be classed in the category of commodities. (J. V. Stalin: "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR"; Moscow; 1952; p. 58).

[GoddessCleoLover]

If the Soviet economy circa 1957 had a socialist character, then count me out. GULAG "socialism", where the State is supreme and the workers are peons, makes a mockery of the DotP. It was the stench of the GULAG system more than anything else, including revisionism, that led the working class of western Europe and the USA to reject the proffered vanguard leadership. For all of its faults, Eurocommunism was at least an attempt to distance the Italian, French, and Spanish CPs from GULAG "socialism".

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm starting to lean back toward the state capitalist theory of the economic and class nature of the Soviet Union. I don't think it's a perfect theory or even a very good one but in my opinion it's the best one there is and explains best the exact ways in which the Stalinist regimes weren't socialist. DWS and non-mode of production evade the question because of their inability to answer it.

The idea of an industrialized society organized through a "non-mode of production" is nonsensical.

[Comrade Hill]

If the Soviet economy circa 1957 had a socialist character, then count me out. GULAG "socialism", where the State is supreme and the workers are peons, makes a mockery of the DotP.


Well the people in the gulag made up approximately 2.4% of the population, which is smaller than the prison population in the United States.

If you are a Marxist, you should know that the state cannot be "supreme" in any superstructural society. The state is an organ of class rule, and what is ultimately supreme is its mode of production, with a ruling class following its economic laws. You should also note that the gulag system had a much more progressive nature than other penal systems. The penal system in the United States, for example, is backwards in nature compared to the gulag system.

"The Soviet prison system, as applied to ordinary criminals, embodies a number of progressive penological ideas. Educational and manual training instruction courses exist in the more advanced prisons; prisoners are not required to wear uniforms; and the well-behaved prisoner receives a vacation of two weeks every year, which is certainly a unique Russian institution." (Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 124)

Now, that's not to say that the people in the gulags didn't endure any hardships. This wasn't because the gulag system was somehow "flawed," but because the wars that were fought very often in the Soviet Union created shortages in material goods. As a result, a lack of food occurred at times.



It was the stench of the GULAG system more than anything else, including revisionism, that led the working class of western Europe and the USA to reject the proffered vanguard leadership. For all of its faults, Eurocommunism was at least an attempt to distance the Italian, French, and Spanish CPs from GULAG "socialism".

The rise of the United States as an empire after World War 2, as well as the CPSU's degeneration into revisionism, created the conditions which gave birth to a trend of opportunism among the American working class. The gulag system did not cause this. Eurocommunism seems to be a counter-revolutionary trend that was occurring in accordance with their practice of political determinism in the bourgeois state apparatuses of Europe.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Comrade Hill, IMO the only way to revive the working class movement is to rededicate ourselves to the type of socialism advocated by Joe Hill, and cast aside the phony socialism of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Mao, Deng and the rest of the lot that betrayed the working class revolution to enhance their political power at the expense of the class they claimed to represent.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Comrade Hill, IMO the only way to revive the working class movement is to rededicate ourselves to the type of socialism advocated by Joe Hill, and cast aside the phony socialism of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Mao, Deng and the rest of the lot that betrayed the working class revolution to enhance their political power at the expense of the class they claimed to represent.

Ummmm.....What?

[Let's Get Free]

The rise of the United States as an empire after World War 2, as well as the CPSU's degeneration into revisionism, created the conditions which gave birth to a trend of opportunism among the American working class.


What is "revisionism?" That one man, Khrushchev, was the material basis for the destruction of Sociaism that was built by Stalin's mighty hand? That seems highly idealistic and un Marxist and reeks of the Great Man theory.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I believe that in order to revive Marxism in the 21st century it is first necessary to repudiate the statist ideologies of the 20th century that led to the type of GULAG "socialism" that has caused the working class to lose faith in socialism as an alternative to capitalism.

[Grenzer]

What do you mean by "Statist"? A dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to achieve communism, which by definition is statist.

If by "statist" you mean this idealization of the state in such abstractions as "workers' state" fetishism, opposition to proletarian class rule as a class, and the like, then I agree, the 'statist' brands of socialism as represented by the Stalinists and Trotskyists in particular need to be done away with.

[Comrade Hill]

What is "revisionism?"

Let me quote what I said in the thread entitled Revisionism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2532358&postcount=11):


The word "revisionist" in the Marxist sense means to revise Marxism to the point of degrading its scientific and revolutionary character. It basically boils down to taking a scientific theory, and completely distorting it. "Revisionism" can apply to other forms of science as well, not just Marxism. For example, you have Darwinism, which contains his theory of evolution. There is a current called "social Darwinism" that revises Darwinism as a scientific theory. They use Darwin's theory to justify the "survival of the fittest" of certain "elite" nationalities, as well as claiming that Darwin's theory of evolution somehow "proves" that human beings are a bunch of wild beasts who strive to kill each other to get ahead in life.


That one man, Khrushchev, was the material basis for the destruction of Sociaism that was built by Stalin's mighty hand?

I don't recall ever saying this. I'll try and clear a few things up for you.

The Khrushevite clique did not just compose of Khrushchev; it was composed of other revisionists as well. I could've sworn I've shown you this article (http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/why-did-the-soviet-union-collapse/) before, but it explains in detail where the material origins of revisionism and the Soviet Union's collapse ultimately come from. What this article boils down to is this: the material conditions that endured during the early stages of development in the Soviet Union, as well as World War 2, gave rise to conditions that aided counter-revolution within the party. A vanguard party is supposed to act as the general staff of the working class, and an organ of mass rule by the workers. One of the reasons Marxist-Leninists uphold Stalin as a classic of Marxism is because he fought to try and make this happen. See this work by Grover Furr (http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2012/06/stalin-and-struggle-for-democratic.html). In addition, as the construction of socialism takes root, the chances of counter-revolution also rapidly increase. Thus, the class struggle intensifies under a socialist system. People do not "relax." Contrary to what some Trotskyists, Left Communists, and other leftists tell you, this was a situation that was unavoidable.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Ghost Bebel; thanks for more clearly articulating what I was attempting to communicate, and I agree that both the Stalinists (and Maoists and Hoxhaists) and Trotskyists have fetishized the workers' state concept. IMO the goal of the revolution ought to be to smash the bourgeois state and create a new state that is controlled by the workers, not the party. Back in the 70s when I first encountered the left, one thing that left me disillusioned was the chasm between the theory of the workers' state (Lenin's The State and Revolution is a prime example) as opposed to the reality in Russia, China and elsewhere, to wit a dictatorship run by a party elite.

[Grenzer]

Ghost Bebel; thanks for more clearly articulating what I was attempting to communicate, and I agree that both the Stalinists (and Maoists and Hoxhaists) and Trotskyists have fetishized the workers' state concept. IMO the goal of the revolution ought to be to smash the bourgeois state and create a new state that is controlled by the workers, not the party. Back in the 70s when I first encountered the left, one thing that left me disillusioned was the chasm between the theory of the workers' state (Lenin's The State and Revolution is a prime example) as opposed to the reality in Russia, China and elsewhere, to wit a dictatorship run by a party elite.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Lenin did have his strengths and weaknesses, as others have elucidated on, but I've always fundamentally agreed with the idea that revolution must entail the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus.

In my view, the Leninists(of the varieties you mentioned) have taken the idea of "workers' state" for granted; in my view, a proletarian dictatorship cannot exist in the absence of actual organs that allow the proletariat to rule as a class. Over time, these organs cease to have a political nature as class distinctions fade, yet they remain as tools of administration more or less.

No such organs existed in Russia following the dissolution of the Soviets, and they never existed period in any of the other 'socialist states'. To the degree that councils or other ostensible organs for workers' rule existed, it was in a farcical and controlled way. In the absence of such independent organs of the working class, I do not think a proletarian dictatorship can be said to exist.

I believe it was Lenin who said that the new state following a proletarian revolution is in essence a state that is dying, a state that is withering away as class distinctions fade. We can see clearly that the Soviet Union and all of its Stalinist replicas, far from being "dying states", had the state infringe upon every sphere of life to a degree never before seen.

I do not believe that communism can be established overnight, and that indeed a proletarian dictatorship is needed, but I do strongly believe that a proletarian dictatorship is a transitional entity that ceases to exist as class distinctions fade since its primary purpose is to oversee the abolition of classes. This, of course, can only happen on a global scale, not within a single, or even a large group of countries. I take strong issue with the statement of even those anti-Stalinists such as the Trotskyists who claim that the Stalinist states were essentially "transitions to the transition to socialism".

[Let's Get Free]

The Khrushevite clique did not just compose of Khrushchev; it was composed of other revisionists as well. I could've sworn I've shown you this article before, but it explains in detail where the material origins of revisionism and the Soviet Union's collapse ultimately come from. What this article boils down to is this: the material conditions that endured during the early stages of development in the Soviet Union, as well as World War 2, gave rise to conditions that aided counter-revolution within the party. A vanguard party is supposed to act as the general staff of the working class, and an organ of mass rule by the workers. One of the reasons Marxist-Leninists uphold Stalin as a classic of Marxism is because he fought to try and make this happen. See this work by Grover Furr. In addition, as the construction of socialism takes root, the chances of counter-revolution also rapidly increase. Thus, the class struggle intensifies under a socialist system. People do not "relax." Contrary to what some Trotskyists, Left Communists, and other leftists tell you, this was a situation that was unavoidable.

This is absolute nonsense, from start to finish. The evidence you've presented amounts to little more than a changing of the guard- a few of the most prominent leaders from Stalin's time removed from the party and a few others forced into retirement. If there was a full-on counterrevolution that restored capitalism (which is what you claim Khrushchev & co. accomplished), Marxists would expect a lot more violence. A struggle between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary factions that was carried on in the open, rather than behind the closed doors of a communist party meeting room. A complete party purge, like those that occurred in the thirties under Stalin, if the struggle happened within the party, perhaps.

Plus, you have only been talking about the leaders of the anti-revisionist current- what about the Party membership in general? Where was the struggle against revisionism amongst them? These are all questions you have to answer if you expect this theory to be taken seriously.

Oh, and if Khrushchev was able to mount this "counter revolution" so easily, can much really be said about internal party democracy?

[Ostrinski]

The idea of an industrialized society organized through a "non-mode of production" is nonsensical.Makes more sense than the claims of it being a socialist mode of production.

[Comrade Hill]

This is absolute nonsense, from start to finish. The evidence you've presented amounts to little more than a changing of the guard-

You obviously did not read the articles I suggested to you. Let me quote a passage from Ted Hankin's article:


In a situation where the party is, at least initially, substituting for a decimated working class as in Russia, the ideological commitment, and moral character of the Communist party is extremely important. This is especially the case when the party is forced to compromise with the technical intelligentsia whose efforts are necessary to the immediate and medium term continuation of society, but whose class outlook is more or less hostile to the revolutionary project. In practice, precisely because of the failure to revolutionise productive relationships, it appears to be the alien class forces that ideologically influenced the Communists rather than vice versa.

Eventually the party provided a socialisation process in which bourgeois aims and aspirations were not only accommodated, but actually reinforced. Marxism-Leninism was converted into little more than a series of ritual incantations which legitimised the ‘leading role’ of the ruling elite. Although it started well before, the Brezhnev period became a classic example of open corruption amongst the ruling elite. There was, hardly surprisingly, widespread resentment of the privileged lifestyle enjoyed by the bureaucrats.



To claim that a counter-revolution has to be violent/bloody is to fetishize violence. There is no abstract, metaphysical law that says all revolutions "have" to be violent. The October Revolution was not a particularly violent uprising. What the word counter-revolution implies is the act of putting a stop to a revolution. The revisionists, with the help of prior conditions, did exactly this.The state under socialism has a revolutionary character, hence the collectivization and the purges. You have to realize that the role the state plays under a socialist system is different from the state under capitalism. Just because the state was not able to withstand its own contradictions, or that the Party was not connected enough with the masses, does not mean it somehow "wasn't" socialist at all. There are multiple sides to this situation. You cannot explain the collapse of the Soviet Union by solely attributing it to "bureaucracy" and "corruption." These things all have roots too. You seem to hold this belief that socialism is this delicate butterfly without any contradictions. It's not.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Disclosure - I am a Marxist but not a Leninist, and therefore not a Marxist-Leninist per se, so I was not sure how to accurately defend M-L theory against his first charge. As for the second, I did my best to reiterate that socialism/communism do advocate the dissolution of government in favor of worker control, but he continued to argue that state capitalism is socialism/communism in reality. As for the third, I argued that a party acting in the name of the proletariat is not the same as the proletariat acting themselves.

Your thoughts?

What are your thoughts as to these charges?Well first, and maybe yo alreay know this, but M-L is not maxism and leninism but the official politics of the USSR as they developed during the Stalin years and then later groups who adopted that model or varients of it.

So, for example, I would see Marxism and Leninism (as well as other tradditions) as part of my politics, but not M-Lism.

So for the first argument, it's not far-off, but related to the other problems in the other arguments, where it's off is seeing "government" as something existing outside of social forces in society. The problem in my view with the USSR was not "govenment control" in the abstract, but the interests and aims of that government: to modernize Russia, be in a position to hold-off/compete with the Western European powers etc. These aims came out of the position that Russia was in as the Revolution failed and then also the larger revolutionary wave in Europe ebbed. But in practice, it also reflected the interests of the beurocrats who relied on the state set up by the revolution, but not on the power behind the revolutution and so their interests came at the expense of the Russian working class and peasant population. M-L as a set of ideas was a way that the now non-Revolutionary forces in power could retain the revolutionary husk (the government and institutions set up after the revolution) and aura (some popular and international support/credibility)while using it for non-working class and non-revolutionary aims.

For the second point, no state-capitalism and communism are not the same. In fact, there have been pleanty of outright capitalist countries where state-capitalist measures were used to modernize - Bizmarkian Germany, and China today. I think other people have covered this point.

For the 3rd point and related to the second: it's about worker's power in society, not a set of policies. The USSR or a Social-Democratic country can enact policies on "behalf" of the working class, but the point is working class rule.


Well the people in the gulag made up approximately 2.4% of the population, which is smaller than the prison population in the United States.

If you are a Marxist, you should know that the state cannot be "supreme" in any superstructural society. The state is an organ of class rule, and what is ultimately supreme is its mode of production, with a ruling class following its economic laws. You should also note that the gulag system had a much more progressive nature than other penal systems. The penal system in the United States, for example, is backwards in nature compared to the gulag system.

"The Soviet prison system, as applied to ordinary criminals, embodies a number of progressive penological ideas. Educational and manual training instruction courses exist in the more advanced prisons; prisoners are not required to wear uniforms; and the well-behaved prisoner receives a vacation of two weeks every year, which is certainly a unique Russian institution." (Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 124)

A better prison - what a glowing endorsement of the USSR model.:rolleyes:

[Thirsty Crow]

1) That Marxist-Leninism is an philosophical justification for government control, because any and all attempts to institute a socialist/communist mode of production (or a transition to one) have failed terribly. Any time that a self-described Marxist-Leninist political party or organization has come to power, it has instituted a harsh and authoritarian regime that ends up in a degenerate, state-capitalist system (he pointed to the well-intended revolutionaries in Russia eventually ending up with Stalinism, China's state capitalism, North Korea, Cuba, etc). No matter what Marxist-Leninist theory says in a book, it always translates into top-down state capitalism when put into practice.
The real question is what kind of a state we're talking about here.
With that in mind, yes in my opinion Marxism-Leninism represents a current aguing for state control of production, the state form being a party-state, excluding broad layers of workers from any means of empowerment. Here it is important to note that the party-state, as a network of institutions, functions in the same way, or to be more precise, has historically functioned in the same way as the bourgeois state - as an force separated from society, the direct producers, and has included in its functions the appropriation of surplus labour.

But the most important thing here to note is that marxism-leninism is a result of a specific conjencture of historically conditioned social conditions. There was no Marxism-Leninism prior to the October Revolution, and its degeneration, brought about by factors both subjective (imo, those would include the rejection of proposals of workers in factory committees, consequent liquidation of these, and so on) and objective (the economic distress due to both WWI and the Civil War, and most of all, the international isolation of soviet power in Russia), and the point is that these two groups of factors cannot be studied irrespectively of one another.

Apart from that, generally I agree that marxism-leninism represents a severly flawed conception of both socialism as a mode of production altogether different from captitalism and the means of proletarian self-emancipation.



2) "Communism" and "state capitalism" are essentially the same thing, because if the State controls all production and the entire economy, then class distinctions disappear and everything is equal. Complete nationalization results in everyone being the same, being economically equal, etc. He pointed to the Soviet Union and to China as examples of this, saying that everyone was forced to be same, and that this forced equality "is communism".It's not true that communism and state capitalism are "essentially" the same. Far from it.
This statement stems from the very superficial notion of class distinction which is apparent in the claim that nationalization results in everyone being the same. That was not what happened as workers existed socially as workers still while being subject to the appropriation of both their labour power and products of it by another group. I seriously doubt that anyone could conclude that Stalin (for instance) and Rodion Romanovich the metal worker "were the same", both in their immediate standards of life and their social function - and classes are social functions.

Offtopic but still:


Makes more sense than the claims of it being a socialist mode of production.

Not only that it makes no sense, but it destroys the notion that it is possible through historical analysis to grasp the concrete relations of production of a given society at a given time.
If you take the notion of a non-mode of production at face value, you end up with, let's say, "intellectual defeatism", basically saying that you can't reconstruct in thought the way production of material life was/is organized.

[LordAcheron]

1) That Marxist-Leninism is an philosophical justification for government control, because any and all attempts to institute a socialist/communist mode of production (or a transition to one) have failed terribly. Any time that a self-described Marxist-Leninist political party or organization has come to power, it has instituted a harsh and authoritarian regime that ends up in a degenerate, state-capitalist system (he pointed to the well-intended revolutionaries in Russia eventually ending up with Stalinism, China's state capitalism, North Korea, Cuba, etc). No matter what Marxist-Leninist theory says in a book, it always translates into top-down state capitalism when put into practice.
While that is true of M-L approaches, socialism and communism have been achieved, although they only existed for short periods of time due to the USSR being a really, really sore loser.


2) "Communism" and "state capitalism" are essentially the same thing, because if the State controls all production and the entire economy, then class distinctions disappear and everything is equal. Complete nationalization results in everyone being the same, being economically equal, etc. He pointed to the Soviet Union and to China as examples of this, saying that everyone was forced to be same, and that this forced equality "is communism".
Communism is a stateless, classless, money-less society, so not even close.


3) I made a point of arguing for a proletarian party to seize control of the government and enact the transition from capitalism to socialism, but he said that the USSR/China were such worker-governments because the political parties in charge of them (their Communist Parties, respectively) did so in the name of the proletariat, and therefore they did represent socialism/communism. the US government takes control in the name of democracy. Doesn't mean they support it. His argument is pretty fucking stupid if you ask me.


I did my best to reiterate that socialism/communism do advocate the dissolution of government in favor of worker control, but he continued to argue that state capitalism is socialism/communism in reality. As for the third, I argued that a party acting in the name of the proletariat is not the same as the proletariat acting themselves.
There are multiple examples of socialism and communism throughout history that did not involve the state or capitalism. The anarchist areas in spain, the free territory, etc.
As for the party acting in the name of the proletariat, I agree entirely. Politicians never actually represent their constituents, especially not in state-capitalist "communist" countries.

[Dazdra Flynn]

My own responses to the three major arguments listed are:

1. that to say that the implementation of the Leninist conception o socialism has failed is to ignore the fact that is has actually been quite successful in raising standards of living and empowering the working class;

2. that "state capitalism" really doesn't exist separately from any other capitalism, and that the idea of "forced equality" is, at best, grossly fascistic in its conception (as only someone who benefits from oppression would consider human equality an imposition of any kind); and

3. that I agree that the communist parties of the Soviet Union and China did represent the interests of the proletariat in their seizure of power, although whether they persisted in their representation of working class interests is debatable.

To say that the endeavors of Marxist-Leninist parties have been failures is to create a false ultimatum for socialism: either the immediate and utter abolition of all elements of capitalism and class across the globe or the persistence of unabridged capitalist oppression. This false dichotomy of "true" Marxist versus "false" Marxist, for which both Leninists and non-Leninists are responsible in perpetuating, only serves to shut down discussion. These neoliberal conceptions of historical communism don't do anything to give us a clear picture about the way socialist revolution behaves, either. I feel like the vast majority of what is considered "common knowledge" about communism in countries like the Soviet Union is not only dead wrong, but worse yet engineered to discourage the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

And this is where leftism has been hamstrung: the relentless characterization of revolutionary struggle as opportunity for continued but worsened oppression. I'm willing to venture that, to most working people, socialism seems like a perfectly reasonable alternative to capitalism, but the method by which socialism is to be achieved is always assumed to lead directly into an Orwellian nightmare of state terror against the underclass. Non-Leninist Marxists aren't doing much to help, either, as the typical response tends to be something along the lines of China or the Soviet Union not exemplifying "true" Marxism. Leninists and non-Leninists have one very powerful thing in common, which is a dialectical-materialist method of analyzing history. We can't approach the questions of historical communist endeavors if our method is to assign blame to wicked individuals or incorrect ideology. And we can't allow past disappointments to become our excuse to defer revolution until such time as the conditions are "right." We need to understand that there will be contradictions between the ideals of the socialist endeavor and the practice of the socialist endeavor, at the same time acknowledging that we cannot be complacent about these contradictions.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The left has lost the support of the working class for many reasons, but one of the major reasons is the legacy of Stalin.

[Dazdra Flynn]

The left has lost the support of the working class for many reasons, but one of the major reasons is the legacy of Stalin.

This doesn't really tell us much, though. Is this legacy one of Stalin's personal decisions or is it the popular conception of the Soviet Union during Stalin's time?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Collectivization was the first big disaster. The famine of the early 1920s was understandable given the devastation wrought by the Russian Civil War. The horrors of collectivization resulted from policy decisions taken by the Politburo, for which Stalin bore primary responsibility.

Stalin's overreaction to the distribution of the Ryutin circular presaged the intra-party bloodletting that culminated in the purge trials. At the time the Politburo rejected Stalin's demand that Ryutin be put to death for his criticisms of the party line, but did accede to Ryutin's imprisonment. One must recall that, in fact Ryutin was no counter-revolutionlary, merely a Bolshevik who opinions ere at variance with the then-prevailing line. Some of us believe that Ryutin had a better grasp of the situation than did Stalin, but intra-party democracy was dead by then, replaced by dictatorial centralism.

Although bourgeois propagandists did embellish and spread lies about the Soviet Union, the reality was sufficiently awful to repel the majority of the workers of the industrialized countries. As a result, future revolutions tended to be Third World military revolutions such as in China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and eastern Europe, which fostered regimes based upon the organs of repression rather than organs of proletarian self-rule.

[Dazdra Flynn]

I'm skeptical that the Politburo bore sole responsibility for the shortcomings of the collectivization effort, and I really sincerely believe we tend to overestimate Stalin's policy-making power because of our image of him as an absolute dictator.

I also have to question to what extent Stalin is personally culpable for the judicial imprisonment and execution of innocent people. This was a time of extreme uncertainty; such a government as the Soviet Union was unprecedented. The extent to which revisionist trends and foreign infiltration could affect the survival of the socialist endeavor were not well understood; we modern communists have the benefit of hindsight and history. I don't know much about Ryutin's particular case, but I can say that the time in which Stalin and others were operating was a confusing one. It was not made any easier by wrongfully launched investigations designed by the real opportunists to divert attention away from themselves. Although intra-party democracy may have died, I disagree that it was replaced by Stalinist autocracy. Stalin's own personal efforts were to minimize bureaucracy and create a vast body of elected officials within administration. The socialist endeavor of the Soviet Union did not die because of Stalin, although the seeds of its demise were sewn while he was gensec.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The historical record does indicate that in the mid-1930s Stalin favored elections for administrative bodies that would involve multiple candidates and allow the candidatures of non-party members. By the late 1930s, the Yezhovshchina was in full effect and nothing came of these plans. I have never seen anything in the historical record to indicate that such plans were ever revived in the post-World War Two era until the electoral reforms of the perestroika era.

It is clearly possible that Stalin personally favored such an approach, but that other members of the Politburo were uninterested, to my knowledge there is no historical record of any revival of Stalin's ideas from the mid-1930s, but a silent historical record by definition is subject to various interpretations.

To construe this matter in the light most favorable to Stalin leads to the conclusion that the rest of the Soviet leadership were not serious about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, it seems illogical for M-Ls to focus on Khrushchev as an agent of revisionism. The fact is that even if Khrushchev had been defeated, either by the Malenkov-Beria forces in '53 or by the broader anti-Khrushchev group in '57, the seeds of the demise of the socialist endeavor had been sown, to borrow your phrase.

Exactly when and how these seeds of destruction were sown has been debated for decades and will continue to be debated for a long time to come. Some of us believe that those seeds were inherent in the material conditions facing the Union back in the 1920s. I have posted elsewhere my opinion that none of the three factions, the Trotskyist Left, the Stalinist center, or the Bukharinist right, were able to cope with the challenges facing the Union under the adverse conditions of the times.

[Dazdra Flynn]

What it comes down to is the method by which the proletariat could most effectively seize power for itself. The conditions, both material and political, in the Soviet Union almost assured the endeavor's failure to persist uninterrupted. That said, we mustn't make the mistake of dismissing every method used by the "Stalinist" regime out of hand.

[Let's Get Free]

What it comes down to is the method by which the proletariat could most effectively seize power for itself. The conditions, both material and political, in the Soviet Union almost assured the endeavor's failure to persist uninterrupted. That said, we mustn't make the mistake of dismissing every method used by the "Stalinist" regime out of hand.

I think the future socialist revolutions must take a different form, and move away from the Bolshevik or Marxist Leninist model of revolution. Thus far, Marxist Leninist revolutions in the various countries have ended the ‘feudal relations of production’, and replaced it with ‘capitalist relations of production’. Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban etc revolutions have created modern capitalist nation states, not communism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

As a practical matter these Third World "socialist" countries hold little or no appeal for the working classes of industrialized countries since they are one-party dictatorships that represent the interests of the party and/or military elite. To refer to any of those countries as empowering a dictatorship of the proletariat would be to make a mockery of the concept.

[Dazdra Flynn]

I think the future socialist revolutions must take a different form, and move away from the Bolshevik or Marxist Leninist model of revolution. Thus far, Marxist Leninist revolutions in the various countries have ended the ‘feudal relations of production’, and replaced it with ‘capitalist relations of production’. Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban etc revolutions have created modern capitalist nation states, not communism.

The socialist mode of production was established in the Soviet Union, as it was in Albania. The Kosygin reforms of Sixties saw the capitalist mode of production restored in the Union. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc compelled Albania to begin adopting neoliberal reform, as well. The other countries you've named, specifically China, Cuba, and Vietnam, have not established a socialist mode of production. That said, what they have established is a mode of production independent of the Western imperialist system. It is appropriate to criticize historical socialist endeavors, but it is a mistake to equate them with uninterrupted capitalist oppression. The global capitalist system is weakened by the interruption of imperialism.


As a practical matter these Third World "socialist" countries hold little or no appeal for the working classes of industrialized countries since they are one-party dictatorships that represent the interests of the party and/or military elite. To refer to any of those countries as empowering a dictatorship of the proletariat would be to make a mockery of the concept.

I noticed you threw in "one-party." Exactly how would party pluralism make things any better? That said, these spuriously socialist countries are halted at the democratic stage of the revolution in that they've thrown off the shackles of imperialism by expropriating their comprador class, but have not yet moved on to the establishment of a socialist mode of production. Once again, to call these states examples of uninterrupted capitalist oppression is a mistake. While certainly worker oppression takes place in this countries, their relative independence from the imperialist neoliberal system weakens the hegemony of the centers of world capitalism, and this is progress. I'd rather North Korea be ruled by the Kims than by a college of American corporations, to be upfront.

[Jimmie Higgins]

and move away from the Bolshevik or Marxist Leninist model of revolution.Which one since "all power to the soviets" is quite different from a "two-stage" view of revolution.

[GoddessCleoLover]

[QUOTE=Dazdra Flynn;2538743]



I noticed you threw in "one-party." Exactly how would party pluralism make things any better? That said, these spuriously socialist countries are halted at the democratic stage of the revolution in that they've thrown off the shackles of imperialism by expropriating their comprador class, but have not yet moved on to the establishment of a socialist mode of production. Once again, to call these states examples of uninterrupted capitalist oppression is a mistake. While certainly worker oppression takes place in this countries, their relative independence from the imperialist neoliberal system weakens the hegemony of the centers of world capitalism, and this is progress. I'd rather North Korea be ruled by the Kims than by a college of American corporations, to be upfront.[/QUOTE}

Party pluralism could make a significant difference by providing electoral choices. I am quite confident that given a choice between a Stalin platform and a Ryutin platform, that the workers of the Soviet Union would have chosen Ryutin. The point is that the issue would have been debated and decided by the workers, not by a handful of members of a Politburo. Socialism must be built upon a foundation of proletarian democracy, not "great leaders" such as Stalin or Trotsky.

[JPSartre12]

Party pluralism could make a significant difference by providing electoral choices. I am quite confident that given a choice between a Stalin platform and a Ryutin platform, that the workers of the Soviet Union would have chosen Ryutin. The point is that the issue would have been debated and decided by the workers, not by a handful of members of a Politburo. Socialism must be built upon a foundation of proletarian democracy, not "great leaders" such as Stalin or Trotsky.

By "party pluralism", are you referring to a number of candidates from the institutionalized vanguard party that the proletariat could chose between the be the leader, or a sort of legislative-executive assembly composed of a series of pro-labour pro-socialist anti-capitalist parties?

I don't think that the former would bring about much fundamental change, because being able to select a leader from the ruling party in a one-party state doesn't seem particularly democratic or promote a wide variety of choices.

The second, though, makes me think - a "worker's congress" filled with various socialist labor parties is an interesting concept.

[Blake's Baby]

Do you think, during the revolution, that all of us from the Maoists and Stalinists, through the Trotskyists, to the Left Comms, Council Comms and Marxian socialists (they'll be there though they might not be happy), to the Anarchist-Communists and Anarcho-syndicalists, that we'll all be together in the same organisation (whether or not we call it a 'Party')? Surely, there'll be different groups with different policies and perspectives all trying to debate them in the councils?

[GoddessCleoLover]

By "party pluralism", are you referring to a number of candidates from the institutionalized vanguard party that the proletariat could chose between the be the leader, or a sort of legislative-executive assembly composed of a series of pro-labour pro-socialist anti-capitalist parties?

I don't think that the former would bring about much fundamental change, because being able to select a leader from the ruling party in a one-party state doesn't seem particularly democratic or promote a wide variety of choices.

The second, though, makes me think - a "worker's congress" filled with various socialist labor parties is an interesting concept.

Not the former, that would be a sham rather than real proletarian democracy. Something like the "Workers' Congress" combined with workers' councils where multiple proletarian political tendencies can contend for proletarian support, and where if the party in power abuses its power, the Congress can vote them out of power. In other words, proletarian democracy rather than party dictatorship.

[Let's Get Free]

The socialist mode of production was established in the Soviet Union, as it was in Albania.

Neither Russia nor Albania at any point in their history had a 'socialist mode of production.'

[JPSartre12]

The socialist mode of production was established in the Soviet Union, as it was in Albania.

... Yeah, um, what?