State-capitalism

[SergeNubret]

USSR, China and Cuba, were they all state capitalist?
The surplus value was under control by the state, not the workers, so none of these countries were socialist.
So it's not wrong to call all of those countries capitalist in general even tough they had communist parties in control?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

This is one way of looking at these states that was formulated by American unorthodox Trotskyists Raya Dunayevskaya and C.L.R. James, later popularized by British Trotskyist Tony Cliff. It appeared in opposition to Trotsky's degenerated worker's state interpretation of the Soviet Union (alongside the Orthodoxt Trotskyist formulation of deformed worker's states to explain China, Cuba, etc.), and to Stalin's designation of the USSR as socialism.

You're going to get a variety of answers to this question, and the answers will depend on the politics of who you ask.

[Astarte]

USSR, China and Cuba, were they all state capitalist?
The surplus value was under control by the state, not the workers, so none of these countries were socialist.
So it's not wrong to call all of those countries capitalist in general even tough they had communist parties in control?

If you want a precise analysis of the politico-economic nature of the Soviet bloc you should check out:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54949537/Class-Structure-of-the-USSR-and-the-Elite-by-Hillel-Ticktin

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58288062/Towards-a-Political-Economy-of-the-USSR-by-Hillel-Ticktin

[tuwix]

USSR, China and Cuba, were they all state capitalist?
The surplus value was under control by the state, not the workers, so none of these countries were socialist.
So it's not wrong to call all of those countries capitalist in general even tough they had communist parties in control?

There is a confusion when we talk about such states. The imperialist propaganda says about the 'communist countries' despite the most of communist now describe them as 'state capitalism'. The states were describing themselves as 'socialist countries' despite their propaganda didn't cease to say that socialism was in the process of building yet. We know they weren't socialist countries too. But this propaganda has tremendous effects even know. The word of 'socialism' is associated with a a fallen system and people are sacred to admit they are socialist. From one forum I know a one who says strictly left-wing slogans and says he's a “new right-winger”...

But in one Anarchist forum I've found the best description to those systems: “the red fascism”.

[Red Enemy]

Just one point to mention before any orthodox Trotskyist comrades intervene:

As OP said, surplus value in the hands of the state.

THE STATE NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PROLETARIAT.

Therefore, you can call it degenerated, but not any sort of "workers' state".

[Ismail]

The October Revolution ushered in the dictatorship of the proletariat. The process of socialist construction began in the 1920's and was achieved in the main in the 30's. Of course there was still much to be done, and efforts at further construction were continued until the 1950's, when after the death of Stalin the subsequent leaderships revised Marxism-Leninism (meaning to rob it of its revolutionary content despite demagogic outer appearances) and began the process of capitalist restoration which, of course, went hand-in-hand with the liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its replacement by the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie. The Soviet Union's foreign policy was accordingly transformed from one of proletarian internationalism to one of social-imperialism (meaning socialism in words, imperialism in deeds.)

There are two links in my signature which deal with this subject in detail, relying above all on the economic and theoretical publications of the Soviet revisionists themselves. They are:
* http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html
* http://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RU/RP/RP7/RU-RP7.pdf

In China the revolution assumed a bourgeois-democratic character; Mao's "New Democracy" did not and could not lead to a socialist road. One article on this subject: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/chinecon.htm

The "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" was evidence of the anti-Marxist course the CCP had taken, a course which pitted the students and army against the workers.

In Cuba the revolution there was likewise bourgeois-democratic. As in China it was a popular revolution, but the revolutionary process there had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism and in fact Castro appeared on the world scene as a man denouncing communism and stating that the color of the revolution was green (the color of the rebel army), not red. US opposition to the Cuban revolution and Castro's own left-wing populist views brought Cuba into the camp of the Soviet revisionists, who turned the country from a neo-colony of US imperialism into a neo-colony of Soviet social-imperialism.

On Cuban state-capitalism and subservience to the USSR see: http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2012/06/cuba-evaportion-of-myth-from-anti.html

[Blake's Baby]

This is one way of looking at these states that was formulated by American unorthodox Trotskyists Raya Dunayevskaya and C.L.R. James, later popularized by British Trotskyist Tony Cliff...

Or, maybe, Wilhelm Leibknecht in 1896 said 'no-one has done more than me to demonstrate that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism' in reference to the schemes of Lassalle. The concept, I'd argue, is a development of Engels' elaboration, in 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientiifc', of the idea of the 'national capitalist'.

In 1908 the Socialist Party of Great Britain attacked the programme of the Fabians as 'state capitalist', meaning that it was a paternalist plan to run the state on behalf of the working class.

In 1918 Ossinsky crticised the direction the Bolsheviks were taking as 'state capitalist'. In the same period, Lenin was extolling the virtues of the German postal system and such like and claiming that 'state capitalism would be a step forward', as I'm sure Dave B will shortly be along to explain in very long posts in small type quoting from various bits of the works and pronouncements of Lenin. The theory of 'state capitalism' was the mainstay of the analysis of the state by the Russian Communist Left and groups inspired by them, including the Workers' Opposition and Deceists, and later the Workers' Group. It was through the latter groups that the idea was transmitted to the Trotskyists, long before Raya Dunayevskaya elaborated the theory with the Forrest-Johnson tendency in the1940s. In the 20s and 30s, the Communist Left in Germany (what became the Council Communist movement) also developed a state-capitalist analysis of the USSR. Even Kautsky and the Mensheviks, it seems, regarded the Soviet Republic as being state capitalist in the 1920s. The Italian Left, inspired by Bordiga, just called it 'capitalist'.

[Ismail]

In the same period, Lenin was extolling the virtues of the German postal system and such like and claiming that 'state capitalism would be a step forward'This is a different conception of state capitalism though, operative during the transitional period and existing under definite limits; see the third definition (by K.G. Kozlova) here: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/state+capitalism

[Tim Cornelis]

If there's workers' control over surplus value it's still capitalism, self-managed capitalism.


efforts at further construction were continued until the 1950's, when after the death of Stalin the subsequent leaderships ... began the process of capitalist restoration which, of course, went hand-in-hand with the liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its replacement by the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie.

This is such a blatant contradiction I find it unbelievable that Marxist-Leninist don't grasp it. If a leadership has the power to change the political superstructure and base of society (which requires an incredible amount of power) this necessarily implies that the workers were not involved in the decision-making power and thus that there was no dictatorship of the proletariat. If there was however a dictatorship of the proletariat Marxist-Leninists need to answer still why the workers suddenly gave up their power, control over the means of production, and allowed a self-proclaimed new leadership to abolish their socialist system. Either way it makes no sense.

[Ismail]

This is such a blatant contradiction I find it unbelievable that Marxist-Leninist don't grasp it. If a leadership has the power to change the political superstructure and base of society (which requires an incredible amount of power) this necessarily implies that the workers were not involved in the decision-making power and thus that there was no dictatorship of the proletariat. If there was however a dictatorship of the proletariat Marxist-Leninists need to answer still why the workers suddenly gave up their power, control over the means of production, and allowed a self-proclaimed new leadership to abolish their socialist system. Either way it makes no sense.This is addressed in the second work I linked to.

To add my own words, of course the leadership was not carrying out its activities in a vacuum; it was comprised of Central Committee members who hailed from party organizations across the USSR. Some of them were local party bosses (as Khrushchev was), others were backed by managers and other bureaucrats, some were backed by the army, and some represented the interests of peasants and some representing the interests of workers. All were supposed to be representing first and foremost the interests of the workers, but this obviously was not the case. The Central Committee experienced significant purges (in the "proper," non-violent expulsion sense) after 1956. In 1958 Molotov, Kaganovich and others tried and almost succeeded in deposing Khrushchev as party leader, except Khrushchev had the loyalty of the vast majority of the intelligentsia and bureaucracy on his side and, what was especially relevant at that moment, the army. Zhukov threatened to overthrow the government and restore Khrushchev, thus forcing what quickly became known as the "Anti-Party Group" to back down.

Literally months after Stalin died the process of capitalist restoration began, a process Stalin struggled against but which, of course, he alone could not defeat, nor could isolated members of the Central Committee. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n1/marksoc.htm

It should also be remembered that it was the revisionists who painted a rosy picture of what was to come to the USSR after the "cult of the individual" had been done away with. Khrushchev announced that the USSR would reach Communism by 1980, that "socialist legality" would be respected from that point on, and the revisionists also had the advantage of economic growth during the 50's and 60's and a rise in living standards, all in the service of "the construction of communism" as preached by them.

Political education in the USSR was not up to par; Stalin himself noted this months before he died. Politically resolute elements were repressed as "Stalinists," and the revisionists deployed tanks against working-class protests, most notably those in the Georgian SSR in 1956 (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n2/georgia.htm).

A less militant example of opposition to the Soviet revisionists:

"There were even several instances of open opposition to the advance of the Khrushchev wing. An Austrian who returned from Russia in 1958 told the author that at the beginning of July 1957 the workers of the electrical appliances factory in Kursk stopped work. They asked for an explanation of the dismissal of Molotov, Malenkov, and Kaganovich, and demanded that the fallen leaders should comment over the radio on the events at the full session of the Central Committee. The Party officials of the factory implored the workers to stop the strike: 'Remember, Molotov, Malenkov, and Kaganovich themselves admitted that they were guilty,' they said. Only after an hour did work start again. In other enterprises, too, there was unrest. Workers openly abused the Party leaders, which officials pretended not to hear."
(Leonhard, Wolfgang. The Kremlin Since Stalin. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1962. pp. 250-251.)

And it was not surprising that these workers took such a position after the matter was "clarified." After all, would they not be going against the "Party of Lenin" and its decisions? Would not "democratic centralism" have been violated? Many foreign communists were hesitant to uphold the Albanian and Chinese stand on Soviet revisionism for this same reason.

[subcp]

There are at least 2 versions of state capitalism theory. The weakest of the 2, and the one that gets brought up the most, claims only command-economy, 1-party states (USSR, pre-Xiaoping PRC, the Glacis states, etc.) are only 'state capitalist'. This is the Tony Cliff version of state capitalism.

The other version is that, in line with the observations of Bukharin in his books on imperialism, outward expansion was coming to an end by the end of the 19th century- at the same time, he noted that the public sector was rapidly growing in all of the advanced capitalist countries, and after WWI (the first total war economy), [and this is where the break with the theory of Imperialism happens] all states entered an era of state capitalism (all states become state capitalist with different degrees of state intervention- on the extreme end with free market, anti-big government states and highly nationalized command economies- and since the return of crisis after the post-WWII economic boom, there's been a largely equal amount of state intervention in national economies across all states, i.e. command economies were forced to reform i.e. Xiaioping's PRC, the failed reform of the USSR, and greater state intervention in Western countries like the US). State capitalism as era, not choice.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The October Revolution ushered in the dictatorship of the proletariat. The process of socialist construction began in the 1920's and was achieved in the main in the 30's.

Funny that, I swear I remember Lenin saying that the 1920s was going to be a period of state capitalism, and if that was achieved, it would represent a major success.

As usual though, Ismail is revising history.

[SergeNubret]

So Lenin was planning to make the USSR state-capitalist?

[Ismail]

Funny that, I swear I remember Lenin saying that the 1920s was going to be a period of state capitalism, and if that was achieved, it would represent a major success.

As usual though, Ismail is revising history.The 1920s was the period of NEP, which was indeed a major success. Lenin pointed out that "NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." (Collected Works Vol. 33, 1973, p. 443.) Socialist construction proceeded during the NEP and, when it became a brake on the continuation of said construction, it was discontinued.

It is you who is conflating Lenin's usage with that used to refer to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, the establishment of the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie, and the transformation of Soviet foreign policy on a social-imperialist basis. This is common to left-communists and anarchists who distort Lenin's meaning of the term based on their own ignorance.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The 1920s was the period of NEP, which was indeed a major success. Lenin pointed out that "NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." (Collected Works Vol. 33, 1973, p. 443.) Socialist construction proceeded during the NEP and, when it became a brake on the continuation of said construction, it was discontinued.

It is you who is conflating Lenin's usage with that used to refer to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, the establishment of the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie, and the transformation of Soviet foreign policy on a social-imperialist basis. This is common to left-communists and anarchists who distort Lenin's meaning of the term based on their own ignorance.

So you're admitting that you purposely conflate 'State Capitalism' with 'the construction of Socialism'?

If not, then you're effectively saying that Russia managed to condense the period of capitalism proper - which took effect in Britain over several centuries - into less than a decade. Is this really a believable and honest account of historical development? I think not!

[Ismail]

So you're admitting that you purposely conflate 'State Capitalism' with 'the construction of Socialism'?"The picture which Lenin drew was of a vast country far behind western Europe in its economic development. There were no less than five different types of economy existing side by side in it. First came [I]patriarchal or natural, self-sufficient, economy, characteristic of the most remote tribal life... petty commodity production, i.e. tiny, self-sufficing peasant production... private capitalism - the village capitalist or kulak... There was State capitalism - the State monopoly of the grain trade, the State regulation of privately-owned industry and commerce, the petty-bourgeois co-operative trading now passing under Government direction. And there was a small and still weak section of economy which could be described as Socialist: those branches of economy which had been nationalized without compensation to the large shareholders. The final objective must be to bring up all the economic activities which could be classified under the first four heads to the level of the fifth; but that would be a long and difficult task. State capitalism itself was an immense advance on the first three forms of economy: it brought society up to the threshold of an advance to Socialism."
(Andrew Rothstein. A History of the U.S.S.R. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1951. p. 72.)

As noted in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia article I mentioned previously, "By 1923–24 the share of state-capitalist enterprises in the gross output of the national economy was only 0.1 percent, and the number of persons they employed at the end of 1925 did not exceed 1 percent of the country’s workers." By the mid-30's socialist economy dominated in town and country.

Using your logic Russia will, out of necessity, still need to establish capitalism a century or two from now, since apparently capitalism did not exist in Russia in 1917.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Or, maybe, Wilhelm Leibknecht in 1896 said 'no-one has done more than me to demonstrate that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism' in reference to the schemes of Lassalle. The concept, I'd argue, is a development of Engels' elaboration, in 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientiifc', of the idea of the 'national capitalist'.

In 1908 the Socialist Party of Great Britain attacked the programme of the Fabians as 'state capitalist', meaning that it was a paternalist plan to run the state on behalf of the working class.

In 1918 Ossinsky crticised the direction the Bolsheviks were taking as 'state capitalist'. In the same period, Lenin was extolling the virtues of the German postal system and such like and claiming that 'state capitalism would be a step forward', as I'm sure Dave B will shortly be along to explain in very long posts in small type quoting from various bits of the works and pronouncements of Lenin. The theory of 'state capitalism' was the mainstay of the analysis of the state by the Russian Communist Left and groups inspired by them, including the Workers' Opposition and Deceists, and later the Workers' Group. It was through the latter groups that the idea was transmitted to the Trotskyists, long before Raya Dunayevskaya elaborated the theory with the Forrest-Johnson tendency in the1940s. In the 20s and 30s, the Communist Left in Germany (what became the Council Communist movement) also developed a state-capitalist analysis of the USSR. Even Kautsky and the Mensheviks, it seems, regarded the Soviet Republic as being state capitalist in the 1920s. The Italian Left, inspired by Bordiga, just called it 'capitalist'.

Do you know which pamphlets/books I can read about the earlier history of state-capitalism?
I was elaborating on the modern Trotskyist incarnation of the theory, which is the one most people end up pointing to when they hear the term (even my anarchist comrades).

[Red Enemy]

So Lenin was planning to make the USSR state-capitalist?
What we call state-capitalism involves the absence of a DOTP, so it's not quite correct to say that. When Lenin discussed state capitalism, it was in the context of a DOTP. This was, as well, all in line with the coming German, and thus world, revolution. Lenin's end goal was not state capitalism as we know it, but socialism. State capitalism, to him, was that stepping stone to bring Russian industry up to snuff for the coming world revolution.

[subcp]

It was common knowledge of the times; that centralizing the economy, including nationalization of most aspects of the economy, was seen as 'socialist construction', a stepping stone to communism. However, we've witnessed that this is not the case during the epoch of state capitalism after the total war economies of WWI. It's a lot like the assumption that industrial unionism would be revolutionary by nature of centralizing workers and breaking down craft and trade divisions (the craft and trade organization was considered the route that conservatism entered unionism, when in reality it was the representative-mediation role itself, learned after the industrial union drives).

Lenin was not illusioned about what they were doing and trying to do- institute state capitalist measures (just like FDR and the New Deal being state capitalist measures). But that state capitalism was indicative of a general trend across all nation-states, not just command economies.

If anyone wants to read further about this theory of state capitalism (not the weak Trot versions, Cliff's state capitalism and permanent arms economy theories), I'd recommend this:

http://en.internationalism.org/icc/200412/609/4-state-capitalism

I just wrote an open letter on this topic as well (state capitalism as choice i.e. Cliff's version vs. state capitalism as general tendency in the epoch of decadence) on a blog post (because the groups that wrote Sic adhere to the weaker version):

http://occupythecpusa.com/2013/02/06/open-letter/

[Thirsty Crow]

Lenin was not illusioned about what they were doing and trying to do- institute state capitalist measures (just like FDR and the New Deal being state capitalist measures). But that state capitalism was indicative of a general trend across all nation-states, not just command economies.

I don't think it is accurate to consider the final consolidation of capitalism in the USSR as an expression of a general tendency marked all accross the board, if for nothing else, the process was markedly different in the case of the USSR, which we could call a degeneration of proletarian revolution (capitalism was never actually abolished; just that the "revolutionary transformation of society" never took off in spheres other than that of political power).

[subcp]

I'd agree that the development of the USSR was an outlier but it was in line with the same economic tendencies at work in every nation, only taken to one extreme (which was modified over time and resulted in attempts at economic reform, which due to political contradictions, failed, unlike the PRC, which successfully reformed from a command economy to the mixed market style of the West, same with Vietnam). For nations which were underdeveloped at the onset of decadence (if you follow that periodization of capitalism), it provided a model for vastly accelerated economic development and development of the productive forces which was copied in both successful national liberation/independence wars and M-L regime changes across the world- but overall the contradictions and rigidity of the command economy hasn't been able to last and flourish for very long.

[Lucretia]

I figure this is a good place to introduce one of my favorite quotes of Trotsky's: "From the proletarian character of the government, the bureaucracy deduces its birthright to infallibility: how can the bureaucracy of a workers’ state degenerate? The state and the bureaucracy are thereby taken not as historical processes but as eternal categories: how can the holy church and its God-inspired priests sin? Yet, if a workers’ bureaucracy which has raised itself over the proletariat, waging battle in a capitalist society, could degenerate into the party of Noske, Scheidemann, Ebert, and Wels, why can’t it degenerate after raising itself over the victorious proletariat?"

[Dave B]

This idea that Lenin’s state capitalism only referred to his NEP policy that was introduced in 1921 is yet another Leninist lie introduced by Stalin in 1925 and incidentally taken up by Trotsky in1933.

Lenin proposed the introduction of state capitalism in April/May 1918 demanding that Russia should copy the state capitalist system in Germany.

Or in other words the state capitalism as we know it; nationalised industries employing wage workers at a profit, producing commodities that sold on the market etc.



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. Our task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism………… Those who fail to understand this are committing an unpardonable mistake in economics. Either they do not know the facts of life, do not see what actually exists and are unable to look the truth in the face…….http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)

And;


What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm)

Everybody understood what the idea was and indeed the second article by Lenin was quickly translated into English and published by the friends of Bolshevism, Sylvia Pankhursts ‘Anarchists’, with some of the Lenin’s ‘state capitalisms’ expressed euphemistically as ‘state socialism’, thus;



What is State Capitalism in the hands of the .Soviet Power? To bring about State Capitalism at the present time means to establish that control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes. We have in Germany an example of State Capitalism, and we know that she proved our superior. If you would only give a little thought to what the security of such State Socialism would mean in Russia, a Soviet Russia, you would recognise that only madmen whose heads are full of formulas and doctrines can deny that State Socialism is our salvation.


If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would be easy, because State Socialism is centralisation, control, socialisation—in fact, everything that we lack.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spopen/message/11620

In 1918 the concept of 1921 NEP had as yet not even been dreamed of.

A part of NEP was what was called the ‘concession’ system.

Where the the Bolshevik state would ‘rent’ out lucrative business opportunities, eg oil wells to capitalist entrepreneurs for them to freely exploit the working class as they saw fit.

The surplus value extracted from the working class by orthodox western capitalists would be essentially split between the Bolshevik party and the ‘foreign’ capitalist class.

The Mensheviks and other Marxists howled that the NEP concession system was just the Bolshevik administration of capitalism pure, clear cut and simple.

Lenin said no it wasn’t, the NEP concession sysyem was just another form of the state capitalism proposed and introduced in 1918.


And the practical purpose of our New Economic Policy was to lease out concessions. In the prevailing circumstances, concessions in our country would unquestionably have been a pure type of state capitalism. That is how I argued about state capitalism.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm)


Compared with other forms of state capitalism within the Soviet system, concessions are perhaps the most simple and clear-cut form of state capitalismhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm)

By 1928 or whatever, what had been ended was the pure, simple and clear-cut form of state capitalism ie the concession system to foreign capitalists.

What remained was the other ‘less pure and clear cut form of state capitalism’, under Soviet power, as explained in 1918, and as copied from the German ‘junkers’ system of state capitalism.

(which had never been understood by anyone as a ‘concession system’ of leased out natural resources to foreign investors- as in say Saudi Arabia.)

In fact when Trotsky described soviet Russia as state capitalism in 1922 there was no indication then that he was referring explicitly or at all to the ‘concession system to foreign capitalists’.

Quite the contrary, he was clearly referring back to the German model and perspective, the state capitalism as we know it, and proposed by Lenin in 1918.


Trotsky; Tasks of Young Workers (Report tothe 5th All-Russian Congress of the Russian Communist League of Youth 1922)




……….this is explicable in part by an incomprehension of an expression frequently used by us, that we now have state capitalism. I shall not enter into an evaluation of this term; for in any case we need only to qualify what we understand by it. By state capitalism we all understood property belonging to the state which itself was in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which exploited the working class. Our state undertakings operate along commercial lines based on the market. But who stands in power here? The working class. Herein lies the principled distinction of our state ‘capitalism’ in inverted commas from state capitalism without inverted commas.

What does this mean in perspective? Just this. The more state capitalism say, in Hohenzollern Germany, as it was, developed, the more powerfully the class of junkers and capitalists of Germany could hold down the working class. The more our ‘state capitalism’ develops the richer the work ing class will become, that is the firmer will become the foundation of socialism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/youth/youth.htm

Stalin 1925;


Would it be right to call our state industry, state-capitalist industry? No. Why? Because under the dictatorship of the proletariat, state capitalism is a form of organisation of production involving two classes: an exploiting class which owns the means of production, and an exploited class which does not own the means of production. No matter what special form state capitalism may assume, it must nevertheless remain capitalist in its nature. When Ilyich analysed state capitalism, he had in mind primarily concessions.[ Lies]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/12/18.htm#7._Concerning_State_Capitalism_


Leon Trotsky The Class Nature of the Soviet State, 1933




one could speak of “state capitalism.”

Lenin came out with this very term at the time of the transition to the NEP, ….
.[Lies]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm

.

[Turinbaar]

Two good sources to look at on these subjects are Paul Frölich's biography of Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin's NEP.

Frölich discusses the Social Democrats' conception of State-Capitalism as a means by which a Socialist party may "tame" capitalism through bourgeois parliamentary methods.

Lenin uses the term "State-Capitalism" as the essence of the policy, and contrasts this to the Social Democrats with his own conception of a revolutionary socialist party tolerating the growth of capitalism in an undeveloped society for the sake of accumulating capital for the building of a strong state apparatus. He admitted that the system was a compromise with horrible failures in their previous economic policy, and further admitted that he did not know to what extant he had given capitalism room to flourish.

Stalin's collectivization claimed to reverse this by organizing industry under the state, but instead of socialism it was the expression of the original state capitalist interest to aggrandize the state, because the product was sold abroad and the wealth was used for the expansion of the state (or pocketed) rather than redistribution among the workers.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm

[Let's Get Free]

In Cuba, China, and the USSR was there a wages system? Of course there was. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Marxism would understand that wage labor presupposes capital and hence capitalism as Marx said. In Cuba, in the USSR and China there is generalized commodity production too. Read the opening para of Das Kapital which talks about capitalism being a system characterized by the accumulation of commodities - items that are bought and sold for a market. In China, Cuba, and the USSR you also had private ownership of the means of production. Industry in China cuba and the USSR was organized as state-owned enterprises where officials receive the surplus produced by wage laborers. These individuals constitute a capitalist class. A class is made up of people who are in the same position with regard to the ownership and use of the means of wealth-production and distribution. They occupy the top posts in the party, government, industry and the armed forces. Their ownership of the means of production is not individual but collective: they own as a class. Historically this is not a new development as is shown by the position of the Catholic church in feudal times. In Cuba, China, and the USSR you have a generalized monetary system , you have profits, you have capital accumulation - all characteristics pertaining to capitalism.

[Red Enemy]

In Cuba, China, and the USSR was there a wages system? Of course there was. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Marxism would understand that wage labor presupposes capital and hence capitalism as Marx said. In Cuba, in the USSR and China there is generalized commodity production too. Read the opening para of Das Kapital which talks about capitalism being a system characterized by the accumulation of commodities - items that are bought and sold for a market. In China, Cuba, and the USSR you also had private ownership of the means of production. Industry in China cuba and the USSR was organized as state-owned enterprises where officials receive the surplus produced by wage laborers. These individuals constitute a capitalist class. A class is made up of people who are in the same position with regard to the ownership and use of the means of wealth-production and distribution. They occupy the top posts in the party, government, industry and the armed forces. Their ownership of the means of production is not individual but collective: they own as a class. Historically this is not a new development as is shown by the position of the Catholic church in feudal times. In Cuba, China, and the USSR you have a generalized monetary system , you have profits, you have capital accumulation - all characteristics pertaining to capitalism.
I like what you've said, but I know you aren't going to like what I have to say.

What determines the nature of the system is who controls both the means of production and political power. So, yes, the DOTP is the last stage of capitalist society. Capitalist society as it is on it's death bed gasping for air. This is the point in which the working class becomes the ruling class, and must transform society, suppress counter revolution, and aid the rest of the world in the revolution which is to happen globally.

So, The big question is whether or not the USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, and we know that it was not (past 1921 anyways at the latest).