DotP: State Capitalism or Socialism?

[DasFapital]

What do you think?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Preferably Socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Neither. Self-managed capitalism, though not workerism.

[Riveraxis]

I would say it's nature is socialism since implementing it is a step toward socialism.
Surely the dynamics of the DOtP will change as society moves forward. But at the start I don't figure it will look entirely different than what we have now- but probably confined to the state. Because we are land-locked in our customs and have yet to develop a new social order. That doesn't just happen over night, but most us prefer to eat daily. You know what I mean?

[JPSartre12]

Not socialism in itself, but a revolutionary re-orientation of the economy in the interests of the working class as the proletariat asserts its hegemony over the bourgeoisie and works to construct socialism.

[subcp]

Neither. It is simply the fact of the proletariat asserting its dominance over all other classes and strata, while crushing the bourgeoisie (and in the process of doing these 2 things, also abolishing itself as a class), for however long or short a time this process takes to cover the entire human population.

I don't know what term to give it; revolutionary crisis, post-capitalism; in either case, the DotP is a way to describe the movement of the working-class to overthrow the bourgeoisie and abolish class society- from the first day (when the capitalist crisis is turned into a revolutionary crisis) until the 'last capitalist is hung with the entrails of the last bureaucrat'.

[Old Bolshie]

State capitalism.

This term has a negative connotation because of its association with USSR's economy but that is nothing wrong with it if we mean a truly proletarian state and not some autocratic state rolled in a red banner.

Engels defined State Capitalism as the final stage of capitalism before socialism. Lenin also saw it as a necessary step towards socialism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The DotP and Socialism are not the same thing.

[Geiseric]

The economy is fully owned and managed by a workers state. Call it whatever you want.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Socialism is the workers' ownership and distribution of production and goods, which is needed for the proletariat to have a dictatorship.

[conmharáin]

This has been said, but it bears repeating: the dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialism in so much as classes, money, and states have not yet been abolished at this point. It is "socialism" more in the political sense, marked by an impetus to move forward toward socialism as a phase of human civilization. At this stage, it'd be important to look out for the mistaken idea that socialism would be "complete" or otherwise satisfactorily achieved.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Socialism is the workers' ownership and distribution of production and goods, which is needed for the proletariat to have a dictatorship.

No it's not.

[Blake's Baby]

Critique of the Gotha Programme, IV - https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Not between 'capitalism' and communist society but between 'capitalist society' and communist society.

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is the political form that begins the transition to communist society from capitalist society. As such, it begins it in capitalism. As communist society is not established until capitalism is abolished, it follows that what comes before communist society is capitalism. As the DotP preceeds communist society, it must necessarily be 'capitalist'.

I was actually reading a very good exchange between Bordiga and Damen on this point only today. I'll try to come back with quotes later. Don't wait up/hold your breath, it was 'in print', a strange medium, like a computer-screen but less easy to copy from.

[ind_com]

Socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

For those who do not see the DotP as being capitalism, can I ask, who is the exploited class in the 'period of transition' that corresponds to the DotP? In other words, if the working class still exists, and all the non-working population is not working, who exactly (other than the working class) is being exploited in order to provide all the necessary surplus labour for the rest of society to live?

[Conscript]

I voted state capitalism. The DOTP can exist within national boundaries and uses a state which defends property relations, and it is not classless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Neither. Self-managed capitalism, though not workerism.

It can be self-managed capitalism as well, but it is more effective at public policymaking as state capitalism.

[subcp]

For those who do not see the DotP as being capitalism, can I ask, who is the exploited class in the 'period of transition' that corresponds to the DotP? In other words, if the working class still exists, and all the non-working population is not working, who exactly (other than the working class) is being exploited in order to provide all the necessary surplus labour for the rest of society to live?

When Feudalism was pregnant with emerging capitalism, what was the period of time when capital began to overtake the national economies or politically overtook the monarchy and/or aristocracy- was it capitalism or feudalism?

I'd guess it's capitalism where there are still people going to work to produce and service commodities for a wage; and not capitalism where people are taking measures to crush the bourgeoisie, the state and abolish classes (but not yet communism).

[one10]

"Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory" - Vladimir Lenin

Lenin justified state capitalism as a developmental stage during the dictatorship of the proletariat, necessary in order to develop production and centralize control of production.

Unfortunately, most Communist revolutions stay stuck in the stage of state capitalism, but we can blame the spread of Neoliberalism and the globalization of corporate capitalism for that.

With that being said, I believe that the nature of the Dotp is Socialism, as it's goal is to establish Socialism, not maintain State Capitalism.

[Lucretia]

The poll presents a false dichotomy that completely excludes Trotskyists from answering the question. It establishes a workers' state that attempts to lead a transition from capitalism to socialism. The revolution itself did not "establish" socialism. And capitalism already exists, obviously. I think you are confusing state forms with modes of production.

[Luís Henrique]

Capitalism requires the proletariat not being the ruling class. If the proletariat takes power, but does not proceed to supercede capitalism, then it will either hamper capitalism, resulting in an inefficient capitalist economy, or it will loose the power, if for no other reason, because capitalist efficiency requires overworking of labourers, which in turn makes them unable to rule anything.

Communism cannot be "implemented" from night to day, however; a transitional period is required. If the proletariat, after taking power, is able to take the necessary measures to abolish the control of capital over production and circulation, as well as to suppress the political power of its home slaves, the capitalists, then eventually social classes are abolished, which means there is no longer any sence in a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

So the answer must be, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the political form of the transition from capitalism to communism. It is possible, of course, to label such transition "socialism" (in which case the DotP is the political superstructure of "socialism"), as it is possible to refuse such label and keep "socialism" as a synonim of "communism" (in which case the DotP precedes "socialism"), but this is mere terminology. The point is, there is a transitional period, which isn't going to last fifteen minutes or two days, but a considerable amount of time. That period corresponds to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Luís Henrique

[sanpal]

If the proletariat, after taking power, is able to take the necessary measures to abolish the control of capital over production and circulation, as well as to suppress the political power of its home slaves, the capitalists, then eventually social classes are abolished, ...


It is not enough for abolishing of social classes. It is needed to exchange the monetary economy on the moneyless economy and get away from the wage system.

[Fourth Internationalist]

For those who do not see the DotP as being capitalism, can I ask, who is the exploited class in the 'period of transition' that corresponds to the DotP? In other words, if the working class still exists, and all the non-working population is not working, who exactly (other than the working class) is being exploited in order to provide all the necessary surplus labour for the rest of society to live?

Why does their have to be an exploited class? There will be none just like in communism.

[sanpal]

Regard to the topic: in my opinion the term "socialism" is preferable for some reason 1) it is not capitalism in full sense, in some degrees it is a social state turned for the benefit of the working class (constitution, labour law, etc.) 2) though the DOTP uses the capitalist mode of production in its economy, the transition involves the formation of a non-monetary economy sector within Proletarian state (communist sector). So DOTP cannot be named as communism because of its capitalist sector of economy and it cannot be named as capitalism because of its communist sector of economy. Most appropriate term would be socialism and more exactly as Proletarian Socialism, the Proletarian socialism as the first stage of communism because of the communist sector in the body of the Proletarian socialist state.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is, as comrade Lucretia points out, a political form; the economic forms that are likely to occur in the era are numerous, but state capitalism - in the sense of state management of an economy organised along the lines of late finance capital, not theories about new classes, the "red bourgeoisie" and so on - seems to be an important and possibly ubiquitous form. I am ambivalent toward autogestion; it seems rather easy for autogestion in a largely capitalist economy to collapse into the anarchy of the market or some form of guild stratification. Other economic forms that are important are individual and collectivised farming, as well as state farms, concessions etc. etc.

[Blake's Baby]

When Feudalism was pregnant with emerging capitalism, what was the period of time when capital began to overtake the national economies or politically overtook the monarchy and/or aristocracy- was it capitalism or feudalism?...

Feudalism, whe pregnant with capitalism, was feudalism. Is that what you're asking?


...
I'd guess it's capitalism where there are still people going to work to produce and service commodities for a wage; and not capitalism where people are taking measures to crush the bourgeoisie, the state and abolish classes (but not yet communism).

I don't think there's another mode of production. It's either capitalism or communism. Capitalism under the bourgeoisie - capitalism under the working class, in the process of abolishing itself and the economy - no capitalism and no classes (communism).

One mode of production may well be developing inside the other (not in the same way as capitalism developed inside feudalism) in that, in capitalism, the working class begins the overthrow of existing social relations. Unlike capitalism (which developed over a couple of hundred years before the bourgeois revolutions) socialism must begin with a political revolution, which then reorganises the economy.

I was reading some exchanges between Bordiga and Damen - at one point Bordiga writes "State capitalism is not semi-socialism but real and proper capitalism, it is the very outcome of capitalism according to the Marxist theory of concentration...
...The ownership of the means of production is not enough to discriminate between capitalism and socialism... but we need to consider the whole economic phenomenon, or rather, who disposes of the product and who consumes it."



Why does their have to be an exploited class? There will be none just like in communism.

Who will do the work that those who cannot work will need to have done? It is impossible that those who work can a) take the full measure of the social wealth they produce, and also b) provide for the non-working population.

So, are the workers exploited or does the non-working population starve?

[John Lennin]

Both is possible. Or even something in between.
I don't think the question can be answered in general as it always depends on the circumstances.

[Taters]

Who will do the work that those who cannot work will need to have done? It is impossible that those who work can a) take the full measure of the social wealth they produce, and also b) provide for the non-working population.

So, are the workers exploited or does the non-working population starve?

Yes, it looks like the DotP is just a gerontocracy in disguise. The pensioner bourgeois must be overthrown. :laugh:

[Q]

As others, like Semendyaev, have mentioned the DotP is an expression of the political hegemony. I disagree that it is a form though. I mean, to talk within the confines of capitalism the bourgeoisie is politically hegemonic, one could therefore talk of a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" for that reason. However, the form can vary wildly, from parliamentary regimes to tinpot dictatorships. Within this framework communists then fight for the widest possible democratic concessions, with the aim of organising our class as a potential ruling class.

The dictatorship of the proletariat then implies the mirror situation: Political hegemony of the proletariat that can, no doubt, happen within a wide variety of forms. From "extreme parliaments" to sortition-democratic regimes.

In my view (cue Blake repeating his quote mining to disagree with me) the moment where the working class takes political power as a class, is really the start of the transition from capitalism to the (higher stage of) communism. This transition is then the lower stage of communism, also known as socialism. Why? Simple: The working first needs to take political power before it can meaningfully change the economy, go from the laws of value to the laws of planning for human need.

I'm not convinced yet that the DotP is equal to the transition though because it could conceivably be the case that the transition to communism takes longer than the last vestiges of class society dies (the petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata holding monopolies on certain skills and information). But I'll vote "socialism" anyway.

[Chaos316]

I would have to say socialism because I believe that the working class will no longer be repressed and would thus b operating of their own accord. Plus their beginning the transition to socialism which is the end goal.

[Rousedruminations]

I would also have to say that the dotp is a political expression typically pronounced to add impetus so the revolution of the proletariat is resoundly triumphant. Once workers and the general pop take over the means of production and as time goes by, depending on how quick the changes are implemented so laws of value are progressively changed for human need instead, state capitalism will incrementally ebb away and the lower forms of socialism will gradually arise. I think it merely depends on how efficient and effective the process occurs- I voted for socailism in this poll

[subcp]

Feudalism, whe pregnant with capitalism, was feudalism. Is that what you're asking?I mean specifically the period of the early bourgeois revolutions or of capital overtaking feudal relations: the period of flux. I don't know that a transitional period can be categorized to fixed economic schema, during said transition. I'm not sure what to categorize it as other than 'a period of transition' (before a dominant social relation comes out on top over another). Some of the analyses using historical materialism define epochs according to the most 'advanced' mode of production for the period- thinking specifically of the ancient modes preceding feudalism- since slavery was not a worldwide generalized MoP, and the definition of despotism is pretty vague, yet those epochs are categorized according to the advanced relations of the period- even if they were not generalized.


I was reading some exchanges between Bordiga and Damen - at one point Bordiga writes "State capitalism is not semi-socialism but real and proper capitalism, it is the very outcome of capitalism according to the Marxist theory of concentration...
...The ownership of the means of production is not enough to discriminate between capitalism and socialism... but we need to consider the whole economic phenomenon, or rather, who disposes of the product and who consumes it."The transitional period according to Bordiga is a bit hard to swallow; sometimes depending on when he wrote, he has lucid explanations of how everything outside of a classless society is not communism (or the content of socialist revolution must be socialism and not state capitalism/self-management)- but then it gets muddled with a conception of the CP running a state.

A few people have recommended some texts from the GIC on this (although the most common one brought up puts forward using labor notes based on social labor time).

Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution

http://www.libcom.org/library/fundamental-principles-communist-production-gik

[Blake's Baby]

I mean specifically the period of the early bourgeois revolutions or of capital overtaking feudal relations: the period of flux. I don't know that a transitional period can be categorized to fixed economic schema, during said transition. I'm not sure what to categorize it as other than 'a period of transition' (before a dominant social relation comes out on top over another). Some of the analyses using historical materialism define epochs according to the most 'advanced' mode of production for the period- thinking specifically of the ancient modes preceding feudalism- since slavery was not a worldwide generalized MoP, and the definition of despotism is pretty vague, yet those epochs are categorized according to the advanced relations of the period- even if they were not generalized...

But none of these were 'world systems' - it was entirely feasable to have capitalism in Northern Europe as a hegemonic mode of production, feudalism in Southern Europe, a kind of slave-owning semi-feudal colonialism in the Americas and bureacratic despostisms in Eastern Asia cheek-by-jowl with primitive communism in several parts of the world.

Capitalism through its extreme dynamism as a system has smoothed all of this out. Yes there is still a little primitive communism around, there is some simple commodity production, but the general system is capitalist - wages and markets.

On your first point, capitalism was growing as feudalism was declining. At some point (in different places it happened at different time) the lines on the graphs crossed. Quantitative become qualitative. A decadent feudalism is overtaken by a dynamic capitalism. Later capitalism begins to decline. Then socialism is possible.


...The transitional period according to Bordiga is a bit hard to swallow; sometimes depending on when he wrote, he has lucid explanations of how everything outside of a classless society is not communism (or the content of socialist revolution must be socialism and not state capitalism/self-management)- but then it gets muddled with a conception of the CP running a state.

A few people have recommended some texts from the GIC on this (although the most common one brought up puts forward using labor notes based on social labor time).

Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution

http://www.libcom.org/library/fundamental-principles-communist-production-gik

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As others, like Semendyaev, have mentioned the DotP is an expression of the political hegemony. I disagree that it is a form though. I mean, to talk within the confines of capitalism the bourgeoisie is politically hegemonic, one could therefore talk of a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" for that reason. However, the form can vary wildly, from parliamentary regimes to tinpot dictatorships. Within this framework communists then fight for the widest possible democratic concessions, with the aim of organising our class as a potential ruling class.

You are, of course, correct; the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a form in the sense of, say, parliamentary bourgeois democracy or soviet democracy. Keep in mind that I hadn't slept for over 40 hours when I wrote that, heh. I will respond to the rest later.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The bulk of any discussion on this sort of thing is semantics. A much more examinable topic would be - to what extent does the state wither away, and further, at what point does a state cease to be a state? Seems a simple question, but garners some disagreement among leftists, I find.

[subcp]

Capitalism through its extreme dynamism as a system has smoothed all of this out. Yes there is still a little primitive communism around, there is some simple commodity production, but the general system is capitalist - wages and markets.

On your first point, capitalism was growing as feudalism was declining. At some point (in different places it happened at different time) the lines on the graphs crossed. Quantitative become qualitative. A decadent feudalism is overtaken by a dynamic capitalism. Later capitalism begins to decline. Then socialism is possible.

That seems to be the main point of divergence- I'm just not comfortable giving concrete labels to the time period of transitions between MoP (decadence - revolution in the productive relations- new ascendant MoP); in history, or during a future communist revolution. Maybe part of this disagreement is how rapidly we think social relations will be revolutionized following a generalized revolutionary ferment.