Sinister Cultural Marxist
27th March 2014, 22:36
The debate in the thread "Defend North Korea" (an absurd title but there you go) got me thinking about what actually constitutes a "deformed worker's state" as opposed to a "state capitalist" state. Particularly in how we should define the PRC, DPRK and Cuba.
The PRC is obviously state Capitalist, and not worthy of defending. Yet how did it get there in the first place? How did it go from being a "deformed worker's state" to being "state capitalist"? A worker's state implies that workers have control over the economic means of production, yet that was not the case in China. The bureaucracy controlled the means of production, exported goods for the profit of the state and had a clear incentive to make their economic model more efficient in Capitalist terms. It's easy to place the blame on the leaders after Mao such as Deng, yet it was Mao who first sought ties to the West and who posited the theory of "New Democracy" which preserved much of the bourgeoisie.
The DPRK also seems to be state capitalist, as it exploits its labor for export. It even literally exports labor to Siberia to work for Russian logging firms, while the state takes a portion of their wages to pay for its needs. That is despite the fact that many North Korean workers, including those sent abroad to work for foreign capital, live and work in abject conditions? In addition, the DPRK exports heavy arms to a variety of regimes, many of which have no concern for their working class. The government seems to have no sense of "solidarity" in any meaningful way as its arms get sold to governments which are more than happy to shoot their workers. This article in the guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/18/history-north-korea-arms-dealing) mentions Eritrea, Iran and Syria among the countries which import North Korean arms. What's the worth of a "worker's state" when it funds itself in part on selling arms to the most oppressive elements of the national bourgeoisie?
Cuba seems at first glance to be easier to defend because, as some here have said, the mechanisms of control which workers can exert over their government and economic life is greater than in China and the DPRK. Additionally, it has done more to preserve the standard of living of its poorest citizens than these other states. However, Cuba, too, seems to have its own shortcomings that make its status as a "worker's state" questionable. There are serious divisions, for instance, between those workers allowed to access Western currency through the tourist trade, and those left to work in the state sector. This distinction leads to the accumulation of currency by the state and by an elite sector of petit bourgeois and privileged workers. It indicates an inequality and a sense of economic and political alienation between the proletariat and privileged classes. Additionally, the bureaucrats are inefficient when it comes to distributing the kinds of goods necessary to maintain sufficient levels of production, which seems to be driving some of the reforms towards privatization.
Clearly, in between the worker's seizing power in a particular state and the event of a global revolution, a "worker's state" needs to have ties with international capital to import various commodities which the domestic economy cannot produce (perhaps an interesting thread in itself). However, that is different from a state being motivated by the interest of accumulating capital. In what sense is a state a "worker's state", even a "deformed" one, if it is still dominated by Capitalist relations, and if workers themselves lack both political and economic power? In what sense can a "worker's state" be where it represses attempts by workers to organize for themselves yet exports the surplus labor of these workers to keep the state functioning? Or where there is a class with privileged economic control and that is alienated from the working class?
As much as anything else, with the rise of Solidarity and other groups in Eastern Europe, in what sense can these states be "worker's" when the workers themselves do not identify with it and do not see it as fulfilling their interests to the extent to which they even support the restoration of liberal capitalism? What is the purpose of "defending" these states when every single one has been moving back towards liberal capitalism, has restored it outright, or has adopted an authoritarian model of state capitalism? When does a state go from being a "Deformed worker's state" to being "state capitalist"? It seems like a waste of energy and words to defend these regimes.
The PRC is obviously state Capitalist, and not worthy of defending. Yet how did it get there in the first place? How did it go from being a "deformed worker's state" to being "state capitalist"? A worker's state implies that workers have control over the economic means of production, yet that was not the case in China. The bureaucracy controlled the means of production, exported goods for the profit of the state and had a clear incentive to make their economic model more efficient in Capitalist terms. It's easy to place the blame on the leaders after Mao such as Deng, yet it was Mao who first sought ties to the West and who posited the theory of "New Democracy" which preserved much of the bourgeoisie.
The DPRK also seems to be state capitalist, as it exploits its labor for export. It even literally exports labor to Siberia to work for Russian logging firms, while the state takes a portion of their wages to pay for its needs. That is despite the fact that many North Korean workers, including those sent abroad to work for foreign capital, live and work in abject conditions? In addition, the DPRK exports heavy arms to a variety of regimes, many of which have no concern for their working class. The government seems to have no sense of "solidarity" in any meaningful way as its arms get sold to governments which are more than happy to shoot their workers. This article in the guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/18/history-north-korea-arms-dealing) mentions Eritrea, Iran and Syria among the countries which import North Korean arms. What's the worth of a "worker's state" when it funds itself in part on selling arms to the most oppressive elements of the national bourgeoisie?
Cuba seems at first glance to be easier to defend because, as some here have said, the mechanisms of control which workers can exert over their government and economic life is greater than in China and the DPRK. Additionally, it has done more to preserve the standard of living of its poorest citizens than these other states. However, Cuba, too, seems to have its own shortcomings that make its status as a "worker's state" questionable. There are serious divisions, for instance, between those workers allowed to access Western currency through the tourist trade, and those left to work in the state sector. This distinction leads to the accumulation of currency by the state and by an elite sector of petit bourgeois and privileged workers. It indicates an inequality and a sense of economic and political alienation between the proletariat and privileged classes. Additionally, the bureaucrats are inefficient when it comes to distributing the kinds of goods necessary to maintain sufficient levels of production, which seems to be driving some of the reforms towards privatization.
Clearly, in between the worker's seizing power in a particular state and the event of a global revolution, a "worker's state" needs to have ties with international capital to import various commodities which the domestic economy cannot produce (perhaps an interesting thread in itself). However, that is different from a state being motivated by the interest of accumulating capital. In what sense is a state a "worker's state", even a "deformed" one, if it is still dominated by Capitalist relations, and if workers themselves lack both political and economic power? In what sense can a "worker's state" be where it represses attempts by workers to organize for themselves yet exports the surplus labor of these workers to keep the state functioning? Or where there is a class with privileged economic control and that is alienated from the working class?
As much as anything else, with the rise of Solidarity and other groups in Eastern Europe, in what sense can these states be "worker's" when the workers themselves do not identify with it and do not see it as fulfilling their interests to the extent to which they even support the restoration of liberal capitalism? What is the purpose of "defending" these states when every single one has been moving back towards liberal capitalism, has restored it outright, or has adopted an authoritarian model of state capitalism? When does a state go from being a "Deformed worker's state" to being "state capitalist"? It seems like a waste of energy and words to defend these regimes.