Engels Quote confusion

[Jacob Cliff]

Engels says
"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

Is this action of the state nationalizing industries talking about the DOTP, or a bourgeois state having to nationalize certain industries - like the postal system? I ask because it says the modern state is essentially a capitalist machine — which also reminds me: is the Dictatoeship of the Proletariat a "bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie" as Lenin said?

[Creative Destruction]

The proletarian dictatorship is a state in which the working class has wrested power from the bourgeoisie, but there still remains functions of capitalism. It's just an era of transformation from capitalism to socialism. The bourgeoisie would still exist, it's just no longer a bourgeois dictatorship, which is what I'm guessing Lenin meant.

eta. Engels it talking about bourgeois nationalization and worker cooperatives within the current capitalist state. He's just saying that these thing do not make what they're doing any less capitalist. Nationalization is still capitalist and so are worker cooperatives. He's making the argument here that it doesn't take a "free market" just to make capitalism, and that these other forms are just as capitalist.

[Jacob Cliff]

The proletarian dictatorship is a state in which the working class has wrested power from the bourgeoisie, but there still remains functions of capitalism. It's just an era of transformation from capitalism to socialism. The bourgeoisie would still exist, it's just no longer a bourgeois dictatorship, which is what I'm guessing Lenin meant.

eta. Engels it talking about bourgeois nationalization and worker cooperatives within the current capitalist state. He's just saying that these thing do not make what they're doing any less capitalist. Nationalization is still capitalist and so are worker cooperatives. He's making the argument here that it doesn't take a "free market" just to make capitalism, and that these other forms are just as capitalist.
Are the nationalizations under the DOTP, then, still capitalist? And if so, why? Is this not transformation into public ownership?

[Creative Destruction]

Are the nationalizations under the DOTP, then, still capitalist? And if so, why? Is this not transformation into public ownership?

Yeah, but "public ownership" can happen in capitalism, as well. What matters is the socialization: taking over the means of production and gearing it toward need, rather than commodity production and profit, which would be the aim of the DOTP.

Note that Engels said there that the "modern state." This means he's addressing the current state. The proletarian dictatorship would be a new form of state, not the least of which is because it's the state of the workers.

[Jacob Cliff]

Yeah, but "public ownership" can happen in capitalism, as well. What matters is the socialization: taking over the means of production and gearing it toward need, rather than commodity production and profit, which would be the aim of the DOTP.

Note that Engels said there that the "modern state." This means he's addressing the current state. The proletarian dictatorship would be a new form of state, not the least of which is because it's the state of the workers.
Makes sense, then, thank you.
So to recap: what gives nationalizations in the DOTP a proletarian character is production for-need (and I'm guessing also calculation in kind) rather than bourgeois for-profit nationalizations?

[Tim Cornelis]

Nationalisation in the DOTP puts the means of production at the disposal of the organs of workers' power, such as workers' councils.

[ñángara]

The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."


Is this action of the state nationalizing industries talking about the DOTP, or a bourgeois state having to nationalize certain industries...
It's a valid quotation for a bourgeois state (with a reformist government or the DOTP). Can you add a link to it?

[ñángara]

That's a great quotation to understand the failure of reformism and of state capitalism. It's worth to have the source of the original Engel's document.

[The Idler]

When it comes to workers control, any kind of nationalisation as currently understood and described by Engels is not the answer.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Engels says
"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

Is this action of the state nationalizing industries talking about the DOTP, or a bourgeois state having to nationalize certain industries - like the postal system? I ask because it says the modern state is essentially a capitalist machine — which also reminds me: is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat a "bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie" as Lenin said?

Great that you brought up this prescient Engels quote! It's useful against left opponents of nationalizations.

Engels here is in fact talking about a specific kind of capitalist nationalization, as well as DOTP nationalization: permanent capitalist nationalization (http://www.revleft.com/vb/permanent-capitalist-nationalizations-t161200/index.html), not the temporary "nationalizations" we've seen recently.


eta. Engels it talking about bourgeois nationalization and worker cooperatives within the current capitalist state. He's just saying that these thing do not make what they're doing any less capitalist. Nationalization is still capitalist and so are worker cooperatives. He's making the argument here that it doesn't take a "free market" just to make capitalism, and that these other forms are just as capitalist.

You and Nangara conveniently ignored the last sentence, however.

[Creative Destruction]

You and Nangara conveniently ignored the last sentence, however.

I didn't, actually. I said nothing against nationalization. In fact:


Yeah, but "public ownership" can happen in capitalism, as well. What matters is the socialization: taking over the means of production and gearing it toward need, rather than commodity production and profit, which would be the aim of the DOTP.

Note that Engels said there that the "modern state." This means he's addressing the current state. The proletarian dictatorship would be a new form of state, not the least of which is because it's the state of the workers.

As well, I agreed with what Tim had to say:


Nationalisation in the DOTP puts the means of production at the disposal of the organs of workers' power, such as workers' councils.

If you want to try and pick a fight, at least read the entire thread first.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I didn't, actually. I said nothing against nationalization. In fact

You did write:


eta. Engels it talking about bourgeois nationalization and worker cooperatives within the current capitalist state. He's just saying that these thing do not make what they're doing any less capitalist. Nationalization is still capitalist and so are worker cooperatives. He's making the argument here that it doesn't take a "free market" just to make capitalism, and that these other forms are just as capitalist.

This doesn't take into account his entire argument, and that's what I simply responded to.

As for rednoise's post, the bourgeois workers party Die Linke also calls for "socialization of enterprises," but that very phrase these days has a mere regulatory connotation that is far from what you and I are accustomed to writing about.

[Creative Destruction]

You did write:

This doesn't take into account his entire argument, and that's what I simply responded to.

I didn't need to specifically address the final sentence. That doesn't mean I didn't take it into account. If I had disagreed, I would have expressed as such.


As for rednoise's post, the bourgeois workers party Die Linke also calls for "socialization of enterprises," but that very phrase these days has a mere regulatory connotation that is far from what you and I are accustomed to writing about.

Sorry, I'm rednoise. I forgot that I had changed my username. I didn't know that electoralist parties were using the phrase "socialization." It doesn't do anything to discredit my point, though, just because they may be using it wrongly. I'm addressing a revolutionary leftist forum. Not a general crowd. I'd figure people here know what that means.

[Tim Cornelis]

Great that you brought up this prescient Engels quote! It's useful against left opponents of nationalizations.

Not really, it's outdated. Nationalisation of multinational corporations means breaking up concentrated capital, and is a step back from the global socialisation of labour. Capital transcends national borders to a very large extent, bringing it back to a national scale through nationalisation would be reactionary.

[clyder]

It is pretty clear that the state that Engels meant in that quote was the contemporary German Empire within which the Social Democrats were having to operate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not really, it's outdated. Nationalisation of multinational corporations means breaking up concentrated capital, and is a step back from the global socialisation of labour. Capital transcends national borders to a very large extent, bringing it back to a national scale through nationalisation would be reactionary.

Comrade, if you were to check out that link I made on permanent capitalist nationalizations, you would find that perhaps I was using merely the wrong word to describe a public ownership phenomenon transcending national borders. In sci-fi and space opera literature, "planetization" is the word used, though within the context of interstellar astropolitical entities.

In any event, permanent nationalization of a national firm by a capitalist state or permanent acquisition of a multinational firm by a joint venture or other structure formed exclusively of, by, and for all affected capitalist states (i.e., domestic and "foreign state-owned enterprises") "is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

(Joint venture "nationalization": Something found a lot in the oil and gas industry, with a lesser enterprise being owned by a domestic state-owned enterprise and by one or more "foreign state-owned enterprises")

Again, please read my previous discussion on an ECB financial services monopoly.

Also, what about the situation with the Piraeus port in Greece? The multinational Chinese firm that owns its share of the port is itself a "foreign state-owned enterprise."

[ñángara]

State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solutionStill this statement appears cryptic to me.There are no instances of a socialist country of the 20th century (nor Cuba and the DPRK today) in doing something more than developing a capitalism of State: no withering of the State, the same commodity production for a market all the time, etc. It seems an ideological blackout in concernig the transition from the DOTP to socialism.

[Dave B]

The quotation is as from the below.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm


The general idea was that with a projected trend for the development of state capitalism (will expand on that in a bit), as with joint stock companies, the capitalist class themselves as individuals would play a decreasing part in the actual organisation and arrangement of production.

In contrast to the late 19th century model and ideal of the industrial capitalist class actually owning and running their own discrete productive capital; as with the classic mill owner.

Even if a part of that capital was co-owned by other ‘absentee’ shareholders or finance capitalists etc

With the development and progression of joint stock companies etc, so it went; the organisation and running of industrial capitalism ‘was’ or ‘would be’ increasingly performed by ‘salaried’ employees and thus theoretically ‘workers’.

[Lots of shareholders now own ‘capital’ as part of managed portfolios and probably don’t know what they own, where it is or what it does.

And that may change from day to day anyway.

It is probably a bit of a stretch for us to think of corporate CEO’s and senior management as ‘workers’; but there was the idea of another parallel trend where expanded ‘public education’ etc would increasing churn out ‘commercial workers’ that would be employed at a lower and lower price and reduced differentials etc.

There was also a counter profiteer of enterprise theory in volume III.]

Anyway as it went; come the revolution taking ownership of the means of production would in that case would be more of a formal paper exercise rather that wresting physical control from sitting mill owners etc.

At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century there was a another perceived change/trend in the organisation of capitalism, re state capitalism, that occupied the thoughts of a diverse range of Marxist thinkers like Bauer, Hilferding, Bukharin and even Bernstien.

It is a little bit complicated and not made easier by it not really coming to fruition; much.

The idea was as regards the interests of the national capitalist classes that there would be economic advantages due to economies of scale (over competing other national capitalists) if whole branches of industry were coalesced and the capital pooled and run as state monopolies etc.

You could argue perhaps that it reached its apogee in 1960’s Britian?

Where coal, steel, water, energy supply, ship building and transport etc was under state capitalist control; as well as education and healthcare I suppose.

[These spheres of production don’t actually have to make a profit as they can succeed in ‘private capitalist terms’ by providing products and services at a discount price to the general capitalist class.

And thus the ‘surplus value’ is transferred to the general capitalist class.

There obviously can be strategic/ militaristic implications as well. ]

And as the early 20Th century Marxist theorists saw it; there seemed to be a tendency of the national capitalist class towards integrated Stalinoid planned economy covering huge swathes of national production.

It was probably made most succinct in Bauers ‘organised state capitalism theory’.

These ‘pseudo reformists’, as with Bernstien, thus saw capitalism, through state capitalism, organically reforming itself towards ‘building’ its own demise.

A position most sensationally adopted in Lenin’s own ‘building socialism’ along the ‘path of state capitalism’.

Bukharin was fully cognisant of all this state capitalism/imperialism kind of stuff for what it is worth.

Bukharin was a complete and utter shit in my opinion by I ‘respect’ him as a Marxist theoretician; he was far superior to Lenin.

A more modern analysis?

The ‘flip side’ of it maybe is where/there are the European Community legal limitations on national state subsidies for certain industries and crypto state capitalism?

Eg bailing out or let them ‘sink or swim’ car industries etc and the associated paraphernalia of World Trade Agreements?

I think at the turn of the century Marxists were too locked into the idea of dog eat dog all competing ‘imperial’ capitalist classes; and failed to anticipate the potential for the national capitalist classes to take a more international, globalised and less patriotic/chauvinist ‘brotherly’ collective understanding.

I also think the more modern late 20th century capitalist class saw the growing limitations of massive industrial enterprises.

Eg as was perhaps more so the case a bit earlier when you had huge almost soviet style productive enterprises where steel would come in at one end and steam engines out the other.

From their perspective breaking up that productive process into separate component parts makes it easier from a ‘bean counting’ perspective to work out which parts are productive and carrying the ‘dead weight’ of the rest.

It is also has the advantages of fragmenting any collective industrial action by the employees of collective capital.

Even in still extant large industrial enterprises, different functions are accounted separately and can be franchised out.

Thus I work in analytical testing and have to economically justify it against bids and costs of having it performed by outside laboratories.

Even though they still ‘like’ the strategic control and prestige of being able to perform it in house.

[Creative Destruction]

Dave, is there a reason why you increase the text size in your posts?

[Tim Cornelis]

Still this statement appears cryptic to me.There are no instances of a socialist country of the 20th century (nor Cuba and the DPRK today) in doing something more than developing a capitalism of State: no withering of the State, the same commodity production for a market all the time, etc. It seems an ideological blackout in concernig the transition from the DOTP to socialism.

It concentrated capital in the hands of the state, making it that much easier for it to be expropriated. The fewer hands own capital, the easier it is to overthrow them. Marx's and Engel's statements about the concentration of capital are in hindsight clearly overstatements as the petty bourgeoisie is alive and well, so strategies informed by such statements aren't necessarily very effective.

[Dave B]

yes

I have a small screen and have to copy and paste other peoples posts onto word docs so i can read them.

but I don't complain

[Creative Destruction]

yes

I have a small screen and have to copy and paste other peoples posts onto word docs so i can read them.

but I don't complain

well, okay, but you can reply without increasing your text size. i almost always skip your posts, maybe to my detriment but they're incredibly irritating to read. tbh, having your text at size 1 is less annoying.

[BIXX]

yes

I have a small screen and have to copy and paste other peoples posts onto word docs so i can read them.

but I don't complain
Dude why even bother with revleft holy shit is it really worth all that effort?