State Socialism and State Capitalism

[ñángara]

Knowing it was Bismark (1815-1898) the originator of the term "State Socialism" one might expect only some Social Democratic goals concerning with it: public facilities and services run by the government. Add to this central planning and you have more reasons to call it a socialism.

Do both State socialism and State capitalism refer to the same Capitalist System run by the State?

[Blake's Baby]

My avatar is Wilhelm Liebknecht, who in 1895 said 'no-one has done more than I to demonstrate that 'state socialism' is nothing more than state capitalism'. So, yeah, they're the same thing, and one of them doesn't exist.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Good question. I am not sure how to differentiate the two. I guess state socialism would have complete or near-complete public ownership of the means of production, full employment, economic planning, and production for use (for example the USSR).

State capitalism could apply to any capitalist system where the state has a major role in the economy, which could include anything from neoliberalism to social democracy.

I have seen state capitalism used to describe the Soviet Union and similar states, though, and I believe the argument is that the state simply replaced private capital as the exploiting agent in the USSR, with the Soviet bureaucratic/party elite acting as de facto owners of the means of production through their complete political control of the state.

[Tim Cornelis]

State-capitalism "could" apply to any capitalist system where the state has a major role in the economy, but in revolutionary left/Marxian circles it doesn't.

"replaced private capital as the exploiting agent in the USSR, with the Soviet bureaucratic/party elite acting as de facto owners of the means of production through their complete political control of the state." This is contradictory. Private property is defined as the separation of the immediate producers from the conditions of their labour. So if the bureaucracy acted as 'de facto' owners, then it follows that there was private property.

[Mr. Piccolo]

State-capitalism "could" apply to any capitalist system where the state has a major role in the economy, but in revolutionary left/Marxian circles it doesn't.

"replaced private capital as the exploiting agent in the USSR, with the Soviet bureaucratic/party elite acting as de facto owners of the means of production through their complete political control of the state." This is contradictory. Private property is defined as the separation of the immediate producers from the conditions of their labour. So if the bureaucracy acted as 'de facto' owners, then it follows that there was private property.

The Soviet situation was strange. Legally Soviet state property was public property. It could not be alienated like private property. But, of course, we do know that eventually state property was privatized in the transition to capitalism when the political and legal climate changed.

Was, then, Soviet state property always private? Was the Soviet Union really capitalist? I don't know, but it is an interesting question.

[tuwix]

Knowing it was Bismark (1815-1898) the originator of the term "State Socialism" one might expect only some Social Democratic goals concerning with it: public facilities and services run by the government. Add to this central planning and you have more reasons to call it a socialism.

Do both State socialism and State capitalism refer to the same Capitalist System run by the State?

No. State socialism is just oxymoron. State can be on path to socialism and must be abolished as it is achieved. And state capitalism is a system when a state is a mere capitalist within itself. It suppress other emerging capitalists to preserve monopoly of capitalism.



Was the Soviet Union really capitalist? I don't know, but it is an interesting question.

Yes, it was. Outside their borders the SU have behaved as on big capitalist. They participate in world competition and trade to maximize profits. And this is exactly capitalist activity.

[odysseus]

vimeo.com/39724516 - Class 3: A class analysis of the rise and fall of the USSR (with applications as well to China, etc.)

Capitalism is capitalism, whether the state or a private individual runs it.

Difference between private slavery and state slavery? The government owns slaves instead of a private individual.

Difference between private and state capitalism? The government hires employees instead of a private individual.

[Pancakes Rühle]

The Soviet situation was strange. Legally Soviet state property was public property. It could not be alienated like private property. But, of course, we do know that eventually state property was privatized in the transition to capitalism when the political and legal climate changed.

Was, then, Soviet state property always private? Was the Soviet Union really capitalist? I don't know, but it is an interesting question.The question of property isn't a question of juristic relations, but of actual social relations of production. Even under a dictatorship of the proletariat, there exists the capitalist mode of production, and thus private property, even though by law this property in total may now say "public" or "worker" owned. Property ceases to be private when the capitalist mode of production ceases to exist. i.e. socialism.

The answer to the question of the USSR being capitalist is simple: YES. The answer to the question of it being a dictatorship of the proletariat is also simple: NO.

[G4b3n]

Good question. I am not sure how to differentiate the two. I guess state socialism would have complete or near-complete public ownership of the means of production, full employment, economic planning, and production for use (for example the USSR).

State capitalism could apply to any capitalist system where the state has a major role in the economy, which could include anything from neoliberalism to social democracy.

I have seen state capitalism used to describe the Soviet Union and similar states, though, and I believe the argument is that the state simply replaced private capital as the exploiting agent in the USSR, with the Soviet bureaucratic/party elite acting as de facto owners of the means of production through their complete political control of the state.


State socialism isn't a thing, it is a contradiction in terms. The working class, in the Marxian view, ought to utilize the state to bring about socialism, but it is incorrect to believe that the state bears within its limits and authority the possiblility of socialism.

And contrary to some popular belief, state capitalism isn't just a slur term for the USSR used by critics. It was advocated by the application of Leninist theory to the Russian situation. Lenin on state capitalism:

"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry."

But did the proletariat actually control the state? Not in my view, but others might disagree.

[Jacob Cliff]

Unlike what it seems most of the other responses are, I would argue that there is in fact a difference.
State-Capitalism has a plethora of varying definitions. Lenin used it synonymously with his New Economic Policy, Cliffites and Anarchists often use it synonymously with state control over the means of production (dominated by a bureaucratic "class"), and many modern "libertarians" use state-capitalism as a synonym for interventionist capitalism.
State Socialism, like StateCap, can also mean a number of things. In the generally accepted use of the term, it could just mean "the proletarian state having ownership over the means of production." Perhaps the word "socialism" here is misused considering the proletarian dictatorship is not yet socialism, but regardless, there is a stark difference between nationalization (State-ownership) in a bourgeois state and in a proletarian state.
Nationalization in the former includes state ownership of the means of production, but also includes behaviors that are nominally capitalist, such as production for-profit, wage-labor, exploitation, alienation, etc.
Nationalization in the latter includes state ownership of the means of production but would feature one of the most characterizing features of socialist production: production directly for need.
In all likelihood, given the fact that it would be rather unrealistic to do away with all the old capitalist habits at once (such as wages), the economy under a DOTP would likely bear many similarities with state-capitalism; perhaps it may even be "state capitalist" in the period it is still in the realm of the capitalist mode of production; as it is still emerging from the womb of old society.

In short, statecap means state ownership of the means of production but with capitalist functions in tact; statesoc means state ownership of the means of production but with production geared towards meeting human needs directly. That's my take on it, anyways.

[DOOM]

Unlike what it seems most of the other responses are, I would argue that there is in fact a difference.
State-Capitalism has a plethora of varying definitions. Lenin used it synonymously with his New Economic Policy, Cliffites and Anarchists often use it synonymously with state control over the means of production (dominated by a bureaucratic "class"), and many modern "libertarians" use state-capitalism as a synonym for interventionist capitalism.
State Socialism, like StateCap, can also mean a number of things. In the generally accepted use of the term, it could just mean "the proletarian state having ownership over the means of production." Perhaps the word "socialism" here is misused considering the proletarian dictatorship is not yet socialism, but regardless, there is a stark difference between nationalization (State-ownership) in a bourgeois state and in a proletarian state.
Nationalization in the former includes state ownership of the means of production, but also includes behaviors that are nominally capitalist, such as production for-profit, wage-labor, exploitation, alienation, etc.
Nationalization in the latter includes state ownership of the means of production but would feature one of the most characterizing features of socialist production: production directly for need.
In all likelihood, given the fact that it would be rather unrealistic to do away with all the old capitalist habits at once (such as wages), the economy under a DOTP would likely bear many similarities with state-capitalism; perhaps it may even be "state capitalist" in the period it is still in the realm of the capitalist mode of production; as it is still emerging from the womb of old society.

In short, statecap means state ownership of the means of production but with capitalist functions in tact; statesoc means state ownership of the means of production but with production geared towards meeting human needs directly. That's my take on it, anyways.

Wage isn't just some "capitalist habit". It's an expression of the workers' exploitation and the fact that abstract labor is still a thing. It's endemic to capitalism and is as such proof enough for the existence of capitalism in post-Octoberian Russia.

[Blake's Baby]

...
State Socialism, like StateCap, can also mean a number of things. In the generally accepted use of the term, it could just mean "the proletarian state having ownership over the means of production." Perhaps the word "socialism" here is misused considering the proletarian dictatorship is not yet socialism, but regardless, there is a stark difference between nationalization (State-ownership) in a bourgeois state and in a proletarian state...

That just begs the question, where has there ever been such a thing as a 'proletarian state', and how would you recognise it?

[Comrade Jacob]

State-socialism is just socialism. It's just a term anarchists use. The Leninists say socialism is a transition (which would include a state) to communism.
It's like saying frozen ice.

[Blake's Baby]

Yet again you prove that you nothing about Anarchism, and little about Marxism.

Anarchists generally regard themselves as socialists. 'Socialism' to Anarchists comes in two varieties - 'state socialism' (or 'authoritarian socialism') and 'libertarian socialism'. How is this possible if 'socialism' means 'use of the state'?

All non-Leninist Marxists use 'socialism' synonymously with 'communism'. And would claim (as Wilhelm Liebknecht - the only 'Marxist' at one point - did) that 'state socialism' is the same as 'state capitalism'. And therefore, not socialism.

[Pancakes Rühle]

State-socialism is just socialism. It's just a term anarchists use. The Leninists say socialism is a transition (which would include a state) to communism.
It's like saying frozen ice.

This is as embarrassing as it is expected, considering you are a social democrat with a Stalin fetish. Regardless, the only instance in which you are correct is in the instance you reject Marx and Lenin.

[Comrade Jacob]

This is as embarrassing as it is expected, considering you are a social democrat with a Stalin fetish. Regardless, the only instance in which you are correct is in the instance you reject Marx and Lenin.

:laugh: you haven't been here long so STFU pal

[Comrade Jacob]

Yet again you prove that you nothing about Anarchism, and little about Marxism.

Anarchists generally regard themselves as socialists. 'Socialism' to Anarchists comes in two varieties - 'state socialism' (or 'authoritarian socialism') and 'libertarian socialism'. How is this possible if 'socialism' means 'use of the state'?

All non-Leninist Marxists use 'socialism' synonymously with 'communism'. And would claim (as Wilhelm Liebknecht - the only 'Marxist' at one point - did) that 'state socialism' is the same as 'state capitalism'. And therefore, not socialism.

We are using different definitions it seems. True, I know little of Anarchism but don't bullshit yourself that I know little of Marxism, granted I am not expert in every single term that is put out but I couldn't give a shit. Just because I don't subscribe to your tendency doesn't mean I know little about Marxism. I've only been a Marxist for 2 or so years and I do have a lot to read still. But you claiming that Marx was 100% right about everything and we must rigidly use his terminologies is dogmatism. There is more to Marxism than just Marx.

[Pancakes Rühle]

:laugh: you haven't been here long so STFU palExcuse me while I bow to your seniority :rolleyes:. It's clear from your remarks to Blake's baby that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's typical of tankies such as yourself to assume they know about Marx, simply because they have read some Stalin and Stalinist works. You are right, however, that "The Leninists" claim socialism is a transitional society between capitalism and communism. You should note that Lenin does not quite agree.

[Comrade Jacob]

Excuse me while I bow to your seniority :rolleyes:. It's clear from your remarks to Blake's baby that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's typical of tankies such as yourself to assume they know about Marx, simply because they have read some Stalin and Stalinist works. You are right, however, that "The Leninists" claim socialism is a transitional society between capitalism and communism. You should note that Lenin does not quite agree.

Cos I've only read Stalin :rolleyes:
What I meant from you being new here is that you don't understand my position on things.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Cos I've only read Stalin :rolleyes:
What I meant from you being new here is that you don't understand my position on things.

Tankies are far from "hard to understand". So, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.

[Comrade Jacob]

Tankies are far from "hard to understand". So, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.

You are just another infantile left-com, enjoy talking to yourself while I get on with my day.

[Rudolf]

We are using different definitions it seems. True, I know little of Anarchism but don't bullshit yourself that I know little of Marxism, granted I am not expert in every single term that is put out but I couldn't give a shit. Just because I don't subscribe to your tendency doesn't mean I know little about Marxism. I've only been a Marxist for 2 or so years and I do have a lot to read still. But you claiming that Marx was 100% right about everything and we must rigidly use his terminologies is dogmatism. There is more to Marxism than just Marx.


You know, i often think Marxists have some weird obscurity fetish by the fact none of you abandon the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in favour of something ordinary people will understand because of clinging to an archaic definition of a word and yet then i come across your post saying clinging to Marx's terminology is dogmatism...

I wouldn't say dogmatism but it most definitely can be foolish. Making a distinction between socialism and a social transition from one into the other, however, isn't.

[Comrade Jacob]

You know, i often think Marxists have some weird obscurity fetish by the fact none of you abandon the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in favour of someone ordinary people will understand because of clinging to an archaic definition of a word and yet then i come across your post saying clinging to Marx's terminology is dogmatism...

I wouldn't say dogmatism but it most definitely can be foolish. Making a distinction between socialism and a social transition from one into the other, however, isn't.

I understand where you are coming from definitely. I use that phrase among leftists and to the out-side I often say "Rule of the workers" or explain the meaning behind the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to avoid misunderstandings.

[Armchair Partisan]

You know, i often think Marxists have some weird obscurity fetish by the fact none of you abandon the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in favour of someone ordinary people will understand because of clinging to an archaic definition of a word

I tend to use terms like that (as well as Marxist jargon like 'proletariat') alternatingly with their modern equivalent (e.g. 'working class') just to stress the point that I'm not talking about different things, and many of Marx's theses apply to 21st century capitalism pretty precisely.

[Pancakes Rühle]

You are just another infantile left-com, enjoy talking to yourself while I get on with my day.

Thanks for that new jest there pal... "infantile left-com". I bet you've never even read "An Infantile Disorder".

Provide an actual critique. I laid out that the idea that socialism is a transitional society between capitalism and communism is antithetical to Marx and Lenin, and you replied with "YOU HAVEN'T BEEN HERE LONG!!!". Claiming it is merely a case of semantics is false. It certainly wasn't a case of semantics for Stalin, or any other stalinist then and now who claimed that socialism was a mode of production between capitalism and communism, where a state, and thus social classes, existed.