A question for Marxist-Leninists.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

Do all MLs accept that the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc., established forms of socialism, or do some of them recognise the concept of "state capitalism"? I am unsure as to how you could argue there was collective ownership of the means of production here, as the state is not a peoples collective inherently; it is merely another private entity, surely.

[Sibotic]

I am unsure as to how you could argue there was collective ownership of the means of production here, as the state is not a peoples collective inherently; it is merely another private entity, surely.
To be fair, the state, being such, is necessarily a public entity (otherwise you'd have a conventional ownership of many other things, along with a state 'apart' from this), and as such 'state capitalism' would imply a fairly sharp degree of contradiction within such a state itself which might force it to be slightly ingenuine, or a slightly hollow shell due to in a sense even its appearance being fractured and incoherent. This would at the same time prevent such a state from wholly identifying itself with capitalism or it would have to look forwards slightly or in some level turn against this in favour of the society which is beyond the contradictions of capital and without such things.

(At the same time, and implicit in such characterisations as 'state capitalism,' would be the idea that Western attempts to inveigh against such a state would be fundamentally complicated by the fact that if the state is to be identified with a capitalistic entity, their criticisms would therefore also tend to be criticisms of capitalism itself despite themselves, and so on, though of course compromised by their source in that case. This implies a high degree of instability already, then, if such states are capable of conflict. It might also imply that because of this, the USSR may have had the upper hand if not for the West's actual movement towards communism, which would have served to undermine the difference against the USSR - but this is less stark and apparent.)

As to Marxists-Leninists, while they will likely not characterise all of those states as state capitalist, nonetheless they might have different views concerning the concept itself, and it's possible that some may accept the use of it in certain cases, apparently. However, we might as well allow them to elaborate as far as Marxism-Leninism is concerned. It probably isn't that orthodox, however.

[ComradeAllende]

Do all MLs accept that the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc., established forms of socialism, or do some of them recognise the concept of "state capitalism"? I am unsure as to how you could argue there was collective ownership of the means of production here, as the state is not a peoples collective inherently; it is merely another private entity, surely.

Depends on what ML tendency they subscribe to. Trotskyites believe that the USSR was a "degenerated" workers' state where the bureaucracy (personified by Stalin) betrayed the genuine socialism of the October Revolution; all the European satellites were "deformed" states, given their Stalinist roots.

I'm not quite sure as to whether or not any of those nations qualify as "socialist", given that "socialism" requires the democratically-owned and planned management of the means of production; none of the officially "Marxist" countries every had a significant amount of democracy over the entire course of their existence; the USSR did have a "Soviet democracy" (at least according to Trotsky) prior to Stalin's rise, and Tito's Yugoslavia did have worker's councils managing the factories. Nevertheless, I have a number of problems with "Soviet democracy" (especially given that the Bolsheviks were initially outvoted by the SRs in the Constituent Assembly), and the workers' councils in Yugoslavia were accompanied by Tito's autocratic regime (not sure what the Trots classify them as). Clearly, the PRC is state capitalist given its connections to multinational corporations and its subsidization (or outright ownership) of domestic enterprises.

[Comrade Jacob]

Some would argue they became state-capitalist (but not under Stalin, Mao etc), so we do recognise the term. (e.i RoK has state-owned businesses, they are hardly socialist...obviously).

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

Some would argue they became state-capitalist (but not under Stalin, Mao etc), so we do recognise the term. (e.i RoK has state-owned businesses, they are hardly socialist...obviously).

Thank you for the answer, albeit it is rather abrupt. Seeing as you appear to be one of the only active MLs, what is your defense of Socialism In One Country? Personally speaking I identify with a lot of Mao's politics, a lot of Lenin's and (obviously) a Marxist line of thought, but I cannot accept SIOC. Do all MLs follow it, and how far did Mao follow it? I cannot find a reliable source on the latter.

[RedMaterialist]

Do all MLs accept that the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc., established forms of socialism, or do some of them recognise the concept of "state capitalism"? I am unsure as to how you could argue there was collective ownership of the means of production here, as the state is not a peoples collective inherently; it is merely another private entity, surely.

How can the state be a private entity?

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

How can the state be a private entity?

It could be seen as such if it has been co-opted by a revolutionary oligarchy. The state in the Soviet Union was not collectively managed and organised to my knowledge. Besides, people claim state ownership=public ownership all the time, even when it is actually just the state being owned by a few people and them allowing the public to use the organs of the state; there is no "public ownership" about that, anymore than me privately owning a road and letting someone drive on it is.

[Comrade Jacob]

Thank you for the answer, albeit it is rather abrupt. Seeing as you appear to be one of the only active MLs, what is your defense of Socialism In One Country? Personally speaking I identify with a lot of Mao's politics, a lot of Lenin's and (obviously) a Marxist line of thought, but I cannot accept SIOC. Do all MLs follow it, and how far did Mao follow it? I cannot find a reliable source on the latter.

SIOC is simply the theory that the soviet-union (at the time the only socialist led country) should go ahead and try and build socialism so it can be a power that can spread socialism by giving arms and giving people something to aim for. Socialism in One country is internationalist and doesn't aim to have socialism in only one country but simply a way of starting.

[Comrade Jacob]

At Mao's point China was not the only socialist led country, but the aim of socialism in one country would then be 'socialism in many countries' and the aim is to still build socialism while only some of the world was socialist led. So SIOC was a bit outdated by Mao's time but the idea of building socialism where you can is still applied.

[Burzhuin]

Do all MLs accept that the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc., established forms of socialism, or do some of them recognise the concept of "state capitalism"? I am unsure as to how you could argue there was collective ownership of the means of production here, as the state is not a peoples collective inherently; it is merely another private entity, surely.
It depends on point of view. In my opinion Socialism was built in USSR. Do you understand the meaning "all people property"?

[Sibotic]

It depends on point of view. In my opinion Socialism was built in USSR.
That barely seems substantive, you suspect it's not a majority M-L viewpoint, that lot could be confrontational in one or two ways. Which one sentence do you actually hold to, if not for very long? Did the USSR's system depend on which system Stalin felt like from one day to the next, etc.


Do you understand the meaning "all people property"?
That they are that?

[reviscom1]

I think that, in theory, the economic model used by the Soviet Union (a centrally managed economy) can qualify as "Common Ownership of the Means of Production". The State is merely a practical means of expressing the wishes of the people, of administering and regulating resources on their behalf. People in the West, if they are annoyed with a public official often say "I pay your wages, you know!" and this is really true. So if the people pay the wages of the public bureaucrats it can be said that they are the ultimate bosses of those bureaucrats.

Furthermore, if the State owns all the Enterprises then all the "profits" from those enterprises go into the State coffers to be spent on, ultimately, the people. Again the people, through elections, direct participation or whatever get to decide exactly what the money is spent on.

The way the Soviet Union saw itself, all the above was doubly true, as legislative decisions, and appointment of the executive, was carried out by councils of workers' representatives (the Soviets).

So yes in theory I think that model can count as "Common Ownership", although it's not the only one.

In practice, of course, the Soviet Union was rather too top down to make the theory work in practice. Although I would guess it was less "top down" than Western propaganda would have it.

[Црвена]

I think that, in theory, the economic model used by the Soviet Union (a centrally managed economy) can qualify as "Common Ownership of the Means of Production". The State is merely a practical means of expressing the wishes of the people, of administering and regulating resources on their behalf. People in the West, if they are annoyed with a public official often say "I pay your wages, you know!" and this is really true. So if the people pay the wages of the public bureaucrats it can be said that they are the ultimate bosses of those bureaucrats.

Furthermore, if the State owns all the Enterprises then all the "profits" from those enterprises go into the State coffers to be spent on, ultimately, the people. Again the people, through elections, direct participation or whatever get to decide exactly what the money is spent on.

The way the Soviet Union saw itself, all the above was doubly true, as legislative decisions, and appointment of the executive, was carried out by councils of workers' representatives (the Soviets).

So yes in theory I think that model can count as "Common Ownership", although it's not the only one.

In practice, of course, the Soviet Union was rather too top down to make the theory work in practice. Although I would guess it was less "top down" than Western propaganda would have it.

States are organs through which the rule of a certain class is enforced. Which means that any society with a state also has classes. And the means of production of a class society are by definition not held in common.

(I've assumed that by common ownership, you mean social ownership; correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any other meaningful definition.)

[Thirsty Crow]

SIOC is simply the theory that the soviet-union (at the time the only socialist led country) should go ahead and try and build socialism so it can be a power that can spread socialism by giving arms and giving people something to aim for. Socialism in One country is internationalist and doesn't aim to have socialism in only one country but simply a way of starting.
This is a misleading view.

To be sure, there are rhetorical ambiguities in texts dealing with this problem. But it is beyond dispute that the official view was that the USSR wasn't only "socialist led", but also a socialist society where antagonistic classes were abolished. The view wasn't that they were forging ahead and going somewhere - the view was that the country reached this first goal (entailing a fundamental revision of Marxist theory along the way, demonstrated by the introduction of the concept of non-antagonistic social classes with the corollary, the state, and a conceptual distinction between socialism and communism based on it).

Some people hold the view that for all intents and purposes, once socialism is envisioned in these terms, practical proletarian internationalism is out the window. I'm one of those people.

[reviscom1]

States are organs through which the rule of a certain class is enforced. Which means that any society with a state also has classes. And the means of production of a class society are by definition not held in common.

(I've assumed that by common ownership, you mean social ownership; correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any other meaningful definition.)

Well in theory, the Soviet Union was a Workers' state, and ruled by workers (the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) so in that sense the means of production was owned by the people who worked those means.

I don't necessarily agree that ALL States are a means by which the rule of a certain class is enforced, only Capitalist and Feudal ones.

[Burzhuin]

That barely seems substantive, you suspect it's not a majority M-L viewpoint, that lot could be confrontational in one or two ways. Which one sentence do you actually hold to, if not for very long? Did the USSR's system depend on which system Stalin felt like from one day to the next, etc.

I remember how I was growing up KNOWING that I, among millions of other Soviet citizens, OWN land, woods, rivers, factory I worked for. I recently visited old country. Talking to my countrymen I realized that they missed more than anything else feeling of confidence in the future.