State Capitalism [Archive]

The Grey Blur

30th January 2007, 23:09

In my opinion "State Capitalism" seems incredibly vague, and just an overly-simple analysis of failed attempts at creating a Communist society. Rather than tackling the difficult questions posed by these failures the proponent of "State Capitalism" attempt to dismiss them entirely.

According to a Marxist-Trotskyist analysis of the USSR it was not 'State Capitalist' but rather a deformed workers state. In that the state utilised socialist econonomic planning but that a bureaucratic caste held political power rather than the workers. Trotsky saw a 'political revolution' as neccessary in these deformed states to return the workers to full power.

A few other things...

Did the USSR become State-Capitalist suddenly on a certain date or was it always State Capitalist (i.e the October Revolution achieved nothing)?

If the USSR was capitalist why was it opposed so vehemently by the USA and other capitalist-controlled nations?

When the USSR collapsed in 1990 why did mortality rates increase, average life spans shorten, unemployment rise etc etc if the USSR was in essence already a capitalist system before the change?

Please have the patience to responsd.

Lamanov

31st January 2007, 01:22

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 30, 2007 11:09 pm
In my opinion "State Capitalism" seems incredibly vague...

Oh, I'm sure it "seems" vague. But it's not. It's a theory which goes hand in hand with the whole rethinking of the revolutionary project on one side, and rethinking Marx and "Marxism" on the other – which began in the 20's.

Did the USSR become State-Capitalist suddenly on a certain date or was it always State Capitalist (i.e the October Revolution achieved nothing)?

It became state capitalist as soon as the formal nationalization was followed by the actual taking over by the state officials.

It became such soon as state officials became collective agents of capital.

October itself was a putch. Coup d'êtat. Revolution was a bit wider process.

If the USSR was capitalist why was it opposed so vehemently by the USA and other capitalist-controlled nations?

Capitalist nations oppose each other. Nothing unusual.

You're not suggesting that an individual capitalist's refusal to give up his private property deserves some deeper explanation than the obvious one? USSR's politics could have threatened the interests of private enterprise, but it doesn't mean that they threatened capitalism itself: they did so to only it's liberal form.

When the USSR collapsed in 1990 why did mortality rates increase, average life spans shorten, unemployment rise etc etc if the USSR was in essence already a capitalist system before the change?

They did so in Britain at the time. What's your point?

Unemployment rose because of an end to state monopoly, and mortality rose with it. Shit happens when gangsters take over. But it doesn't mean that before 1989 labor was not a commodity and that people didn't die in misery.

Nusocialist

31st January 2007, 08:06

Some Anarchists call the USSR etc state capitalist, this gets the point across but is incorrect, the USSR was a class-society based on older more extra-economic exploitation.

Lamanov

31st January 2007, 12:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:06 am
Some Anarchists call the USSR etc state capitalist, this gets the point across but is incorrect, the USSR was a class-society based on older more extra-economic exploitation.

And this would mean what? Does anyone explain anything they claim any more?

On the contrary, whole life was subordinated to the economic plan of the state.

P.S.

Here's one more work that I find quite excellent: The Nature of Russian Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm), by R. Dunayevskaya.

Alf

31st January 2007, 15:04

State capitalism is a universal tendency of capitalism in its period of decline. State capitalism exists in Britain and America as well as the USSR, China, Cuba or Nazi Germany. The Stalinist form is just one expression of it. It was already defined by Engels in the last part of the 19th century who discerned the tendency for the state to become a "collective capitalist" (in Anti-Duhring). What was key for Engels was that the ownership of property either by joint stock companies or the state didn't do away with the capitalist relation -"rather, it is brought to a head". That relation is the wage labour/capital relation and the extraction of surplus value.

I don't agree with DJ-TC that October was a putsch, although it's not the main issue here. October was a proletarian insurrection. The workers took political power in one part of world capitalism. But the social relations, the economy - whether under War Communism or the NEP - remained capitalist, and this must always be the case in the confines of single country.

Alf

31st January 2007, 15:32

From the ICC's platform:

In all periods of decadence, confronted with the exacerbation of the system’s contradictions, the state has to take responsibility for the cohesion of the social organism, for the preservation of the dominant relations of production. It thus tends to strengthen itself to the point of incorporating within its own structures the whole of social life. The bloated growth of the imperial administration and the absolute monarchy were the manifestations of this phenomenon in the decadence of Roman slave society and of feudalism respectively.

In the decadence of capitalism the general tendency towards state capitalism is one of the dominant characteristics of social life. In this period, each national capital, because it cannot expand in an unfettered way and is confronted with acute imperialist rivalries, is forced to organise itself as effectively as possible, so that externally it can compete economically and militarily with its rivals, and internally deal with the increasing aggravation of social contradictions. The only power in society which is capable of fulfilling these tasks is the state. Only the state can:

take charge of the national economy in an overall centralised manner and mitigate the internal competition which weakens the economy, in order to strengthen its capacity to maintain a united face against the competition on the world market.

develop the military force necessary for the defence of its interests in the face of growing international conflict.

finally, owing to an increasingly heavy repressive and bureaucratic apparatus, reinforce the internal cohesion of a society threatened with collapse through the increasing decomposition of its economic foundations; only the state can impose through an all-pervasive violence the preservation of a social structure which is less and less capable of spontaneously regulating human relations and which is more and more questioned the more it becomes an absurdity for the survival of society itself.

On the economic level this tendency towards state capitalism, though never fully realised, is expressed by the state taking over the key points of the productive apparatus. This does not mean the disappearance of the law of value, or competition, or the anarchy of production, which are the fundamental characteristics of the capitalist economy. These characteristics continue to apply on a world scale where the laws of the market still reign and still determine the conditions of production within each national economy however statified it may be. If the laws of value and of competition seem to be ‘violated’, it is only so that they may have a more powerful effect on a global scale. If the anarchy of production seems to subside in the face of state planning, it reappears more brutally on a world scale, particularly during the acute crises of the system which state capitalism is incapable of preventing. Far from representing a ‘rationalisation’ of capitalism, state capitalism is nothing but an expression of its decay.

The statification of capital takes place either in a gradual manner through the fusion of ‘private’ and state capital as is generally the case in the most developed countries, or through sudden leaps in the form of massive and total nationalisations, in general in places where private capital is at its weakest.

In practice, although the tendency towards state capitalism manifests itself in all countries in the world, it is more rapid and more obvious when and where the effects of decadence make themselves felt in the most brutal manner; historically during periods of open crisis or of war, geographically in the weakest economies. But state capitalism is not a specific phenomenon of backward countries. On the contrary, although the degree of formal state control is often higher in the backward capitals, the state’s real control over economic life is generally much more effective in the more developed countries owing to the high level of capital concentration in these nations.

On the political and social level, whether in its most extreme totalitarian forms such as fascism or Stalinism or in forms which hide behind the mask of democracy, the tendency towards state capitalism expresses itself in the increasingly powerful, omnipresent, and systematic control over the whole of social life exerted by the state apparatus, and in particular the executive. On a much greater scale than in the decadence of Rome or feudalism, the state under decadent capitalism has become a monstrous, cold, impersonal machine which has devoured the very substance of civil society.

The Grey Blur

31st January 2007, 16:05

Fine DJ-TC, you have your own ultra-left definition of state-capitalism, that's great.

Anyway, I remember inquiring of the member RedBanner after he constantly described Cuba as "state capitalist" to define it and he admitted he couldn't - not through any fault of his own, it's just so over-used that some newer comrades automatically accept it as the reason why "Russia wasn't Socialist".

There was a quote I used from Trotsky in that thread which summarised my views (though I can't find it now) - that most of those using the description "state capitalist" don't even know what it entails or can't define it.

I just wanted to elucidate some comrades that it is not an undebated term and perhaps open their eyes to the Trotskyist analysis of these bureaucratic regimes.

Spanks.

Ander

31st January 2007, 17:50

I wish it was as easy as finding a simple definition that everyone agrees on and that's it. Unfortunately, every different little branch has their own meaning and criticisms and it just makes everything so confusing.

Was my definition correct at all?

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st January 2007, 20:21

The problem you are all having seems to derive from the fact that none of you seems to have a clue what a defintion is.

Hence my opening challenge.

LuÃs Henrique

1st February 2007, 00:38

A capitalist society is a society based in copetition among individual capitalists. There can be no such thing as "state capitalism" in the sence, that seems to predominate, that the State is the "only capitalist" because it owns "all capital" (if someone, be it the State or a corporation or a super-capitalist individual, owns all means of production, then those means of production are no longer "capital" in a Marxist sence).

What happened in the Soviet Union (and other countries under the same brand of regime)? Did the State own all means of production? Why then the "State owned companies" maintained commercial relationships with each others? In any capitalist society, commercial transactions between companies are transaction between individual capitals (ie, between discrete private proprietors) - and that was what happened in the Soviet Union: individual, private capitals competed with each others, in a market system. If the State was in fact the proprietor of the companies, there would be no market, and no commercial relationship between companies. The fact that those things happened shows that the State was not the real proprietor of the companies, and the juridical form of State property was just an empty form.

Luís Henrique

Cryotank Screams

1st February 2007, 01:27

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 30, 2007 12:56 pm
Define it.
I think Pannekoek's essay sums it up quite nicely, see below;

State Capitalism and Dictatorship by Anton Pannekoek (http://libcom.org/library/state-capitalism-and-dictatorship-2-pannekoek)

redflagfires

1st February 2007, 01:44

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2007 04:05 pm
Fine DJ-TC, you have your own ultra-left definition of state-capitalism, that's great.

Anyway, I remember inquiring of the member RedBanner after he constantly described Cuba as "state capitalist" to define it and he admitted he couldn't - not through any fault of his own, it's just so over-used that some newer comrades automatically accept it as the reason why "Russia wasn't Socialist".

There was a quote I used from Trotsky in that thread which summarised my views (though I can't find it now) - that most of those using the description "state capitalist" don't even know what it entails or can't define it.

I just wanted to elucidate some comrades that it is not an undebated term and perhaps open their eyes to the Trotskyist analysis of these bureaucratic regimes.

Spanks.
lol :D But thanks for posing the question, I too was curious about it's meaning, in this capacity. :blush:

Lamanov

1st February 2007, 02:26

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+--> (Permanent Revolution)There was a quote I used from Trotsky in that thread which summarised my views (though I can't find it now) - that most of those using the description "state capitalist" don't even know what it entails or can't define it.[/b]

That's what happens when you let other people, especially dead ones, summarise your own thoughts. Instead of calling upon dead intelectual authority, create your own understanding.

I assure you, some of the people who use that term actually use it for a reason... argumented, of course.

It's quite simple: when you understand capitalism per se, "state capitalism" recquires no special treatment.

Cryotank Screams
I think Pannekoek's essay sums it up quite nicely, see below;

Actually, that article is too simple. It never meant to explain anything in depth, but rather to connect different states through their similarity: statification. But statification itself is not explained.

Cryotank Screams

1st February 2007, 02:49

Originally posted by DJ-TC+January 31, 2007 10:26 pm--> (DJ-TC @ January 31, 2007 10:26 pm)
Cryotank Screams
I think Pannekoek's essay sums it up quite nicely, see below;

Actually, that article is too simple. It never meant to explain anything in depth, but rather to connect different states through their similarity: statification. But statification itself is not explained. [/b]
I think it sums the theory of state capitalism, in a quick and prudent manner, without delving into to much analysis, and personally I say it could be used a definition and an overview, which is exactly why I posted it, as my definition, and not a treatise on the subject.

Nusocialist

2nd February 2007, 09:28

Originally posted by DJ-TC+January 31, 2007 12:05 pm--> (DJ-TC @ January 31, 2007 12:05 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 08:06 am
Some Anarchists call the USSR etc state capitalist, this gets the point across but is incorrect, the USSR was a class-society based on older more extra-economic exploitation.

And this would mean what? Does anyone explain anything they claim any more?

On the contrary, whole life was subordinated to the economic plan of the state.

P.S.

Here's one more work that I find quite excellent: The Nature of Russian Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm), by R. Dunayevskaya. [/b]
I meant in the USSR most surplus was extracted by extra economic means ie military force instead of economic means like capitalism.

Honggweilo

2nd February 2007, 10:43

Originally posted by Nusocialist+February 02, 2007 09:28 am--> (Nusocialist @ February 02, 2007 09:28 am)
Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 31, 2007 12:05 pm

[email protected] 31, 2007 08:06 am
Some Anarchists call the USSR etc state capitalist, this gets the point across but is incorrect, the USSR was a class-society based on older more extra-economic exploitation.

And this would mean what? Does anyone explain anything they claim any more?

On the contrary, whole life was subordinated to the economic plan of the state.

P.S.

Here's one more work that I find quite excellent: The Nature of Russian Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm), by R. Dunayevskaya.
I meant in the USSR most surplus was extracted by extra economic means ie military force instead of economic means like capitalism. [/b]
Surplus value is invested a whole lot more in military force under capitalism then in the USSR, the militairy investments we're an side effect of the arms race and economic revisionism. Surplus was put in economic purposes like stimulating less profitable enterprises in the same, or in other sectors.

Lamanov

2nd February 2007, 12:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:28 am
I meant in the USSR most surplus was extracted by extra economic means ie military force instead of economic means like capitalism.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Are you suggesting that most surplus value created in the USSR didn't come from production?

LuÃs Henrique

2nd February 2007, 22:04

No; he is saying that surplus value in the Soviet Union was extracted by the use of physical violence or threat of violence against the direct producers, like excedent is extracted from producers in a feudal or slave-based society. Or, in other words, that what forced a "soviet" worker to work wasn't the fear of starvation, but the fear of the "whip". Which is a frequent claim among those who argue that the Soviet Union was neither capitalist or socialist, but based on a third, different, mode of production.

But he is wrong anyway; the distinct dictatorial character of the "soviet" regime did not reside in the economic sphere, but in the political one; it was not intended to directly extract surplus value, but to attain political conformity from the "citizenry". The "soviet" regime was a bourgeois, jacobin dictatorship.

Luís Henrique

Lamanov

2nd February 2007, 22:38

The question of "the whip" is certanly a less worked out one when we face capitalism in the "socialist" countries.

But it has a simple starting point: the fact that the state held monopoly on everything dictated one absolute doctrine -- forced work.

Why? Well, the state, as one huge company, was hiring everyone (as it needed everyone's labor power), "firing" had absolutely no effect, since the pressure which a reserve army of unemployed excercised onto the labor force was not as efficient and usefull as forcing the labor itself (and thus - production) on everyone.

In the end, obviously, motive itself for a switch of method still resides in the economic reasons.

So, the motive remains economic one, regardless of the fact that methods of pressure switched from economic to extra-economic ones.

Devrim

2nd February 2007, 22:52

The first reference I have seen to the term state capitalism comes from the Communist Left in 1918:

Originally posted by [email protected] April 1918
We stand for the construction of the proletarian society by the class creativity of the workers themselves, not by the ukases of the captains of industry. . . if the proletariat itself does not know how to create the necessary prerequisites for the socialist organisation of labour no one can do this for it and no one can compel it to do this. The stick, if raised against the workers, will find itself in the hands of a social force which is either under the influence of another social class or is in the hands of the soviet power; but the soviet power will then be forced to seek support against the proletariat from another class (e.g. the peasantry) and by this it will destroy itself as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism and socialist organisation will be set up by the proletariat itself, or they will not be set up at all - something else will be set up - state capitalism.
Devrim

Axel1917

9th February 2007, 17:45

A good refutation of the "theory" of state captitalism:

http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm

Rosa Lichtenstein

11th February 2007, 12:44

On the contrary, its a rather poor 'analysis' of Cliff's theory.

Axel1917

13th February 2007, 03:14

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 12:44 pm
On the contrary, its a rather poor 'analysis' of Cliff's theory.
Right. Ever wonder why the British SWP isn't capable of achieving anything? An error in theory, gone uncorrected, will sooner or later lead to an error in practice! And a key flaw in Cliff's "method" is that he fails to differentiate between the method or mode of prodcution and the form of apporpriation, i.e. that capitalist production is social in character with a individual appropriation, this being a contradiction. With state appropration, this contradiction is abolished, and therefore, the resulting form, whatever it may be, cannot be capitalism.

The Stalinists did not put themselves at in charge of the state "feed bag" only to be cut off from it by hostile capitalist elements either. Analysis of the transitional society (a blank on this on behalf of Cliff) would compel an honest theoretician to admit that the USSR was never a workers' state to begin with or that it was in a transitional phase between capitalism and soicalism, having deformations beginning with Stalin. The Stalinists did not exprorpate capitalism in Eastern Europe either just to reintroduce it two seconds later!

There are even spots where Cliff contardicts himself, as the reader will find (for example, when he says exactly how the law of value manifested itself internally in Stalinist Russia, and then right afterward, stated that it could not be observed operating internally in Russia!).

Of course, only ultra-left types will ever believe the nonsense about "state capitalism." It is a total renunciation of Trotskyist theory.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2007, 23:30

Axel:

Ever wonder why the British SWP isn't capable of achieving anything?

This from a comrade at the head of a 'mass movement'.

And whose hero (Ted G) was booted out by his own party.

I think I prefer going nowhere if that is an example of the opposite.

As for your attempt to pick holes in Cliff's theory, as I said earlier: rather poor, even for you.

robbo203

13th February 2007, 23:53

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 01, 2007 12:38 am
A capitalist society is a society based in copetition among individual capitalists. There can be no such thing as "state capitalism" in the sence, that seems to predominate, that the State is the "only capitalist" because it owns "all capital" (if someone, be it the State or a corporation or a super-capitalist individual, owns all means of production, then those means of production are no longer "capital" in a Marxist sence).

[QUOTE]

Engels in Socialism utopian and scientific speaks of the state in precisely the way you claim would not be possible in the marxist sense when he refers to the more the state taking over the means of production the more does it become the national capitalist

The soviet union was a prime example of state capitalism - a system of generalised commodity production overseen by the state

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2007, 00:38

Yes, and if you check out some of the articles posted here, you will see that this theory has everything going for it:

http://www.marxists.de/admin/contents.htm

black magick hustla

14th February 2007, 00:40

Originally posted by Axel1917+February 13, 2007 03:14 am--> (Axel1917 @ February 13, 2007 03:14 am)
Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 12:44 pm
On the contrary, its a rather poor 'analysis' of Cliff's theory.
Right. Ever wonder why the British SWP isn't capable of achieving anything? An error in theory, gone uncorrected, will sooner or later lead to an error in practice! And a key flaw in Cliff's "method" is that he fails to differentiate between the method or mode of prodcution and the form of apporpriation, i.e. that capitalist production is social in character with a individual appropriation, this being a contradiction. With state appropration, this contradiction is abolished, and therefore, the resulting form, whatever it may be, cannot be capitalism.

The Stalinists did not put themselves at in charge of the state "feed bag" only to be cut off from it by hostile capitalist elements either. Analysis of the transitional society (a blank on this on behalf of Cliff) would compel an honest theoretician to admit that the USSR was never a workers' state to begin with or that it was in a transitional phase between capitalism and soicalism, having deformations beginning with Stalin. The Stalinists did not exprorpate capitalism in Eastern Europe either just to reintroduce it two seconds later!

There are even spots where Cliff contardicts himself, as the reader will find (for example, when he says exactly how the law of value manifested itself internally in Stalinist Russia, and then right afterward, stated that it could not be observed operating internally in Russia!).

Of course, only ultra-left types will ever believe the nonsense about "state capitalism." It is a total renunciation of Trotskyist theory. [/b]
holy fuck, i know this post is old but...
i dont think the theoretical implications of what is the difference of a deformed workers' state and a state capitalist society are that important if it is recognized that both societies need to be surplanted by total workers' control.

the feitishism for every itty bitty little detail of social theory is completely ridicolous and worthless, considering social theory can never attain the perfection and accuracy hard sciences do.

that fetishism for theoretical abstractions is what completely destroyed the trotskyist movement

most things in social and political theory are tendencies, not absolute.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2007, 15:47

Marmot, I posted a reply to this, but it seems to have been lost!

I will try again later!

LuÃs Henrique

14th February 2007, 16:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:53 pm
Engels in Socialism utopian and scientific speaks of the state in precisely the way you claim would not be possible in the marxist sense when he refers to the more the state taking over the means of production the more does it become the national capitalist
If he stated so, he was wrong. Capital cannot exist outside competition; a true State monopoly of the means of production cannot be capitalist.

The soviet union was a prime example of state capitalism - a system of generalised commodity production overseen by the state

Every capitalist society - even XIX century liberal capitalism with a "gendarme" State - is exactly this: a system of generalised commodity production overseen by the State.

If what the State-as-a-capitalist is producing commodities, to whom is it selling them? Except for those commodities that are intended for personal consumption, to the State itself! How does anyone, be it a capitalist or not, sell commodities to him/herself? It doesn't make the slightest sence! No wonder it didn't work!

The reality behind this is that the State "property" of all means of production was a fantasy; under the cover of State monopoly of means of production, private capitals were still competing and reproducing. Yes, it was an abnormal form of capitalism, but "State capitalism" it was not.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2007, 18:46

LH:

Capital cannot exist outside competition

Says who?

God?

And who says competition must always be of the sort tradition lays down?

Is Marxism a science -- or (as it seems to be for you) something based on what we just define into existence, never adjusting a single thing accordingly, as knowledge and experience grow?

As I am sure you know, Cliff saw this competiton morph itself into the arms race, etc. I am sure Engels would have approved; he at least believed in change.

Axel1917

15th February 2007, 03:07

Ever wonder why the British SWP isn't capable of achieving anything?

This from a comrade at the head of a 'mass movement'.

We actually link up with the working class and don't mess around by creating phantom parties. I seriously doubt that the SWP is well known in Venezuela or Pakistan, for instance.

Not to mention that the British SWP has been portraying Islamic fundamentalism in a rather postivie light. Great way to win over oppressed people in those nations! :rolleyes:

And whose hero (Ted G) was booted out by his own party.

And where have the majority that have split gotten? Nowhere.

I think I prefer going nowhere if that is an example of the opposite.

And what are your advances? Linking with reactionary fundos?

As for your attempt to pick holes in Cliff's theory, as I said earlier: rather poor, even for you.

History itself has shown the nonsense of Cliff's theory. How can you even call deformed workers' states capitalist when the contradiction of capitalism has been abolished, i.e. state appropration/social production replacing individual appropration/social production? Even in a healthy workers' state, the fundamental economy of a deformed workers' state exists, i.e. social production and state apporpriation. The only difference here between a healthy workers' state and a deformed workers' one is who runs the state and how it is run. Either way, proletarian property forms dominate here, not bourgeois ones. Stalin's counterrevolution was political in character, it exprorpated the proletariat politically, but not economically. Like the counterrevolution that followed the French Revolution, the Stalinist counterrevolution was a counterrevolution based on the new form of property introduced by the previous revolution!

This problem of state capitalism is what leads ultra-left types into total opposition to deformed workers' states. For them, their thought is anti-dialectical, in finished categories; either healty workers' state or no workers' state at all. They totally ignore the progressive aspects of the deformed workers states (the rising living standards, industrialization, etc. under Mao and Stalin). They don't seem to give a squat if imperialism crushes them (and look what capitalism has done to Russia! Old crap is back: poverty, porn, prostitution, black hundred fascism, etc.). A deformed workers' state is based on proletarian property and must be defended from imperialism at all costs. All that is needed to take those states forward is to expropriate the Stalinists from political power and put the workers in such power. The issue of the deformed workers' states is not a simple "yea" or "nay" as imagined by such ultra-left nonsenes, and it derives from their misunderstandings of property forms in those nations.

By Cliff's logic, a healthy workers' state is democratic proletarian capitalism! :rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 10:13

Axel:

We actually link up with the working class and don't mess around by creating phantom parties. I seriously doubt that the SWP is well known in Venezuela or Pakistan, for instance.

Still got delusions of grandeur I see.

Compounded by crass ignorance, this time.

Nice going.

Honggweilo

15th February 2007, 11:07

We actually link up with the working class and don't mess around by creating phantom parties. I seriously doubt that the SWP is well known in Venezuela or Pakistan, for instance.

Not to mention that the British SWP has been portraying Islamic fundamentalism in a rather postivie light. Great way to win over oppressed people in those nations!

The Dutch IST section certainly doesnt have any workingclass bonds, except for kissing up to left social-dems who do. Mostly students actually.

Not Moscow or Washington but.. London! :lol:

Hit The North

15th February 2007, 11:28

Axel:

Stalin's counterrevolution was political in character, it exprorpated the proletariat politically, but not economically.

What does that mean? Are you arguing that the economy under Stalin was controlled by genuine proletarian organization, operating independently of the Stalinist bureaucracy or are you arguing that the Stalinist State represented, or was identical to, the interests of the proletariat?

Either way, it would be difficult to maintain any except the most trivial criticisms of Stalinism.

The Grey Blur

15th February 2007, 12:10

What does that mean?
It means that a bueraurcratic counter-revolution robbed the workers of political power, but kept the social propery relations.

And where have the majority that have split gotten? Nowhere.
Wrong, we're at the head of a mass movement in Nigeria and are steadily increasing our influence in Ireland, Belgium and other countries.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 12:17

PR:

Wrong, we're at the head of a mass movement in Nigeria and are steadily increasing our influence in Ireland, Belgium and other countries.

Sounds like the old bluster and wishful thinking of Militant all over again.

Some never learn....

but kept the social propery relations.

This is an odd argument: the social property relations can stay the same even while the social relations of production change!

LuÃs Henrique

15th February 2007, 12:37

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14, 2007 06:46 pm
LH:

Capital cannot exist outside competition

Says who?
Why would you ask for an argumentum ad autoritatem ?

What is capital for you? To me, it is self-aggrandising money, and I don't see what the drive would be for it to reproduce itself if not competition.

So, if you want to show me that my take is wrong, can you explain me what exactly would make "State capital" need to reproduce in amplified scale?

God?

Lat time he came to me, he told me he doesn't exist.

And who says competition must always be of the sort tradition lays down?

Exactly because I don't think this is the case is why I tried to explain how competition survives under the ideological cover of "State property".

As I am sure you know, Cliff saw this competiton morph itself into the arms race, etc. I am sure Engels would have approved; he at least believed in change.

Into international competition, then? Political competition between the "capitalist State" and capital abroad?

Luís Henrique

Wanted Man

15th February 2007, 12:41

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 12:17 pm
PR:

Wrong, we're at the head of a mass movement in Nigeria and are steadily increasing our influence in Ireland, Belgium and other countries.

Sounds like the old bluster and wishful thinking of Militant all over again.
It's funny that he should mention Belgium. The CWI there(and in the Netherlands), have, after some 15-30 years of miserable failure, finally decided to cease entrism into the big social-democratic parties(SP/sp.a in Belgium and PvdA in Netherlands). In Belgium, they now support the Committee for Another Politic, and in the Netherlands, entrism continues, but now in the Socialist Party, which seems to become the new so-called "radical" social-democratic party as the PvdA rapidly moves to Blairite New Labour thought.

CAP and SP, I suppose, are closest to RESPECT in the UK, although not quite similar. That the CWI have moved on from the traditional social-democratic parties here is at least somewhat respectable, but of course it is ridiculous to say that they are "increasing their influence" in the mass movement in any meaningful way.

Here, they now excuse their entry in the SP for the same old reason: there are at least some workers in it who might be converted to more radical thought, so it has some revolutionary potential. But as the SP moves further to the right, I can see it just going the same way as past entrist strategies.

By the way, interestingly, the IST branch here also entered the SP about a year ago. But I have no idea how it is working out for them.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 13:40

LH:

Why would you ask for an argumentum ad autoritatem ?

I didn't.

I merely wished to know which minor deity had informed you of these eternal truths?

So, if you want to show me that my take is wrong, can you explain me what exactly would make "State capital" need to reproduce in amplified scale?

It fails in relation to the real world -- you know, that thing we are trying to change.

La[s]t time he came to me, he told me he doesn't exist.

He sounds as confused as you, then. :)

Political competition between the "capitalist State" and capital abroad?

And economic.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 13:42

RJD, thanks for that!

[Incidentally, your singing on 'Heaven and Hell' by Black Sabbath is ace (which partly explains why it is the best Heavy Metal ablum ever).] :)

Honggweilo

15th February 2007, 14:04

By the way, interestingly, the IST branch here also entered the SP about a year ago. But I have no idea how it is working out for them.
They got kicked out :rolleyes:. Only in Amsterdam (their only powerbase) and another muncipality IST members can have double membership (All the CWI'ist had tears of joy :lol:)

Here, they now excuse their entry in the SP for the same old reason: there are at least some workers in it who might be converted to more radical thought, so it has some revolutionary potential. But as the SP moves further to the right, I can see it just going the same way as past entrist strategies.
Don't forget that CWI members are quite kept at a safe distance in the SP. Youth within the Offensief(Dutch CWI branch) got kicked out of the summerschool of "ROOD"(Youthbranch of the SP) for being "whiners". Also a member from the SP direction in Amsterdam-Southeast got expeled for being openly a member of Offensief. Entrism within political parties has always been a disaster in the Netherlands (for the left).

In contrary to the Belgain branch of the CWI, which atleast founded their own party and try to ally with progressive elements in a block instead of entrism. -_- :rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 19:36

ddxt301, your attitide reminds me of that skit from Monty Python, where a set of revolutionaries hate other revolutionaries more than they hate the Romans:

"BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?

REG: Fuck off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.

FRANCIS: Wankers!

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG: No. Piss off!

BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.

PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh!

REG: Schtum!

JUDITH: Are you sure?

BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.

REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...!

JUDITH: Splitters!

P.F.J.: Splitters...!

FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...!

LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...!

REG: What?

LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters!

REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

REG: People's Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiaa6BTzrh8

No wonder Marxism is an abject failure....

Honggweilo

15th February 2007, 19:51

Rosa;

First of all the second part was just an empirical fact, with no sarcastic undertone, the CWI members even agree on that. The first part was to highlight the reaction of some CWI members after the IST got expeled, which as i must admit found quite hilarious at the moment. As a matter of fact i dont really have a gurdge against the CWI can often respect their view.. The IST in another story however, there more like the "The Front of Judean Peoples Unification" that critizise the achievements of all the other fronts claiming that they are "national liberating state-imperialists" while snooping away members from the other fronts and holding big fat orgies in the name of anti-imperialism :rolleyes: :P

And btw, the monty phyton sketch loses its appeal after being told as many times as there are troskists internationals :lol:

No wonder Marxism is an abject failure....
Its not surprising that you came to that conclusion, for someone so commited to an anti-dialectical approach :lol:

LuÃs Henrique

15th February 2007, 19:54

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 01:40 pm
I merely wished to know which minor deity had informed you of these eternal truths?
The same minor deity that informed me that a perpetuum mobile is impossible.

She is, btw, a close cousin of the minor deity that told be that every triangle in the world has three sides.

So, if you want to show me that my take is wrong, can you explain me what exactly would make "State capital" need to reproduce in amplified scale?

It fails in relation to the real world -- you know, that thing we are trying to change.

Erm? "State capital" fails in relation to the real world, and that is what makes it necessary for it to reproduce?

Or are you responding to some other statement?

He sounds as confused as you, then. :)

Oh, no. I am quite certain that I exist - at least when I am not discussing with Dr. Rosenpennis.

Political competition between the "capitalist State" and capital abroad?

And economic.

But in which sence soviet "State capital" competed economically with "western" private capital?

In the Soviet Union's internal market, it was protected against all foreign competition. Abroad, I have the impression that it did not compete at all. Am I wrong? Can you give some facts about Soviet commodities fighting against western commodities in the internal markets of other countries, or in the international market itself?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 22:20

LH:

The same minor deity that informed me that a perpetuum mobile is impossible.

You seem to rely on some rather reactionary sources of information.

She is, btw, a close cousin of the minor deity that told be that every triangle in the world has three sides.

This 'deity' is not very bright: a trianlge has three edges, but no sides.

Erm? "State capital" fails in relation to the real world, and that is what makes it necessary for it to reproduce?

Once again, your immortal 'friends' appear to have screwed with your brain -- this is about as accurate as the data you reproduced on triangles (goodness knows, if you can't get those right, you stand no chance over complex political and economic issues!).

Oh, no. I am quite certain that I exist - at least when I am not discussing with Dr. Rosenpennis.

Nevertheless, the 'non-existent deity', with whom you seem to hold such intimate relations, convinced you it did not exist, which can only mean you are in fact just hearing things, which further suggests that we should not believe these latest denials of yours.

After all, you can't even get triangles right!

But in which sence soviet "State capital" competed economically with "western" private capital?

Over the rate of exploitation of the working class, my confused friend....

Have a chat with your invisible advisers; perhaps they can help (do not ask them about triangles!).

Can you give some facts about Soviet commodities fighting against western commodities in the internal markets of other countries, or in the international market itself?

You seem to think commodities can fight one another.

Stick to triangles, comrade; they are much easier to understand....

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 22:25

ddt:

And btw, the monty phyton sketch loses its appeal after being told as many times as there are troskists internationals

[Only one?]

Maybe so, but it is nonetheless still accurate.

I cannot comment on the other things you say since I am not in possession of the facts.

Its not surprising that you came to that conclusion, for someone so commited to an anti-dialectical approach

I take this to mean that dialectics helps you see reality other than it is -- which is exactly my point.

Thanks for confirming it. :)

LuÃs Henrique

15th February 2007, 22:36

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 10:20 pm

The same minor deity that informed me that a perpetuum mobile is impossible.

You seem to rely on some rather reactionary sources of information.
So you deem a perpetuum mobile is a practical possibility?

She is, btw, a close cousin of the minor deity that told be that every triangle in the world has three sides.

But in which sence soviet "State capital" competed economically with "western" private capital?

Over the rate of exploitation of the working class, my confused friend....

Exactly how?

You seem to think commodities can fight one another.

Oh, good grief.

That's what they appear to do; obviously, it is used here as a metaphor for private capitals competing to sell their commodities in the markets.

Stick to triangles, comrade; they are much easier to understand....

Listen, address my points, instead of nitpicking about words whose everyday use you perfectly know.

Luís Henrique

Honggweilo

15th February 2007, 22:47

I take this to mean that dialectics helps you see reality other than it is -- which is exactly my point.

Thanks for confirming it.

Sorry Rosa...
Im chronically ill from that horrible disease i caugth, i just cant help myself. And like a christain zealot who doesnt want modern science to cure him of his ailment because "god meant it to be that way", i will probably die as a dialectist :( :lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 23:00

LH, very wisely trying to deflect attention:

So you deem a perpetuum mobile is a practical possibility?

Whatever you say, dear.

Now don't forget to take those pills.

Exactly how?

Let me know when you have figured out what a triangle is, and I might tell you.

Oh, good grief.

That's what they appear to do; obviously, it is used here as a metaphor for private capitals competing to sell their commodities in the markets.

I am sorry, did you too succumb to the festishism of those pesky fighting commodities?

I must say, I did too: only yesterday I saw a car pick an argument with a geometrical shape; before I could intervene it had beaten up this poor triangle (I am sorry if this is too complicated for you).

Listen, address my points, instead of nitpicking about words whose everyday use you perfectly know.

OK. How's this?

LH's Points

116, Minor Deity Street

Trianglesville

Heaven LH1 666

That should make you feel right at home.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2007, 23:01

DD:

Sorry Rosa...
Im chronically ill from that horrible disease i caugth, i just cant help myself. And like a christain zealot who doesnt want modern science to cure him of his ailment because "god meant it to be that way", i will probably die as a dialectist

An honest mystic for a change.

I rather like you.... :)

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 00:45

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 11:00 pm
LH, very wisely trying to deflect attention:

So you deem a perpetuum mobile is a practical possibility?

Whatever you say, dear.

Now don't forget to take those pills.

Exactly how?

Let me know when you have figured out what a triangle is, and I might tell you.

Oh, good grief.

That's what they appear to do; obviously, it is used here as a metaphor for private capitals competing to sell their commodities in the markets.

I am sorry, did you too succumb to the festishism of those pesky fighting commodities?

I must say, I did too: only yesterday I saw a car pick an argument with a geometrical shape; before I could intervene it had beaten up this poor triangle (I am sorry if this is too complicated for you).

Listen, address my points, instead of nitpicking about words whose everyday use you perfectly know.

OK. How's this?

LH's Points

116, Minor Deity Street

Trianglesville

Heaven LH1 666

That should make you feel right at home.
Kalonk.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2007, 10:11

LH:

Kalonk.

Your best point yet!

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 11:50

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 10:11 am
LH:

Kalonk.

Your best point yet!
Your intellectual snobbery is unffiting for a revolutionary.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2007, 13:37

LH:

Your intellectual snobbery is unffiting for a revolutionary.

That's odd, since I copied it from you....

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2007, 13:39

CDL:

And it usually borders on spam.

In this case, your 'spam detector' is a little too twitchy, since (in the above) I was addressing LH's own superfical comments in like manner.

If mine are 'bordering on spam', that is because they do so next to his.

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 14:47

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 01:37 pm
That's odd, since I copied it from you....
Yes? Can you show me where did I indulge in mocking comrades on spelling, or semantic issues? Can you show me where did I ridicule a poster without even trying to demonstrate how their points are invalid?

Luís Henrique

Hit The North

16th February 2007, 16:52

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 16, 2007 03:47 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 16, 2007 03:47 pm)
Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 01:37 pm
That's odd, since I copied it from you....
Yes? Can you show me where did I indulge in mocking comrades on spelling, or semantic issues? Can you show me where did I ridicule a poster without even trying to demonstrate how their points are invalid?

Luís Henrique[/b]
LH, it would be easier to criticise Rosa if you made clear what your objection to the theory of State Capitalism is.

Is it this?:

But in which sence soviet "State capital" competed economically with "western" private capital?

In the Soviet Union's internal market, it was protected against all foreign competition. Abroad, I have the impression that it did not compete at all. Am I wrong? Can you give some facts about Soviet commodities fighting against western commodities in the internal markets of other countries, or in the international market itself?

Some points:

1) In terms of the arms race, State Capitalism was in competition with western capital.

2) The military occupation of Eastern Europe and partisan trade agreements with other "socialist" states allowed Russian commodities to circulate abroad and compete on the basis of a hegemonic relation to it's satellites' economies.

3) Why is this even important? The extraction of surplus value takes place at the point of production not in the market-place as commodities are exchanged. So in terms of understanding how far the Soviet Union approximated a workers state, it is more important to examine the relations through which surplus labour is extracted, which were, to put it bluntly, on the basis of an authoritarian, bureaucratic command economy based on coercion and fraud.

4) Where is it written that capitalist economic relations can only exist on the basis of market competition? If capital has a tendency towards monopolization then it would seem to eventually lead to the extinguishing of competitive markets (I suppose that could be one of the contradictions of the system leading to its own destruction, though).

5) But even if we allow that competitive markets are necessary for the functioning of a capitalist economy, this, as I point out above, was simulated through military conquest and occupation of Eastern Europe and the Cold War. This partly explains why an iron-fisted control over the Eastern Bloc was so necessary to the Stalinist ruling class.

Personally, I'm bored of this argument which is used as another excuse for disunity between comrades who have more in common than otherwise. During the cold war I thought the theory of state capitalism had a lot of practical currency in that it created a space for an independent revolutionary left. The slogan "Neither Washington Nor Moscow" summed that up well. These days, its utility is obviously waning.

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 18:51

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 14, 2007 04:17 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 14, 2007 04:17 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 11:53 pm
Engels in Socialism utopian and scientific speaks of the state in precisely the way you claim would not be possible in the marxist sense when he refers to the more the state taking over the means of production the more does it become the national capitalist
If he stated so, he was wrong. Capital cannot exist outside competition; a true State monopoly of the means of production cannot be capitalist.

The soviet union was a prime example of state capitalism - a system of generalised commodity production overseen by the state

Every capitalist society - even XIX century liberal capitalism with a "gendarme" State - is exactly this: a system of generalised commodity production overseen by the State.

If what the State-as-a-capitalist is producing commodities, to whom is it selling them? Except for those commodities that are intended for personal consumption, to the State itself! How does anyone, be it a capitalist or not, sell commodities to him/herself? It doesn't make the slightest sence! No wonder it didn't work!

The reality behind this is that the State "property" of all means of production was a fantasy; under the cover of State monopoly of means of production, private capitals were still competing and reproducing. Yes, it was an abnormal form of capitalism, but "State capitalism" it was not.

Luís Henrique [/b]
These were, and are, my points.

I think they are serious points, not superficial or a joke. If Rosa disagrees with them, she should point where they are inconsistent, or "superficial". But it seems she prefers to mock my English speaking abilities. <_<

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2007, 18:53

LH:

Can you show me where did I indulge in mocking comrades on spelling, or semantic issues?

What has this got to do with anything?

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 18:55

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 16, 2007 04:52 pm
LH, it would be easier to criticise Rosa if you made clear what your objection to the theory of State Capitalism is.
I am reposting my objections to the theory above.

It will be much easier to criticise them if people actually read them, and if people stop pretending that the "State capitalism" theory can only be criticised from the pov of "degenerate workers States" theory.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 19:03

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 06:53 pm
What has this got to do with anything?
It is what you have been doing to me, Rosa.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2007, 19:11

Z:

During the cold war I thought the theory of state capitalism had a lot of practical currency in that it created a space for an independent revolutionary left. The slogan "Neither Washington Nor Moscow" summed that up well. These days, its utility is obviously waning.

As I am sure you know, this was not just an academic issue, or of use only during the cold war; it revolved around a fundamental issuse at the heart of Marxism -- is the emanicaption of the working class a direct act of that class, or some substitute for it?

The theory of State Capitalism was suggested to Cliff when the red army expanded the Stalinist model into E Europe. If these states were now to be regarded as deformed (or degenerated) workers' states when there had been no workers' revolution, then there were only two viable conclusions. (1) Stalinism was no longer counter-revolutionary (in fact, Stalinism was more revolutionary than Leninism!); (2) The former USSR was not a worker's state, since these new ones were not (they were state capitalist), and that was becase the working class had not conquered power there.

The rest was a consequence of that.

Now if you view the former USSR and E Europe as workers' states (deformed, degenerated, de-whatever), then you are automatically driven to the conclusoin that forces other than the working class can bring about socialism.

This led the entire Trotskyist movement (other than the IST) off on a wild goose chase looking for just such forces (guerilla armies, 'third' world 'progressive' nationalists, students, socialists in parliament (nationalising the top 100 monopolies, blah, blah)...).

Naturally, all such false leads went nowhere, and such comrades ended up supporting regimes with no socialist content (other than window dressing).

And it is still going on (witness the brainless support for Castro, and the hero worship of Chavez).

In short, this stance is still relevant.

[I actually argued this earlier (but at more length), but that post was lost during a server error the other day, and I did not want to have to type it all again -- hence my shadow boxing with LH).

Cliff explains his motives here:

http://www.linksruck.de/ueberuns/artikel/T...alism-Part1.mp3 (http://www.linksruck.de/ueberuns/artikel/TonyCliff-StateCapitalism-Part1.mp3)

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2007, 19:16

LH:

It is what you have been doing to me, Rosa.

Well, you are remarkably fickle, and, if I may say so, worryingly sensitive.

If you look back at our exchange, you will see it is mostly light-hearted (all that 'deity' and perpetual motion stuff).

In such a context, a little leg-pulling on my part should not be interpreted by the shrinking violet you seem to have become as anything more serious than that.

Now, go and sit in the corner, and stop that sulking, you silly boy.

[ :) ]

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 19:29

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 16, 2007 04:52 pm
1) In terms of the arms race, State Capitalism was in competition with western capital.
Yes, but this of course does not characterise a capitalist economy.

Feudal nobles "competed" with each other, too, and they were not capitalists.

2) The military occupation of Eastern Europe and partisan trade agreements with other "socialist" states allowed Russian commodities to circulate abroad and compete on the basis of a hegemonic relation to it's satellites' economies.

Which commodities, where abroad?

Here, at least, I have never seen Soviet radios, clocks, TVs, computers, automobiles, etc. They seem to have absolutely no relevance here. Contrary to Japanese, French, Portuguese, Korean, German, Dutch, Swedish, Swiss, or, of course, American commodities.

Only after the "fall" of the Soviet Union we briefly saw "Lada" automobiles here, and they were quickly taken out of business.

3) Why is this even important? The extraction of surplus value takes place at the point of production not in the market-place as commodities are exchanged.

Sure! but this is valid for any mode of production. And the distinctive mark of capitalism is that labour isn't appropriated via extra-economic coercion. It absolutely needs a labour market. And it can't get a labour market except inside the context of a market, in general terms.

So in terms of understanding how far the Soviet Union approximated a workers state, it is more important to examine the relations through which surplus labour is extracted, which were, to put it bluntly, on the basis of an authoritarian, bureaucratic command economy based on coercion and fraud.

Which means it was a class society, not a kind of "degenerate" socialism. But the issue is, what kind of class society?

4) Where is it written that capitalist economic relations can only exist on the basis of market competition?

Where have they existed outside from market competition? No, not in the Soviet Union, at all. On the contrary, the remarkable characteristic of Soviet economy was not that it was a "planned" economy, but exactly that it was a market economy. Labourers earned wages for their labour force, and spent those wages buying commodities in the market. Their wages were paid by companies, that not only bought labour force from workers, not only sold commodities to workers in the market, but also related to each others in terms of commodities.

So, the State might have been the only stockholder in the Soviet Union, but the companies it theorically owned behaved, in all matters relevant, as private companies, as private fractions of the global capital, as individual capitals.

If capital has a tendency towards monopolization then it would seem to eventually lead to the extinguishing of competitive markets (I suppose that could be one of the contradictions of the system leading to its own destruction, though).

There are also very strong countertendencies, that tend to restablish competition. Markedly, once monopolisation attains a certain level, companies tend to redirect competition between them, so that instead of lowering prices to aquire bigger fractions of the market, they instead make collusions to divide market and try to obtain the highest levels of monopolistic superprofits instead.

5) But even if we allow that competitive markets are necessary for the functioning of a capitalist economy, this, as I point out above, was simulated through military conquest and occupation of Eastern Europe and the Cold War. This partly explains why an iron-fisted control over the Eastern Bloc was so necessary to the Stalinist ruling class.

The iron-fisted control stemmed from another problem, that is, the impossibility, for the Soviet State, to effectively exploit its periphery in an imperialist way. They could not hegemonise their influence area through exporting capital, as normal imperialist capitalist economies do, so they had to simultaneously bribe their sattelites with captive markets, and scare them politically into subservience.

Personally, I'm bored of this argument which is used as another excuse for disunity between comrades who have more in common than otherwise.

As long as such discussions are made in good faith, with the objective of attaining a better understandment of the issues, I cannot see the problem. Of course, when we start throwing excommunication bills or four-letter words at each others, that is no longer the case.

During the cold war I thought the theory of state capitalism had a lot of practical currency in that it created a space for an independent revolutionary left. The slogan "Neither Washington Nor Moscow" summed that up well. These days, its utility is obviously waning.

In the time of Cold War, I would say that the "Degenerate Workers State" was more useful to criticise the cynical support for capitalism and imperialism that characterised, for instance, the PRC's foreign policies. As of now, it is quite clear that it did not adequately account for the phenomena of the "Second World".

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 19:37

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 07:16 pm
If you look back at our exchange, you will see it is mostly light-hearted (all that 'deity' and perpetual motion stuff).
Light hearted, in the sence of trying to amicably put an end to a side issue, yes. Light hearted, in the sence of "superficial", as you put it, no.

You brought God and minor deities into discussion.

I tried to get back into the main point, asking questions about it. You, instead, took to sheer debauche.

So, sorry if I appear oversensitive. I was, indeed, stupid in believing that it would have been possible to entertain civilised and meaningful conversation with you. As I should have learned long ago, it isn't.

Now, go and sit in the corner, and stop that sulking, you silly boy.

I am not able to respond to this as it truely deserves.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2007, 20:11

LH, now in 'you started it first mode':

You brought God and minor deities into discussion.

And you were happy to continue....

So, sorry if I appear oversensitive.

Apology accepted, but if you must continue to sulk, go and do it in your room.

Severian

16th February 2007, 21:02

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 01:29 pm
So, the State might have been the only stockholder in the Soviet Union, but the companies it theorically owned behaved, in all matters relevant, as private companies, as private fractions of the global capital, as individual capitals.
Is this really true? Certainly that was the intent of the Soviet economic planning system - at least for its last few decades. A lot of market-imitating mechanisms were used to attempt to motivate managers and try to make the system more efficient.

But they weren't particularly successful, because real market relations and real profitability were impossible. One example given by the capitalist press was a bus factory that bought trucks, broke them down for the transmissions, and used those to make buses. (Or maybe it was a truck factory that did that with buses.)

Anyway, this was "profitable" because of the arbitrarily set prices. This pseudo-profitability was used to determine bonuses for managers and workers.

You're certainly right that the market functioned and was pervasive in the USSR. But it turns out the market operates in a very different way when prices aren't set through the competition of different capitals, each seeking to maximize profits, with capital flowing to wherever it will get the highest rate of return...

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2007, 21:19

Sev, you must learn to think 'outside the box'; even Marx was known to have done that!

LuÃs Henrique

16th February 2007, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:02 pm
But they weren't particularly successful, because real market relations and real profitability were impossible. One example given by the capitalist press was a bus factory that bought trucks, broke them down for the transmissions, and used those to make buses. (Or maybe it was a truck factory that did that with buses.)

Anyway, this was "profitable" because of the arbitrarily set prices. This pseudo-profitability was used to determine bonuses for managers and workers.
Yes, the system was horribly ineffective. And this, because competition was repressed. Since it could not manifest itself in lower prices, increased quality, etc, it manifested in destructive moves opposing company to company. Not delivering commodities, delivering them in unuseable state, delaying delivers, sending commodities the wrong place, etc.

You're certainly right that the market functioned and was pervasive in the USSR. But it turns out the market operates in a very different way when prices aren't set through the competition of different capitals, each seeking to maximize profits, with capital flowing to wherever it will get the highest rate of return...

Sure. A repressed market is certainly worse than a free market. Far from being a step in the direction of abolishing markets, repressing the market makes it a worse, not better, tool for the distribution of goods.

Which is another argument against the "State capitalism" theory: if the State was in fact the only proprietor of means of production, it would be able to suppress market anarchy, instead of increasing it. If "State capitalism" was comparable to the full evolution of a capitalist system, with greater capitals taking smaller capitals out of business, then how would it be able to rely on a more backwards distribution system?

If "State capitalism" was a different mode of production, or even a different historical form of capitalism (like monopolist capitalism, for instance, is) it would have its own internal logic, different from "private capitalism". But, as you point out, it misfunctioned because it failed to obey the internal laws of "private capitalism", which seems to point that it was just an incomplete or misguided implementation of adjective-less capitalism.

Luís Henrique

Severian

19th February 2007, 07:07

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 16, 2007 05:08 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 16, 2007 05:08 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 09:02 pm
But they weren't particularly successful, because real market relations and real profitability were impossible. One example given by the capitalist press was a bus factory that bought trucks, broke them down for the transmissions, and used those to make buses. (Or maybe it was a truck factory that did that with buses.)

Anyway, this was "profitable" because of the arbitrarily set prices. This pseudo-profitability was used to determine bonuses for managers and workers.
Yes, the system was horribly ineffective. And this, because competition was repressed. [/b]
Was it? Seems like official policy was trying to get these state enterprises to compete against each other, each trying to be the most "profitable".

But since 1) prices were not set through the market, but centrally 2)managers did not own the enterprises, and nobody automatically benefitted from the enterprise's success, and 3) "capital" could not flow between enterprises in any market-driven way, but was centrally allocated....they were unsucessful.

If this was any kind of capitalism, it shouldn't have been that hard for policymakers to set up competition and profitability. Ordinarily, state regulation can't stop capitalism from doing this.

If "State capitalism" was a different mode of production, or even a different historical form of capitalism (like monopolist capitalism, for instance, is) it would have its own internal logic, different from "private capitalism". But, as you point out, it misfunctioned because it failed to obey the internal laws of "private capitalism", which seems to point that it was just an incomplete or misguided implementation of adjective-less capitalism.

Hm? The USSR failed to obey the internal laws of capitalism...so clearly its internal logic was different from "private capitalism". I'm not sure why you're making this into two different things. Maybe because its internal logic was so, well, illogical?

But this is to be expected if one sees the bureaucratic planning system as a historic dead-end - neither capitalism nor a historically necessary new mode of "bureaucratic collectivism".

LuÃs Henrique

22nd February 2007, 19:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:07 am
If this was any kind of capitalism, it shouldn't have been that hard for policymakers to set up competition and profitability. Ordinarily, state regulation can't stop capitalism from doing this.

Well, there was certainly a political problem: they couldn't just "restore capitalism" without damaging the legitimacy of their dictatorship.

And, of course, the positions in the firms bureaucracy were tied to the positions within the party, so they weren't really free to take steps in that direction.

Hm? The USSR failed to obey the internal laws of capitalism...so clearly its internal logic was different from "private capitalism". I'm not sure why you're making this into two different things. Maybe because its internal logic was so, well, illogical?

Yes, it was illogical: it wasn't a coherent mode of production, or even a coherent form of a mode of production. It was a situation in which the superstructure directly contradicted the infrastructure.

But this is to be expected if one sees the bureaucratic planning system as a historic dead-end - neither capitalism nor a historically necessary new mode of "bureaucratic collectivism".

Yes, it was a dead end - it would necessarily have to fall back into "normal" capitalism via a political revolution - unless a social revolution could take it into socialism (ie, the opposite of Trotsky formula).

**********

The importance of this debate, apart its historical meaning, is that we should be able to make the difference between "juridical" property - that at times is just a fiction - and property itself. This is relevant in analysing private property in modern capitalism, in which the bourgeoisie is clearly divided into two different segments, stockholders and corporation bureaucracy.

Luís Henrique

Severian

25th February 2007, 01:07

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 22, 2007 01:38 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 22, 2007 01:38 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 07:07 am
If this was any kind of capitalism, it shouldn't have been that hard for policymakers to set up competition and profitability. Ordinarily, state regulation can't stop capitalism from doing this.

Well, there was certainly a political problem: they couldn't just "restore capitalism" without damaging the legitimacy of their dictatorship. [/b]
I think you're responding to a different point than I was trying to make.

They did adopt market-oriented policies; no political consideration prevented them from doing so. Yet those policies could not produce real profitability or competition. Why not, if it was capitalism all along?

Yes, it was illogical: it wasn't a coherent mode of production, or even a coherent form of a mode of production. It was a situation in which the superstructure directly contradicted the infrastructure.

I agree.

Yes, it was a dead end - it would necessarily have to fall back into "normal" capitalism via a political revolution - unless a social revolution could take it into socialism (ie, the opposite of Trotsky formula).

The difference here seems fairly semantic. Unless you can explain - What would that "social revolution" have done to the means of production after taking power?

LuÃs Henrique

25th February 2007, 03:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:07 am
The difference here seems fairly semantic. Unless you can explain - What would that "social revolution" have done to the means of production after taking power?
Replace the value logic by a different logic. Adopt a distributive system which were more efficient and democratic than the market. Give the workers real power over the means of production, which is only possible if they are freed from the necessity to spend most of the day in productive activity.

Luís Henrique

Severian

25th February 2007, 04:39

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 09:48 pm
Replace the value logic by a different logic. Adopt a distributive system which were more efficient and democratic than the market. Give the workers real power over the means of production, which is only possible if they are freed from the necessity to spend most of the day in productive activity.

Luís Henrique
That's kinda general, and not exactly something that could be enacted the day - or year - after a revolution.

LuÃs Henrique

25th February 2007, 13:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:39 am
That's kinda general, and not exactly something that could be enacted the day - or year - after a revolution.
Exactly. That's a characteristic of social revolutions, as opposed to political revolutions. The problem with the Soviet ruling elites was that they were completely unable to take any steps in that direction; they reasoned strictly within the value logic.

On the other hand, is is easy to see that the (counter)revolutions that put an end to "real socialism" were political revolutions, which quickly removed obstacles to the stablishment of "normal" capitalist societies.

Luís Henrique

Severian

26th February 2007, 01:27

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 25, 2007 07:57 am--> (Luís Henrique @ February 25, 2007 07:57 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 04:39 am
That's kinda general, and not exactly something that could be enacted the day - or year - after a revolution.
Exactly. That's a characteristic of social revolutions, as opposed to political revolutions. [/b]
I gotta disagree with you there. E.g. when Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation that was a social (though of course not socialist) revolutionary measure.

The problem with the Soviet ruling elites was that they were completely unable to take any steps in that direction; they reasoned strictly within the value logic.

So why is it you can't propose any concrete steps in that direction either?

On the other hand, is is easy to see that the (counter)revolutions that put an end to "real socialism" were political revolutions, which quickly removed obstacles to the stablishment of "normal" capitalist societies.

Is it? When the Berlin Wall fell, nobody paused to "see" what would happen....they assumed this was the instant restoration of capitalism.

An assumption made with euphoria by the capitalists, and with disappointment by essentially the whole left. But the shared assumption does reflect the dependence of the left on capitalist public opinion, as well as the inability of the left to distinguish between the apparatchik regimes and the revolutionary gains made by working people.

The capitalists' euphoria has passed - they've noticed that in fact the fall of the regimes did not quickly remove all obstacles to the establishment of "normal" capitalist societies. Many investors in the former Soviet bloc, and even some in China, have found this out the hard way.

Their specialists in the subject have found, for example, that privatization in that context doesn't instantly create a capitalist concern. Especially when it's done by distributing shares to workers and managers. Some have suggested the economies of the...post-Stalinist?...countries should be divided into private, non-State, and state sectors.

They've found that foreign investors who buy a post-Soviet enterprise buy more than a factory - they buy a whole set of social obligations, to their workforce and the surrounding community. They discover they're dealing with a very different set of social expectations, work norms, and property laws, and social relations than they're used to.

And property is, after all, a social relation.

We'd be living in a very different world if the common assumption had been proved true. A time of booming capitalism, which had just regained huge new arenas for profitable investment. Instead, we're living through a prolonged period of instability and slow growth - at best.

But while the capitalist class has begun to notice this, the left is just not paying attention.