Against the Theory of State Capitalism - Critique of the wea

[Kez]

Here is the reply to their "theory" of state capitalism by the SWP

http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT3-2.html

i will now bring out the main arguments and put them here

yours in struggle
comrade kamo

[Kez]

1)Despite the fact that Comrade Cliff asserts that the Stalinist bureaucracy is a new class, nowhere in his thesis is a real analysis made or evidence adduced as to why and how such a class constitutes a capitalist class and is not a new type of class.

And this is not accidental. It flows from the method. Starting off with the preconceived idea of state capitalism, everything is artificially fitted into that conception. Instead of applying the theoretical method of the Marxist teachers to Russian society in its process of motion and development, he has scoured the works to gather quotations and attempted to compress them into a theory.

these un-marxist methods are not isolated, such tendencies continue into the structure of the organisation itself, into being one of the most undeemocratic parties about. Not only do they not have the theory of marxism, but they neither have the culture either

2) Any analysis of Russian society must start from that basis. Once Cliff admits that while capitalism is declining and decaying on a world scale, yet preserving a progressive role in Russia in relation to the development of the productive forces, then logically he would have to say that state capitalism is the next stage forward for society, or at least for the backward countries. Contradictorily, he shows that the Russian bourgeoisie was not capable of carrying through the role which was fulfilled by the bourgeoisie in the West and consequently the proletarian revolution took place.

one should ask themselves why he is contradicting himself? Has comrade cliff thought his ideas through?

3) Incorrect Usage of Quotations

Comrade Cliff seeks to prove that Trotsky was moving to the position that the bureaucracy was a new ruling class. For this purpose he gives quotations from the book Stalin, and then from Living Thoughts of Karl Marx.

Cliff makes Trotsky look foolish by appearing to contradict himself by juxtaposing the two quotations and adducing therefrom that Trotsky was changing his position on the class character of the bureaucracy. A few pages further on, Trotsky explains his idea. he shows the organic tendency of the decay of capitalism everywhere. It is only on this basis that the nationalised productive forces have been maintained in Russia. The whole tendency of the economy in the last 50 years on a world scale has been towards the statification of the productive forces. The capitalists themselves have in part been compelled to 'the recognition of the productive forces as social forces' (Engels). In fact, this is the key to the explanation of why Russia survived the war. The disorientation of the movement which is expressed in Cliff's document, is largely due to the failure to appreciate the implications of this tendency. In his book on Stalin, Trotsky raises the theoretical possibility of the bureaucracy continuing to rule for some decades.

We believe this sufficiently demonstrates that Cliff has taken a quotation from Trotsky's Stalin out of context and read something into it which is not there. In his last work, as in all others on the Russian question, Trotsky had a consistent theme in his characterisation of the Soviet Union. It is not possible to draw the conclusion from any of his writings that he was altering his fundamental position.

Such use of quotes out of context have been used many a time by the old British Communist party in their issues of cognito where they used quotes somehow of lenin suporting stalin and that "stalinism is merely a continuation of leninism [!!!]"

i'll continue posting extracts from the reply once these points above have been discussed

(Edited by TavareeshKamo at 7:31 pm on June 16, 2003)

[Sandanista]

heres the theory of state capitalism
www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/

[Kez]

come on, some debate, are me and sandista the only ones who are prepared to dedbate these motherfucking theories?

maybe instaed we shud go to chit chat, and talk bollocks, that wud get a good response...

[Sandanista]

aye kamo its fuckin bollocks, this is what i mean about so called socialists, if u mention somethin slightly off the topic of romantic juntas or weed people go "beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep"

Come on u bunch of hippies and peacenicks, at least read the 2 theories and decide which one u follow, or are u all too stoned to care?