Rebuttal of State-Capitalist theory [Archive]

BobKKKindle$

14th January 2008, 10:55

What are the main objections of 'orthodox' Trotskyists to the SWP's state-capitalist analysis of the Soviet Union?

As far as I know, Trotsky had originally argued that the Soviet Union was a workers' state, despite the influence of the bureaucracy, the growth of which arose from the failure of the revolution to spread beyond Russia, because productive resources were subject to the ownership of the state, and as such capitalist economic relations did not exist. Thus, a political revolution (Trotsky does not make clear whether this will assume the form of gradual change or a violent insurrection, led by a new party) was required to restore 'genuine' (instead of deformed or bureaucratic) socialism.

The SWP (or, as it was known as the time, the Socialist Review Group) argued, however, that the bureaucracy was more than just a privileged stratum, but comprised a new class, and that Trotsky had made a mistake by assuming that state ownership is the defining feature of socialism, as a mode of production. Cliff took this position because of post-war changes in the economy of Britain - the government nationalized key sections of the economy and developed a system of demand management through extensive state intervention, by means of government expenditure, and so if the role of the state is the main criterion by which we distinguish between Socialism and Capitalism, Britain was, by implication, also a workers' state. Clearly Britain was not socialist, and thus we should not define a mode of production solely in terms of whether resources are owned (and controlled) by the private or state sector. Capitalism is fully compatible with full state ownership - hence the term State Capitalism.

Cliff also drew attention to several predictions Trotsky had made (for example that the USSR would not be able to survive the war in its present state) and the failure of these predictions to come true, as well as the poor analysis of Mandel following the war.

This position makes perfect sense to me, as an SWP member. Why is it not accepted by groups like the Spartacist League, and, it seems, a cause of so much hate from 'orthodox' Trotskyists?

This is clearly an important issue, because if the USSR was capitalist, then there would be no principled reason to support the USSR, or any of it's proxy states, in a conflict with the western bloc.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9201 - Article on this subject

kromando33

14th January 2008, 11:34

The whole 'bureaucratic class' theory is a joke and has been debunked long ago, calling a 'strata' of society a new class is just contrary to the fact, a bureaucrat is just the same as different workers going different things in a common goal, it's just coordination.

Trotskyists always try to skate around the class issue, and even sideline the role of class. State ownership does not define capitalism, it's who the state is controlled by and who the state serves, their is only the dictatorship of the proletariat and the bourgeois, no state can ever serve both classes at the same time because their innate interests are mutually exclusive. If you disagree with that's fine, but I am only reciting Marx.

Dimentio

14th January 2008, 11:50

The bureaucrats had the power to distribute resources in the Soviet Union.

BobKKKindle$

14th January 2008, 11:56

State ownership does not define capitalism, it's who the state is controlled by and who the state serves, their is only the dictatorship of the proletariat and the bourgeois, no state can ever serve both classes at the same time because their innate interests are mutually exclusive.

I would agree that, because of the system of state ownership that existed in Russia, it is necessary to examine the state apparatus, and the economic and political relationships existing between workers engaged in the production of goods, and those responsible for administration, in order to analyze the class nature of Soviet Russia. I was actually addressing this thread to Trotskyists, but I'll deal with your arguments.

Proponents of the above theory argue that the bureaucracy formed an independent class (albeit one with internal contradictions, as in the case of the bourgeoisie in a marker capitalist society) with interests separate from and in opposition to the interests of the proletariat. As in the case of any class society, antagonisms necessitated a state apparatus, in the form of armed bodies of men and an extensive system of labour camps, which enabled the bureaucracy ruling class to protect their interests and destroy any form of proletariat resistance. This class controlled Russia's productive forces (and the development thereof) through the state planning structure, which took the place of workers' committees as the centre of power in Soviet russia, and had access to benefits such as Luxury goods beyond the reach of the working class. This class used Marxism as an ideology to provide a justification for their dictatorship and obscure what was, in reality, a new system of class oppression.

You have not yet specified your view on the class nature of the USSR under Stalin and yet I will assume you considered this period socialist, without a bureaucratic degeneration of sufficient extent as to to require a political revolution of any sort. What then, was the class nature of the USSR after Stalin's death, following the alleged revisionist coup - was Russia then a class society? What conditions allowed for this dramatic change?

no state can ever serve both classes at the same time because their innate interests are mutually exclusive. If you disagree with that's fine, but I am only reciting Marx.

I've never actually argued that the Stalinist state served 'both classes at the same time' as I view the bureaucracy as a ruling class that was able to destroy any challenges to hegemonic power, firstly in the form of the workers' opposition during the struggle for power, following Lenin's death, and later isolated outbursts of proletarian resistance, once the party had been purged.

Brutal repression did not stop workers from trying to restore the original direction of October, however - the history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggles, after all. ;)

I do, however, find it interesting, that you claim to be 'reciting Marx' and contend that the state can never reflect the interests of more than one class, as Engels, as quoted by Lenin in SaR Chapter One, suggested that the state can, on occasion rise above class antagonisms:

By way of exception, however, periods occur in which the warring classes balance each other so nearly that the state power as ostensible mediator acquires, for the moment, a certain degree of independence of both... Such were the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Bonapartism of the First and Second Empires in France, and the Bismarck regime in Germany.

This is, however, not the main topic of discussion, and, in any case I don't formulate my views by 'reciting' Marx - it is interesting that you make assertions in contradiction with the original Marxists, though.

kromando33

14th January 2008, 12:19

The bureaucrats had the power to distribute resources in the Soviet Union.
No they didn't, that's a blatant falsehood, I am honestly sick of these Trotskyist 'bureaucratic conspiracies' going around, it's getting a bit out of hand now, next you'll be saying Jewish Freemasons were mind controlling Stalin.

Bureucracies do not entail class because he had no control, to say that the administrative wing of the Soviet Union, mostly adept at immense paperwork, who work on the directives of the proletarian state, 'controlled the Soviet Union' is just ridiculous, class is defined as relationship to the means of production, and the bureaucracy had not such control because they were simply a delegated administrative strata, they were just doing their jobs at the sole directive of the party, to say that they controlled the means of production is just false.

The idea also of Stalin's 'bureaucracy' controlling is just false because at the time firstly their wasn't the technological means for that kind of control. If Stalin was controlled by the administrative wing, then he most certainly wouldn't have industrialized the country and made the proletariat his basic no#1 constituency. The true historical fact is that the collectivization was largely ad-hoc and done by the enthusiastic local soviets, Stalin was struggling to keep up with giving the break-neck industrial development some kind of order and coordination.

bolshevik butcher

14th January 2008, 13:09

Bobkindles I will try and respond to you quickly, I might reply in a more full form later after I get home from work.

The basic argument against the theory of state capitalism is that the buearucratic strata was not a new class, it did not own the means of production in the soviet union. It lived parasitically off the labour of the working class of the soviet union, but they were economic planners. They did not own the means of production and so cannot be seen as a capitalist class.

Ultimatley as marxists we undersatnd that the nature of society is determined by property relations. In the soviet union property relations were fundemntally different to those in a capitalist society. Although the revolution had degenerated and taken a bueraucratic form the property relations, a planned economy, remained in place.

I have to leave for work now. If you have the time I'd highly reccomend reaidng Ted Grant's reply to Tonny Cliff on the hteory of state capitalism, it can be viewed here http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm

BobKKKindle$

14th January 2008, 14:08

No They didn't, that's a blatant falsehood, I am honestly sick of these Trotskyist 'bureaucratic conspiracies' going around, it's getting a bit out of hand now, next you'll be saying Jewish Freemasons were mind controlling Stalin.

I want this thread to be a discussion of a Trotskyist theory, not a continuation of the long historical debate as to whether the USSR was progressive and retained a system of workers power. The Bureaucracy were not, as you suggeest, just another section of the working class, that enjoyed no greater material benefits than workers employed in industry or any other productive sector of the economy - the officials who comprised the top echelons of the state apparatus, especially the planning departement, which served as the centre of economic power, had access to special shops, in which they could buy goods which were not available to ordinary workers, and formulated the government's econmic priorities without any form of consultation with the working class, and as a result economic resources were diverted into the military and industrial sectors, in order to compete with other states, at the expense of consumer goods and the provision of social services, to meet the needs of ordinary people. The labour camp system is further evidence of the class nature of the regime, as it was necessary to use repression to maintain hegemony over the working class. This is my position on the matter - doubtless we could have a long debate, and argue about the reliability of historical evidence, and the motivation of the Trotskyist left, but this is not what I want to discuss here.

The basic argument against the theory of state capitalism is that the buearucratic strata was not a new class, it did not own the means of production in the soviet union. It lived parasitically off the labour of the working class of the soviet union, but they were economic planners. They did not own the means of production and so cannot be seen as a capitalist class.

Thank you for reply, I look forward to reading through the text you recommended. The premise of your argument is that ownership relations should serve as the primary, if not the sole, criterion, in determing the class of a particular group, or, whether class antagonsisms are present. I would argue that this conception is not applicable, at least in state capitalist societies (or the state sector of the economy) because a system of state ownership can still accomodate class antagonisms, even if no formal ownership relations exist, when control of state resources is alienated from the working class. In other words, we should not consider property as an abstract concept, divorced from actual relations of production, but should instead base our understanding of class in the context of specific systems of economic organisation. This is a major point in Cliff's work and is also supported, at least in part, by Marx:

In each historical epoch, property has developed differently and under a set of entirely different social relations. Thus to define bourgeois property is nothing less than to give an exposition of all the social relations of bourgeois production. To try to give a definition of property as of an independent relation, a category apart – an abstract eternal idea – can be nothing but an illusion of metaphysics or jurisprudence

Emphasis mine. I would also challenge the idea that the Soviet Economy was 'radically different' from other capitalist economies, as following the war, as I have already noted, many Western governments used a combination of fiscal and monetary policy to control growth, and, through the nationalisation of key industries and the need for greater military expenditure, the state sector became an essential part of the economy - and yet these societies were obviously still capitalist. The Soviet economy was engaged in competition with the capitalist bloc, primarily in terms of development of the destructive forces, especially nuclear weapons, which also influenced the distribution of resources inside Soviet Russia, as the military began to demand a greater share of state funds. This is important, as competition is often considered an important feature of capitalism.

manic expression

14th January 2008, 14:48

Random Precision

14th January 2008, 17:21

What are the main objections of 'orthodox' Trotskyists to the SWP's state-capitalist analysis of the Soviet Union?
[...]

This position makes perfect sense to me, as an SWP member. Why is it not accepted by groups like the Spartacist League, and, it seems, a cause of so much hate from 'orthodox' Trotskyists?

Um, because they fetishize Trotsky's works and treat everything he wrote the way a fundamentalist would treat the Bible?

A little harsh, maybe. But I'm reminded of what James Cannon said after WWII ended without either the USSR collapsing or a new revolution of the working class (which Trotsky had predicted). He said that the war hadn't really ended, it just took on a new form. :rolleyes:

I think the main stumbling block for the ortho-trots is not the nature of the Soviet Union but its buffer states, which had a quite similar structure. You can call them "deformed worker states" all you want, but if there was no workers' revolution in those countries, calling the government a worker state is just plain anti-Marxist. For if the Soviet army can just roll into a country and set up a worker state, why do we even work for a revolution instead of calling for its help?

Manic, I'll work on a reply to your comment later.

Psy

14th January 2008, 17:25

The main objection is that state-capitalism is basically a contradiction in terms. If you don't have private ownership of the means of production, you don't have capitalism. Bureaucrats don't own property, they don't employ workers, they don't own stocks and bonds, they cannot pass property to their children, they do not make profit in the capitalist sense of the word; to be brief, the bureaucrat does not fill any position in the bourgeois mode of production. It is patently illogical to state that the Soviet Union, a country without capitalist property relations and thus without a capitalist mode of production, could possibly be capitalist. The most casual material analysis disproves the idea of state-capitalism.
The term state-capitalism is that the state is like a corporation, if you look at a corporation the management doesn't own anything in the corporation and they can only get their children into managerial jobs in the company. The way for the managers to profit is to steal from the corporation.

Now look at the USSR, the bureaucrats got friends and relative into desired jobs in the USSR and they stole from the USSR. The USSR even exported to accumulate capital, this is why the USSR economy tanked, the USSR was producing for profits and they had a crisis in their rate of profit.

manic expression

14th January 2008, 22:20

The term state-capitalism is that the state is like a corporation, if you look at a corporation the management doesn't own anything in the corporation and they can only get their children into managerial jobs in the company. The way for the managers to profit is to steal from the corporation.

Now look at the USSR, the bureaucrats got friends and relative into desired jobs in the USSR and they stole from the USSR. The USSR even exported to accumulate capital, this is why the USSR economy tanked, the USSR was producing for profits and they had a crisis in their rate of profit.

And yet this "corporation" acts nothing like actual corporations. Instead of concentrating on your barely coherent view of corporations, let's check out the facts. In real corporations, members own stocks of their company, meaning they privately own the means of production. In real corporations, workers are directly employed by their bosses. In real corporations, bourgeois members (and others) can privately own property and pass this to their children through inheritence.

And yet, the USSR saw none of this. Some "corporation". This is the fallacy of the state-capitalist myth.

BobKKKindle$

14th January 2008, 22:25

The main objection is that state-capitalism is basically a contradiction in terms. If you don't have private ownership of the means of production, you don't have capitalism.

This strikes me as a rather odd position, because Marxists have always recognized that the State is an essential part of capitalism, and can sometimes move beyond solely 'political' functions (the protection of private property etc) and assume control of the productive forces. This does not constiute a negation of bourgeois power, but an extension of it. In the following passage, from the 'ABCs of Communism', Bukharin is referring to 'state capitalism' as a temporary wartime phenomenon but his point can also be used to describe the system in Russia:

How could the bourgeoisie do this? (conduct armed conquest) The matter was quite simple. To that end it was necessary that' the bourgeoisie should place private production, privately owned trusts and syndicates, at the disposal of the capitalist robber State. This is what they did for the duration of the war. Industry was ' mobilized' and 'militarized', that is to say it was placed under the orders of the State and of the military authorities. 'But how?' some of our readers will ask. ' In that way the bourgeoisie would surely forfeit its income? That would be nationalization! When everything has been handed over to the State, where will the bourgeoisie come in, and how will the capitalists reconcile themselves to such a condition 'of affairs?' It is an actual fact that the bourgeoisie agreed to the arrangement. But there is nothing very remarkable in that, for the privately owned syndicates and trusts were not handed over to the workers' State, but to the imperialist State, the State which belonged to the bourgeoisie. Was there anything to alarm the bourgeoisie in such a prospect? The capitalists simply transferred their possessions from one pocket to another; the possessions remained as large as ever.

We must never forget the class character of the State. The State must not be conceived as constituting a 'third power' standing above the classes; from head to foot it is a class organization. Under the dictatorship of the workers it is a working-class organization. Under the dominion of the bourgeoisie it is just as definitely an economic organization as is a trust or a syndicate.

Emphasis mine.

manic expression

14th January 2008, 22:47

This strikes me as a rather odd position, because Marxists have always recognized that the State is an essential part of capitalism, and can sometimes move beyond solely 'political' functions (the protection of private property etc) and assume control of the productive forces. This does not constiute a negation of bourgeois power, but an extension of it.

Marxists have recognized that the mode of production determines most of everything else in a society. Start from there. The USSR had no capitalist mode of production, and it had no capitalist property relations. You can talk about the state all you want, but you're missing the point in a big way.

Why are you missing the point? The state serves to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, yes. However, Bonapartist regimes take on a status independent of class (but are always grounded in the nature of the society in which they exist). As Marx said in the 18th Brumaire (if I can get this by memory): "All the classes of France were compelled to kneel before the rifle butt". Bonapartist states forced the French bourgeoisie to its knees in a bourgeois society, just as the Bonapartist tendencies of the USSR forced the working class to its knees in a worker state.

In the following passage, from the 'ABCs of Communism', Bukharin is referring to 'state capitalism' as a temporary wartime phenomenon but his point can also be used to describe the system in Russia:

Yes, and Lenin used this term as well. However, I am not referring to this usage of the term and you know it. The "state capitalism" that the Bolsheviks approved of is nothing like what you claim the USSR to be; it had to do with the NEP and nothing more. In general, it was the idea that a market could exist within a socialist society if it was under the control of the working class.

Die Neue Zeit

15th January 2008, 01:21

What are the main objections of 'orthodox' Trotskyists to the SWP's state-capitalist analysis of the Soviet Union?

Trivia: The left-communists already deemed the Stalinist regime to be state-capitalist LONG before Cliff and the SWP came into the picture. And just for good measure, the Bolshevik regime was ALSO a state-capitalist regime (which would've gotten my full support in spite of the howling of the "anti-Leninist" orthodox Marxists, mind you). (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1026084&postcount=1)

The difference between the Bolshevik regime and the successive regimes is the absence of "revolutionary democracy" in the latter (thanks to bureaucracy).

Die Neue Zeit

15th January 2008, 01:32

And yet this "corporation" acts nothing like actual corporations. Instead of concentrating on your barely coherent view of corporations, let's check out the facts. In real corporations, members own stocks of their company, meaning they privately own the means of production. In real corporations, workers are directly employed by their bosses. In real corporations, bourgeois members (and others) can privately own property and pass this to their children through inheritence.

And yet, the USSR saw none of this. Some "corporation". This is the fallacy of the state-capitalist myth.

If I remember, ComradeRed said that "actual corporations" act like the old "USSR Inc."

Read up on Marx again regarding "money-capitalists" vs. "functioning capitalists." The modern corporate strategic plan is modelled in large part on the Stalinist Five-Year Plan.

LuÃs Henrique

15th January 2008, 01:39

The first problem with the "State-capitalism" theory, which is to blame for the "hate" it provokes, it that it put a equal sign between the Soviet Union and the Western Imperialist countries. Evidently, it shouldn't be expected that such drastic innovation would go without sparking flame wars among the left.

But this is, for now, over, since the Soviet Union and its satellites disappeared, and Cuba alone cannot polarise the left in the way the SU did (and besides, Cuba can be defended in an anti-imperialist line like any other third world country).

So we should address the "State-capitalism" theory on its own merits. And here is the kernel of the issue. As put forward by Cliff and some Maoists, the theory doesn't stand. There is a total confusion between the role of the bourgeoisie in a capitalist society and the State in Soviet-like societies.

As manic expression puts it,

this "corporation" acts nothing like actual corporations. (...) In real corporations, members own stocks of their company, meaning they privately own the means of production. In real corporations, workers are directly employed by their bosses. In real corporations, bourgeois members (and others) can privately own property and pass this to their children through inheritence.

But not only that. Competition is absolutely vital to capitalism. If in fact there was "one only capitalist", as the theory, in this form, implies, there would be no capitalist competition (the petty competition among bureaucrats by no means qualifies as competition among individual capitals). In which sence a society without capitalist competition can be labeled "capitalist" remains obscure.

Evidently, at the core of such "State-capitalist theory" there is a confusion, which can be seen in bobkindles contribution to the debate:

This strikes me as a rather odd position, because Marxists have always recognized that the State is an essential part of capitalism, and can sometimes move beyond solely 'political' functions (the protection of private property etc) and assume control of the productive forces. This does not constiute a negation of bourgeois power, but an extension of it.

Marxists, of course, have always recognised that the State is an essential part of capitalism. But the part that it plays is not the same part as individual capitals play. Yes, it can move beyond solely 'political' functions and assume the control of some productive forces; it can even assume the control of individual capitals. But there is an unsurmountable difference between the State owning individual capitals that compete against private individual capitals (cases in which, for instance, the State owns banks that compete in the market against private banks), or even the State owning companies that have the legal monopoly of some strategic economic areas (cases in which the State owns the monopoly of oil, hidrelectrics, railways, etc) that constitute natural monopolies and provide essential externalities to the functioning of all private capitals, and the State being the sole owner of means of production. In the first case, State competes in the market as a capitalist among others; in the second case, the State takes some strategic sectors out from capitalist competition in order to provide a true competitive environment for individual capitals in the rest of the economy. Both are essentially different from the State as the sole, collective, capitalist.

Evidently, the Bukharin quote does not account for the Soviet situation:

To that end it was necessary that' the bourgeoisie should place private production, privately owned trusts and syndicates, at the disposal of the capitalist robber State. This is what they did for the duration of the war. Industry was ' mobilized' and 'militarized', that is to say it was placed under the orders of the State and of the military authorities.

He is talking about a temporary situation: "for the duration of war". But juridical entitlement to property remains untouched: the capitalists know, that, after the war, their property will be returned to them (as in fact it was, to the extent it wasn't destroyed by war). And not only that: what they surrender to the State besides being not juridical property, isn't even the ability to pocket the profits of their property: it is just the strategic direction of property, which must, for the duration of war, be subordinated to the military aims and needs of the State. The rest remains untouched, including the bureaucratic positions of the private capitalists within the companies.

And this, because Bukharin is discussing a very different thing from the "Soviet-State-capitalism" of the Cliffists and Maoists: he is talking about State monopolistic capitalism, which is, and remains, capitalism based on private property of means of production, and capitalist competition among individual capitals, under the coordination of the State, for political reasons (winning a war, subduing a revolution, increasing national ability to compete in the world market while national individual capitals are too weak to face foreign capital, making concessions to the working class, trying to control the destructive tendencies of capital, subdue economic crises, etc).

Evidently, the Soviet-like societies cannot be understood by the way of subverting Bukharin's analysis of State monopolistic capitalism into a theory of the State as sole capitalist and owner of means of production. If the State could become the sole owner of means of production, these means of production would no more be "capital", for they would no longer have individual competitive identities, and they wouldn't be reproduced for the sake of their own reproduction, nor they would possibly be employed in a M - C - M' logic.

So what happened in Soviet-like societies must have been a different thing; I suggest that the "State ownership" of all means of production was a façade; that behind such façade, individual capitals were still competing each others, as in any conventional capitalist society, and that the juridical property was in open contradiction with the real property of means of production. That capitals were competing should be clear from the fact that most, if not all, production was destinated to market, in the form of commodities to be sold and bought. That "State property" was fictional, should be clear from the fact that the varied companies sold and bought commodities among them, as if they were separate individual capitalist companies, not as if they were parts of the same common property of the State...

Luís Henrique

Die Neue Zeit

15th January 2008, 02:12

^^^ Quite a lengthy piece for me to analyze there! [My brain's worn out a bit.]

This brings into mind three things (two that I've read, and a thread of mine):

1) Regarding your last paragraph, the "functioning capitalist" branch managers were always at loggerheads with Gosplan in regards to production targets - and were at even BIGGER loggerheads with Gossnab (State Committee for Material-Technical Supply). This is more than just, in your words, "petty competition among bureaucrats [which] by no means qualifies as competition among individual capitals."

2) ComradeRed's old thread on price formulation in the Soviet Union by the State Committee on Prices (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-price-mechanism-t67381/index.html) (Goskomtsen).

3) My very own old thread on "revolutionary stamocap" as the historical period after socialist revolution but before socialism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=902572&postcount=1)! :D

Anyhow, I have to disagree with you on a couple of fronts:

1) Competition - I think ComradeRed said before that Marx's Capital was for a range of possibilities, from competition to the sole firm. Also, consider Baran and Sweezy and their monumental work, Monopoly Capital.
2) "Functioning capitalists" - Total state ownership over the means of production renders the ownership question obsolete, but then focuses the question to one of control (workers' control, managerial control, etc.).

LuÃs Henrique

15th January 2008, 13:04

Trivia: The left-communists already deemed the Stalinist regime to be state-capitalist LONG before Cliff and the SWP came into the picture.

Yes, but they claim that their theory of State-capitalism is totally different from Cliff's (or Mao's FWIW). I would leave the job to explain that difference to them, but, in limine, I must say I tend to agree.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

15th January 2008, 13:11

1) Regarding your last paragraph, the "functional capitalist" branch managers were always at loggerheads with Gosplan in regards to production targets - and were at even BIGGER loggerheads with Gossnab (State Committee for Material-Technical Supply). This is more than just, in your words, "petty competition among bureaucrats [which] by no means qualifies as competition among individual capitals."

Yes, this is more than petty competition among bureaucrats; it is, I think, the expression of real competition between real individual capitals.

Anyhow, I have to disagree with you on a couple of fronts:

1) Competition - I think ComradeRed said before that Marx's Capital was for a range of possibilities, from competition to the sole firm. Also, consider Baran and Sweezy and their monumental work, Monopoly Capital.With all the due respect, I think ComradeRed is wrong. A sole firm cannot be a capitalist firm.

2) "Functional capitalists" - Total state ownership over the means of production renders the ownership question obsolete, but then focuses the question to one of control (workers' control, managerial control, etc.).Rather, I think it makes the question of ownership the most relevant political question. That's why the 1991 counterrevolution addressed exactly that.

It must be said that it seems now that Trotsky got things upside down. It was capitalist restoration that only needed a political counterrevolution; and it was the quest for socialism that demanded a new social revolution.

Luís Henrique

manic expression

15th January 2008, 13:13

If I remember, ComradeRed said that "actual corporations" act like the old "USSR Inc."

Read up on Marx again regarding "money-capitalists" vs. "functional capitalists." The modern corporate strategic plan is modelled in large part on the Stalinist Five-Year Plan.

Read up on Marx regarding mode of production, property relations and capitalism itself. Compare this to the Soviet Union. You'll see that there is no real comparison. The Five-Year Plan was a way to kick-start the Soviet economy. Did any bureaucrat profit from the Five-Year Plan? Of course not. Could you buy stocks and bonds from the companies involved? No. Were workers employed in the capitalist sense? Not at all. None of this happened because the USSR wasn't capitalist.

Led Zeppelin

15th January 2008, 14:42

It must be said that it seems now that Trotsky got things upside down. It was capitalist restoration that only needed a political counterrevolution; and it was the quest for socialism that demanded a new social revolution.

That doesn't make sense. A political revolution by the proletariat would have restored "the quest for socialism", as you call it.

Die Neue Zeit

16th January 2008, 01:05

Rather, I think it makes the question of ownership the most relevant political question. That's why the 1991 counterrevolution addressed exactly that.

It must be said that it seems now that Trotsky got things upside down. It was capitalist restoration that only needed a political counterrevolution; and it was the quest for socialism that demanded a new social revolution.

Luís Henrique

Funny that I agree and disagree with what you said here. I disagree on the first part because of what you said earlier in another thread regarding managers. While I do consider them to be a separate class ("six classes"), you consider them to be capitalists ("functional capitalists"). By considering them as such, doesn't that force the question of ownership to play second fiddle?

On the other hand, I agree with your last part... somewhat. Thoroughly capitalist at the beginning, anyway, Russia only needed an organizational and then political counterrevolution.

LuÃs Henrique

16th January 2008, 01:48

By considering them as such, doesn't that force the question of ownership to play second fiddle?

Theoretically, maybe. But practically, the absence of private property was a major abnormality in Soviet Union order, and a major obstacle to capitalist accumulation (this is another reason it shouldn't be compared to State-ownership in capitalist countries under the influence of Keynesianism, which is usually favourable to the accumulation of capital).

Luís Henrique

LSD

16th January 2008, 02:04

It really is an interesting question, and I don't know that I've ever read a fully convincing analysis of just what the Soviet Union et. al., "were" economically.

I tend to accept the state capitalist paradigm, to a certain extent, because it seems to explain the presence of overt capitalism amid strong state control. But "state capitalism" is such a loaded term with such a conflicted history, that it would probably be better if we were to junk it all together.

That is, while I don't think there can really be any doubt that some form of capitalism existed in the Soviet Union and continues to exist in ostensibly "socialist" countries like China or Cuba, I don't think that the traditional "state capitalist" models, Cliff's or Mao's, actually explain the dynamics of that capitalism.

So "state capitalism" as a phrase makes a lot of sense, but not so much as a theory.

And while I'm not usually one to muck around with esoteric issues of categorization or Soviet microanalysis, the question of just what the Soviet experiment actually rendered is a critical one on the left. 'Cause even 20 years after the collapse, the legacy of the "second world" continues to be the major stumbling block to widespread acceptance of far left ideas.

Much as the Nazis discredited the far-right, to the average person, Stalin and Mao and the Gulags have made communism akin to "totalitarianism". Partly that's because of effective propaganda, but mostly it's the naked reality of what the Soviet Union (and the PRC and the DPRK and the DK, etc...) actually were.

Unfortunately because so much of the left is still caught up in cold war propaganda, it's been difficult to construct an objective analysis of Leninist "socialism". We might well have to wait until this present generation is retired before economists and political theoreticians untainted by the Moscow party line can study the events of the twentieth century from a genuinely revolutionary leftist perspective.

Personally, I'm going to keep using the term "state capitalism" because it encapsulates the two defining features of Leninist economics (the state and capitalism), but no one should take that use to be an endorsement of Cliffite or Maoist analyses.

When I say "state capitalist", I mean it in a very fuzzy non-specific manner, as I suspect do most people outside of Trotskyist circles.

Dros

16th January 2008, 03:12

Read up on Marx regarding mode of production, property relations and capitalism itself. Compare this to the Soviet Union. You'll see that there is no real comparison. The Five-Year Plan was a way to kick-start the Soviet economy. Did any bureaucrat profit from the Five-Year Plan? Of course not. Could you buy stocks and bonds from the companies involved? No. Were workers employed in the capitalist sense? Not at all. None of this happened because the USSR wasn't capitalist.

Manic: Noone is saying that you could by stocks and bonds. Noone is saying that state-capitalism manifests itself in all of the same ways as monopoly capitalism. Ask yourself instead: what are the production relations that charecterize capitalism? Workers will be exploited by a class in order to extract value from their labor. Politically, workers do not get to make decisions regarding the economy. Ask your self this: did these features of "capitalism" exist in the period after Stalin's death?

I'm interested. What would you call the mode of production during the Krushchevite period? Socialism? Capitalism? Or do you go for the "degenerated worker's state"?

I again would suggest that you read those sections by Marx and Bukharin. They are worth your time. Marxists have long recognized the ability of a capitalist state to "own" (read run) the means of production in a capitalistic manner despite your protests to the contrary. I would suggest Mao but you wouldn't so why bother...

black magick hustla

16th January 2008, 05:37

Yes, but they claim that their theory of State-capitalism is totally different from Cliff's (or Mao's FWIW). I would leave the job to explain that difference to them, but, in limine, I must say I tend to agree.

Luís Henrique

left communists argue that "state-capitalism" is a wordlwide tendency presented not only in the USSR, but in the US, Mexico, Netherlands etc. Its not a particular thing to China and USSR--albeit the latter two are intensified. I havent read Cliff's work, but swpites give me the vibe that cliffs state-capitalism is just a fancy, out of context, term for former socialist countries.

Without state-capitalism, according to left comms, capital wouldnt have survived. Keynesian economics are a manifestation of state-capital.

i dont think individual competition needs to be an aspect of capiital. lenin himself argued that in the period of imperialism, capital tends to form finance-industrial cartels that tend to centralize the economy into few command centers. it is a very different conception from the old, enlightened liberals that envisioned capitalism as some sort of "petty bourgeois" wetdream of multiple, competing buisnesses.

the ICC for example, considers state capitalism as the current manifestation of world capital, delivered by the so called "period of decadence".

i do agree that state-capitalism is really the "highest stage of capitalism". We are entering a period were economic output is becoming increasingly mathematically predictable. state economists , in order to operate, assume that the economy works as if it is already planned, and therefore, they can stimulate the economy in different ways, by aiding certain sectors etc. In this aspect, the economy is already planned, because it is predictable enough in order for the state to promote/sabotage certain sectors.

Axel1917

16th January 2008, 06:36

I have never understood why so many people believe in this unscientific theory. If you eliminate bourgeois property and nationalize property, the resulting economic form cannot be capitalism, for the basic contradiction in capitalism, social production and an individual form of appropriation is abolished. You end up with social production and state appropriation.

The only difference between a healthy and a deformed workers' state is that the proletariat possesses political power in the former. By the logic of Cliff, a healthy workers' state is democratic state capitalism! According to Cliff, the October Revolution was fought to introduce capitalism! The "theory" of state capitalism is a joke.

kromando33

16th January 2008, 08:16

What do you expect Axel, it was made up by Trots, Trots would would gladly do away with any of their theories depending on opportunistic political circumstances. The only conclusion I can make from this theory is that is was created because of the mainstream bourgeois lies about Stalin etc, and the opportunistic attempt to conform Trotskyist theory to these bourgeois lies and in so doing make their parties more 'acceptable' to the bourgeois state.

To ignore the fact that Stalin made the proletariat stronger than in any other country (which is what socialism is, making the proletariat stronger so the continuously socialized relations of production breed communal living tendencies) is to ignore reality. Stalin used the cynical and practical analysis of Marxist science, and was not carried away by the ultra-leftist demagogy and spiritual-cultism of the Trots, instead for Stalin everything is in reality, and the solution to be form in reality. On the contrary for Trots the answer comes from 'socialism' and their quasi-biblical reverence they give it.

Stalin built socialism and proletarianized the Soviet Union, he made the proletariat the true social instrument of productive forces in line with Marxism. To slander Stalin's acheivments in building socialized relations in industrial production is to slander the Marxist-Leninist theory which he followed.

As for 'exterminations', I do not weep for dead class enemies, and neither should any proletarian revolutionary.

Lamanov

16th January 2008, 13:44

[suppressed expletive (Luís Henrique)] How many times do we have to go through this?

http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_7_ussr2.html
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_8_ussr_3.html
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_9_ussr4.html

If someone else wants to "rebut" theory of poor Cliff, please state that you're doing so. Because, bottom line, you're not "rebutting" the theory of State Capitalism alltogether. There are far better and logical theories about USSR being capitalist, and none of them come from a fucking Leninist (with an exception of "Johnson-Forest tendency", if we could call it such).

LuÃs Henrique

16th January 2008, 17:36

[suppressed expletive] How many times do we have to go through this?

http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_7_ussr2.html
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_8_ussr_3.html
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_9_ussr4.html

If someone else wants to "rebut" theory of poor Cliff, please state that you're doing so. Because, bottom line, you're not "rebutting" the theory of State Capitalism alltogether. There are far better and logical theories about USSR being capitalist, and none of them come from a fucking Leninist (with an exception of "Johnson-Forest tendency", if we could call it such).

1. Calm down.
2. In this thread, we are discussing explicitly the Cliff and Mao variants of "State-capitalism" theory.
3. If you want to bring your particular brand of "State-capitalism" theory into the discussion, and underline its differences from Cliff-Mao theories, feel free to do it.
4. No one implied that, by rebutting Cliff (or Mao), it would automatically follow that it had been proven that the Soviet Union was not capitalist. So, again, calm down, and try to participate in the discussion in a civilised way.

Consider yourself warned for the flaming.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

16th January 2008, 17:49

left communists argue that "state-capitalism" is a wordlwide tendency presented not only in the USSR, but in the US, Mexico, Netherlands etc. Its not a particular thing to China and USSR--albeit the latter two are intensified.

Yes, I understand so. The problem with such version of the theory is that it does not account for some very remarkable differences between "State-capitalism" in the US, Brazil, or Denmark, on one hand, and in China or Russia on the other hand.

In Brazil, Denmark, or the United States, private property remains the norm, and State ownership of means of production is used as a tool to prop up accumulation of capital. In China or Russia, private property was formally abolished, and the State ownership of all means of production was a hindrance, not a stimulus, to the accumulation of capital. Besides, historically, the two different phenomenon were situated in very opposite ends of capitalist development: in Denmark, the United States, or Brazil, it came as the final stage of the development of capitalism, after competitive capitalism and monopolist capitalism; in Russia and - particularly - in China, it came at the beginning of the process; in fact, as a tool for primitive accumulation. So I would argue that they cannot be the same thing.

i dont think individual competition needs to be an aspect of capiital. lenin himself argued that in the period of imperialism, capital tends to form finance-industrial cartels that tend to centralize the economy into few command centers.

I hope you are not under the delusion that those cartels do in fact suppress competition. If anything, competition becomes more and more acute and harsh in the late phases of capitalism.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

16th January 2008, 17:55

What do you expect Axel, it was made up by Trots,

Wow, a Hoxhaist claiming that "State-capitalist theory" was made up by Trotskyists...

You are soundly wrong here, buddy. This is a Maoist theory as much as a Cliffist (and not Trotskyist, most Trotskyists reject it) one.

in so doing make their parties more 'acceptable' to the bourgeois state.Don't be ridiculous; if such was the point, why didn't they just disband and join the bourgeois parties directly?

Stalin used the cynical and practical analysis of Marxist science,What does "Marxist Science" have to do with "cynicism"?

Stalin built socialism and proletarianized the Soviet Union,Stalin killed most of the Bolshevik party's leadership.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th January 2008, 22:43

Dosera:

What do you expect Axel, it was made up by Trots

Oops, Axel is a Trot!

But, it's nice to see you Stalinists and Orthodox Trots agreeing.

Axel:

The only difference between a healthy and a deformed workers' state is that the proletariat possesses political power in the former. By the logic of Cliff, a healthy workers' state is democratic state capitalism! According to Cliff, the October Revolution was fought to introduce capitalism! The "theory" of state capitalism is a joke.

Well, this just shows you haven't read Cliff. Which dos not surprise me -- you only seem to read stuff you agree with.

At least Ted Grant read Cliff...

Axel:

I have never understood why so many people believe in this unscientific theory. If you eliminate bourgeois property and nationalize property, the resulting economic form cannot be capitalism, for the basic contradiction in capitalism, social production and an individual form of appropriation is abolished. You end up with social production and state appropriation.

Property relations cannot define capitalism or socialism (if they did, the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century would have been socialist, for there was no private property in the Church, then); it's the way surplus is extracted from the toling masses that defines a Mode of Production.

And the state capitalist ruling class in the former USSR certainly extracted a huge surplus from their working class.

I note, however, that it is only your devotion to that non-scientific theory (aka 'Materialist Dialectics') that prompts you to abandon scientific Marxism here.

LuÃs Henrique

17th January 2008, 00:57

Dosera:

Oops, Axel is a Trot!

But, it's nice to see you Stalinists and Orthodox Trots agreeing.

No, it isn't. It's never nice seeing anyone agreeing with Stalinists.

But, a) you should be addressing kromando33, not drosera; and b) most heterodox, ie, "anti-revisionist" "Stalinists", in particular Maoists and Hoxhaists support some form of "State-capitalist" theory; it seems that kromando33 doesn't command very well his own ideology, or is so eager to sling mud at "trots" that he forgot what he should stand for...

Property relations cannot define capitalism or socialism (if they did, the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century would have been socialist, for there was no private property in the Church, then); it's the way surplus is extracted from the toling masses that defines a Mode of Production.

And the state capitalist ruling class in the former USSR certainly extracted a huge surplus from their working class.

Yes, certainly. On the other hand, the companies that, in theory, were property of the Soviet State actually related to each others via market, not via plan.

I note, however, that it is only your devotion to that non-scientific theory (aka 'Materialist Dialectics') that prompts you to abandon scientific Marxism here.

If you want to restart this discussion, take it to the Philosophy Forum. If this thread gets derailed by this, it will be split and the dialectic/anti-dialectic posts moved into the Ph. F.

Luís Henrique

Dros

17th January 2008, 02:50

Dosera:

Oops, Axel is a Trot!

But, it's nice to see you Stalinists and Orthodox Trots agreeing.

Axel:

Well, this just shows you haven't read Cliff. Which dos not surprise me -- you only seem to read stuff you agree with.

At least Ted Grant read Cliff...

Axel:

Property relations cannot define capitalism or socialism (if they did, the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century would have been socialist, for there was no private property in the Church, then); it's the way surplus is extracted from the toling masses that defines a Mode of Production.

And the state capitalist ruling class in the former USSR certainly extracted a huge surplus from their working class.

I note, however, that it is only your devotion to that non-scientific theory (aka 'Materialist Dialectics') that prompts you to abandon scientific Marxism here.

I'm afraid you've confused yourself here Rosa! I can only asume that "Dosera" is a bastardization of my name. Then you quote Krommando! I didn't say any of that. I'm a Maoist. I know where state-capitalist theory comes from.

EDIT: "Property relations cannot define capitalism or socialism (if they did, the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century would have been socialist, for there was no private property in the Church, then); it's the way surplus is extracted from the toling masses that defines a Mode of Production."

My God! I'm agreeing with Rosa!

The Mode of Production is defined by production relations. State-Capitalist countries have capitalist production relations.

Die Neue Zeit

17th January 2008, 04:13

Besides, historically, the two different phenomenon were situated in very opposite ends of capitalist development: in Denmark, the United States, or Brazil, it came as the final stage of the development of capitalism, after competitive capitalism and monopolist capitalism; in Russia and - particularly - in China, it came at the beginning of the process; in fact, as a tool for primitive accumulation. So I would argue that they cannot be the same thing.

Isn't monopoly relative, though (like relative immiseration)? In my stamocap thread, I said that we're either in the era of monopoly capitalism or one of "reactionary stamocap."

On the subject of primitive accumulation, isn't the final expropriation after the revolution the very last act of capital accumulation by dispossession (assuming that there are lots of ecological disasters, infrastructural breakdowns, etc.) needed to build socialism?

[While Preobrazhensky coughed up the idea of "socialist primitive accumulation," that concept obviously didn't apply to the "primitive stamocap" situation of Russia.]

I hope you are not under the delusion that those cartels do in fact suppress competition. If anything, competition becomes more and more acute and harsh in the late phases of capitalism.

Luís Henrique

Um, isn't that because there are less firms? There are more economies of scale, the "market share" is global (each competitor has full access to the "market"), and it's kinda like the WWI alliances that brought bigger powers in (the equivalent being acquisitions, which include so-called "mergers").

Property relations cannot define capitalism or socialism (if they did, the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century would have been socialist, for there was no private property in the Church, then); it's the way surplus is extracted from the toling masses that defines a Mode of Production.

Wasn't this the main content of Marx's "Poverty of Philosophy," cuz Proudhon overemphasized property relations?

[It's nice to see you step outside of dialectics and anti-dialectics, though, even if only briefly. ;) ]

black magick hustla

17th January 2008, 05:06

I hope you are not under the delusion that those cartels do in fact suppress competition. If anything, competition becomes more and more acute and harsh in the late phases of capitalism.

its both. it exarberates competition insofar that these "command centers" tend to be very agressive to the point that they are the reason of imperialist wars. however, it minimizes competition because smaller buisnesses tend to be surpressed, and therefore there are only a few "cartels" competing. that is why lenins thesis on imperialism is perfectly compatible with the theopry of state capitalism, because we can treat the soviet union as a giant cartel.

In Brazil, Denmark, or the United States, private property remains the norm, and State ownership of means of production is used as a tool to prop up accumulation of capital. In China or Russia, private property was formally abolished, and the State ownership of all means of production was a hindrance, not a stimulus, to the accumulation of capital. Besides, historically, the two different phenomenon were situated in very opposite ends of capitalist development: in Denmark, the United States, or Brazil, it came as the final stage of the development of capitalism, after competitive capitalism and monopolist capitalism; in Russia and - particularly - in China, it came at the beginning of the process; in fact, as a tool for primitive accumulation. So I would argue that they cannot be the same thing.

first i think you misunderstand the ICC's theory on decadence. because capitalism is a word system, it doesnt means that each state has to exactly go to "different phases" to achieve state-capitalism. it doesnt matter that in denmark "state-capitalism" came after competitive and monopolist capitalism, because state-capitalism evolved as a world system. second, even if "private property" remains the norm, it doesnt means that the state doesnt has a heavy hand in its planification. even if "private property" is the norm, that private property is heavily molded by state planification.

i am not really sure about totally embracing state-capitalism btw. i am just arguing from a left communist viewpoint.

Axel1917

17th January 2008, 07:14

Devrim

17th January 2008, 12:39

The "state capitalism" that the Bolsheviks approved of is nothing like what you claim the USSR to be; it had to do with the NEP and nothing more.

It has nothing to do with the NEP. The discussions about state capitalism started in early 1918 (maybe even late 1917), the NEP came in in 1921.

Devrim

manic expression

17th January 2008, 13:35

It has nothing to do with the NEP. The discussions about state capitalism started in early 1918 (maybe even late 1917), the NEP came in in 1921.

The NEP was following the theories fut forth during that period. That's what the Bolsheviks meant when they said "state-capitalism": a market within the socialist worker state. Ultra-leftists, on the other hand, have no materialist analysis and thus call the Soviet Union capitalist, which is ridiculous.

LuÃs Henrique

17th January 2008, 14:05

its both. it exarberates competition insofar that these "command centers" tend to be very agressive to the point that they are the reason of imperialist wars. however, it minimizes competition because smaller buisnesses tend to be surpressed, and therefore there are only a few "cartels" competing. that is why lenins thesis on imperialism is perfectly compatible with the theopry of state capitalism, because we can treat the soviet union as a giant cartel.

I don't think Lenin would ever agree with the possibility of capitalism without competition...

It's one thing when a country's economy is dominated by half-a-dozen cartels competing each other: then we still have competition among individual capitals; it is different from an economy where hundreds of thousands of private capitals compete, of course, but it is still based on competition. A State which is equal to one cartel - if ever existed - must be something very different, and I would argue it cannot be a capitalist State.

even if "private property" remains the norm, it doesnt means that the state doesnt has a heavy hand in its planification. even if "private property" is the norm, that private property is heavily molded by state planification.

Well, evidently the State has a heavy hand in planning, and this is unlikely to change.

The difference is, in "Western" capitalist countries, (limited) State ownership and State planning are functional to capitalism; they help capitalism against its crises and problems. In the Soviet Union and similar States, State monopoly and planning worked against the "normal" functioning of capitalism; they enhanced capitalism's crises and problems.

If you look into Russian contemporary History, you will see only two real divides: 1917 and 1991. It doesn't mean nothing happened meanwhile, but it seems extremely unlikely that there was a change in their mode of production that was not prompted by either the 1917 Revolution or the 1991 counterrevolution. Certainly 1921, 1928 and 1953 do not qualify as political revolutions. Do we believe in revolutions in the mode of production without political change?

Luís Henrique

Devrim

17th January 2008, 15:46

The NEP was following the theories fut forth during that period. That's what the Bolsheviks meant when they said "state-capitalism": a market within the socialist worker state. Ultra-leftists, on the other hand, have no materialist analysis and thus call the Soviet Union capitalist, which is ridiculous.

Please show a link between the discussions about state capitalism, and the NEP. There is no connection whatsoever.

Devrim

Devrim

17th January 2008, 15:47

A State which is equal to one cartel - if ever existed - must be something very different, and I would argue it cannot be a capitalist State.

What about its relationship to the world market?

Devrim

LuÃs Henrique

17th January 2008, 16:04

What about its relationship to the world market?

I think it doesn't change the equation. The State cannot be itself the sole capitalist; in a capitalist society, it must ensure a competitive environment, not suppress it.

That's why I would say the Soviet Union and similar societies were abnormal capitalist societies, unlike the Western "State monopolistic capitalist" societies.

If there was a world-wide State, perhaps small States could morph into corporations within it, but even this I would find very untrivial. But a huge State like the Soviet Union in a politically non-unified world, I don't think it possible.

Besides, there are no signs that the capitalist economic "anarchy" has in any way been superated in the Soviet Union at any given time. Individual capitals were still competing each others there, even if they had not individual juridical proprietors. So, in that level, too, it would be misleading to label those societies "State-capitalist" as opposed to "capitalist" sans phrase.

Luís Henrique

Devrim

17th January 2008, 16:09

So, in that level, too, it would be misleading to label those societies "State-capitalist" as opposed to "capitalist" sans phrase.

Yes, but as we say that state capitalism was a universal tendency, it is the same as saying that it was capitalist sans phrase. The USA was state capitalist.

Devrim

LuÃs Henrique

17th January 2008, 17:37

Yes, but as we say that state capitalism was a universal tendency, it is the same as saying that it was capitalist sans phrase. The USA was state capitalist.

Then the name is confusing, as it seems to imply that the State is "the" capitalist. And more confusing it is in the case of the Soviet Union and similar societies, because there the State was, formally, the sole proprietor of the means of production, and the obvious interpretation of the phrase "State capitalism" is that the State was in fact the only capitalist.

On a deeper level, I think I have demonstrated how the role of the State in the Soviet Union and similar societies was completely different from its role in "Western" capitalist countries, and as such, that we are dealing here with two different phenomena, not a single one.

What happened in 1991? Just a change of guards?

Luís Henrique

black magick hustla

17th January 2008, 17:58

Then the name is confusing, as it seems to imply that the State is "the" capitalist. And more confusing it is in the case of the Soviet Union and similar societies, because there the State was, formally, the sole proprietor of the means of production, and the obvious interpretation of the phrase "State capitalism" is that the State was in fact the only capitalist.

On a deeper level, I think I have demonstrated how the role of the State in the Soviet Union and similar societies was completely different from its role in "Western" capitalist countries, and as such, that we are dealing here with two different phenomena, not a single one.

What happened in 1991? Just a change of guards?

Luís Henrique

i think you are trying to put countries as individual cases without realizing that capitalism is a world system. you dont need to look inside the USSR, you need to zoom out and look at it as a participant of the world economy

Axel1917

17th January 2008, 18:16

manic expression

17th January 2008, 18:18

Please show a link between the discussions about state capitalism, and the NEP. There is no connection whatsoever.

Devrim

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm

The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class.

Devrim

17th January 2008, 19:28

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm

The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class.

This is from 1922. The controversy in the Party on state capitalism was in 1918. This doesn't show a link to that controversy.

Devrim

manic expression

17th January 2008, 19:37

This is from 1922. The controversy in the Party on state capitalism was in 1918. This doesn't show a link to that controversy.

I'm quite well aware of that, Devrim. The point is that this is how Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw the idea of "state capitalism". Please show how that explanation differs from the ideas put forth in 1918.

Devrim

17th January 2008, 20:18

The NEP was unthought of in 1918. Therefore the controversy was not about it. The idea that 'Lenin and the Bolsheviks' thought in one way about it is equally false. In fact at one point the majority in Petrograd, and Moscow was against him.

Devrim

manic expression

18th January 2008, 12:45

Devrim

18th January 2008, 14:37

The point is that you are suggesting that the debates around state capitalism were connected to the NEP. I said that they weren't as they took place three years earlier, and you said that the NEP was in a planning stage then, something which you have not provided any evidence for whatsoever, because it is blatantly false. Now you seem to be suggesting that in the controversy about state capitalism there was a Way that Lenin, and the Bolsheviks saw it. A way that Lenin saw it definatly, but to suggest that the party saw it in one way is to suggest that there was no controvesy in the first place, which again is blatantly false.

Devrim

manic expression

18th January 2008, 16:01

Devrim

18th January 2008, 17:56

Since you're fond of repeating yourself, I will too: please provide some evidence to back up your statements.

I am not sure what statements that you are referring to, but as for evidence for what I have said;

1) The controversy over state capitalism took place in 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

If we introduced state capitalism in approximately 6 months' time we would achieve a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country". "Economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to the present system of economy ...the soviet power has nothing terrible to fear from it, for the soviet State is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is assured

2) The fact that there was division in the party, and not one 'Bolshevik view' is I think shown by the above quotations. Lenin's redponse was to 'demand that the adherents of Kommunist cease their separate organisational existence'

3) The fact that the NEP was introduced in 1921:

The New Economic Policy (NEP) (Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language): Новая экономическая политика - Novaya Ekonomicheskaya Politika or НЭП) was officially decided in the course of the 10th Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Congress_of_the_RCP%28b%29) of the All-Russian Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union). It was promulgated by decree on March 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_21), 1921 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921)

Is that OK? Would you mind trying to back up your points now?

Devrim