Log in

View Full Version : Tony Cliff's 'unique' idea.



Devrim
19th January 2008, 07:05
From a thread in the Trotskyists section:
The Socialist Workers Party offers a unique analysis of the Soviet Union, and the other countries which comprised the former Soviet Bloc. This theory is known as State-Capitalism.

The idea is not particularly unique. It was first advanced by the communist left 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

Ante Ciliga developed on the idea in his book the Russian Enigma in (published in 1938, but written earlier. His position was taken up by the ex-Trotskyists of the Revolutionare Kommunisten Deutschlands (RKD) who broke with the idea of the defence of the workers state, and defined the USSR as state capitalist. The Italian fraction of the communist left also broke from the idea of
the great lie of the ‘proletarian nature’ of the Russian state and to show it for what it is, to reveal its counter-revolutionary, capitalist and imperialist nature and function. It is enough to note that the goal of production remains the extraction of surplus value, to affirm the capitalist character of the economy

In the UK the Anti Parliamentary Communist Federation stated in its Principles, and tactics published in 1935:

Lenin's utopian idea of a 'Workers' State' is in essence State Capitalism. The NEP is capitalist economics, through and through. Wage labour is the basis of capitalism. Russian society is no exception -- high or low wages have no bearing on the question. The productivity of labour increases out of all proportion to wages which means a relative decline in the value of labour-power and the abject pauperisation of the working class as a whole. To say that unemployment in Russia is non-existent is to reveal that industrial development has not reached that stage where the agrarian population has been completely absorbed in wage labour.

Wage labour gives rise to commodity production and capitalist relations, therefore, the control of the means of production and exchange in the hands of the state and not the proletariat. State Capitalism presupposes wage slavery, and a slavery that becomes more brutal in character as the productive forces of labour develops. The Russian proletariat is learning why failure followed the initial success of the Bolshevik Party. The CI in exploiting Bolshevik traditions to divert the proletariat from the International character of the revolution cannot always succeed. The impetus once set in motion will raise the Marxian slogan: Abolition of the wages system!

Cliff would have been aware of at least some of these currents particularly the RKD as it came from Trotskyism. To claim that in 1947 when Cliff started to talk about state capitalism that it was a unique idea is distorting the record somewhat.

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit
19th January 2008, 07:14
More important, Lenin advanced that idea quite a bit, including in his works The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm) (written earlier than the Kommunist article above) and Left-Wing Childishness (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) (the immediate response to that Kommunist article above) :)

Later on, in 1920, he implied that once more in The Trade Unions and Trotsky's Mistakes (which the overly Trotskyist marxists.org won't dare to publish on their website :( ) when speaking of "not actually a workers' state but a workers' and peasants' state."

Devrim
19th January 2008, 07:21
More important, Lenin advanced that idea quite a bit, including in his works The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm) and Left-Wing Childishness (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) :)

Yes, but Lenin is defending it as a positive thing. It is a little different from Cliff's analysis. Certainly Cliff would have read these works though, and quite possibly the 'Thesis on the current situation'. He would have been aware of the left communists ideas on state capitalism.

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit
19th January 2008, 07:24
Yes, but Lenin is defending it as a positive thing.

At that point in Russia's development (and while I agree with you on the basics of "decadence," I don't think that all of its features were there that early already, when considering the abandonment of the gold standard, the explosion of debt, etc.), primitive stamocap (see my old "Stamocap" thread), coupled with the talk of "Taylorism" and scientific management, was/is nothing else short of being an absolutely good thing. :)

BobKKKindle$
19th January 2008, 07:24
I actually meant it was 'unique' in the sense that the rest of the Trotskyist left accepts the degenerated workers' state analysis advanced by Trotsky in 'The Revolution Betrayed' and the SWP has often been criticised for not accepting this aspect of Trotskyism. To my knowledge, the SWP was the first politically significant organisation to raise State Capitalism as a central part of it's theoretical analysis, and to apply this position to the politics of the Cold War. For example, other Trotskyists supported the USSR in proxy wars against the United States, but the SWP refused to support either side and argued for a revolutionary course independent from the control of the USSR and the United States. Also, unlike other Trotskyists, the SWP welcomed the collapse of the USSR as a positive development, as it would open a space for a new radicalisation and the emergence of a new workers' party.

I was not trying to suggest that Cliff had made a theoretical development without drawing on the ideas of previous Marxists - as you point out, this would be a gross distortion of how the theory of State-Capitalism came to exist, and would un-necessarily raise the profile of Cliff and the SWP. However, I maintain that Cliff (and other SWP members such as Mike Haynes, who showed how the Soviet Union's recent transition to a market economy supports the theory) made an essential contribution to this line of analysis, as Cliff wrote an extended essay on this subject, in which he uses empirical evidence and and a theoretical analysis of how we understand the concepts of class and property, in order to argue his position.

I don't think this warrants a thread - and I believe members are not actually supposed to make threads specifically in order to attack comments made by others. If you wanted to query this, you could have sent me a private message.

If it really bothers you, I will remove or elaborate on my comment.

Devrim
19th January 2008, 07:25
and Left-Wing Childishness (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) (the immediate response to that Kommunist article above)
It is actually a response to an earlier article 'Theses on the Present Situation':
http://libcom.org/library/theses-left-communists-russia-1918
Devrim

kromando33
19th January 2008, 07:30
Wow, so Trotskyists are now abandoning Lenin too, I thought they upheld Leninism? So if the NEP was capitalist then what do they make of Stalin's abolition of it and replacing it with full collectivization of industry and agriculture? I spose the half-baked Trots will invent some new 'state capitalist' conspiracy theory to explain that also, rather than using Marxist analysis.

Die Neue Zeit
19th January 2008, 07:32
^^^ As I said above, Lenin advanced (ie, advanced but from the position that it's a good thing) that theory as early as 1917.

Devrim
19th January 2008, 07:37
I don't think this warrants a thread

I think it does. SWP members are always going on about Cliff's unique analysis. I think it is fair comment to point out that it is not particularly unique.


and I believe members are not actually supposed to make threads specifically in order to attack comments made by others.

It is a political point. Actually, I should have put it in theory, my mistake.


To my knowledge, the SWP was the first politically significant organisation to raise State Capitalism as a central part of it's theoretical analysis, and to apply this position to the politics of the Cold War

Well it seems that your knowledge is quite lacking then, Bob. Also forerunner of the SWP was a tiny group at the time, and no more significant than other groups with the same position.


For example, other Trotskyists supported the USSR in proxy wars against the United States, but the SWP refused to support either side and argued for a revolutionary course independent from the control of the USSR and the United States.

And they managed to keep it up for how many years? True on Korea they did take an internationalist position, but they had abandoned this by the time the Vietnam war started.


However, I maintain that Cliff (and other SWP members such as Mike Haynes, who showed how the Soviet Union's recent transition to a market economy supports the theory) made an essential contribution to this line of analysis, as Cliff wrote an extended essay on this subject, in which he uses empirical evidence and and a theoretical analysis of how we understand the concepts of class and property, in order to argue his position.

I don't know Haynes, but Cliff's work is in my opinion weak, and certainly unoriginal. Most of it had been said before.

Devrim

kromando33
19th January 2008, 07:46
Also NEP was never meant to be a permanent economic policy, Lenin's only use for it was as a transition phase to complete socialization of productive modes.

However, it does make opportunistic sense that the Trots are abandoning Lenin, because when you look at his works, his policies etc and look how seamless the continuation of Leninism was to Stalin's policies, it makes sense now that the Trots want to distance themselves from Lenin, because his policies were naturally continued by their mythical bogeymen Stalin.

I wonder who the Trots will abandon next, I guess the next logical step is Marx and Engels themselves, then all that will be left is the spiritualist/idealist cult that is Trotskyism.

Tower of Bebel
19th January 2008, 09:22
Later on, in 1920, he implied that once more in The Trade Unions and Trotsky's Mistakes (which the overly Trotskyist marxists.org won't dare to publish on their website :( ) when speaking of "not actually a workers' state but a workers' and peasants' state."


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm You mean: The trade unions, the present situation and Trotsky's mistakes?

Zurdito
19th January 2008, 11:18
To be fair, I don't believe Cliff himself ever denied his sources on this issue.

Devrim
19th January 2008, 11:47
To be fair, I don't believe Cliff himself ever denied his sources on this issue.

Really, the way I heard it was that he woke up one morning and suddenly realised. I don't imagine Cliff acknowledging the sources at all.

Devrim