Capitalism vs. State Capitalism

[S.O.I]

Wich is worse? What can be done next time to avoid post-marxist-revolutionary state capitalism?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In liberal democracies, state ownership is far more favorable, as they almost always are more scrupulous in their exploitation of workers.

[RHIZOMES]

State capitalism is the stupidest fucking leftist term I've ever heard. Capitalism by itself is state capitalism.

[S.O.I]

State capitalism is the stupidest fucking leftist term I've ever heard. Capitalism by itself is state capitalism.

if capitalism is capitalism, is a debate of its own, but this i believe is a discussion on state controlled monopolist capitalism vs. private free marked capitalism...

[RNK]

Red Ghost has a point; in today's private "free market" capitalism, although not officially, the state is infact in total control of capital, due to the fact that the state is made up of officials who are almost always former or current high-class businessmen and executives.

But state capitalism is different from free market capitalism. The latter introduces the policy of low government interferance with private enterprise, while the former dictates that the state should control the flow of capital.

An example of tendencies of state capitalism are Nazi Germany, where, although private enterprise did exist, it was controlled by the Nazi Party; the government dictated to whom and how capital transactions took place.

Another example of state capitalism is China. There, the Communist Party largely dictates who can do business where and how, although this is slowly being replaced with full-on free marketeering.

I guess the answer to the question is it depends. Really, both are just as bad; both engineer economies to serve and benefit primarily a small number of people. Whether it is at the hands of government officials or "free" entreprenuers seems almost inconsequential.

[Luís Henrique]

Wich is worse? What can be done next time to avoid post-marxist-revolutionary state capitalism?

You have to destroy capitalism; if you don't destroy it, it will still be there.

"State capitalism" refers to two different things. One, it is what we simply call "capitalism" nowadays; monopolist capitalism in which the State plays a central role in orienting the private sector, and sustaining it through deliberate aggregate demand support policies. Like, for instance, in the United States. Two, and wrongly, in the belief that the State "ownership" of means of production makes it a capitalist, and moreso the only capitalist, it refers to the failed soviet-bloc societies, which should be rather called "crippled capitalism".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What we have today is private free market / State run monopolist capitalism, and it is one only entity.

Luís Henrique

[KC]

This question is a false dichotomy; there is no "either-or" to be asked here. Liberal capitalism is the basis for free trade (i.e. free and full exploitation of the working masses). When opposition is levelled at liberal capitalism, the state is employed to mediate that conflict in a way as to keep the workers from overthrowing the system (whether it be bribery through workers' rights or just outright suppression) while at the same time giving the capitalists good terms of exploitation.

The state is called upon when liberal capitalism needs defending, and is therefore not an exception to liberal capitalism but a necessary development from it.

[gla22]

capitalism is bad regardless, but state-capitalism takes the cake as the worst.

[F9]

are equal shitty,capitalism is bad in any way is applied.
But as a vote i voted state run!

Fuserg9:star:

[Leo]

State capitalism is, above all, the full subordination of the state to the capitalist mode of production, it is something that leaves no social independence whatsoever in regards to state mechanisms, that extends the capitalist mode of production into state structures and integrates the state bureaucracy into the bourgeoisie in general, where it takes an active role in it's internal conflicts. Yet this is not just it; as capitalism of the 20th century is a mode of production in decay, the state takes an active role in all aspects of the society, including politics, culture and economy. So as much as nationalization is a state-capitalist process, so is privatization, and all have to do with the states role to help the functioning of the economy. This is the reality of world-capitalism in general as far as we have always known it, and the fundamentals of this tendency existed in stalinist, social democratic, fascist, new deal and third way, third world nationalist and other similar regimes.

[piet11111]

state capitalism leaves room for planning ahead instead of the anarchy of the free market so its less likely to hit a crisis.
and as a system state capitalism has the potential to be slightly less exploitive and could provide social security.

unfortunately state capitalism is also much more powerful and perfectly capable to put the people into even deeper shit then free market capitalism could get away with.

i still go for state capitalism as its more "livable" then a freedman-esque country.

[bootleg42]

State-Capitalism is worse because at least there is a chance that rich powerful bourgeoisie owners could lose everything in a market in real capitalism via "market discipline".

In state-Capitalism, subsidies are given to the major corporations so they don't go through "market discipline" like they could theoretically do under real capitalism (which has not existed for like 100+ years in the major western countries).

Also under real capitalism, you would probably get rebellion of some sort very quickly. Look when they created a free-market paradise in Bolivia at around 2000.

[piet11111]

State-Capitalism is worse because at least there is a chance that rich powerful bourgeoisie owners could lose everything in a market in real capitalism via "market discipline".

In state-Capitalism, subsidies are given to the major corporations so they don't go through "market discipline" like they could theoretically do under real capitalism (which has not existed for like 100+ years in the major western countries).

Also under real capitalism, you would probably get rebellion of some sort very quickly. Look when they created a free-market paradise in Bolivia at around 2000.

too bad the question is not very clear it can be interpreted in 2 ways making us both right
1: which is more exploitive (free market capitalism wins)
2: which is hardest to overthrow (state capitalism wins)

[nvm]

Free Market capitalism died 100 years or more ago.
Monopoly capitalism has existed for the last 100 years or so.
But state capitalism has not existed.
The USSR was not state capitalist

So if by state capitalism you meant the USSR I would certainly vote for that.
But either way state capitalism is an absurd term and a more absurd idea.

[GPDP]

So if by state capitalism you meant the USSR I would certainly vote for that.

I believe by state capitalism, we mean something like the US or Pinochet's Chile. Basically a state-guided free market system, in which the state strongly intervenes in favor of the bourgeois and the corporations, and distributes wealth upwards. IIRC, this is the definition that Chomsky uses to describe the US system (he uses state socialism to describe the USSR). Chomsky even goes so far as to say that this is not actually capitalism, since under real laissez-faire, the government would not bail a corporation out.

Now, can laissez-faire really exist in today's world? I doubt it. State intervention exists primarily because the bourgeois know how harmful the unfettered free market is to the vast majority of the population. Sure, they would like nothing more than not being taxed, and having the full freedom to exploit the workers to their heart's content, but ultimately, workers will not stand up to this if left to their own devices. Enter the state's intervention.

But say we had to choose one or the other, in a morbid, terrible world where they are our only options (preceding a socialist revolution, of course). Which kind is most harmful?

Well, they have pros and cons. A truly laissez-faire society would mean capitalists can exploit us without limit, with no social programs or regulations to speak of. However, it would also mean no bail outs from the government in favor of the capitalists, and it would make systematic repression of the workers much harder, as the state's function as a body of organized violence would be very limited (in this system, the state exists only to secure property rights). Thus, capitalism's instabilities would be made all that much more apparent. So, perhaps in the short run, we'd all be worse off than we are today due to a lack of state protection against the harmful and anti-social effects of capitalism, but the conditions would be sure to radicalize workers very quickly, with little to stand in the way of a mass organization against the ruling class. Plus, it would mean less state intervention into our personal lives. :rolleyes:

State-guided capitalism, on the other hand, is much more flexible. Using a powerful state, the bourgeois have more tools at their disposal, but it also serves to shield us somewhat from the full onslaught of an unfettered free market. The bourgeois can employ the state in several ways, depending on the situation, to keep the system going: a "liberal" approach, and a "conservative" approach (using the US terms, of course). The "liberal" approach could be carried out during periods of discontent, when people are beginning to question if the system is geared to their advantage. Social programs and additional civil liberties could be enacted to keep them docile. If the people begin to demand too much, however, these programs can be taken away, so as to keep the people in their place, followed by a display of force from the state. This is the "conservative" approach. Both are equally reactionary, only differing in means. No matter what, however, the state acts heavily in favor of the capitalists, going well beyond mere protection of property rights, and indeed bailing them out in case of business failure, or even repressing the workers alongside the capitalists so as to help their bottom lines. These displays of power make state capitalism much more stable than its laissez-faire form. So while the capitalist may not always have the full freedom to do what he wishes with us (and he may even be taxed considerably if conditions call for it), in the long run, state power, combined with private power, can make for an extremely powerful and stable system of control that can be very, very hard to overthrow, much more so than with a limited or non-existant state. And of course, the state can, and does, intervene in our personal lives considerably, legislating what we can and cannot do.

Basically, it all boils down to this: whereas the state "lets" the capitalist exploit in laissez-faire, in state-guided capitalism, the state can either limit how the capitalist exploits, or can help him, if necessary. Either way, we lose. But I'd say state capitalism is the greater threat, not only because it is, well, more real, but because it is stronger and more stable. Sure, we may not be subjected to the horrors of 19th century laissez-faire industrial capitalism, and we may even get the odd social program or two, but ultimately, it is a system that oppresses us, and is much more efficient at doing so. Revolution can indeed be very hard in this system.

However, in the same vein, I would like to add that since we are all, for the most part, living under state capitalism, it is important that we not advocate a laissez-faire society as a pre-requisite for socialism. It might be easier to overthrow in theory, but a limited state is one that is hard to influence, and as oppressive as a bourgeois state may be, it can still be influenced in some form or another by the people. In modern times, laissez-faire would mean handing over power to unaccountable corporations. And I can only imagine what may happen should this come to pass. One need only look at countries subjected to neo-liberal reform.

This is all, of course, my observation, some of which was influenced by Chomsky's analysis of capitalism. Some of it might sound contradictory, as I wrote it on the spot, but I suppose all observations are in need of ironing. Tell me if I got something messed up, and I'll acknowledge it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There needs to be differentiation between BOURGEOIS state capitalism (something like Hitler's Nazi Germany, or even post-war Japan) and NON-bourgeois state capitalism (USSR):

Social Proletocracy, Marx, and Lenin's theoretical mistakes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html)

[RevolutionaryKluffinator]

This is painful to discuss.

Either way I'd rebel against both economic systems.

[Niccolò Rossi]

So if by state capitalism you meant the USSR I would certainly vote for that.
But either way state capitalism is an absurd term and a more absurd idea.

Please stop spewing crap. How about you respond to Leo's challenge here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-and-chinese-t81876/index.html) before you go on talking about state capitalism and the "degenerated workers states".

[nvm]

Please stop spewing crap


fuck u u fucking piuece of shit. I dont gove a fuck if I get banned but ur always fucking flamming when ur responding to my posts
I dont know what the fuck is wrong with u but responding like this to my posts will not solve ur problems.
You are a 17 year old with no life and no friends that tries to get attention on revleft.
So fuck u

[Saorsa]

You have to destroy capitalism; if you don't destroy it, it will still be there.

LOL! :lol: Most insightful remark ever!

The meaning of these terms is very loose, so I don't pan on voting for either, but I think we should be clear - there can be and will be no return to the more or less (but never entirely) laissez-faire capitalism of Marx's day. We are living in the age of imperialism, in which monopolies and finance-capital have become dominant and yhere is no longer free competition between individual factory owners.

What's more, as has already been pointed out, the bourgeoisie needs the state. It performs all sorts of useful functions for them, from sending cops to escort scabs across the picket line to bailing out failed business ventures to chucking a few crumbs to the poor and unemployed to keep them from getting too pissed off and pricking their ears up when they hear that commie on the street corner.

It's not a question of what would be better, laissez-faire capitalism or monopoly capitalism with a strong state - the second options is the only option. The question we should be asking is how do we effectively fight against monopoly capitalism and struggle to bring in socialism.

[GPDP]

It is an important matter to discuss nonetheless. Remember that the US is home to a sizable population of so-called "libertarians", whose views are seeing wider support than many of us would like. Though the "libertarian" base is largely composed of "middle class" individuals, some petit-bourgeois, select members of the academia, and, unfortunately, a large segment of the internet, effectively making them a fringe group that excludes the vast majority of both the working class and the bourgeois, their ideas can be used as pro-capitalist propaganda, hidden under the guise of "liberty". And their views are gaining steaming.

Hell, just look at the Ron Paul "Revolution". Though Paul himself was more of a paleo-conservative than a "libertarian", he still commanded a lot of support from people that branded themselves as such. He lasted way too long in the Republican campaign. Sure, most of his support was on the internet, but to last that long and raise so much money... he almost looked viable (to anyone not aware of how campaigns actually work, and who is actually electable, of course). And Bob Barr, the LP candidate, might just secure more votes than any LP candidate before him, possibly because of Ron Paul's campaign.

Not like an LP candidate would ever get into office, of course. But nevertheless, we need to be there to counter such "libertarian" ideas, just as we are (or should be) there to counter liberal, conservative, and fascist ideas. Laissez-faire as a system might be in the past, but there are reactionaries nevertheless working to bring it back, and even if they do not succeed, its very concept will be used as a weapon against us. Which is why we need to explain to people that as shitty as the current system is, the "libertarian" alternative is no better.

[Leo]

fuck u u fucking piuece of shit. I dont gove a fuck if I get banned but ur always fucking flamming when ur responding to my posts
I dont know what the fuck is wrong with u but responding like this to my posts will not solve ur problems.
You are a 17 year old with no life and no friends that tries to get attention on revleft.
So fuck u

nvm, consider this an official warning for flaming.

[Niccolò Rossi]

ur always fucking flamming when ur responding to my posts
I was not intending to flame, I was intending to have your respond to Leo's challenge instead of ignoring him. I found it astounding that you can be challenged over the matter of state capitalism only a few days prior, ignore the comment completely and then can come here can repeat yourself!


I dont know what the fuck is wrong with u but responding like this to my posts will not solve ur problems.

Quite frankly nvm, responding like this will not solve your own either. All I want you to do is actually answer Leo and if you can't, stop stop repeating yourself over when you can't respond to Leo.


You are a 17 year old with no life and no friends that tries to get attention on revleft.

Wow, here I was thinking I was flamming...

Please, nvm, you get a hard time around here but there is no need to react like this.

[Malakangga]

i choose the second one