State Capitalism

[Vendetta]

What exactly does this term mean? The state acts as the capitalist class?

[ZeroNowhere]

That the state in its political sense (ie. 'the government'), or just its upper echelons, are equivalent to the capitalist class.

[GPDP]

It depends on who you ask. Some Marxists use the term to refer to the Soviet Union, wherein, they argue, those in charge of the state apparatus became a new capitalist class of sorts. Though the economy was planned, the state, which handled economic planning, basically acted like one huge corporation to which everyone was an employee.

Others, such as Chomsky, use a slightly more confusing definition, using it to distinguish "really-existing capitalism" from the free market, laissez-faire capitalist economy advocated by the classical liberals, and more vulgarly, the doctrine espoused by modern economists and "libertarians". It basically means state-guided capitalism, as opposed to state-run capitalism. For the later, Chomsky reserves the term "state socialism".

[ComradeOm]

And yet more others, including Lenin, used the term to describe the emergence of state driven monopoly capitalism that emerged in the war economies of the West during WWI. So its a term with quite a bit of history behind it

[Vendetta]

Well, ah, what would be the most-used definition of it?

Thanks for the replies, though.

[GPDP]

Sadly, like I said, it really does depend on who you ask, and who you're talking to. But if I were to guess, it would probably be the first definition I identified.

[spice756]

I believe the proper definition is private business under state control. Having a free market and running it in a capitalist way.There was no private business or free market in the USSR .Every thing was state run.So it was not state Capitalism.

Just a upper communist party members who became a ruling class and exploiting the people.And these upper communist party members not putting the money into the economy.So many factories had old parts and in stores and very little to buy.

Now some of them may have run things in a capitalism way and profiting of back of the workers but it still was state run. There was no agency making sure the communist party members and misters where getting same pay has the workers .So those communist party members and misters had a nice house and lots of money and became CEO.

The worker council could not vote to recall the evile communist party members or misters.And there was no agency making sure they got same pay has the workers.The police could not put corrupted communist party members or misters in jail they where too powerful.You could not recall communist party members or misters or call a election.

The worker council did not have authority over the communist party members or misters .

It was state run not State Capitalism.The debate part did they run things in a Capitalism way or put profit in charge ( being state run).But again there was no private business or free market in the USSR.Or any business under state control.

Just communist party members and misters exploiting the people and taking all money and profit for them self.They ran the plan economy bad because they don't care and not putting the money into the economy but for them self.

So roads ,bridgeses ,hospitals and factories had shitty service well communist party members and misters living in nice house ,nice car and lots of money.There was no protocols in place to stop this and it derailed after revolution.

[Yehuda Stern]

Over the course of the development of capitalism, the capitalists have discovered that some vital aspects of the economy are unprofitable and have thus relegated their administration to the state. If you look, for example, at transport, even many capitalist countries that have adopted a very aggressive neo-liberal economic stance still have train and bus services nationalized (this is the case in Israel; I'm not sure about America). This did not make these companies any less capitalist - it just meant that the state stood in for the capitalists in their running.

After WWII, the state apparatus in all capitalist states expanded dramatically. A large segment of the middle class now owed its living standards to the state. This strengthened the impression among this segment that the capitalist state can indeed by used to moderate capitalism and alleviate the living standards of the masses.

State capitalism, then, is no invention. It is a tendency inherent in capitalism, but its strength is set by many factors, including the strength of the working class - which is in opposite proportion to the tendency, as too many nationalizations serves to unmask the class character of capitalism and make the state too ripe for the workers' taking.

After WWII, many regimes aping Stalinist Russia were set up without a workers' revolution, and in many cases, without any sort of revolution. As both the capitalists and the workers were too weak to take power, the middle class and peasantry stepped in, nationalizing all the means of production. The states became state capitalist; those ex-Trotskyists who became through the expansion of the state part of the middle class saw a society in which the middle class was central to the regime, and this was very tempting to them. They called these societies anything from 'socialist' to 'deformed workers state.' In any case, these theories were an abandonment of the Marxist idea that only the workers can create a workers' state, let alone a socialist one.

I hope this answers the question.

[spice756]

Over the course of the development of capitalism, the capitalists have discovered that some vital aspects of the economy are unprofitable and have thus relegated their administration to the state. If you look, for example, at transport, even many capitalist countries that have adopted a very aggressive neo-liberal economic stance still have train and bus services nationalized (this is the case in Israel; I'm not sure about America). This did not make these companies any less capitalist - it just meant that the state stood in for the capitalists in their running.

I don't know what your post has to do with this thread.But how can you have police ,army ,fire ,transit,post office ,libary ,road work for the city be in the private sector ? Some stuff just has to be under the state.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't know what your post has to do with this thread.But how can you have police ,army ,fire ,transit,post office ,libary ,road work for the city be in the private sector ? Some stuff just has to be under the state.

You could, certainly. Why wouldn't you think so?
The 'anarcho'-capitalists have figured out how to privatize the state, it appears (they tend to use the Weberian definition, and it still applies).

[Valeofruin]

How has The Soviet Union Dominated this conversation with no mention of China?

What of Nazi Germany? *insert dispute over Nazi Policy reguarding small business*

I think far better examples of State Capitalism can be found here. You guys are just attempting to Stalin bash to be honest.

I doubt you have much of an interest in actually answering the question; just manipulating it, using it as a chance to show that your idealology is superior and that Marxism-Leninism is *actually* State Capitalist.

[Comrade_Red]

How has The Soviet Union Dominated this conversation with no mention of China?

What of Nazi Germany? *insert dispute over Nazi Policy reguarding small business*

I think far better examples of State Capitalism can be found here. You guys are just attempting to Stalin bash to be honest.

I doubt you have much of an interest in actually answering the question; just manipulating it, using it as a chance to show that your idealology is superior and that Marxism-Leninism is *actually* State Capitalist.

Rofl, right you are.

[spice756]

How has The Soviet Union Dominated this conversation with no mention of China?

What of Nazi Germany? *insert dispute over Nazi Policy reguarding small business*

I think far better examples of State Capitalism can be found here. You guys are just attempting to Stalin bash to be honest.

I doubt you have much of an interest in actually answering the question; just manipulating it, using it as a chance to show that your idealology is superior and that Marxism-Leninism is *actually* State Capitalist.


That was not what I was trying to do at all.I'm just sick of State Capitalism this ,State Capitalism this and State Capitalism that so on for every communist country .

And talk to anyone here at revleft everyone has their own definition of what State Capitalism is.This topic of what State Capitalism is and was the USSR State Capitalism needs to be cleared up so we are all on the same page. My definition is private business under state control. Having a free market and running it in a capitalist way

You got other definition please post.Has for USSR see my post above.

[Catbus]

I always think of it as capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately so to speak, so state capitalism is when the state owns the means of production. I'm sure there's a lot more to it though.

[eyedrop]

I always think of it as capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately so to speak, so state capitalism is when the state owns the means of production. I'm sure there's a lot more to it though.
I find controlled to be clearer. In capitalism the means of production is controlled privately, while in state capitalism the means of production is controlled by the high-up beauracrats, which uses them in ways resembling what a capitalist would do.


I would prefer to have them controlled by beauracrats instead of capitalists though, as they are in some ways more accountable than capitalists. Or even better yet by the workers, either through direct democracy and federalism, made way easier the internet, or through demarchy.

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't know what your post has to do with this thread.

It is a thread about state capitalism. My post is about... state capitalism. That sums things up as far as the connection goes.


How has The Soviet Union Dominated this conversation with no mention of China?

Since the USSR was the only state to have been born out of a workers' revolution, pre-1945 no one would even think to suggest any other state could be a workers' state. The conception that nationalization of industry = socialism is relatively new to those claiming to be Marxists. That's why when dealing with the class nature of the Stalinist states, I personally prefer to talk about the USSR.


What of Nazi Germany?

Fascist states had a very natural tendency towards state capitalism, but it was never completed. In fact, historically, state capitalist regimes have risen only from failed revolutions.


I think far better examples of State Capitalism can be found here. You guys are just attempting to Stalin bash to be honest.

I certainly like to bash Stalin, not only because it's necessary but because it's so easy. But no, I'm actually trying to show that the USSR and the other Stalinist states were all in fact capitalist from the late 30s and on.


I doubt you have much of an interest in actually answering the question; just manipulating it, using it as a chance to show that your idealology is superior and that Marxism-Leninism is *actually* State Capitalist.

Yeah, you really got me here.

[cb9's_unity]

State Capitalism is nothing more than an insult levied against a group a certain socialist may not like.

Ignore the term because anything labeled State Capitalism can always be given a different definition that is more accurate and less biased.

[ComradeOm]

Fascist states had a very natural tendency towards state capitalism, but it was never completed. In fact, historically, state capitalist regimes have risen only from failed revolutionsA statement that only holds true when using the Cliff definition. Although I can see why people might consider Nazi Germany to be more capitalist than Soviet Russia.... what with the former having capitalists and all

[Yehuda Stern]

Ignore the term because anything labeled State Capitalism can always be given a different definition that is more accurate and less biased.

Yeah, I mean, people wrote whole posts here defining and debating state capitalism, but this guy just comes in and claims that it's made up to insult people, so ignore it.


A statement that only holds true when using the Cliff definition.

That's weird, since I have said again and again that I do not use the Cliff definition. Strange that you would repeat that line then. I wouldn't dare speculate that you're just trying to slander, here.


Although I can see why people might consider Nazi Germany to be more capitalist than Soviet Russia.... what with the former having capitalists and all

How clever! Only the essence of capitalism is making labor into a commodity and exploiting the labor of the working class, which obviously existed in the USSR.

[ComradeOm]

That's weird, since I have said again and again that I do not use the Cliff definition. Strange that you would repeat that line then. I wouldn't dare speculate that you're just trying to slander, hereBecause God forbid that someone make an honest mistake. Believe it or not I do not track and avidly read all your posts Yehuda ;)

Now in this thread you've pretty much reiterated the classic Cliffite critique of the "state capitalist" USSR and renounced the traditional Trotskyite theories of deformed/degenerated workers state. But please, feel free to expand on your differences with Cliff on this issue


How clever! Only the essence of capitalism is making labor into a commodity and exploiting the labor of the working class, which obviously existed in the USSR.Except that the central aspect of capitalism is missing. If we were to boil the entire economic system down to a single formula (don't do this at home kids) you'd arrive at Marx's famous equation - M-C-M. Capital produces commodities which in turn result in capital. That's essentially the workings of the market yet it was missing entirely from the USSR. As was "the unceasing movement of profit-making" and the bourgeoisie itself!

Now I can understand the appeal of labelling the Soviet Union as state capitalist, it certainly has a nice ring to it, but if so it was capitalism without capitalism; an economic model fundamentally different from every prior system, capitalist or otherwise. When Lenin or Trotsky referred to state capitalism they talked about the war economies of Europe in which the state took a central role in directing the business of capitalists. Not a system in which capitalists themselves did not exist

[spice756]

I always think of it as capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately so to speak, so state capitalism is when the state owns the means of production. I'm sure there's a lot more to it though.

But there was no free market or private business .You will not find 2 or 3 shoe companies own by the state competing for profit and market control.

It was a monopoly of central planning no private business ,market ,competitors, competition .

Now Fascism Spain ,Italy and Germany was private business under state control.Has the USS there was no private business ,market ,competitors and competition .

The thing is the USSR did not believe in private property ,market ,competitors and competition .They wanted a monopoly of central planning own by state .

[Yehuda Stern]

Now in this thread you've pretty much reiterated the classic Cliffite critique of the "state capitalist" USSR and renounced the traditional Trotskyite theories of deformed/degenerated workers state.Actually, my state capitalist critique is nothing like that of Cliff, nor is the concept of deformed workers' states Trotskyist in any way (it was invented by the Pabloists many years after Trotsky's death). So, two mistakes in one sentence.


feel free to expand on your differences with Cliff on this issueFine. I had a post about this a while back, once I'll find I'll post it here.


Capital produces commodities which in turn result in capital. That's essentially the workings of the market yet it was missing entirely from the USSR. As was "the unceasing movement of profit-making" and the bourgeoisie itself!Except the difference between a capitalist ruling class existing as a bourgeoisie or as a bureaucracy which controls the state is a difference in form alone, while the essence of exploitation and profit making existed very much in the USSR (please do not expect people to be so stupid as to not see that the Stalinist bureaucracy made profits from the work of Soviet workers).

So, to keep with your pompous tone, I can understand the appeal of presenting the USSR as some workers' state or progressive society for someone who doesn't really believe in a workers' revolution, as the USSR was a "safe" type of "socialism," which is why many liberals supported the Stalinist regime in the 1930s and the 1940s. However, it doesn't really fit with reality too much.


But there was no free market or private business .You will not find 2 or 3 shoe companies own by the state competing for profit and market control.

It was a monopoly of central planning no private business ,market ,competitors, competition .

Competition doesn't define capitalism - it's just one way in which its laws are executed. The lack of competition made the USSR's capitalism very shaky and inefficient, which is why it lost to western imperialism, but no less capitalist.

[Yehuda Stern]

Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1225531&postcount=5).

[ComradeOm]

Actually, my state capitalist critique is nothing like that of Cliff, nor is the concept of deformed workers' states Trotskyist in any way (it was invented by the Pabloists many years after Trotsky's death). So, two mistakes in one sentencePablo, despite the infamously byzantine bickering of various Trot sects, was a Trotskyite. And your apparent divergence from Cliff, based on the link posted, is more a matter of dates and the foreplay of the workers state. Now back to the semantics...

Although for what its worth I'd consider both of you to have got it backwards. The USSR ceased to be a state capitalist economy in 1929 with the demise of the NEP. That economic programme, similar to that of wartime Britain/France or Nazi Germany, maintained the hallmarks of capitalism - market and actual capitalists - while subjecting them to heavy regulation and distortion. Hence you have capitalism directed by the state


Except the difference between a capitalist ruling class existing as a bourgeoisie or as a bureaucracy which controls the state is a difference in form aloneWell I can't argue with that. Its certainly true that the Western bourgeoisie and Soviet bureaucracy were completely different in form

Now, as for the 'essence' of exploitation... well this is where your conclusions break down under class analysis. The basic reasoning behind the theory is that the labour of wage workers were being exploited and therefore the USSR had to have been capitalist in some way or form. I'm sure you can spot the unfounded leap of logic? The fact that the USSR was completely different, "in form", to existing capitalist societies does not seem to perturb you - nor does the complete absence of the bourgeoisie or market mechanisms

Why insist that a society be either capitalist OR socialist? Is it not possible that a new form of class society could have developed in the years since Marx's death. That is, one in which the capitalist class was eradicated without the emergence of a victorious proletariat? Such a society would effectively be an aberration, lost in limbo until crushed from pressure either above or below? But then I digress, the point is that this is not a binary question and that state capitalism is a clumsy attempt to force a square object into a round hole


...please do not expect people to be so stupid as to not see that the Stalinist bureaucracy made profits from the work of Soviet workersDid the Soviet economy support a wealthy upper layer? Of course, but then that is hardly unique to capitalism. What is different is that this layer was not comprised of those who invested capital. Those who were responsible for the control of capital in the Soviet economy (the raison d'etre of capitalists) were salaried bureaucrats. That is an essential break with the very 'essence' of the capitalist mode of production


Competition doesn't define capitalism - it's just one way in which its laws are executedCorrect, it is the existence of the market that defines capitalism

[revolution inaction]

Correct, it is the existence of the market that defines capitalism

No a market existed well before capitalism, the defining feature of capitalism is wage labor

[Yehuda Stern]

Pablo, despite the infamously byzantine bickering of various Trot sects, was a Trotskyite.

He called himself a Trotskyist, and if that's enough for you (and since you use 30s Stalinist slurs, I suppose it is), then that's fine, but it certainly doens't mean I have to accept it.


And your apparent divergence from Cliff, based on the link posted, is more a matter of dates and the foreplay of the workers state.

Bullshit. The link details principled differences with Cliff's theory. That you lie now, though, is not surprising, as you were also lying previously when you pretended not to know that our theory of SC is not the same as Cliff's.


The USSR ceased to be a state capitalist economy in 1929 with the demise of the NEP. That economic programme, similar to that of wartime Britain/France or Nazi Germany, maintained the hallmarks of capitalism - market and actual capitalists - while subjecting them to heavy regulation and distortion.

This is such a superficial analysis. Are you really trying to argue here that under Lenin, the USSR was state capitalist, but under Stalin it became socialist?


Now, as for the 'essence' of exploitation... well this is where your conclusions break down under class analysis.

Ah, this sounds interesting. Let's see where he goes with this.


The fact that the USSR was completely different, "in form", to existing capitalist societies does not seem to perturb you - nor does the complete absence of the bourgeoisie or market mechanisms


Oh, I get it - you meant "superficial analysis of forms," not class analysis. Unfortunately, such an analysis breaks down nothing - especially considering that the USSR had market mechanisms, enforced by the "plan" and the authority of the managers.


Why insist that a society be either capitalist OR socialist? Is it not possible that a new form of class society could have developed in the years since Marx's death.

Oh, I get it, you're a "third system" guy. Well, no, it is impossible that a new form of class society, which served no historical role and was actually inferior to the existing mode of production actually arose. That stands in total contradiction to Marxist theory.


Correct, it is the existence of the market that defines capitalism

No, no, no. It's the commodification of wage labor that defines capitalism. The market, that's a good one...

[ComradeOm]

That you lie now, though, is not surprising, as you were also lying previously when you pretended not to know that our theory of SC is not the same as Cliff'sLet me make this clear: I do not know you. We have had how many interactions on this site - two, three? If even that. So drop the ego and accept that I do not track your various ideological positions. I certainly do not follow your stances vis-à-vis the myriad internecine Trotskyist feuds. In short, I do not know you. Frankly, on the basis of this encounter alone, I not real desire to change this


This is such a superficial analysis. Are you really trying to argue here that under Lenin, the USSR was state capitalist, but under Stalin it became socialist?Incorrect on two counts. Unlike yourself, I'll assume this was ignorance rather than deliberate deceit

In the first place I said absolutely nothing about socialism. At no point in this thread have I contended that Stalin presided over a socialist state/economy. That much is straightforward

Now here is the rather more interesting mistake. There is a tendency, particularly amongst those who subscribe to 'state capitalist' theories, to pay far more attention to political manoeuvrings in the USSR than they deserve in this context. Possibly attempting to give more weight to Trotsky's role, but I digress. So we get disagreements over whether the USSR became sate capitalist with the "smashing" of the various oppositions or the death of Lenin, etc, etc. When considering the economic mode of the Soviet Union is far more important to pay attention to the economic transformations themselves. Now here we have three relatively clear cut phases with fairly concrete dates of introduction - War Communism (1918-'21), NEP (1921-'28), and Planned Economy (1928-). Given that these dates do not exactly marry up with upheavals in the political sphere, we can say that both Lenin and Stalin were heads of both state capitalist and planned economic systems

Of those very different economic phases, we can say that War Communism was undoubtedly a brave attempt to create a moneyless socialist economy that was fatally undermined by both Russia's backwardness and the pressures of civil war. It never lived up to its promise and was constantly underpinned by a huge black market (dwarfing illegal transactions in later decades). In contrast the NEP was a moderately successful (read: stable) economy but one that ticks all the boxes of a state capitalist economy. The market existed along with private enterprise, profit and loss accounting, unemployment, and a money economy. The state was a constant and huge distorting presence in managing the market and capital flows (particularly with regard to the foreign balance of payments) but by and large the economy's operations were carried out by market mechanisms and individual capitalists. That this was a "retreat" from War Communism was freely admitted by Lenin


Oh, I get it, you're a "third system" guy. Well, no, it is impossible that a new form of class society, which served no historical role and was actually inferior to the existing mode of production actually arose. That stands in total contradiction to Marxist theoryInferior? Now this really pisses me off. Not that you are simply swallowing bourgeois propaganda but that you are the one claiming the 'correct Marxist' interpretation when your analysis is completely devoid of historical, class, or material analysis. Instead of just throwing out bullshit about the "inferiority" of the Soviet economy, why don't you actually do some reading on it and its emergence? You might learn that the planned economy was a measured and reasonable response to the relative stagnation of the NEP and the perceived need to radically transform Soviet society. In doing so it proved perfectly capable of meeting and overcoming the challenges facing the new Soviet ruling class during the 1920s and 30s. You might also learn about the actual reasons for its eventual failure (besides its inherent "inferiority") and the developing material conditions for the reassertion of capitalist rule in Russia

I'd recommend Ellman's Socialist Planning or The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union (1913-1945) by Davies et al. Alternatively Alec Nove has written a number of in-depth, if ugly, works on the development of this economy. You won't read them but at least I tried


No, no, no. It's the commodification of wage labor that defines capitalism. The market, that's a good one...No, that's merely an means to an end. Specifically the accumulation of capital through the sale of commodities. That labour power is intrinsically bound up in the process should not distract from this. As I said in my above post, if there is one formula that every Marxist should know by heart then it is M-C-M

[Junius]

Alternatively Alec Nove has written a number of in-depth, if ugly, works on the development of this economy. You won't read them but at least I tried I've read his Economic History of the Soviet Union (or a similar title). You are quite right, it is horrible.


No, that's merely an means to an end. Specifically the accumulation of capital through the sale of commodities. That labour power is intrinsically bound up in the process should not distract from this. As I said in my above post, if there is one formula that every Marxist should know by heart then it is M-C-M Except:


Originally written by Marx
So, too, the economic categories, already discussed by us, bear the stamp of history. Definite historical conditions are necessary that a product may become a commodity. It must not be produced as the immediate means of subsistence of the producer himself. Had we gone further, and inquired under what circumstances all, or even the majority of products take the form of commodities, we should have found that this can only happen with production of a very specific kind, capitalist production. Such an inquiry, however, would have been foreign to the analysis of commodities. Production and circulation of commodities can take place, although the great mass of the objects produced are intended for the immediate requirements of their producers, are not turned into commodities, and consequently social production is not yet by a long way dominated in its length and breadth by exchange-value.

The appearance of products as commodities pre-supposes such a development of the social division of labour, that the separation of use-value from exchange-value, a separation which first begins with barter, must already have been completed. But such a degree of development is common to many forms of society, which in other respects present the most varying historical features. On the other hand, if we consider money, its existence implies a definite stage in the exchange of commodities. The particular functions of money which it performs, either as the mere equivalent of commodities, or as means of circulation, or means of payment, as hoard or as universal money, point, according to the extent and relative preponderance of the one function or the other, to very different stages in the process of social production. Yet we know by experience that a circulation of commodities relatively primitive, suffices for the production of all these forms. Otherwise with capital. The historical conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power. And this one historical condition comprises a world’s history. Capital, therefore, announces from its first appearance a new epoch in the process of social production.and


Originally written by Marx
The capitalist epoch is therefore characterised by this, that labour-power takes in the eyes of the labourer himself the form of a commodity which is his property; his labour consequently becomes wage-labour. On the other hand, it is only from this moment that the produce of labour universally becomes a commodity.

[gla22]

State capitalism: Capital is accumulated solely by the state giving the state a monopoly. Read Tony Cliffs State Capitalism in Russia.