State Capitalist= Socialist

[Woland]

Is it not the same thing? I'd like to get a more scientific Marxist view.

Concentrating capital in the hands of the state (i.e. state-capitalist) for due distribution (which happens naturally), taken from the bourgeoisie private ownership seems to make it be a plain model for socialism, when communism being the abolition of property and hence capital; to put it in a simple model like this.

So does this not make nothing of all the claim by poeple that for example, the USSR was ''state-capitalist'' which by marxist viewpoint mean socialist? Or then, is there a difference but a connection between state-capitalist and socialist,like where the former advances to become the latter?

Just learning..

[ZeroNowhere]

"Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled, and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. -- That is socialism, nothing short of that."
Just because there are different capitalists, it doesn't suddenly mean that we are on a road to socialism somehow, nor that class collaborationism becomes correct.

[Woland]

What ''different capitalists''? The state cannot function as a capitalist class. I DO NOT mean this. You either have capitalism or socialism, but with capitalism you must still have private ownership and hence classes. The state here is the ownership and administration of production by the people as opposed to the bourgeoisie. It might be very difficult to understand what I mean though, sorry, thats why I asked for an answer out of Marxist theory, with 'state-capitalist' basically meaning the same as socialist, i.e. getting rid of private property and making it collective property.

[revolution inaction]

your completely wrong here, capitalism is where the means of production are controlled/owned by a minority and the everyone else is forced to sell the labour, of cause the owners are rarely the state so when it is we use the term state capitalist to make it clear.
Nether is it the case that nationalization equals control by the workers, state ownership is not the same as collective ownership.

[Tower of Bebel]

Capitalist production of commodities under full state control. Socialism has no capital involved, and neither is a state fully in control of production. Nationalization, neither under capitalism nor under control of a conscious vanguard party is a requierment for socialist production relations. Socialism is about full workers' control and the abolishment of capital.

[Woland]

What I mean by ''state capitalist'' is that the state controls all the capital in the country, and because it is not a class and does not act like a class, etc. this wealth belongs to the general society, making it socialist. Of course nationalization is not control of the workers, but state ownership is definitely collective ownership, even by law and in a society where all property belongs to the state.

Edit: Hmmm, Rakunin, can you elaborate on that? You say that state control is not a requirement, so how can coordinated worker's control be and how can it come about? Even if it is not needed, isnt it a bit easier to go with it? Thanks for the answer though, thats the kind I needed.

[Tower of Bebel]

Edit: Hmmm, Rakunin, can you elaborate on that? You say that state control is not a requirement, so how can coordinated worker's control be and how can it come about? Even if it is not needed, isnt it a bit easier to go with it? Thanks for the answer though, thats the kind I needed.
Requirement is the wrong word, sorry. The question is however what kind of state? State control itself is not socialist (as in: a socialist relation of production), though it can be socialist in its intension (hence the name Union of Socialist Soviet Republics). But this intension is not enough to guarantee socialism. A state means the rule of one class over/against another. For socialism classes need to be abolished. Socialism also isn't state capitalism, because socialism doesn't create capital. Socialism is abundance (which does away with the reason d'être of capital and money) and full workers' control (which does away with a classes). The kind of state that is born out of these conditions is a comune state (even more than the Paris Commune). Which isn't a state in the actual sense of the word, because it isn't a tool of one class against the other.
That might be the reason why marx didn't distinguish between socialism and communism (only between communism of the 1st fase and communism of the 2nd fase). Both fases look much alike. The only difference is that socialism is not a fixed stage but just the transition between a revolution and communism of the 2nd fase.

[ZeroNowhere]

That might be the reason why marx didn't distinguish between socialism and communism (only between communism of the 1st fase and communism of the 2nd fase). Both fases look much alike. The only difference is that socialism is not a fixed stage but just the transition between a revolution and communism of the 2nd fase.
The actual reason being that he used 'socialism' and 'communism' as synonyms.


What I mean by ''state capitalist'' is that the state controls all the capital in the country, and because it is not a class
And why can the government (or just its upper echelons) not form a class just because they're a part of the government? If they control all the means of production in the country, as opposed to the working class, then they are certainly a separate class.


Of course nationalization is not control of the workers, but state ownership is definitely collective ownership, even by law and in a society where all property belongs to the state.
So what, state ownership of the US army means that there is suddenly collective ownership of it?
How exactly does the means of production being in the hands of an oligarchy, rather than divided between various capitalists, mean that it is now collectively owned?

[Woland]

And why can the government (or just its upper echelons) not form a class just because they're a part of the government? If they control all the means of production in the country, as opposed to the working class, then they are certainly a separate class.

Yes, in this case they are definitely a class of their own, simply because they are still the bourgeoisie class, owning the means of production, just now they are also the government.

Really, you just have a demented vision of a government and the state. The people in a government do not actually own the production, its the property of the state, hence collective property by its own right. Now, if induvidual members of the government actually -owned- the factories and things and made profit out of it, then it would simply no longer be state-owned. So then, there can be no serious control if this is not the case.



So what, state ownership of the US army means that there is suddenly collective ownership of it?
How exactly does the means of production being in the hands of an oligarchy, rather than divided between various capitalists, mean that it is now collectively owned?

What the hell does the US army have to do with being a method of production?? Thats a pretty strange example, but still, yes it does- the army is there to protect us all (well, atleast thats what it should so).

To the second part; yes, there is no difference! But once again, the government does not itself own the method of production, it belongs to the state! State ownership means it belongs to all people within the state which themselves constitute the state.

Anyway, Rakunin, thanks for the answer, I'm pretty much finished now.

[Tower of Bebel]

Btw, capitalism doesn't need a ruling bourgeois (to be the dominant production relation). Capital needs agents, but these agents can come from every class as long as they keep capitalism intact. For years capital has been the main production relation while its defensive mechanism, the capitalist state, was managed by aristocrats, bureaucrats and even workers (since you cannot simply abolish capital over night, even when workers take power). So nationalization of the means of production by a conscious vanguard party doesn't necessarily bring a fundamental change to the production relation.

[ZeroNowhere]

Now, if induvidual members of the government actually -owned- the factories and things and made profit out of it, then it would simply no longer be state-owned. So then, there can be no serious control if this is not the case.
And if the government, or just its upper echelons, all owned the means of production as an oligarchy, then they do not form a separate state?


What the hell does the US army have to do with being a method of production?? Thats a pretty strange example, but still, yes it does- the army is there to protect us all (well, atleast thats what it should so).
Simply that it is owned by the state. Of course, the US has a mainly private capitalist system, so it may not be a perfect example here, but my point is that the government has no reason to function in the interests of the majority (though they can fairly easily sway the majority anyhow), especially in an oligarchy. What the army 'should' do is just a subjective view.


To the second part; yes, there is no difference! But once again, the government does not itself own the method of production, it belongs to the state! State ownership means it belongs to all people within the state which themselves constitute the state.
'The state' is a vague term which I dislike. If the means of production are owned collectively, that isn't state capitalism (though it can be a dictatorship of the proletariat if the bourgeoisie still exist externally, such as in the Spanish communes). If you're using 'state' here in the sense of the US being a 'state', rather than either as meaning the enforcement of class interests, or the government, that's different from the sense it's used in 'state capitalism', in which the term refers basically to the government.

Anyway, Rakunin, thanks for the answer, I'm pretty much finished now.[/quote]

[Woland]

And if the government, or just its upper echelons, all owned the means of production as an oligarchy, then they do not form a separate state?

No, they cannot be a seperate state within a state, they just constitute a certain class in this state, simple bourgeoisie here, or, only would it make the government be a part of the class if this is a system of feudalism of some sort.


Simply that it is owned by the state. Of course, the US has a mainly private capitalist system, so it may not be a perfect example here, but my point is that the government has no reason to function in the interests of the majority (though they can fairly easily sway the majority anyhow), especially in an oligarchy. What the army 'should' do is just a subjective view.

Well thats just how a lot of current governments look like! Of course they have no reason to work for the interests of the majority when they make nothing but tools for the ruling classes, they work for them.
The function of the army is simple state defence, it is controlled by the government but the government does not ''own'' it, since it works for the state.


'The state' is a vague term which I dislike. If the means of production are owned collectively, that isn't state capitalism (though it can be a dictatorship of the proletariat if the bourgeoisie still exist externally, such as in the Spanish communes). If you're using 'state' here in the sense of the US being a 'state', rather than either as meaning the enforcement of class interests, or the government, that's different from the sense it's used in 'state capitalism', in which the term refers basically to the government.

Blarg. I said it was difficult to explain. But no, I do not mean class interests, all I meant was a society without classes in which all capital belongs to the state, making it collective property, and asking if this was socialist.

Rakunin, then what should be the first logical step, or the first few decisive steps, if you say capital cannot be abolished overnight, but still needs to be gone? what should be the actions of this conscious vanguard?

[ernie]

Really, you just have a demented vision of a government and the state. The people in a government do not actually own the production, its the property of the state, hence collective property by its own right. Now, if induvidual members of the government actually -owned- the factories and things and made profit out of it, then it would simply no longer be state-owned.
But under state-capitalism the members of the government do own the means of production. They are officially collectively "owned by the state", but in practice it is the senior government and party members who make the decisions and who get all the material benefits. All they lack is a piece of paper that says they own them. Furthermore, the workers have no decision-making power whatsoever...just like under regular capitalism.

And if and when regular capitalism is restored, it is the members of the state who become the capitalists, and the workers remain workers.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

your completely wrong here, capitalism is where the means of production are controlled/owned by a minority and the everyone else is forced to sell the labour
See, that's why I don't like the term "state capitalism." It relies on a definition of "capitalism" that is far too broad. The means of production are controlled by a minority not only in capitalism, but also in feudalism, and in every other economic system since the invention of agriculture.

Capitalism is characterized not only by minority ownership over the means of production, but also by the existence of a labour market, and the fact that the means of production themselves can be bought and sold on the market.

[Diagoras]

Behemoth, you seem to be conflating state ownership with collective ownership, when there is no apparent reason that they should be considered the same. Also, it would help if you elaborate on how you define "ownership", since you seem to deny that the state controlling, say, a factory, is ownership, at least in the same sense as a traditional boss doing so. If said factory is controlled by the state for the profit of the state, but the workers that actually run the factory and produce its goods are treated like "employees" (even though they are "public" employees) and have no direct say or control of their workplace, then this is an example of state capitalism. The employer-employee capitalist relations have remained essentially the same. There is a boss, and s/he is in charge of the workers. Just because the boss is a bureaucrat or other member of government, and the control they exert over capital is positional rather than from an individual proprietary claim does not make it "socialism". It just means that the proprietary capitalist has been replaced with a state capitalist. There is still no workplace democracy or workers control in general, and thus can not be considered "socialist".

[revolution inaction]

See, that's why I don't like the term "state capitalism." It relies on a definition of "capitalism" that is far too broad. The means of production are controlled by a minority not only in capitalism, but also in feudalism, and in every other economic system since the invention of agriculture.


But feudalism, slave based economic systems etc don't have workers selling there labour for a wage, capitalism does as I stated.
You are just misinterpreting the definition by missing out the bit about the workers being forced to sell there labour

[Tower of Bebel]

Rakunin, then what should be the first logical step, or the first few decisive steps, if you say capital cannot be abolished overnight, but still needs to be gone? what should be the actions of this conscious vanguard?
During the revolution the proletariat must nationalize all banks and bring capital under collective ownership as soon as possible (before it retreats). This must be a global act! The proletarian state must enforce its class dictatorship over the capitalist mode of production. "[T]his dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people." (Luxemburg)

This will inevitably undermine the principle of free market since all "players" that are part of that market are under collective ownership of one and the same working class. Demand and supply, production and regulation will come from one and the same element. The so called free market has ended without any chaos because of conscious planning. This will over time mean the end of capital as a necessary element within the production relation, since money (and capital as its accumulated form) arises from all kinds of inequalities (from competition to accumulation) born out of private ownership of the means of production. But collective ownership can put a stop to these inequalities.

Instead Marx proposed labour time vouchers as an alternative to money. Money can circulate and can be accumulated (capital), while vouchers don't. These vouchers are needed to buy stuff for personal consumption, not to buy the necessary supplies for factories or collective farms. These vouchers deal with the short time problems with shortages during the transition from capitalism (scarcity) to communism (abundance). In the end, when there is abundance and regulation through communes we may be able to abolish these labour time vouchers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And to other posters in this thread:

1) Not only must the proletariat "nationalize all banks and bring capital under collective ownership [and control] as soon as possible," but some really transitional litigation right should be enshrined regarding surplus labour under petit-bourgeois relations:

http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2008/08/programmatic-objectives-of-socialism.html


Right of redress for exploitation in the civil courts - workers to be able to sue collectively (class actions by unions) if they are paid less value than they create, recognise in law that only labour creates value

[With the anti-Lassallean qualifications of nature and labour-saving technology being the other value-adders, this measure is "really transitional" because no bourgeois-capitalist state can grant this. :) ]

2) Keep in mind that paper vouchers can also circulate, while electronic labour credit systems can be "programmed" not to allow circulation. "Money can be accumulated" means that there's no expiry date on when they can be exchanged. With labour credits, there most likely will be expiry dates on them:

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

[Pogue]

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, but for most leftists in the 21st century socialism refers to the stage between capitalism and communism, otherwise known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. To me socialism can mean either that stage between, before communism, or just as another name for communism. I.e., I'm an anarchist but I'd also say I am a socialist cos I am, and I desire socialism, but I don't believe in a socialist stage. All very confusing, linguistics for you :D

State capitalism is a largely Trotskyist theory thats become popular in analysing the USSR when the state owns everything but acts as what is effectively one big bourgeoisie. Theres no free market/competition but theres still bosses and workers, workers who are exploited from their labour. I think you might be confusing 'socialism' with social democracy if you think the two are the same, or perhaps the western intepretation seen specifically in the UK where the Labour party were called socialist in the 1970s because they wanted to nationalise things in 1974 under Michael Foot (if he got elected, which unfortunately he didn't, Thatcher did instead).

[Tower of Bebel]

State capitalism is a largely Trotskyist theory thats become popular in analysing the USSR when the state owns everything but acts as what is effectively one big bourgeoisie.
Actually Trotsky supported the idea of the USSR being a degenerated workers' state. It were mostly the left-communists and anarchists who described the USSR as state capitalist.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

See, that's why I don't like the term "state capitalism." It relies on a definition of "capitalism" that is far too broad. The means of production are controlled by a minority not only in capitalism, but also in feudalism, and in every other economic system since the invention of agriculture.

Capitalism is characterized not only by minority ownership over the means of production, but also by the existence of a labour market, and the fact that the means of production themselves can be bought and sold on the market.
I think Kwisatz might have hit the problem accurately. The definition of Capital you seem to be using is too broad. You seem to mean Capital as "excess social force(labor/materials/etc)" or "reserve of social force." However, most of us have very rigorous definitions of capital that usual include something like surplus value.

[PRC-UTE]

Actually Trotsky supported the idea of the USSR being a degenerated workers' state. It were mostly the left-communists and anarchists who described the USSR as state capitalist.

right. he described it as a proletarian state without a proletariat, in reference to the destruction of the industrial working class which had often run to the countryside to survive.

calling the SU state capitalist, excepting the NEP doesn't make a lot of sense. there was not commodity production for a marketplace in the hands of the state.

re the OP, a post-revolutionary society would probably be briefly a mixed economy, elements of state capitalism, but this would be an arrangement in transition.

[robbo203]

What I mean by ''state capitalist'' is that the state controls all the capital in the country, and because it is not a class and does not act like a class, etc. this wealth belongs to the general society, making it socialist. Of course nationalization is not control of the workers, but state ownership is definitely collective ownership, even by law and in a society where all property belongs to the state.
.


No this is not the case, Behemoth. State ownership does not equate with common or collective ownership. It might pretend to do that but it is a lie. State ownership is actually a variant form of private ownership of the means of production. In state capitalist Russia, for example, industry was largely owned by the state. But what is the state? It is not society in general. It is a social institution within society. Those who control the state are the de facto owners of property that is state owned. In other words in Russia et al it was the state apparatchiks, the communist party bosses and state managers that collectively constituted themselves as a de facto capitalist class.

Everything in Marxism points to this conclusion. Soviet society was based on wage labour and the existence of wage labour as Marx pointed presupposes capital and hence a capitalist class. All the manifestations of economic exchange - money, wages , buying and selling, banking insurance retailing etc etc - all imply the existence of private ownership of the means of living. If you actually owned something it would make no sense at all to have to pay for it. If everyone owned a nationalised company like a railway why would they have to pay for it. Why are raiilway workers paid wages and confront a management that is continuously in conflict with the management over the level of said wages - just like in more conventional private companies. Of course you might argue that workers in Soviet Russia had to be paid wages to buy the things they need. But that is the whole point! To have to buy those things means that they are separated from ownership of the means of producing those things.

Engels was right when he pointed that the state in modern society can be nothing but an instrument of the capitalist class. Socialism / communism will get rid of the need for a state once and for all

Robin

[Cumannach]

Regarding commodity circulation in the Soviet Union;

"Absolutely mistaken, therefore, are those comrades who allege that, since socialist society has not abolished commodity forms of production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. These comrades confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production. They do not realize that our commodity production radically differs from commodity production under capitalism."

Stalin

('Economic Problems of the USSR' - chapter 2. 'Commodity Production under Socialism')

1951

And talking of wage labour, in the same chapter;

"Talk of labour power being a commodity, and of "hiring" of workers sounds rather absurd now, under our system: as though the working class, which possesses means of production, hires itself and sells its labour power to itself. It is just as strange to speak now of "necessary" and "surplus" labour: as though, under our conditions, the labour contributed by the workers to society for the extension of production, the promotion of education and public health, the organization of defence, etc., is not just as necessary to the working class, now in power, as the labour expended to supply the personal needs of the worker and his family."

[Woland]

Ok guys, I will probably make a new thread about state ownership being collective ownership and respond to this thread tomorrow; kind of forgot about it, for now, thanks for the arguments.

[robbo203]

Regarding commodity circulation in the Soviet Union;

"Absolutely mistaken, therefore, are those comrades who allege that, since socialist society has not abolished commodity forms of production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. These comrades confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production. They do not realize that our commodity production radically differs from commodity production under capitalism."

Stalin

('Economic Problems of the USSR' - chapter 2. 'Commodity Production under Socialism')

1951
."


This is typical peice of stalinist doubletalk to justify the state capitalist regime he presided over.

On one point he is correct though. Commodity production per se does not imply capitalism. Marx differentiated between simple commodity production - the producttion and exchange of commodities by independent producers - and capitalist commodity production based on wage labour. Clearly the soviet system was a system based on wage labour and generalised commodity production - capitalism. The mass of the population worked for wages and wages imply capital just as capital implies wage labour (See Marx·s pamphlet "wage labour and capital"). The wages that the working class earned in Soviet Union were then exchanged for commodities on the market.

How anyone can equate what happened in the Soviet Union with communism astounds me. The communist manifesto could not have spelt it out more clearly when it talked of the communistic abolition of buying and selling

Robin

[Cumannach]

This is typical peice of stalinist doubletalk to justify the state capitalist regime he presided over.

...

How anyone can equate what happened in the Soviet Union with communism astounds me. The communist manifesto could not have spelt it out more clearly when it talked of the communistic abolition of buying and selling

Robin

Comrade, as far as the existence of communism in the Soviet Union is concerned, I don't believe anyone who was aware of the distinction between communism and socialism ever claimed that the Soviet Union was a communist society, that the Soviet Union was communist.

Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism, the period of the development of communism.

Of course this distinction means nothing to the bourgeoisie, since under both systems, their private property is either already expropriated or imminently to be expropriated. Thus the general confusion of the two terms, the bourgeoisie usually not aware of the difference.

Certainly Stalin never claimed that the Soviet Union was a communist society. In 'Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yaroshenko' Stalin describes how close the socialist Soviet Union has come in it's development of communism and outlines what he views as the developments that still need to take place before communism will be achieved (For example the replacement of commodity production-which is exchange by purchase and sale- with direct exchange of products, and the full socialization of agriculture, upon which the former depended).

Regarding what you said about wage labour, I think you are in error. Wage labour, in capitalism, is the selling of labour-power to a capitalist, who owns the means of production. Here of course, the product is then the property of the capitalist.

Under Socialism, the worker owns the means of production and owns the product of his labour. The worker is not selling his labour power. As Stalin said it is not the case that the working class "hires itself and sells its labour power to itself " ! It's true that the Soviet Union had commodity production but as Stalin said, this does not imply capitalism and does not imply wage labour.

How is it that commodity production exists without wage labour?

Well in the Soviet Union the distribution of products, of consumer goods, was operated through purchase and sale rather than by direct exchange of products for products. When a worker had used his labour power to create a product, the means by which he exchanged his product for a range of other products (other goods) was viz purchase and sale with money- the old commodity system, as existed in capitalism aswell.

You mistakenly assume that the money the worker received in order to do this was 'wages' -the price of his labour-power- it was not. It was the product he had created using the means of production which he owned (which everybody owned), in money form for facilitating exchange. This is not wage labour.


Nor did 'surplus value' exist in the Soviet Union. Surplus value would be the difference between the value of the product created and the wages paid for creating it, a surplus which becomes the property of the capitalist.

In the Soviet Union if there was a difference in the value of the money received by a worker and the value of the product he created it was not due to the fact that a part of the value he created was become the property of a capitalist but that a part of the value was as Stalin said "contributed by the workers to society for the extension of production, the promotion of education and public health, the organization of defence" .

Lastly, there was not 'generalised' commodity production in the Soviet Union, as the means of production could not be bought and sold.

[ZeroNowhere]

Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism, the period of the development of communism.


In scientific socialist parlance, the two terms are interchangeable: both describe the classless, stateless society of free and equal producers projected and advocated by the co-founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

Marx and Engels themselves used the two terms interchangeably. Initially they used "communism" to describe the future classless society because of the popular association of "socialism" with the Utopian "socialists" of that time. As Engels explained in his 1888 preface to the English translation of The Communist Manifesto:
"When it [the Manifesto] appeared, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. Two kinds of people were regarded as socialists in 1847. On the one hand were the followers of the various Utopian systems, especially the Owenites [followers of Robert Owen] in England and the Fourierists [followers of Charles Fourier] in France, both of which at that time had dwindled to mere sects that were already dying out. On the other hand were the numerous social quacks who, with their various panaceas and every type of patchwork, wanted to do away with social evils without, in the slightest, harming capital and profit. In both cases they were people outside the labor movement and looked far more for support from the 'educated' classes.
"On the other hand, that part of the working class which was convinced of the inadequacy of a mere political revolution and demanded a fundamental transformation of society -- that part at the time called itself communist.... In 1847 socialism signified a bourgeois movement and communism a working-class movement. Socialism, at least on the Continent, was respectable enough for the drawing room; communism was the exact opposite. Since we were already then definitely of the opinion that 'the emancipation of the workers had to be the task of the working class itself,' we could not for one moment be in doubt as to which of the two names to choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us to renounce it since then."

Subsequently, as the Utopian "socialists" faded into oblivion and were largely forgotten, Marx and Engels generally preferred to use the term "socialism" in their writings.

Today, both "socialism" and "communism" have been wrongly associated with false and pernicious definitions. Thanks to the so-called social democrats, or reformist "socialists" (for example, the Socialist Party of France, the Labor Party in Britain, the Socialist Party, and more recently, the Democratic Socialists of America, in the United States), many people have come to equate "socialism" with any industry or program that is administered by the capitalist political state, be it a nationalized healthcare system, the postal service or a welfare program.

"Communism," meanwhile, has come to be associated with the system of state capitalism, run by the so-called Communist parties, that is now unraveling in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and still prevails in China and Cuba.
Further adding to the semantic confusion is the false concept that the Communist parties and other Leninist organizations have promoted for many years -- the concept that a post/capitalist society first goes through a lengthy "socialist" stage, before arriving at the classless society of "communism."

This is a distortion of Marxism, invented by Lenin in his work, State and Revolution. Marx did describe a "first phase" and "higher phase" of "communist society" in his Critique of the Gotha Program. But he was not describing a "transitional" stage in which classes and the state would still exist, and a "higher" stage in which they would disappear, and he did not describe the "first phase" as "socialism" and the "higher phase" as "communism." Rather, he was describing a development that would occur after the classless society, based on social ownership and democratic workers' control of the means of production -- a society that could be described as either "socialism" or "communism" -- was fully established. In the "first phase," some measure of labor time would still be needed to govern the exchange and distribution of the workers' product; in the "higher phase," distribution could be conducted according to the principle: "From everyone according to his faculties, to everyone according to his needs."

For reasons that are none too clear, Lenin described Marx's two "phases" as "the scientific difference between socialism and communism." Subsequently, in the ideology of the Soviet Communist Party and its progeny, "socialism" became associated with state capitalism, and "communism" with the classless society that somehow would arrive some day in the distant future. But these false and confusing definitions of "socialism" and "communism" have no basis in Marx's writings or in scientific socialist thought.

Naturally, the capitalist class and its leading propagandists in the United States have been all too happy to seize upon any and all of the false definitions of "socialism" and "communism" in order to confuse the working class and discredit both words in workers' minds.

Standing against such misinformation, the Socialist Labor Party and The People have an established history of fighting to uphold the correct, scientific, Marxist meaning of socialism or communism. In defending and advocating Marx's and Engels' conception of the future classless society, though, we have focused on winning over workers by using the term that Marx and Engels preferred in their later years -- socialism.
So.

[Woland]

Contemporary Soviet propagandists claimed that since the "economic reform" [of 1965] the principal means of production remain in public ownership" -- either in that of producers' cooperatives or, for the most part, in that of the state:

"Public ownership of the means of production does unite the labour of individual producers on a scale embracing the entire national economy. The overwhelming proportion of the means of production is concentrated in the hands of one owner - the state".

(S. Khavina: "In the Crooked Mirror of Bourgeois Theories", in: "Ekonomicheskaya gazeta" (Economic gazette), No. 44, 1965, in: "The Soviet Economic Reform: Main Features and Aims"; Moscow; 1967; p. 139).

They claim that even when means of production are held and used by industrial enterprises, their ownership remains vested in the state:

"The state is the owner of all production assets in state enterprises. The collectives (i.e., the personnel of enterprises -- WBB) use these assets, but they do not own them".

(P. Bunich: "Economic Stimuli to Increase the Effectiveness of Capital Investments and the Output-to-Capital Ratio", in: "Voprosy ekonomiki" (Problems of Economics), No. 12, 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): "Planning, Profit and Incentives in the USSR", Volume 2; New York; 1966; p. 195).

This was undoubtedly the position under the socialist system which formerly existed in the Soviet Union:

"A commodity is a product which may be sold to any purchaser, and when its owner sells it he loses ownership of it and the purchaser becomes the owner of the commodity, which he may resell, pledge or allow to rot. Do means of production come within this category? They obviously do not. In the first place, means of production are not 'sold' to any purchaser;.. they are only allocated by the state to its enterprises. In the second place, when transferring the means of production to any enterprise, the owner -- the state -- does not at all lose the ownership of them; on the contrary, it retains it fully. In the third place, directors of enterprises who receive means of production from the Soviet state, far from becoming their owners, are deemed to be agents of the state in the utilisation of the means of production in accordance with the plans established by the state.

It will be seen, then, that under our system means of production can certainly not be classed in the category of commodities".

(J. V. Stalin: "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR"; Moscow; 1952; p. 58).

'State ownership' here is accepted as collective ownership, as induvidual enterprise would be just as companies of today.


Since the "economic reform", however, means of production in the Soviet Union are classed as commodities:

"Under socialism the market is a sphere of planned commodity circulation, a sphere for the marketing of products -- means of production and consumer goods manufactured by state and cooperative enterprises".

(L. Gatovsky: "Unity of Plan and Cost Accounting", in: "Kommunist" (Communist), No. 15, 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 88).

Even where an enterprise pays for the use of its production assets (other than natural resources) by annual sums, it is regarded legally as the owner of these assets.

The Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, adopted by the USSR Council of Ministers on October 4th., 1965, gives an enterprise "rights of possession" over the production assets which it holds:

"The enterprise will exercise the rights of possession.. of the property under its operational control".

(Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.); op. cit., Volume 2; p. 291).

The acquisition of production assets (other than natural resources) by an enterprise is therefore described as "purchase":

"Credits for the purchase of heavy technological and power equipment of Soviet manufacture... are issued".

(S, Ginzburg: "New Developments in Construction Financing", in: "Ekonomicheskaya gazeta" (Economic Gazette), No. 43, 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 65).

"The single approach to managing the economy is displayed.. in granting enterprises equal rights.. to buy means of production...

Society furnishes enterprises with money for the purchase of the means of production... Only the purchase of the means of production by enterprises with the income received as a result of improving their work.. can be regarded as a form of spending 'their own resources' "

(P.G. Bunich: "Methods of Planning and Stimulation", in: Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and Problems", Moscow; 1972; p. 36, 44).

That the terms "rights of possession" and "purchase" are not here being used in-exactly is shown by the fact that the Statute gives the enterprise the right to lease or sell the means of production it "possesses" -- a right which involves clear proof of effective ownership by the enterprise:

"The enterprise will exercise the rights of .. disposal of the property under its operational control...

The enterprise may lease to other enterprises and organisations, at rents fixed for the given locality, buildings and structures, as well as production, warehouses and other facilities assigned to it...

Surplus equipment.. may be sold by the enterprise to other enterprises and organisations...

Sums obtained from the sale of material values representing fixed assets will remain at the disposal of the enterprise".

(Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 291, 293, 295).

The sale of means of production by enterprises is frequently referred to by contemporary Soviet economists and politicians:

"The enterprises will enjoy broader powers in the use of... the money from the sale of surplus equipment and other material values".

(A.N. Kosygin: "On Improving Industrial Management, Perfecting Planning and Enhancing Economic Incentives and Industrial Production" in: "Izvestia" (News), September 28th., 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.) op. cit., Volume 2; p. 38).

"The enterprise will enjoy greater economic rights.. in disposing of property, productive assets".

(L. Gatovsky: ibid.; p. 74).

"The system of stimulating enterprises through their level of profitability in relation to assets.. will also interest them in the quickest possible sale of superfluous machines, the receipts from the sale of which will go into the development fund and will enable them to buy equipment needed to create the conditions for an increase in profits....

The sale of superfluous fixed assets will be done by enterprises on the basis of their residual values..

The enterprises have been given relatively extensive rights with respect to the sale of superfluous assets, the receipts from which go into their fund for development".

(P. Bunich: "Economic Stimuli to Increase the Effectiveness of Capital Investments and the Output-to-Capital Ratio", in: "Voprosy ekonomiki" (Problems of Economics), No. 12, 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 194, 199, 202).

"The socialist market for the means of production is the sphere... where the economic relations operate directly as the relations of supply and demand, and are realised in the act of buying and selling the means of production".

(V. Budaragin: "The Price Mechanism and Circulation of the Means of Production", in: "Nauchnye doklady vysshei shkoly: Ekonomicheskie nauki" (Scientific Reports of Higher Schools; Economic Science),No, 11, 1971, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 15, No. 3; July 1972; p. 74).

Already in September 1965 Prime Minister Aleksei Kosygin was bestowing special praise on five transport organisations for having:

"...sold superfluous trucks and equipment".

(A.N. Kosygin: ibid.; p. 28).

In fact, following the "economic reform", the purchase and sale of means of production was gradually transferred to wholesale trading organisations:

"A new aspect of the activity of marketing and supply agencies will be the gradual transfer to them of wholesale.. trade in the articles and means of production".

(V. Dymshits: "Production: Plan: Supply, in: "Pravda" (Truth), December 15th., 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2 p. 221-2).

"Long-term and stable relations between supplier enterprises and consumers.. are a primary condition for the planned distribution of means of production through wholesale trade".

(N.Y. Drogichinsky: "The Economic Refom in Action", in: "Soviet Econoic Reform: Progress and Problems"; Moscow; 1972; p. 216).

Already by 1971 the market in means of production constituted some two-thirds of the country's total trade turnover (V. Budagarin: ibid.; p. 74), and by 1974 70 % of the market in means of production consisted of

"A large-lot wholesale trade... conducted directly between supplier and consumer".

(N.Y. Drogichinsky: "On Wholesale Trade in the Means of Production", in: "Voprosy ekonomiki" (Problems of Economics), No. 4, 1974, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 17, No. 6; October 1974; p. 96, 98).

Furthermore, the transfer of ownership of means of production from the state to an enterprise by the act of purchase can in no way be regarded as transfer to and "agency" of the central state. For, although the enterprise is officially called a:

"socialist state production enterprise",

(Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 289).

It is described as an:

"independent enterprise"

(ibid.; p. 291).

and

"The state is not responsible for the obligations of the enterprise, and the enterprise is not responsible for the obligations of the state".

(ibid.; p. 291).

Contemporary Soviet propagandists, in fact, are at pains to stress that allegations that the enterprises are not really independent are nothing but "groundless bourgeois slander":

"Another bourgeois concept... denies the economic independence of socialist enterprises...It is not difficult to prove the utter groundlessness of this argument".

(S. Khavina: ibid.; p. 139).

Furthermore, the property rights of the enterprise are vested in its director:

"The enterprise is headed by a director...The director of the enterprise may, without power of attorney, act in its name...dispose of the property and funds of the enterprise". (Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 310-1).

[davidasearles]

Regarding commodity circulation in the Soviet Union;

"Absolutely mistaken, therefore, are those comrades who allege that, since socialist society has not abolished commodity forms of production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. These comrades confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production. They do not realize that our commodity production radically differs from commodity production under capitalism."

Stalin

('Economic Problems of the USSR' - chapter 2. 'Commodity Production under Socialism')

1951

And talking of wage labour, in the same chapter;

"Talk of labour power being a commodity, and of "hiring" of workers sounds rather absurd now, under our system: as though the working class, which possesses means of production, hires itself and sells its labour power to itself. It is just as strange to speak now of "necessary" and "surplus" labour: as though, under our conditions, the labour contributed by the workers to society for the extension of production, the promotion of education and public health, the organization of defence, etc., is not just as necessary to the working class, now in power, as the labour expended to supply the personal needs of the worker and his family."

Interesting set of quotations, and the ones above from Behemoth as well.

IF mid century Soviet Union was just as represented in the Stalin quotes, why would it have gone to private ownership of the means of production?

For the last year or so I have been laboring under the impression that if the workers supplanted the capitalists and the workers called the shots as to whether to produce and distribute directly amongst themselves using a system of labor credits that either would or would not be transferable to third parties (of late I have thought that they should be transferable) that that would pretty much cover the bases to set up a viable economic structure. What exits in theory under the Stalin quotes at first blush doesn't seem to be that much different than what I am proposing (Essentially what I am proposing is a workers collective for the large industrial portion of the economy, small private shops set up by workers who chose to work in them (always with the inherent right of collectivizing if the workers there so chose to) and a constitutional political democratic government through which the people expressed constitutionally limited sovereign authority - with the ability of the political govt. to issue its own script - or maintain the currency now in place)) What am I missing?

[Cumannach]

So.

Comrade I must completely disagree. leaving aside the definitions of ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ which are just words, let’s see if we can discover anything in Marx’s writings which could be interpreted as a statement saying that;

a period of transition in which the state exists and which leads to a situation where the state no longer exists can come about after the overthrow of bourgeois state power.

Well without searching very far and hard we can find this ;

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”

(Communist Manifesto, chapter 2.)

Also, it should be said, Marxism is not the gospel of Marx, it is a social science largely pioneered by Marx, who himself in is own lifetime occasionally made revisions of the theory as new events presented themselves for analysis and revealed new laws.

[sanpal]

...the USSR was ''state-capitalist'' ...


The USSR was not "state-capitalist". It was "stalinist"= factual realization of the theory of the 'socialism' by E. Duhring's, which was criticized by F. Engels in his work "Anty-Duhring".
Marx and Engels hoped that wouldn't be any who try to get Duhring's 'socialism' into practice but they unfortunately couldn't suppose that a lot of stalinist-duhringist followers would be till now.

ka1mi

Also, it should be said, Marxism is not the gospel of Marx, it is a social science largely pioneered by Marx, who himself in is own lifetime occasionally made revisions of the theory as new events presented themselves for analysis and revealed new laws.




Thus to develop marxism as a science, it is important today to determine with a terminology and so your suggestion
"leaving aside the definitions of ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ which are just words" is unnecessary. I think it must be like 'esperanto' for all left groups.
And what is more - all groups will get to flow together in one:lol:
The last is joke of course but ...

[Die Neue Zeit]

The USSR was not "state-capitalist". It was "stalinist"= factual realization of the theory of the 'socialism' by E. Duhring's, which was criticized by F. Engels in his work "Anti-Duhring".
Marx and Engels hoped that wouldn't be any who try to get Duhring's 'socialism' into practice but they unfortunately couldn't suppose that a lot of stalinist-duhringist followers would be till now.

I've read parts of Anti-Duhring here and there, but could you please explain Duhring's "socialism"?

[sanpal]

I've read parts of Anti-Duhring here and there, but could you please explain Duhring's "socialism"?

Shortly speaking in the USSR Stalin has organized such socioeconomic system which had, on the one hand, attributes of state capitalism (commodity production for the profit, wage labour, the valid money with their guaranteed State Bank a gold equivalent etc.), on the other hand were many attributes of communism (goals of the state went not for reception of the profit, and on satisfaction of needs of the population, the organization of excellent education (the UNESCO has recognized education in the USSR in 70th years as one of the best in the world) and excellent health services (middle age of life of people in capitalist Russia has gone down about 10-15 years in comparison with time of the USSR), struggle against parasitism, struggle against unearned incomes etc.).
But most, perhaps, important is a prohibition to valid money to function as the valid money. Stalinists wanted the valid money were only the Labour Time Vouchers, and this duality just is socialism of mr. Duhring.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In other words, comrade, did the regime want the impossible: they wanted the circulatory benefits of money ("the only possible medium of exchange" excuse) but not the M-C-M process? :confused:

[ZeroNowhere]

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”
Which was later described as 'antiquated', because of things such as the Paris Commune (though Marx didn't really seem to glorify it as much a while after it had fallen). Certainly, that does not imply that reformism leads to something called 'socialism'. Also, that seems to be more of what a social-proletocrat would have called a 'minimum program'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Which was later described as 'antiquated', because of things such as the Paris Commune (though Marx didn't really seem to glorify it as much a while after it had fallen). Certainly, that does not imply that reformism leads to something called 'socialism'. Also, that seems to be more of what a social-proletocrat would have called a 'minimum program'.

In regards to the ten-point program, I had this to say about it here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-type-t83818/index.html

But then I re-read this website:

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Newint/Tranprog.html

What about the emphasis on "The proletariat will use its political supremacy"? This would imply that the proletariat will have become the ruling class, at least according to Alistair Mitchell above.

[el_chavista]

Is it something like "socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly in the interests of all people and in this case has ceased to be capitalist monopoly" ?

[redguard2009]

That's somewhat contradictory, in that socialism = state capitalism = no more state capitalism.

In either case, ultimately it runs down to the way in which the state itself is run, and its connections with the will of the masses.

[Woland]

Is it something like "socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly in the interests of all people and in this case has ceased to be capitalist monopoly" ?

No but rather when the state has a monopoly on all capital (state-capitalist as I put it), then turning it into collective socialist property (look at edit) and (what this reminds me of) run by a vanguard. My question was rather simple, just asking if thinking this way upon such a model as state-capitalist would be correct, then asking if this classifies, or atleast acts like a prerequisite to socialism.

Edit: Another thing: ''monopoly on all capital''- since means of production are only considered capital if the workers get exploited, meaning that when the exploitation stops existing this is no longer considered capital, making it socialist.

[sanpal]

In other words, comrade, did the regime want the impossible: they wanted the circulatory benefits of money ("the only possible medium of exchange" excuse) but not the M-C-M process? :confused:


No, no, the M-C-M process is the component of commodity production, I talked about quite another thing: the state-capitalist economic system must be full-value thing and it demands proper (production) relations in society; communist economic system must be full-value thing as well and it demands proper (production) relations (communist relationin) in society.
Attempt to amalgamate these "two into one" i.e. to construct a system to take state-capitalist commodity production and to tie it with communist relations as a whole leads not to dialectics but to eclecticism: in other words to "duhringism". In his work Engels shows the reasons which must lead Duhring's utopian socialism to collaps (Anti-Duhring by F. Engels, Part III: Socialism, chapter 4: Distribution):



In the first place, such a misuse of Owen's labour-notes would require their conversion into real money, while Herr Dühring presupposes real money, though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise than as mere labour certificate. While in Owen's scheme there would have to be a real abuse, in Dühring's scheme the immanent nature of money, which is independent of human volition, would assert itself; the specific, correct use of money would assert itself in spite of the misuse which Herr Dühring tries to impose on it owing to his own ignorance of the nature of money.


So failure of Stalin's regime (in practice) = Duhring's socialism (in theory) is inevitable.
There was no another way to Stalin to keep the eclectic regime as to apply violence and repressions.
Thus, destruction of the USSR was objective act. It was only small extent of intrigues of CIA or bad guys in the USSR.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No but rather when the state has a monopoly on all capital (state-capitalist as I put it), then turning it into collective socialist property (look at edit) and (what this reminds me of) run by a vanguard. My question was rather simple, just asking if thinking this way upon such a model as state-capitalist would be correct, then asking if this classifies, or atleast acts like a prerequisite to socialism.

Edit: Another thing: ''monopoly on all capital''- since means of production are only considered capital if the workers get exploited, meaning that when the exploitation stops existing this is no longer considered capital, making it socialist.

In Das Kapital, though, it would seem that "means of production" /= capital. Capital, in that work, is M-C-M. In the business world, capital can mean either equity or a financial combination of long-term liabilties and equity.





No, no, the M-C-M process is the component of commodity production, I talked about quite another thing: the state-capitalist economic system must be full-value thing and it demands proper (production) relations in society; communist economic system must be full-value thing as well and it demands proper (production) relations (communist relationin) in society.

Attempt to amalgamate these "two into one" i.e. to construct a system to take state-capitalist commodity production and to tie it with communist relations as a whole leads not to dialectics but to eclecticism: in other words to "Duhringism". In his work Engels shows the reasons which must lead Duhring's utopian socialism to collapse (Anti-Duhring by F. Engels, Part III: Socialism, chapter 4: Distribution):


In the first place, such a misuse of Owen's labour-notes would require their conversion into real money, while Herr Dühring presupposes real money, though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise than as mere labour certificate. While in Owen's scheme there would have to be a real abuse, in Dühring's scheme the immanent nature of money, which is independent of human volition, would assert itself; the specific, correct use of money would assert itself in spite of the misuse which Herr Dühring tries to impose on it owing to his own ignorance of the nature of money.

So failure of Stalin's regime (in practice) = Duhring's socialism (in theory) is inevitable.
There was no another way to Stalin to keep the eclectic regime as to apply violence and repressions.
Thus, destruction of the USSR was objective act. It was only small extent of intrigues of CIA or bad guys in the USSR.

For a moment, I thought that the transitional "multi-economy" outlined in my CSR appendix (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=627) was "Duhring-ist." Now I get you: indeed, in my "multi-economy" outline, the small-coop capitalism component, the superstate-proletocratic capitalism component, and the direct-proletocratic capitalism component would be monetary.




Is it something like "socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly [which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent] ceased to be capitalist monopoly" ?

Comrade, I've now come to the point wherein I think that, had Lenin said "socialism is at least state-industrialist monopoly" instead of "merely" and "capitalist," he would have had more credibility with his inability to break with the Second International's monetary (read: "Duhring-ist") view of "socialism." The word "industrialist" harkens back to the classical economic distinction between "manufacturing" and "industry":

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm


In what way do proletarians differ from manufacturing workers?

The manufacturing worker of the 16th to the 18th centuries still had, with but few exception, an instrument of production in his own possession – his loom, the family spinning wheel, a little plot of land which he cultivated in his spare time. The proletarian has none of these things.

The manufacturing worker almost always lives in the countryside and in a more or less patriarchal relation to his landlord or employer; the proletarian lives, for the most part, in the city and his relation to his employer is purely a cash relation.

The manufacturing worker is torn out of his patriarchal relation by big industry, loses whatever property he still has, and in this way becomes a proletarian.

[sanpal]

For a moment, I thought that the transitional "multi-economy" outlined in my CSR appendix (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=627) was "Duhring-ist." Now I get you: indeed, in my "multi-economy" outline, the small-coop capitalism component, the superstate-proletocratic capitalism component, and the direct-proletocratic capitalism component would be monetary


Yes, of course this theme is concerned with theme "Economics and Politics on the Day After the Social-Proletocratic Revolution" directly.
To all questions we have to come with this main point: real money must be real (valuable) money but not its 'ersatz' i.e. distorted variant as semi-money (Duhring-ist variant).
As a whole the transitional "multi-economy" has to consist of three main socio-economic sectors:
1) the traditional private capitalist sector (including small commodity production, cooperatives and individuals producers)
2) the state capitalist sector - (all state plants, factories, works, etc)
3) the communist sector
The first and the second sector must use monetary economy; the third sector in the condition of "multi-economy" must have LTV-system economy and further when the State with its (1) and (2) sectors has "withered away" as a result of competition between the capitalist mode of production and the communist mode of production the third sector would be combination of LTV-system and perhaps gift-economy.
.
During "multi-economy" period in the process of development of communist sector, it practice "inside" LTV-economic mechanism but "outside" it it practice for trade with state capitalist and traditional capitalist sectors the commodity exchange for elimination of shortage of some sort of commodity. It's needed the special mode of conversion LTV- value into money and back for trading outside.

I think this post must be re-posted to "Theory" into the theme "Economics and Politics on the Day After the Social-Proletocratic Revolution" for detailing.




In closing: if to choose the way of gradual transformation of capitalist mode of reproduction into communist mode of reproduction by any transformation of money into non-money through semi-money we can inevitably get only "Duhring-ist" society, i.e. "the USSR-2" , as well inevitable mechanism of compulsion "Stalin-2", and as well inevitable failure of such kind of society.

[robbo203]

Comrade, as far as the existence of communism in the Soviet Union is concerned, I don't believe anyone who was aware of the distinction between communism and socialism ever claimed that the Soviet Union was a communist society, that the Soviet Union was communist. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism, the period of the development of communism.

The distinction did not exist in classical communism. It was an invention of Lenin and co. The only distinction that Marx ever made was between a higher and lower phase OF COMMUNISM (or socialism). At one point Lenin accepted the Marxist understanding of these terms and talked of state capitalism being a step forward for Russia. He then re-labeled state capitalism as "socialism". What you call "socialism" - state capitalism - is not a transition to anything. Itis a complete dead end


Of course this distinction means nothing to the bourgeoisie, since under both systems, their private property is either already expropriated or imminently to be expropriated. Thus the general confusion of the two terms, the bourgeoisie usually not aware of the difference..

The bougeois revolutionary Lenin invented this distinction


Regarding what you said about wage labour, I think you are in error. Wage labour, in capitalism, is the selling of labour-power to a capitalist, who owns the means of production. Here of course, the product is then the property of the capitalist. Under Socialism, the worker owns the means of production and owns the product of his labour. The worker is not selling his labour power. As Stalin said it is not the case that the working class "hires itself and sells its labour power to itself " ! It's true that the Soviet Union had commodity production but as Stalin said, this does not imply capitalism and does not imply wage labour.

In thew Soviet Union the means of production did not belong to the workers. It belonged to the state and that means it belong to the people who controlled the state - the party apparatchiks. The very fact that you had economic exchange implies non ownership. How can you possibly sell something to yourself if you already own it


You mistakenly assume that the money the worker received in order to do this was 'wages' -the price of his labour-power- it was not. It was the product he had created using the means of production which he owned (which everybody owned), in money form for facilitating exchange. This is not wage labour.

Youve got to be kidding. What is you think the workers received in the Soviet Union if not a wage and how would this in any way be different from what say the workers in a nationalised industry in Brtiain or France receved. Lets call a spade a spade. The Soviet union was clearly based on a system of wage labour , not only that Stalin himself railed against the idea of equality of wages and insist on the need for unequal wages



Nor did 'surplus value' exist in the Soviet Union. Surplus value would be the difference between the value of the product created and the wages paid for creating it, a surplus which becomes the property of the capitalist. In the Soviet Union if there was a difference in the value of the money received by a worker and the value of the product he created it was not due to the fact that a part of the value he created was become the property of a capitalist but that a part of the value was as Stalin said "contributed by the workers to society for the extension of production, the promotion of education and public health, the organization of defence" .

This claim is based on the presumption that the product was owned by the whole of society which it was clearly not . Otherwise there would be no need for buying and selling which implies buyers and sellers who relate to what is being sold as non owners and owners and who on co,pletion of the transaction transfer ownership rights from the former to the latter.

This is why Marx talked of the communistic abolition of buying and selling.

[Cumannach]

Comrade as regards your first point I simply can't agree. I consider it beyond argument that, the vast majority of people who call themselves marxists believe a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a state, must exist after the overthrow of the bourgeois state power, and that only subsequently can a classless society come into existence which requires no state, no power of one class to repress another and that Marx believed this and was right in doing so. Marxist-Leninist marxists (among others) simply refer to this dictatorship as Socialism, and the part after as Communism- there's no point in us arguing this anymore on this thread at least, as we won't agree.

Regarding your next point, you state that 'the means of production did not belong to the workers'- I can't see how you can argue that. If you argue- the means of production belonged to the state- well the state belonged to the workers, so I don't see how you draw your conclusion,. The state was the organization of the workers as the ruling class. Do the shareholders of Exxon own the oil rig or does Exxon, or do board members, or the rig men?
Because the proletariat delegated much of the administration to others (what else would they do?) does not mean they lose ownership. The 'profits', the fruit of their labour did not go into the pockets of a capitalist nor of a 'party apparthick' but into the workers pockets and into production and services expansion, defense, infrastructure maintenance, and so on- all things which belonged to the workers as a whole.

So the proletariat had control of the means of production via their party, and they enjoyed the products of production - this is ownership.

If you say, the party didn't represent the proletariat you must concede then, that, it is an astonishing coincidence that the party always acted in such a way as to benefit the proletariat as completely as possible even though they were apparently representing someone else.

If you believe in this coincidence, then even still there was working class ownership in the practical sense anyway, by all observable effects.

The rest of your point is arguing that because wages and commodity production existed, the workers didn't own the means of production. But this conclusion does not actually follow that premise.

The Soviet worker received money in an envelope, which might have been pragmatically referred to as a wage. But this is not wage-labour.

In marxist economic terms, in a system of wage labour, 'wage' refers to the price paid for the labour-power of a worker, to work with a capitalist's means of production and create a product which the capitalist will own. The price of the labour-power is less than the value of the product of the labour, or capitalism can't exist.
In the SU, the money in the workers envelope was the value of the product of his labour ( minus the expenses of production and services expansion, defense, etc) not something less. Why? Because the worker owned the means of production and therefore owned the product of his labour.

In a 'nationalized industry' in a bourgeois country, a worker in a nationalized factory does not own the means of production in that factory because, it is state owned, but the state is the organization of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class, so he does not control it, and the profits from that factory go into the state treasury which again, is the treasury of the bourgeoisie, therefore he does not enjoy the profits- thus, he does not own his means of production and he is a wage labourer.

(True, class struggle has forced some concessions so that, the workers may have some small bit of control of a state owned company, and may be able to direct some of the profits somewhere that might benefit society somewhat, but in general this tiny control and benefit does not amount to real ownership.)

Sorry for the long post comrade! And all of the above I allege for the Stalin era only.

[robbo203]

Comrade as regards your first point I simply can't agree. I consider it beyond argument that, the vast majority of people who call themselves marxists believe a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a state, must exist after the overthrow of the bourgeois state power, and that only subsequently can a classless society come into existence which requires no state, no power of one class to repress another and that Marx believed this and was right in doing so. Marxist-Leninist marxists (among others) simply refer to this dictatorship as Socialism, and the part after as Communism- there's no point in us arguing this anymore on this thread at least, as we won't agree.

Yes Marx did talk about a dictatorship of the proletariat but did not ever equate this with socialism. This did not describe a particular kind of society but was merely a political stage still within capitalism and at the very twilight of capitalism, Further, the state capitalist dictatorship installed by the Bolsheviks bore absolutely no resemblance to the original idea of the proletarian dictatorship (which Marx saw as an ultra-democratic republic),In the SU what you had was a dictatorship OVER the proletariat. Lenin in true Orwellian fashion claimed that democracy was compatible with dictatorship even by a single individual. It is not. Marx´s notion of dictatorship derived from the old fashioned idea of dictatorship of whose interests prevail (dictate). The modern idea of dictatorship is of a political regime and this is the sense in which Lenin used the term


Regarding your next point, you state that 'the means of production did not belong to the workers'- I can't see how you can argue that. If you argue- the means of production belonged to the state- well the state belonged to the workers, so I don't see how you draw your conclusion,. The state was the organization of the workers as the ruling class. Do the shareholders of Exxon own the oil rig or does Exxon, or do board members, or the rig men?.

The state did not belong to the workers. It belonged to the communist party apparatchiks. 99% of the workers didnt get even so much as a sniff of the levers of power. Decisions were made in true bourgeois top-down style and imposed through a hierachy of levels on the mass of the workers. There was no democracy . You aee living in a complete dreamworld if you think the mass of the population had any control over the state. And if as you claim the workers were organised as the ruling class who then was the class they ruled over? The capitalist class? But the capitalist class eixist by virtue of its exploitation of the working class. So according to your absurd theory, the ruling class allows itself to be exploited by those over whom it rules! This is Alice in Wonderland stuff



Because the proletariat delegated much of the administration to others (what else would they do?) does not mean they lose ownership. The 'profits', the fruit of their labour did not go into the pockets of a capitalist nor of a 'party apparthick' but into the workers pockets and into production and services expansion, defense, infrastructure maintenance, and so on- all things which belonged to the workers as a whole.
So the proletariat had control of the means of production via their party, and they enjoyed the products of production - this is ownership.



Oh come on - when on earth did the proletariat ever delegate much of the administration to others. What does this mean in real terms? As for you claiminng that the profits did not go into the pockets of apparatchiks have you read anything about the economic history of the SU? The SU was an incredibly unequal society! The red bourgeoisie even had their own private retail outlets where western goods could be bought but from which ordinary workers were completely shut out. There is empirical evidence of the extent of economic inequality which Stalin particualrly actively promoted. Even a pro soviet publication boasted back in the 1950s I think that there were over 500 soviet millionaires . The super rich in the Soviet Union often camouflaged their massive wealth by all manner of devious tactics not unknown in the west - from bloated salaries which were actually a cut on the surplus value to perks like state mansions and lavish holidays for free

The workers of course never owned the means of production . If they did they would have enjoyed the products of production without having to pay for them. This is basic Marxian economics and commonsense. If you own something you dont have to pay for it. If if you pay for it it follows you dont own it



If you say, the party didn't represent the proletariat you must concede then, that, it is an astonishing coincidence that the party always acted in such a way as to benefit the proletariat as completely as possible even though they were apparently representing someone else.


You cannot be serious. The oppression and misery that the vast majority of the population suffered under the Bolsheviks is well documented. Was it in their interest that they had to suffer this while a tiny elite flourished . Independent trade unions were crushed. Millions were sent to the labour camps (presumably according to you for their own benefit). This empty phrasemongering has no more basis in reality than Bush or Browns claim to be acting in the interets of the working clas. All bourgeois policians claim to do it and the stalinists are no exception



The Soviet worker received money in an envelope, which might have been pragmatically referred to as a wage. But this is not wage-labour.

In marxist economic terms, in a system of wage labour, 'wage' refers to the price paid for the labour-power of a worker, to work with a capitalist's means of production and create a product which the capitalist will own. The price of the labour-power is less than the value of the product of the labour, or capitalism can't exist.
In the SU, the money in the workers envelope was the value of the product of his labour ( minus the expenses of production and services expansion, defense, etc) not something less. Why? Because the worker owned the means of production and therefore owned the product of his labour.


So let me get this straight. In the SU the worker worked for wage but this was not wage labour. It was ...er.. something else. What sort of argument is this? According to you the worker received the value of the product minus the expenses you refer to. - although you dont refer to the exponses that went to support the lavish lifestyles of the soviet superrich. But my real point is that the exactly the same kind oif formulaic approach can be used to support that transperantly incorrect claim that the workers in the West likewise receive the the value of the product minus expenses. It makes no difference. And of course, you also ignore the fact of western investment in the SU which particularly in the latter stages of the SU was activiely encouraged. Do you think that workers involved in western-SU partnerships were any different from workers employed in state firms (indeed if anything their wage levels were slightly higher - these were sought after jobs).


If

In a 'nationalized industry' in a bourgeois country, a worker in a nationalized factory does not own the means of production in that factory because, it is state owned, but the state is the organization of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class, so he does not control it, and the profits from that factory go into the state treasury which again, is the treasury of the bourgeoisie, therefore he does not enjoy the profits- thus, he does not own his means of production and he is a wage labourer.



There is a saying that if something waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck than it is reasonable to assume it must be a duck. Has it never occured toi you that if state indsutries belong to the borgeosie in the West that they might equally have belonged to the bourgeoisie in the SU. The workers in the SU did not own these means of production in any any meaningful sense and just becuase some party hack says that a coal mine, say, belongs "to the people" does not mean we should literally take this to be the fact. British Coal in the post war years also claimed that the mines belonged to the people but that was a lie and the famous Miners strike in the 1980s proved once and for all that nationalised industries are not run in the interests of workers but like any other capitalist concern, to make profit out of which capital is accumulated.

That is the driving force of capitalism - capital accumulation. It is a process that demonstrably showed itself in the inglorious history of the so called Soviet Union. IMore than anything else , this failed experiment in brutal state capitalism was single greatest factor in holding back the development of a genuine communist movement. Itdiverted millions of well meaning but gullible workers down a historical cul de sac that ended in such disappointment and such disilluionment. One day I hope you will wake up and see the truth for what it is

Robin

[Cumannach]

...if as you claim the workers were organised as the ruling class who then was the class they ruled over? The capitalist class? But the capitalist class eixist by virtue of its exploitation of the working class. So according to your absurd theory, the ruling class allows itself to be exploited by those over whom it rules!...


Just because the capitalists have been ousted from the positions of power doesn't mean they just hold their hands up and say, "Ok, you guys win, now let's build socialism together." They don't just give up! That's the whole neccesity of the dictatorship of the proletariat- to crush any opposition or subversion from the capitalists, and not only from them, but from all potential capitalists- people who, because society has not been immediately restructured economically, may be in some position to become aspiring capitalists themselves. This is all basic marxism...



Oh come on - when on earth did the proletariat ever delegate much of the administration to others. What does this mean in real terms?


Electing Soviets.




Even a pro soviet publication boasted back in the 1950s I think that there were over 500 soviet millionaires . The super rich in the Soviet Union often camouflaged their massive wealth...



A strange juxtaposition.

There were no super-rich under Stalin's Soviet Union as far as I know- can you cite any sources that might make me reconsider my opinion? True, there was economic and wealth inequality in the later Soviet Union, but nothing even remotely approaching any capitalist country.



The oppression and misery that the vast majority of the population suffered under the Bolsheviks is well documented. Was it in their interest that they had to suffer this while a tiny elite flourished . Independent trade unions were crushed. Millions were sent to the labour camps



I was under the impression such 'documentation' of Bolshevik oppression usually consisted either of bourgeois (especially Nazi) government propaganda or newspapers and books published by Western millionaires. The 'labour camps' so beloved of the bourgeois press, where the Soviet penal system, were murderers, rapists, bourgeois subversives and other criminals were detained, many if not most being released after a sentence of a few years, alive and well.



So let me get this straight. In the SU the worker worked for wage but this was not wage labour. It was ...er.. something else. What sort of argument is this? According to you the worker received the value of the product minus the expenses you refer to. - although you dont refer to the exponses that went to support the lavish lifestyles of the soviet superrich. But my real point is that the exactly the same kind oif formulaic approach can be used to support that transperantly incorrect claim that the workers in the West likewise receive the the value of the product minus expenses. It makes no difference.


It makes all the difference if the super-rich didn't exist, and after the Stalin era did not enjoy a significant amount of the total wealth produced.



There is a saying that if something waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck than it is reasonable to assume it must be a duck.


You might remember this when reading anti-Soviet literature, and don't be so quick to swallow whole every bit of anti-communist propaganda.

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

Btw, capitalism doesn't need a ruling bourgeois (to be the dominant production relation). Capital needs agents, but these agents can come from every class as long as they keep capitalism intact. For years capital has been the main production relation while its defensive mechanism, the capitalist state, was managed by aristocrats, bureaucrats and even workers (since you cannot simply abolish capital over night, even when workers take power). So nationalization of the means of production by a conscious vanguard party doesn't necessarily bring a fundamental change to the production relation.

I think this is generally well put, except for further clarity I would say that the nationalization of the means of production by a conscious vanguard party does not bring about a change in the mode of production.