At what point, if at all, did the former USSR transition to "State-Capitalism" from a degenerated workers state? What about the PRC? Is the US, considering the bail outs and increased government ownership (but not control) of the means of production, also State capitalist? If you are answering this, can you please also state your organizational affiliations. I am trying to learn. I understand IST does not consider the USSR to be a 'degenerated workers state' but state capitalism from the start. Why?
I'm not exactly an expert on this topic, but I'm quite sure that when certain Trotskyist groups refer to state capitalism, they're referring to the idea that the state-bureaucratic apparatus in charge of the planned economy acts as one giant corporation and, therefore, the state = one big capitalist. They aren't referring to market economies with significant amounts of state intervention, such as the PR of China and the United States. But this is coming from someone who does not subscribe to the state capitalist theory, so maybe someone more qualified can give a better answer.
Hmmm, anyone else?
I don't buy the state cap theory either. I do know lots of people who come out of IST politics so maybe I can find an answer. One rather sectarian friend told me it was 1928, but I don't know. Tariq Ali edited a fine book on Stalinism with very positive remarks on Tony Cliff's theories (which weren't included) but I've been curious since. Maybe ask someone from an IST tradition to explain Cliff's thought more broadly?
Hmmm, anyone else? I was in the SWP for a few years and my understanding of the State Capitalism theory was that from the adoption of the first five year plan in 1928 the soviet economy moved away from the mixed economy of the NEP (which was described to me at State authorised Capitalism ie the workers state allowed capitalists to operate because the market was the best solution at the time), or the vague attempts at socialisation in a country that was too backward. The Capitalism of Cliffs theory is not based on the suggestion that capitalism as analysed by Marx existed within the USSR, but that the State acted like a big capitalist corporation in charge of a whole country. This explains why it sought to expand its influence post war, into eastern europe, south east asia and cuba, enforcing the 'state capitalist' model on those nations. Cliffites also assert China to be State Capitalist although there is a clear difference between the soviet and chinese economy's (the soviet one collapsed, the Chinese one makes nearly everything in the world these days by being cheap labour for capitalism - including the keyboard i'm typing on at the moment) I reject the cliff theory on the basis it isnt a study of the actual workings of the soviet economy, for that i found much more useful work in the writings of Hillel Ticktin (mainly a book called 'Origins of the Crisis in the USSR' and various articles of his in the Critique journal) I would recommend getting hold of Cliffs State Capitalism in Russia, Trotsky's revolution betrayed and the Ticktin book as a basis for getting a handle on the soviet question. as ever the best way to learn is to hit the books and then discuss with your comrades.
[quote=Chairman^-_-^] Is the US, considering the bail outs and increased government ownership (but not control) of the means of production, also State capitalist? A thorny flaw in Cliffs theory some would say, for instance at the time he wrote its first drafts in the late 40s here in the UK, railways, mines, healthcare were being nationalised and run by the state. But essentially Capitalist governments that take some industry into nationalised status do so because they have been failing as free market entities, but they provide something necessary for the nation/the system to continue, and there isnt any private capital willing to invest, so state money goes into the industry. Nationalisation is not inherently a revolutinary Socialist concept, Henry VIII of england nationalised the postal service for instance! (giving him the right to read other peoples letters apparently) In the case of what Obama and W have done with the bailouts, i tend to see it as an act of self preservation for the Bourgeoisie, the impact of businesses not being able to get credit, major industries like the car industry going under would mean millions of unemployed workers, who have had their possesions repossessed, and slice of the american dream dissapear through no fault of their own - can you imagine them all taking it calmly! Obama far from being a socialist on this is in fact doing what Capital wants to happen, because it fears the fire that might rage...this time
