State Capitalism and the Co-ordinator Class

As a result of some discussions recently on the idea of a co-ordiantor class, I'm going to post excerpts that deal with the idea:

From a Marxist point of view, if the capitalist class can be succeeded by the 'co-ordinator class' - ie, the working class is not the class that will end capitalism, the co-ordinator class is, and it will usher in... 'co-ordinatism' as a form of economic organisation - then we really have no perspective of revolution. How many more classes will there be until the working class is the last class in history? Is there another class that will overthrow the 'co-ordinator class' before the working class gets to? Is there another class waiting after that?

The theory of the 'co-ordinator class' also lets Stalinism off the hook. If there is a 'co-ordinator class' then the USSR was not (state) capitalist, it was 'co-ordinatorist'. That must be an improvement on capitalism, the capitalists were overthrown by a new revolutionary class ... Unlike state capitalism, which is just plain old no-new-classes capitalism in the age of imperialism. So the USSR must be an improvement on what went before, because the capitalist class was dispossesed by the 'co-ordinator class'.

I don't agree, I think the USSR was state capitalist, and therefore the class in control of it was the capitalist class.

Is the 'co-ordinator class' actually a newly-discovered class? Or is it, as the theory of state capitalism argues, the tool by which the capitalists co-ordinate their rule in the epoch of imperialism/state capitalism? ...

...You think that 'the capitalists' can be overthrown by a new class of 'co-ordinators' - ie, that there is a revolutionary class after capitalism that isn't the working class, that sets up a new form of production. How is that not an improvement? Your logic says that the USSR was better than western capitalism, unless western capitalism was actually 'western co-ordinatorism' and we have been living in a post-capitalist world since the 1920s or something...

... if a 'socialist party' becomes a new clique (class) that overthrows a government, but not capitalism, then if they're administering capitalism, they're capitalists. Not co-ordinators. If they're a new class, they're administering a new form of property. If they're administering a new form of property, then the Marxist idea that the workers overthrow capitalism is out the window. I'm trying to find out if ... there was a new class, embodying a new revolutionary property, in the USSR; or, if it was state capitalist, why (don't supporters of the 'co-ordinator class theory') think that the administration was capitalist? ...


It seems to me that these are pretty important questions that are thrown up by the co-ordinator class theory that is one that Anarchists especially seem fond of, though I've also heard people that have claimed to be council communists expound it.

Any thoughts - or even rigorous critiques - would be most welcome.

From a Marxist point of view, if the capitalist class can be succeeded by the 'co-ordinator class' - ie, the working class is not the class that will end capitalism,

The working class not being the revolutionary class doesn't follow from the idea that the co-ordinator class can succeed the capitalist class. A "revolutionary class" isn't just the next class down from the ruling classes in Marxist theory, otherwise the petit-bourgeoisie would also be a revolutionary class or, even more absurd, the lumpen would have to make a revolution after the achievment of communism to usher in a new form of post-communist society since the lumpen is below the proletariat. The question is, which class within capitalist society has the potential to overthrow the fetishistic social relationships which the productive forces are constrained within? And the answer is still the working class.

the co-ordinator class is, and it will usher in... 'co-ordinatism' as a form of economic organisation - then we really have no perspective of revolution.

The form of social organisation is not merely defined by what class is the ruling class. The aristocracy still existed well into the development of capitalism (In fact some countries still have Feudal institutions, the British and Swedish Monarchies for example). In fact the primary example of state-capitalism before the Russian Revolution (Pre-WWI Germany) was a monarchy. It needs commodity production and the extraction of surplus-value which accumulates and becomes an alien force standing over the worker. This process can be carried on by the co-ordinator class as much as the traditional capitalist class.

Is the 'co-ordinator class' actually a newly-discovered class? Or is it, as the theory of state capitalism argues, the tool by which the capitalists co-ordinate their rule in the epoch of imperialism/state capitalism?

I think the latter. The co-ordinators arose out of the need for capital to put a barrier between itself and the workers. The fact that it stems from the capitalist class in no way implies that it isn't a class in-itself though.

You think that 'the capitalists' can be overthrown by a new class of 'co-ordinators' - ie, that there is a revolutionary class after capitalism that isn't the working class, that sets up a new form of production.

No, capitalism was overthrown by the working class during the Russian Revolution but pressure from Imperialism forced a beuracracy to develop which eventually allowed the co-ordinators to take control. The co-ordinator regime then spread through Soviet foreign policy.

... if a 'socialist party' becomes a new clique (class) that overthrows a government, but not capitalism, then if they're administering capitalism, they're capitalists. Not co-ordinators.

I guess we could say that in some sense the co-ordinators became capitalists in the USSR.

though I've also heard people that have claimed to be council communists expound it.

Probably because Pannekoek expounds a similar view in his "The New Middle Class".

Also it seems to me that a lot of this critique focuses too much on the role of the co-ordinator class in the Russian Revolution. The concept of a co-ordinator class was thought up primarily to explain the fact that hired wage-workers in modern corporations had power over other workers and mediated between them and the capitalists.

I don't get some of your logic I'm afraid Zanthorus.

I'm not arguing that there are no other classes in capitalism, or that 'the next class down' is necessarily the most revolutionary, nor indeed that the lowest class in society is the most revolutionary. But I don't see where this class comes from. It doesn't have a unique relationship to the means of production and therefore I don't see how it's a class. It's a tool; a strategy; not a class.

If capitalists (not necessarily in the Russian revolution, but anywhere) are succeeded by 'co-ordinators' how can that imply anything other than they have a new relationship to the means of production? We know what the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, the working class and the underclass are, we even know what the aristocracy is, in relation to the means of production; each has a unique relationship to the historical character of exploitation in capitalism and feudalism. But what is the 'co-ordiantor' class's role? To organise exploitation without deriving benefit from it (or maybe they do)? Is that really a class rather than a strategy for managing capitalism?

On the continued existence of the monarchy and aristocracy... well, the ruling class for the past 100-400 years in Europe has been the bourgeoisie. So what if Britain and Sweden still have monarchs? That doesn't make those states feudal, because the economic organisation of those states is capitalism - wage labour and generalised commodity production. And if there is capitalism, that means that the ruling class is a capitalist class. Not a co-ordinator class, because if it were, then we'd have a 'new thing' because the new class would be embodying some new property form, some new relationship to the means of production (as the bourgeoisie did when they radically disposed of aristocratic rule between 1600-1800 in Europe).

Just as surplus value is divorced from the hands of the worker and redistributed into the means of production, or at least nowadays, into stocks, hedge funds, etc., in the Soviet Union surplus value passed through the hands of the party leadership and was in turn redistributed into means of production, or whatever. Since this basic process is still more or less intact, it is hard to imagine the USSR, China, Cuba, et al. as anything but state capitalist economies with the party acting as the capitalists.

I can't help but think of the 1976 film Network, where the character of Ned Beatty lectures to the deranged Howard Beale about how the world "truly works":

"What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, min and max solutions and compute the price-cost probability of their transactions and their investments just like we do."

I don't get some of your logic I'm afraid Zanthorus.

I kind of drift around on this question really. You asked for rigorous critique so I gave my attempt. I'm kind of stumped at how to argue against your response though... so I guess you win.

It's not about 'winning', to be honest I'm just asking questions trying to understand how the Co-ordinator class theory attempts to explain things. All debate that helps us sharpen our understanding is good. I certainly understand 'drifting around the question'. I think part of the problem for me is that the 'co-ordinator class theory' seems to contain a rather nebulous (to my way of thinking at least) approach to what 'class' actually means. That I think is my problem both with understanding it but also in arguing against it. Getting to grips with it I think certainly takes a lot of drifting around.

Been thinking about the idea that Germany was the state capitalist country par excellence before WWI. It also seems obvious when one thinks about that another important state capitalist country was Russia, where Tsarism to a large extent stood in for the bourgeoisie in developing Russian capitalism. This may link in very well with the Bukharin piece that Alf posted. I'll have to think about this further.

Maybe this is too reductionist, but why can't we call this entire concept as one emanating out of a form of opportunism? If that is in fact the case, then I still don't see how this concept should be singled out.

Is it though? Is it not inevitable under certain circumstances?

I'm wondering about 2 things: firstly, whether you see developments in the west (state intervention in the economy, arms spending, nationalisations) as state capitalism, and secondly, what you think would have happened in Russia if the Bolsheviks had not administered the post-revolutionary state?

For your first point, I would say that in some cases they might just be Keynesian measures, not necessary state capitalism. As for your second point, the Bolsheviks dissolved the only real expression of proletarian economic power--the soviets and replaced them with this democratic centralism nonsense. What could have been didn't, and the Bolsheviks played the role of economic mediator in a society that could have been something other than what it turned into: a despotic state capitalist regime.

I just wasted a paragraph on a "what-if". I'm ashamed.

Counter-factuals are allowed from time to time =)

I don't think we should entirely conflate Keynesian economics with state capitalism, they are different faces of capital. For Keynesians, the state redirects finances but still allows for independent production. Perhaps the closest the USSR came to Keynesianism was Lenin's NEP, where smaller capitalists had more breathing room, while large-scale manufacturing and industry were firmly in state hands. But I see your point, and nonetheless I'll have to put some more thought behind my thoughts on Keynesianism...I thank you for the criticism!

Demarcations still must be drawn out, I don't think you could seriously claim that the USSR was "Keynesian." There's also a difference between state intervention and state control. Keynes never spoke about permanently planning the economy, he only meant it reduce capital's tendency for crisis. This is different from Soviet planning models which went into such minutiae as how many bales of hay so-and-so soviet would produce, etc.

Fair enough, back to the books for me on this topic!