"State-capitalist theory": not a theory on "social-imperialism"

  1. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    I joined this group, but I should start off by saying that "state-capitalist theory" is not the same as "social-imperialism."

    For example, outside of things like the Aswan Dam project, Soviet foreign trade was not "social-imperialist." Nor was the foray into Afghanistan "social-imperialist," unlike what the Cliffites would say (in backing the mujahedeen).
  2. automattick
    automattick
    I've never heard of this term "social-imperialism." Actually, a friend recently brought up to me that there really are no adequate Marxist theories on foreign policy (especially of the US). Perhaps for another foreign, but if you could go into more detail that would much appreciated.
  3. AK
    Because we won't co-operate with capitalists.
  4. Zanthorus
    Zanthorus
    I've never heard of this term "social-imperialism."
    For the most part I've only seen the term used by "anti-revisionist" Marxists to refer to the post-Stalin foreign policy of the USSR.

    Actually, a friend recently brought up to me that there really are no adequate Marxist theories on foreign policy (especially of the US).
    What about Luxemburg, Lenin, Bukharin etc's work?
  5. automattick
    automattick
    Thanks for clarifying what "Social imperialism" meant.

    What about Luxemburg, Lenin, Bukharin etc's work?
    Well, they outline major movements and explain how imperialism works, but I while Marx did directly address some foreign policy efforts, there was never a deep analysis of it the way some liberal often get into it. For example, what about the Bush invasion of Iraq? That more or less completely negated Hardt and Negri's account of imperialism in their work Empire.
  6. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    For the most part I've only seen the term used by "anti-revisionist" Marxists to refer to the post-Stalin foreign policy of the USSR.
    The Cliffites dispense with the "social" prefix and call Soviet foreign policy from Stalin onwards as "imperialist."

    Both groups, however, used the "imperialist" label arising from their "state capitalist" analysis to basically provide cover for petit-bourgeois reactionaries posing as "anti-imperialist" groups.
  7. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    So you don't think the USSR was imperialist? Seriously? Or have I misunderstood?
  8. Chambered Word
    Chambered Word
    The Cliffites dispense with the "social" prefix and call Soviet foreign policy from Stalin onwards as "imperialist."

    Both groups, however, used the "imperialist" label arising from their "state capitalist" analysis to basically provide cover for petit-bourgeois reactionaries posing as "anti-imperialist" groups.
    So Cliffites are reactionaries?
  9. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    So you don't think the USSR was imperialist? Seriously? Or have I misunderstood?
    Just merely having your tanks inside another country (especially for defensive purposes against a future invasion coming from the West) isn't enough for economic imperialism because, except under Stalin, the Soviets always traded at a deficit with Eastern Europe (importing at higher-than-market and exporting at lower-than-market).

    Various "Anti-Revisionists" try to point out specialization ("They wanted Albania to be a Soviet breadbasket!"), but specialization wasn't one of the criteria outlined by Kautsky, Luxemburg, Hilferding, Bukharin, or Lenin.
  10. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    How can a capitalist country not be imperialist?

    Dis you read the pieve by Bukharin that Alf posted? That is a pretty spot on description of the Soviet Union as imperialist.
  11. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    Yes I did, but I must agree with gilhyle on this one. Moreover, to be an imperialist state you've got to have a bourgeoisie in charge, which the Soviet Union never had.

    What you call the "capitalist mode of production" doesn't have to have a bourgeoisie. Imperialism does.
  12. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    I'm not sure what agreeing with gilhyle means.

    What is the bourgeoisie? The class that manages the capitalist mode of production. So, yes, the USSR was capitalist with a bourgeois ruling class. Why do you think theat the USSR never had a bourgeoisie?
  13. automattick
    automattick
    What you call the "capitalist mode of production" doesn't have to have a bourgeoisie. Imperialism does.
    Please cite the source in which Marx says such a thing.
  14. Ostrinski
    Please cite the source in which Marx says such a thing.
    What if he didn't?
  15. kasama-rl
    kasama-rl
    The Soviet Union was social imperialist -- i.e. socialist in name, imperialist in reality.

    And it was imperialist in the Leninist sense (i.e. finance capital, export of capital, requiring redivision of the world etc.)

    Pat Clawson made a detailed analysis of Soviet relations with India that documents the extraction of surplus value (in a pretty classic colonialist way -- with the twist that it operated through the Indian state... i.e. state capitalism.)

    Clawson's essay can be found here:

    http://kasamaproject.org/history/283...al-imperialist