In the works of Bordiga I've read, Bordiga makes a brilliant--but at the same time, unsatisfying point--that state capitalism is a tautology, as the state and capital go hand in hand. As Bordiga puts it: "State capitalism is not a subjugation of capitalism to the state, but a firmer subjugation of the state to capital." A. Bordiga, "Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil" (1951)(<http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/doctrine.htm> When compared to say the theories coming out of the Johnson-Forrest Tendency around the same time (perhaps earlier), it just doesn't seem as rich and really begs the question as to the differences and nuances of state capitalist models, i.e., Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Kemalist Turkey, etc. Thoughts? I'm curious as to what other comrades consider to be the "best" Marxian theoretician of state capitalism and perhaps a few words as to why.
I think the Gauche Communiste de France did some fundamental work on state capitalism just after the second world war, when it was vital to understand the nature of the USSR but also of the nationalisations taking place in the west. Two of their texts on this question have been published in the ICC's International Review I think they showed that, despite differences between various national varieties, state capitalism was indeed a universal tendency of a system in decline. Capital in this epoch certainly needs the state to preserve its domination, but in doing so it more and more fuses with the state to the point where its own laws become distorted. Is that a tautology? I don't think so; it's a description of a very real process. http://en.internationalism.org/ir/06...ian-experience http://en.internationalism.org/ir/21...ionalisme-1952
it is something that's sometimes thrown at those of us that accept Internationalisme's (and Bordiga's) basic thrust though, that capital and the state are increasingly fused. 'So state capitalism and imperialism just mean "whatever capital did in the 20th century" to you do they?' and in a way the answer is yes, because the drive to state capitalism and the dynamic of imperialism are acting on all countries. As the 20th century developed, with the statisation of the economies of WWI, a relaxation in some after the war and an attempt to get back to 'business as usual' that failed and was never really attempted again after 1929, leading to a further round of enmeshing capitalism and the state in the '30s, Keynesianism, New Deal and all that, that dynamic is increasingly generalised in the 20th. They become, not policies to be taken up or put down, but the vital needs of the economies in competition. It seems to me that no economy that didn't have massive state investment could afford to compete with one that had; so like capitalist firms revolutionising production, nations had to statise production in order not to be left behind when their competitiors did. But like capitalist firms all revolutionising production, the benefits to countries quickly tail off. New stimulus analogous to revitalising the means of production need to happen to keep they process going. But where are the new economic stimulus drugs to come from?
I think that Bordiga’s state capitalist theory is valuable as one of the early theories to go beyond the popular/weak state cap analysis which fails to utilize any Marxist understanding. I would say that things like ‘Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil’ serve an introductory purpose to more elaborate state capitalist theories.
I think what is interesting as well is that, unlike some Trotskyists who view Russia as some sort of post-capitalist complex or developed state capitalism, Bordiga's state capitalism was an emerging state capitalism. He even would compare Stalinist Russia to countries like Italy back in 1848, when those countries were just beginning to industrialize, etc. I think that is a correct and interesting way of looking at it.
