Transient mode of production – or production under the dotp

[Jacob Cliff]

I've made a post on this before but I did not flesh it out, or receive answers I found sufficient (probably due to me, as stated, not fleshing it out more).

I'd like to discuss the economy under the Soviet Union, and the varying ideas pertaining to modes of production, transitional regimes, etc. This may be long-winded, but I haven't received satisfactory answers on this subject and pondering it on my own leads me to conclusions which it seems are rejected on this forum.

What was the mode of production in the former USSR? It is often defined as still a part of capitalism by left communists and anarchists – precisely because it did not break from the capitalist mode of production. I have a few questions pertaining to this – the first being, is did it really not break from capitalism? Can one really say that the law of value, in conjunction with "production carried out by a predetermined plan," really negates the idea that this was, at the least, a society TRANSITIONING from capitalism? I know the popularity in saying "But there is no middle ground – you either have capitalism or socialism" – but this is frankly nonsensical. Of course there will be a transition of one mode of production into another, and this transition will bear aspects of both – that is not generally denied by state capitalist theorists. But what IS denied, or avoided, is that this CANNOT be put into the same category as just plain "capitalism" or whatever. I mean, the proletarian dictatorship can't abolish capitalism outright – everyone knows that. Quoting Marx: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Note the bold. He is not JUST talking about political transformation – he is saying there is a transformation of one (capitalism) into another (socialism) – CORRESPONDINGLY there lies a DOTP in this transition. I'm stressing this because IT IMPLIES, directly, that there is a transient mode of production – or at least, that there will be a period of mixed aspects of both, with the socialist aspects gradually eclipsing the capitalist ones. I don't think any claim of "you can't have a mix" holds any water – I mean, WHERE do you draw the line? If the economy is fully planned for need save a few luxury items, which still abide by the market and rationing, is the whole economy capitalist? If not, what is it? A new mode of production – or a transient economy of coexisting laws)?

I understand the claims that state planning does not negate capitalist aspects – that Germany in WWI, FDR's New Deal, etc., would have to be "non-capitalist" if this were the case. But Engels states it clear in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific that state ownership provides the technical prerequisites for a developed socialist economy – that the proletarian state taking hold of capital allows for the transformation of capitalism into socialism. Does the "Centralization of the means of production into the hands of the state" ALONGSIDE "The establishment of a central bank" (so: centralization of capital into [proletarian] state hands") ring any bells?

What I'm trying to get here is this: IT IS CLEAR that the proletarian dictatorship will be correspond to a transformation of capitalism into socialism – which IMPLIES it bears aspects of both. IT IS WHOLLY UNSCIENTIFIC to assume that aspects cannot coexist.
If we accept this as the case, and that the proletarian dictatorship will be the facilitator of the transition (i.e. it will see over the transient nature of the economy), then we must accept the USSR as truly having an economy which was in transition between capitalism and socialism. Perhaps we can say it had "more in common with capitalism" – but it was certainly "socialistic" in planning the economy. Or, to accept a different notion, it was state-capitalist, but as a preliminary step towards socialism. I really don't think one can classify the law of planning existing in a society as a part of capitalism, when under the political domination of a workers state.


Now, if all of this rambling is bunk (which it probably is), then I have a follow up question: if we accept pre-collectivization USSR as a proletarian dictatorship, then what was the classification of the economy? Because the way industries were run, the introduction of the NEP, etc. – this was certainly not socialist, but it was also under a proletarian regime. Does this signify that, given the Russian experience before collectivization, the proletarian dictatorship will preside over a CAPITALIST economy, even one state-run like in War Communism (which certainly was not communism)?

[Tim Cornelis]

I do think there will be a transitional period which is neither exactly communistic nor capitalistic, but that is not implied in the sentence you quoted. And it certainly doesn't follow that because we recognise that a transitional phase will exist which has the imprints of both capitalism and communism, that therefore the Soviet Union was an example of such a transition.

Centralisation of credit wasn't a policy objective of a proletarian dictatorship.

"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." (Communist Manifesto).

The 'Demands of the Communist Party in Germany' of 1848 have a similar demand: “All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.”

“This measure will make it possible to regulate credit in the interests of the whole people and will thus undermine the dominance of the large financiers. By gradually replacing gold and silver by paper money, it will cheapen the indispensable instrument of bourgeois trade, the universal means of exchange, and will allow the gold and silver to have an outward effect. Ultimately, this measure is necessary to link the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the revolution.”

Marx and Engels aren't talking about proletarian revolution, which obviously wouldn't require the support of the conservative bourgeoisie.

The 10 planks of communism were communist demands for the completion of a bourgeois revolution. They did see this, at this point in time, as a process of permanent revolution that would result in a proletarian revolution, which they didn't see materialise to their disappointment. But the [proletarian] interjection of your is incorrect.

It's completely laughable to see some 'Marxists' like Cockshott and Bertrall Ollman (iirc his name correctly) use the 10 planks to map out socialism. It's such a sham, demands explicitly linked to facilitating bourgeois trade and bourgeois revolution used for socialism. But that frustration aside.

[Jacob Cliff]

The 10 planks of communism were communist demands for the completion of a bourgeois revolution. They did see this, at this point in time, as a process of permanent revolution that would result in a proletarian revolution, which they didn't see materialise to their disappointment. But the [proletarian] interjection of your is incorrect.

Interesting – I never understood that. To understand more thoroughly – so the "10 Planks" of the Manifesto are what Marx and Engels envisioned to be the necessary preliminary steps a proletarian state would need to take in the context of the revolutions in 1848 (to complete the bourgeois revolutions and lay the prerequisites for the proletarian one)?

If so, then I'm curious: what then would be a program for a proletarian dictatorships in modernized, advanced-capitalist countries (like the USA and most of Europe) that do not require the hand of the state to complete aspects of the bourgeois revolution? Is the centralization of the means of production in the hands of the (proletarian) state still a necessity, or are we looking at some sort of more libertarian, "factories to the workers" sort of ideal? I know communists don't like "predicting" these things, or blueprinting a revolution, but I want to at least get a vague grasp on what the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship would be in the context of a modern society without a need for the state to fulfill the bourgeois revolution.

Would it simply be: the proletarian dictatorship puts property into proletarian state hands, and immediately begins planning for-need? If so, what, exactly, does this really mean? Sorry for the follow up questions.

[ckaihatsu]

The 'Demands of the Communist Party in Germany' of 1848 have a similar demand: “All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.”

“This measure will make it possible to regulate credit in the interests of the whole people and will thus undermine the dominance of the large financiers. By gradually replacing gold and silver by paper money, it will cheapen the indispensable instrument of bourgeois trade, the universal means of exchange, and will allow the gold and silver to have an outward effect. Ultimately, this measure is necessary to link the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the revolution.”

Ironically / counterintuitively this demand is really more 'political' than economic, since a state bank issuing bonds that function as legal tender is equivalent (these days) to saying 'nationalize The Fed' -- it's practically a *libertarian* demand, around concerns strictly regarding monetary policy, and not much more. I can't see it as being more than *symbolic*, or a barometer of the overall *political* struggle, because as economic policy itself it could very well just be state corporatism, which was the more-efficient form of capitalism demonstrated by Germany and Japan, most notably, which threatened to leapfrog those countries' economies over those of the established Allies, thus precipitating World War I.