Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SPGB

Stalin did not liquidate the *whole* of the private capitalist class for he allowed small businesses to remain more or less intact. Which was confirmed after he died.

I think you might be confusing Stalin with Lenin.

Gravediggers said:
Which is short hand for saying that the objective conditions and the subjective conditions were not present in the USSR.

It was long hand not short hand, but yes.

Gravediggers said:
What are these vestiges of capitalism which will be retained in socialism?

According to Marx - bourgeois equal right. That is equality that does not take into account the unequal circumstances and abilities of the people. I would include the retention of democratic rule as being an example of bourgeois equal right.

Gravediggers said:
And what are the similarities between state capitalism and socialism?

That depends on what you mean by state capitalism.

Gravediggers said:
Blind assertions say nothing.

Indeed.
 
I agree that the establishment of socialism will be on the premise of participatory democracy. But I wasn't talking about the establishment of socialism. I was talking about full socialism.

Even direct democracy is flawed. A democratic ruling will tend to support a majority even if that majority only has a small stake in the ruling whereas the minority might have a large stake in the ruling. The question is whether it is necessary to subjugate minorities to the will of the majority. Democracy is a tool for a purpose, not the perfect form of goverment/administration.

True democracy is the will of the majority over the minority. And if you are unable to accept that fact of life you are not a democrat. But it also goes without saying that in a true democracy e.g. participatory or direct the views of a minority will be given full access to the democratic channels and if possible be accommodated if they are valid and not in conflict with the principles of common ownership.

Lets also not be forgetful that the minority and majority are in a state of flux and divided over the nuances of their ideas. This in itself suggests that the minority will be given every opportunity to become the majority. For a very extreme example of this occurring it is possible for socialism to turn back the clock and re-establish capitalism. If that's what the majority wants that is what they will get.

I could say check Lenin or perhaps check various anarchist writers. But that would give you the heebeejeebees (or at least the espeejeebees!). So check Morris. You lot like Morris don't you?

Checking Morris and various anarchist writers do not give me or other socialists much to be concerned about and we are well aware that some anarchists (but I'm glad to say not all) become slightly irrational over the prospect of true democracy and how it might impinge on their individual freedom of expression. We try to reassure them that there will be full scope for indulging in such pursuits and also for fully participating in the creation of the democratic structure to ensure that minority views are provided full consideration before a decision of the majority is enacted.

Alright. Common ownership is necessary for the establishment of socialism but by itself it is insufficient.

I can not fault you on that score but although we are aware what the main problems will be in the distribution of human needs, especially in coordinating a common effort, we wont know what other problems will arise until we get there. Then it will be upto the majority to decide what is the most viable solution to suit their circumstances. And for either of us to speculate on what these problems would entail would IMO be thoroughly undemocratic.
 
Checking Morris and various anarchist writers do not give me or other socialists much to be concerned about and we are well aware that some anarchists (but I'm glad to say not all) become slightly irrational over the prospect of true democracy and how it might impinge on their individual freedom of expression. We try to reassure them that there will be full scope for indulging in such pursuits and also for fully participating in the creation of the democratic structure to ensure that minority views are provided full consideration before a decision of the majority is enacted.

How about Engels:

"... For Marx and myself," continued Engels, "it was therefore absolutely impossible to use such a loose term to characterize our special point of view. Today things are different, and the word ["Social-Democrat"] may perhaps pass muster [mag passieren], inexact [unpassend, unsuitable] though it still is for a party whose economic programme is not merely socialist in general, but downright communist, and whose ultimate political aim is to overcome the whole state and, consequently, democracy as well. The names of real political parties, however, are never wholly appropriate; the party develops while the name stays."

Quoted from Lenin's State and Revolution.
 
]
I think you might be confusing Stalin with Lenin.

I'm not confusing either just pointing out that what you stated was incorrect.

The point is he liquidated the capitalist class.

Lenin and Stalin were quite aware they had to retain the small capitalists and the capitalists with technical knowledge. For it was essential to the development of the economy.

It was long hand not short hand, but yes.

So what is your argument, if that is with this admission you have one?

According to Marx - bourgeois equal right. That is equality that does not take into account the unequal circumstances and abilities of the people. I would include the retention of democratic rule as being an example of bourgeois equal right.

You are assuming, and grasping at straws, that unequal circumstances and abilities will not be taken into account under true democracy. Whereas, equality of free access to the democratic channels will be one of the principles of participatory democracy. The very absence of this principle will make our understanding of democracy a sham. Whereas, all concerned parties will be involved in reaching a majority decision.


That depends on what you mean by state capitalism.

State ownership of the principal means of production and distribution along with wide-scale planning activity, allocating supplies and directing products within the sphere of heavy industry, setting production targets, fixing prices and directing the flows of capital
 
I'm not confusing either just pointing out that what you stated was incorrect.

Lenin and Stalin were quite aware they had to retain the small capitalists and the capitalists with technical knowledge. For it was essential to the development of the economy.

In the 20's, yes.

Gravediggers said:
So what is your argument, if that is with this admission you have one?

We're in agreement. I'm not some sort of contrarian who insists on always disagreeing you know.

Gravediggers said:
You are assuming, and grasping at straws, that unequal circumstances and abilities will not be taken into account under true democracy. Whereas, equality of free access to the democratic channels will be one of the principles of participatory democracy. The very absence of this principle will make our understanding of democracy a sham. Whereas, all concerned parties will be involved in reaching a majority decision.

Different people have different needs. Democracy is based on everyone having the same democratic rights regardless of their circumstance. I've explained the argument already.

Gravediggers said:
State ownership of the principal means of production and distribution along with wide-scale planning activity, allocating supplies and directing products within the sphere of heavy industry, setting production targets, fixing prices and directing the flows of capital

There's a start, then, socialism doesn't direct capital.

This is not an interesting question to me. I've not talked about state capitalism.
 
I don't get this definition of state-capitalist as a catch-all term. Majority state ownership combined with a market driven economy, fair enough, but applying it willy nilly to primarily planned economies would seem to render the term capitalism redundant. Capitalism, surely, needs to be applied as a term when there is at least one of the following: significant private ownership of the MOP, and/or a primarily market driven economy. Capitalism does not just mean 'not socialism'.
 
Look Mr Ferret if you haven't got anything useful or constructive to say, if you are not prepared to engage with the other person's arguments, then why bother. You know you really dont have to meet that self imposed target of 25posts per day uttering inanities
ehem>

...and not once have the SPGB caught on to what's going on. Well, the SPGBers not posting have.
[/QUOTE]


It's sad really.
 
How about Engels:



Quoted from Lenin's State and Revolution.

Any quotes from Lenin I take with a pinch of salt until they have been absolutely verified. Not that this quote has anything to do with what I have previously stated, in respect of trying to reassure anarchists of the individual bent they have nothing to fear from participatory democracy. In many respects individual anarchism fails to take into account that rules of conduct are essential to civilised and classless society and without these rules of conduct there is no society. You can't have it both ways.
 
Any quotes from Lenin I take with a pinch of salt until they have been absolutely verified.

I would indeed prefer to quote from the original, but it's not on the internet. If you have a copy of Marx & Engels collected works lying about, you can find it for yourself.

Gravediggers said:
Not that this quote has anything to do with what I have previously stated, in respect of trying to reassure anarchists of the individual bent they have nothing to fear from participatory democracy. In many respects individual anarchism fails to take into account that rules of conduct are essential to civilised and classless society and without these rules of conduct there is no society. You can't have it both ways.

Now this really is disingenuous.
 
In the 20's, yes.

And after, in fact all the way until the demise of the USSR.



We're in agreement. I'm not some sort of contrarian who insists on always disagreeing you know.

Glad to hear that, because they piss me right off.

Different people have different needs. Democracy is based on everyone having the same democratic rights regardless of their circumstance. I've explained the argument already.

You might have explained that argument but there is no sign here that you accept my explanations on how minority views will be accommodated in a socialist society.


There's a start, then, socialism doesn't direct capital.

This is not an interesting question to me. I've not talked about state capitalism.

There will be no capital in a socialist society. And although you are not interested in the theory of state capitalism you did say it depended on what was meant by the term. So to make it clear to you and other posters I've posted what the SPGB means by the term. And in this respect already one poster is disagreeing with our explanation and seems to have formed the opinion that there are no markets under state capitalism.
 
Now this really is disingenuous.

If you think that, an explanation would be appropriate by relating from your understanding that individual anarchism is not in conflict with the rules of conduct of civilised society. Surely, individual anarchism suggests that the individual has primacy over the rest of society?
 
And after, in fact all the way until the demise of the USSR.

Private ownership of the means of production was reintroduced in 1985 if I remember correctly.

Gravediggers said:
You might have explained that argument but there is no sign here that you accept my explanations on how minority views will be accommodated in a socialist society.

Of course I accept it. It's even formally true of democracy now. It doesn't address my point, though.

Gravediggers said:
There will be no capital in a socialist society. And although you are not interested in the theory of state capitalism you did say it depended on what was meant by the term. So to make it clear to you and other posters I've posted what the SPGB means by the term. And in this respect already one poster is disagreeing with our explanation and seems to have formed the opinion that there are no markets under state capitalism.

Fair enough.
 
If you think that, an explanation would be appropriate by relating from your understanding that individual anarchism is not in conflict with the rules of conduct of civilised society. Surely, individual anarchism suggests that the individual has primacy over the rest of society?

You're having a little debate with yourself. I haven't mentioned individual anarchism.
 
OK just say what you find disingenuous with my explanation.

The fact that you thought you were addressing some point of mine was disinguous. The fact that you've tried to distract from my argument by changing the subject is disingenuous.

Perhaps you're not being disingenuous. Perhaps you're really a computer program not a human being. You see the word "anarchists" and it triggers a certain spiel regardless of its relevance...
 
With regards the existence of private property in the USSR, I might be confusing the legal status with the actuality. I'd have to look it up.
 
With regards the existence of private property in the USSR, I might be confusing the legal status with the actuality. I'd have to look it up.

I think what you'll find is a merger took place. The state took over the ownership and made the former owner(s) managers or regional directors with membership to the party a must, with the party role adding to their income. Some private capitalists became state capitalists overnight, others spent time in the gulag until such time their skills and experience were required.
 
I don't get this definition of state-capitalist as a catch-all term. Majority state ownership combined with a market driven economy, fair enough, but applying it willy nilly to primarily planned economies would seem to render the term capitalism redundant. Capitalism, surely, needs to be applied as a term when there is at least one of the following: significant private ownership of the MOP, and/or a primarily market driven economy. Capitalism does not just mean 'not socialism'.
State Capitalism - Part 2 - Discussion
Tony Cliff 2004
Comment


US, Japan, Germany and State Capitalism
Kostas Cossis 1992
Comment


State Capitalism in Crisis
Chris Harman 1987
Comment


State Capitalism - Discussion
John Molineux 2004
Comment


State Capitalism and Russia Under Stalin
Sean Vernell 2006
Comment


The theory of state capitalism
Ben Selwyn 2008
Comment


State Capitalism in Russia
Simon Guy 2009 - Length: 01-04-57 minutes
Comment


State Capitalism in Eastern Europe
Mike Haynes 2009 - Length: 01-10-55 minutes
Comment


http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/namekeysearch.pl
 
I think what you'll find is a merger took place. The state took over the ownership and made the former owner(s) managers or regional directors with membership to the party a must, with the party role adding to their income. Some private capitalists became state capitalists overnight, others spent time in the gulag until such time their skills and experience were required.

OK I get what you are saying. Stalin didn't liquidate all the capitalists as individual people - but you agree that he abolished private property. That was my little point anyway - he liquidated the capitalist class as a class not literally each and every indivdual. Nevermind.
 
Can we rewind to this discussion?
Edit: To spell it out: The SPGB think that a form of ownership (common ownership) will exist in a socialist society. Even this egalitarian and democratic concept has the imprint of capitalist property relations.
A free association of producers where the development of each is the condition for the development of all and where we live by the maxim, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

This is full socialism. Common ownership is merely the first phase of socialism.
The point is he liquidated the capitalist class. I don't see very much difference between democratically controlled common property and democratically controlled state property. It seems like only a semantic difference to me.

Of course Stalin's regime was anything but democratic. There is also the fact that the USSR in it's isolation did not have the resources to adequately provide for it's population.
You advocate keeping common property and therefore some of the vestiges of capitalism. If in your terms the USSR was state capitalist, what you advocate is a category that's very similar - perhaps we could call it communal capitalism?
I think you make some very good points against the SPGB Knotted, but IMHO you APPEAR to fail to appreciate the nature of the property relationships, is defined by the class relations.

Sure, Stalin eliminated a capitalist class, but then replaced it with another one, surely???? That the Stalinists state bureaucracy was capitalist, was defined by their relationship to the means of production.
 
OK I get what you are saying. Stalin didn't liquidate all the capitalists as individual people - but you agree that he abolished private property. That was my little point anyway - he liquidated the capitalist class as a class not literally each and every indivdual. Nevermind.
The church in feudal society eliminated private property, in that the means of production controled by the church was controlled by a bureaucracy, rather than individuals like the King, Lords etc. but the church controled mode of production was still feudalism, because their class relationship to the means of production was the same as the Kings.

What Stalin did was no different. He abolished private property, in name only. As far as the class relationships were concerned, they remained exactly the same.
 
Can we rewind to this discussion?
I think you make some very good points against the SPGB Knotted, but IMHO you APPEAR to fail to appreciate the nature of the property relationships, is defined by the class relations.

Sure, Stalin eliminated a capitalist class, but then replaced it with another one, surely???? That the Stalinists state bureaucracy was capitalist, was defined by their relationship to the means of production.

Do you think all state bureaucrats are capitalists? Are you saying that the British civil service is a capitalist class and a distinct capitalist class from the ordinary capitalist class?

The church in feudal society eliminated private property, in that the means of production controled by the church was controlled by a bureaucracy, rather than individuals like the King, Lords etc. but the church controled mode of production was still feudalism, because their class relationship to the means of production was the same as the Kings.

What Stalin did was no different. He abolished private property, in name only. As far as the class relationships were concerned, they remained exactly the same.

Are you saying feudalist class relations are the same as capitalist class relations?
 
I think what you'll find is a merger took place. The state took over the ownership and made the former owner(s) managers or regional directors with membership to the party a must, with the party role adding to their income. Some private capitalists became state capitalists overnight, others spent time in the gulag until such time their skills and experience were required.
what I can say is, that this state of affairs ^ was true with the fall of the Berlin Wall, when there was a supposed 'transformation' from 'socialism' to capitalism.

How true this was at the time of the revolution, I honestly don't know. Sure, those with skills, managers, that the workers needed to run the factory, were often forced to contribute to the production process at gun by the workers, but the playboy capitalist's etc???
 
OK I get what you are saying. Stalin didn't liquidate all the capitalists as individual people - but you agree that he abolished private property. That was my little point anyway - he liquidated the capitalist class as a class not literally each and every indivdual. Nevermind.

Not sure whether he or Lenin for that matter abolished *all* private property. Small enterprises like some retail outlets, and cafes. etc were allowed to continue to trade but with restrictions on the number of employees. But this policy was in line with the distinction they made between state socialism = small enterprises and state capitalism = large enterprises.

State capitalism meant for the Bolsheviks the lower phase of socialism and originated from Lenin's misquotation of 'The Gotha Program', where he made a distinction between socialism being the lower phase and communism being the higher phase. M&E never made such a distinction for both terms meant the same thing.

And strictly speaking Lenin or Stalin never liquidated the capitalist class, they still remained in political power under the guise of state capitalists, which effectively consisted of the party bosses.
 
Do you think all state bureaucrats are capitalists? Are you saying that the British civil service is a capitalist class and a distinct capitalist class from the ordinary capitalist class?



Are you saying feudalist class relations are the same as capitalist class relations?

I think for a Marxist, a mode of production, is defined by the class relationships to the means of production. Whether that property/means of production is held privately by individuals acting as a warring band of brothers, a class, or collectively by a bureaucracy acting as a warring band of brothers, a class, does not negate the nature of the mode of production. Marx said as much, I have been told.

So what I am asking is, did the church's collective ownership of property, negate the nature of it's fudal mode of production? If no, why does the same change under capitalism negate the capitalist mode of production?
 
The fact that you thought you were addressing some point of mine was disinguous. The fact that you've tried to distract from my argument by changing the subject is disingenuous.

Perhaps you're not being disingenuous. Perhaps you're really a computer program not a human being. You see the word "anarchists" and it triggers a certain spiel regardless of its relevance...

Hey hold your horses my explanation was only following through the argument of the individual anarchists that the introduction of participatory democracy would impinge on their freedom of expression and mentioning some possible contradictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravediggers View Post
If you think that, an explanation would be appropriate by relating from your understanding that individual anarchism is not in conflict with the rules of conduct of civilised society. Surely, individual anarchism suggests that the individual has primacy over the rest of society?

This is not changing the subject just merely enlarging the discussion. You alleged this was disingenuous to detract IME from answering the question in my last sentence. Back in your twisty mode I gather?
 
Not sure whether he or Lenin for that matter abolished *all* private property. Small enterprises like some retail outlets, and cafes. etc were allowed to continue to trade but with restrictions on the number of employees. But this policy was in line with the distinction they made between state socialism = small enterprises and state capitalism = large enterprises.

I'll take your word for it.

Gravediggers said:
State capitalism meant for the Bolsheviks the lower phase of socialism and originated from Lenin's misquotation of 'The Gotha Program', where he made a distinction between socialism being the lower phase and communism being the higher phase. M&E never made such a distinction for both terms meant the same thing.

This is just complete nonsense. Lenin never made a distinction between socialism and communism. He just noted that very often when socialists talked about socialism they really meant the lower phase of socialism/communism. As I've shown this includes the SPGB.

edit:
Lenin:
Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

Lenin had EXACTLY the same definition of socialism as the SPGB. He merely noted the defects still inherent in this first stage of socialism/communism - something the SPGB fail to do.

This is the problem you have learning from the SPGB without reading the original texts. You just learn all the self-serving SPGB distortions.

Gravediggers said:
And strictly speaking Lenin or Stalin never liquidated the capitalist class, they still remained in political power under the guise of state capitalists, which effectively consisted of the party bosses.

Yeah, yeah.

Edit: I can't take this theory seriously. I'm not particularly interested in it anymore. I've looked at four or five different versions, and I've spotted flaws in all of them. They're all the product of extemely tortured reasoning. Just try thinking it through for yourself. Who are the capitalists? Where is the capital? Is there any market competition? If not what drives the economy? If so how so? Just ask yourself these questions.
 
This is just complete nonsense. Lenin never made a distinction between socialism and communism. He just noted that very often when socialists talked about socialism they really meant the lower phase of socialism/communism. As I've shown this includes the SPGB.

Afraid not on both counts. I'm sure RMP3 will correct me if I'm wrong but I think he made the distinction in, 'The State and Revolution'. And when he's referring to socialists, if he does, he's referring to himself. For has far as I know there is no evidence of anybody in the Social Democratic Movement/Party who even faintly made this distinction between socialism and communism. They like M&E used both words to mean the same thing. I don't recall the SPGB ever referring to the establishment of socialism or either the revolutionary process in terms of higher and lower phases. If this is indeed the case would appreciate a reference or link.
 
Afraid not on both counts. I'm sure RMP3 will correct me if I'm wrong but I think he made the distinction in, 'The State and Revolution'. And when he's referring to socialists, if he does, he's referring to himself. For has far as I know there is no evidence of anybody in the Social Democratic Movement/Party who even faintly made this distinction between socialism and communism. They like M&E used both words to mean the same thing. I don't recall the SPGB ever referring to the establishment of socialism or either the revolutionary process in terms of higher and lower phases. If this is indeed the case would appreciate a reference or link.

Have you read State and Revolution?

You're not understanding. When socialists talked about socialism, they might not have been making any distinction between socialism and communism, but in effect they were refering to the first phase of socialism/communism. It has become the standard convention. Not only that but the SPGB's definition of socialism is the first phase of socialism/communism ie. common ownership of the means of production.

See my edit in my last post. Lenin has exactly the same definition of socialism as the SPGB does.

Please read State and Revolution before you criticise it.
 
I don't recall the SPGB ever referring to the establishment of socialism or either the revolutionary process in terms of higher and lower phases. If this is indeed the case would appreciate a reference or link.

Of course they don't. They just refer to what is the lower phase, even if they don't call it that.
 
Back
Top Bottom