To be, or not to be state capitalism, By The Socialist Party

[articul8]

To be fair, you could say that the limitations of the ortho trot line on the USSR had implications for the SP's pretty flat-footed response to the emergence of anticapitalism. The idea that it represented something qualitatively new - reaching for alternatives to BOTH capitalism and highly centralised bureaucratic collectively planned "socialism" was never really taken seriously.

It was (and is!) basically assumed that the answers the anticapitalist movement is looking for is basically already outlined in Lenin and therefore the tasks are to tap the energy of the movement to a very traditional form of class based vanguard. This means - for example - the environmental/ecological ideas just need to be bolted onto the old paradigm - that there is no specific logic to their own development.

Does International Socialist Resistance still exist? It always seemed a bit of an after thought - to go where the kids are, but really to get them thinking like good old-fashioned Leninists.

 

[dennisr]

To be fair, you could say that the limitations of the ortho trot line on the USSR had implications for the SP's pretty flat-footed response to the emergence of anticapitalism.

To also be fair - i think that is a completely seperate question (or 10 questions rolled up into one) going off on one of your very special tangents article - full of the sort of preconcieved assumptions (and false insinuations) that you would be the first to point out if it was coming from an ortho-leninist (or whatever the label)

(ps I think ISR is one of those sniffing for opportunity organisations - the Youth for Jobs campaign seems to be taking off rapidly - given the changed enviroment and resulting reception for such ideas - got three times the expected number on the recent demo, the majority completely fresh - so maybe that will fill out with new young folk)

 

[articul8]

To also be fair - i think that is a completely seperate question

Not completely separate at all - the SWP's argument after the fall of the Berlin Wall etc. was that it cleared the decks of illusions in a very statist form of centralised command "socialist" economy which was actually a form of capitalist exploitation run bureaucratically. It therefore was able to respond to the anticapitalist movement with some sense of its specificity and value as something new, even though it shares an inappropriate fetish about old organisational methods.

Whereas the SP didn't - and still doesn't - really appreciate the extent to which an appeal to the idea of a "socialist economy" had to be radically rethought in the wake of the fall of the USSR.

the Youth for Jobs campaign seems to be taking off rapidly - given the changed enviroment and resulting reception for such ideas - got three times the expected number on the recent demo, the majority completely fresh - so maybe that will fill out with new young folk)

This is good, insofar as it goes - which isn't awfully far. The idea of campaigning for jobs is absolutely compatible with a basic reformist social democratic politics - which isn't of course to say it's not worth doing! But what makes you think that it will lead to the growth in a very traditional sort of movement in support of revolution for a centrally planned socialist economy along the lines of the Bolsheviks circa 1920-30 (when did it start to become "degenerate" by the way? With NEP? How long after...?)

 

[dennisr]

Not completely separate at all - the SWP's argument after the fall of the Berlin Wall etc. was that it cleared the decks of illusions in a very statist form of centralised command "socialist" economy which was actually a form of capitalist exploitation run bureaucratically. It therefore was able to respond to the anticapitalist movement with some sense of its specificity and value as something new, even though it shares an inappropriate fetish about old organisational methods.

Whereas the SP didn't - and still doesn't - really appreciate the extent to which an appeal to the idea of a "socialist economy" had to be radically rethought in the wake of the fall of the USSR.

I am genuinely busy (even if with work I don't want to do..) so a quick reply

the SP and SWP have both never wanted a "very statist form of centralised command "socialist" economy" - we simply recognise the advantages of a planned economy. There is no prescriptive idea of what a socialist society will be. The SWPs view was that there had been no change. There has. it effected the worker's movement internationally.

Like all communists we want an end to the centralised command state - our differences are over the question of how we get there - but you already know that. You argue that the anti-capitalist movement is a break with the past - in fact a large element of that movement is reformism/centrism rehashed rather than something original. You do tend to go on about this big 'break with the past' I would really love to see you set them down on paper or online - explain what you really mean

This is good, insofar as it goes - which isn't awfully far.

You are still waiting for your perfect movement mate - such a movement takes concious effort and involvement rather than 'its just not good enough' commentry

 

[articul8]

I am genuinely busy (even if with work I don't want to do..) so a quick reply

fair do's -we're a bit old to be having to join the Youth March for Jobs so that's fair enough We'll probably only go round in circles a bit.

But I can't not reply

the SP and SWP have both never wanted a "very statist form of centralised command "socialist" economy" - we simply recognise the advantages of a planned economy. There is no prescriptive idea of what a socialist society will be.

Though that's true in the formal sense, there's no effort to really think through how a transitional move from state ownership in the name of the workers towards a communist society will be accomplished. It isn't there in Marx, and the absence of a plausible outline (not a fully realised blueprint - I'm not waiting round for that) is why people can't imaginge what a really effective movement tp bring about a post-capitalist society would look like.

The SWPs view was that there had been no change. There has. it effected the worker's movement internationally.

I'm not sure it's true to say that the SWP thought there was no change - they saw it as a step sideways. I'm minded to say "dialectics, comrade" it was both a step forward and a step back. But the SP only see the last half. Undoubtedly it rocked the foundations of the social democratic parties and opened up the space for neoliberalism - the SWP didn't seem to recognise the added impetus if gave (as they thought class struggle was basically a one way downhill slope since 1973, although with some upturn around the mid-late nineties?). But at the same time undermining the appeal of old tankie (and new tankie!) claims to speak for the iron laws of history, old fixations on a retrenching industrial working class, simplistic slogans like "nationalise the top 150 monopolies" - was progress (of a kind) on the left.

You argue that the anti-capitalist movement is a break with the past - in fact a large element of that movement is reformism/centrism rehashed rather than something original.

I'm trying to think how the collapse of communism and the growth of anti- gloablisation/capitalism fits in the wider period 1973-2007/8 and how the two relate to where we are now. I think it would be a mistake to see the ideas of the anticapitalist movement as purely and simply a rehash of old reformist currents. Certainly some of that kind of thinking will be adapted to the new situation. But there is also a sense that state ownership is by no means automatically progressive or desirable - what alternative forms of political economy might exist ie how is another kind of democratic socialism possible?

Whatever there limitations, people like Michael Albert, Hardt/Negri, Alvaro Garcia de Linera etc. are actually trying to think these things through. I don't see much evidence of SP engaging with new ideas - everything gets filtered through the old dogmatic assumptions.

You do tend to go on

I know, sorry

...about this big 'break with the past' I would really love to see you set them down on paper or online - explain what you really mean

All good things come to those who wait

You are still waiting for your perfect movement mate - such a movement takes concious effort and involvement rather than 'its just not good enough' commentry

I'm doing what (little) I can not only on the level of ideas but also in terms of practical day-to-day political involvement (which I'll tell you about sometime if you fancy catching up) to open up a space for something better.

To paraphrase Adorno (sorry - pseuds corner) the SP and the SWP are like the torn halves of a whole to which they would never together add up. The SP is grounded, consistent, with roots in the daily experience of working people and can do bread-and-butter really effectively. But they have a dogmatic approach to political ideas and an aversion to working with other organised forces. The SWP has a million and one things wrong with it in terms of its organisational approach and obsession with running everything on its own terms - and politically it can be very inconsistent and opportunist. But on the positive side it does try to engage with new ideas and is more open to working with people with a political basis of that they don't share.

Time to go (far) beyond the fragments...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
BTW I think I read somewhere that Ted Grant introduced Cliff to the theory of State Capitalism anyway!!

That story comes from fellow South African emigre Charlie Van Gelderen. Charlie shared a flat with Cliff after WWII and after Grant started making arguments inside the then RCP favour of the theory of state capitalism, Cliff disagreed so went off to the British Library and came back convinced; meanwhile Grant had decided it wasn't correct and stuck to the degenerated workers state view. Those brief couple of years after the war were the only time Cliff, Grant and Healy were all in the same organisation, the RCP.

 

[dennisr]

But I can't not reply

- will reply to the other points made but for now...

But the SP only see the last half.

I am afraid that is not really true - in some respects the final break with TG came about because of our approach on the ground in the old USSR and East Germany in particular - a recognition of the democratic step forward and working with those who fought for that even while aware of the dangers of the reintroduction of capitalist relations (something TG could not see from a completely orthodox and unchanging view of 'defending' the deformed workers states). We, literally, ended up on opposite sides of the barricades from our ex-cdes in the USSR in particular. The practice was far from dogmatic or one-sided, I think that reflects our approach to the use of theory as a guide (although I am sure the sparts would call it 'counter-revolutionary' and others 'opportunistic') - it was a re-orientation - how could we approach workers in those states in any other way.

All good things come to those who wait

Genuinely look forward to it - I think you have much insight particularly in some of the ideas I simply have not had time to read

 

[articul8]

the final break with TG came about because of our approach on the ground in the old USSR and East Germany in particular - a recognition of the democratic step forward

OK, true - interesting - as is your instance of the CWI section admitting state caps

 

[dennisr]

OK, true - interesting - as is your instance of the CWI section admitting state caps

I shared a place with a Flemish CWI lass who had been instrumental in bringing in the French speaking (Walloon-based) SWP section (previously this had been a major weakness for the CWI group in Belgium - being based almost entirely on folk from a flemish background - especially given the recent history of struggles in the Walloon area)

One of the key concerns the ex-SWP group had was the right to retain thier state-capitalist point of view - our view was they had every right, even to raise it at an international level if preferred. it never came to that in the end - which is a shame if only for education of all. The vast majority came around to the CWIs general view after belgium-wide discussion - which I think is healthy - although some very active individuals maintain a version of the state cap theory.

I had the impression that - via this group some ex-SWP joined us in france as well - more individuals than an entire section though.

 

[TremulousTetra]

To those people who raised the point that SW were not solely responsible for their theory of state capitalism

The socialist party is absolutely right, the SW interpretation of state capitalism is probably its most important defining feature.

I never said they were solely responsible did I? What I said was, SWs interpretation of the state capitalist theory, is probably one of the defining features of SW. SW INTERPRETATION of state capitalist theory, distinguished it from other trotskyist groups, SOME of whom maintained theories of the deformed workers' state for example.

 

[butchersapron]

So who did you nick it off then?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The key strength of a state capitalist analysis I think is that it shifts debate over splitting hairs and theorising about property relations and such like to a very simple and concrete question - workers control, workers democracy and who is in the saddle of the society.

I've also been confused about the degenerated workers state theorising of the overthrow of stalinist regimes. If I understand the theory correctly it argued that unlike a socialist revolution all that was needed was a political revolution that the planned economy would remain intact and there would just be a bit of working class action to set things back on track.

In Hungary 1956 when the workers rose up against the regime they created workers councils and other organs of popular democracy, ie. they couldn't just lay hold of the existing state machinery, they had to smash it and replace it with workers democracy constructed from below.

So the process of revolution against stalinist regimes in the East and capitalist regimes in the West seems identical and follows the same pattern & it is quite possible in the West to have elements of nationalisation and planning within the context of capitalism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

If you could read things empirically to make sense of the world then you would have a point. That would be a mistake.

SNIP

So basically the S P's analysis is that Russia was a deformed workers' state, yes?

Can I just make a suggestion, with respect to you. instead of polemics against SW, if you answer the simple question with simple answer, you get a lot further a lot quicker.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Not really what this sort of thread is for though...

 

[TremulousTetra]

So who did you nick it off then?

hi napolean, drunk today?

Any way, your the marxist oracle, you tell me.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

as you know i was around them from 77 till 85 and lots of mates till the last was expelled ( for being too w/c really) in 1991 .. but looking at it now RMP the tables have turned .. where the SW was fairly open and non sectarian and non doctrinaire back then it has become increasingly so and frankly bizarrely so with the Respect turn etc .. meanwhile Militant then which was pretty narrow minded and sectarian ( i blame the entryist mentality on top of being Trots ) ) collapsed and the SP has emerged a far less sectarian fair more open party than the SWP is now .. SP are far more willing to get stuck into the day to day basics while SWP are running around like head less chickens looking for 'the next big thing'

One of the causes of the malaise in the SWP in my opinion is its system of an apparatus of paid full-timers and the control belt that flows from the Centre down through these bureaucrats.

I was interested to read this blog that suggested that the SP who also have paid organisers don't have such problems:

It seems what Rees has in mind is substitutionism whereby the leadership substitutes itself for the membership, which is an amorphous (mini?) mass who do not play any role in determining the fate of their organisation. It is as if the "jobs, homes, lives around which political activity has to be fitted in" are a barrier to the party, to possessing the right political judgement, which is uniquely the province of the full time activists. Surely, if one wants to be old-fashioned and Marxist about these matters, having revolutionaries who are immersed full-time in an apparatus that, in Rees's words, "is necessarily devoted to raising money rather than raising the number of members" leading the organisation is a very bad idea. It is a recipe for isolation from the lives and experiences of our class and insulates the leaders from properly understanding the strategies and tactics best able to connect with it. The voice of the wider membership who are connected by a million and one ties to the class are dismissed.

I think this is one key difference between the SWP and SP. While it is true the SP possesses a full time apparatus and is led by an executive committee of full time activists, the distortions and the by-passing/denigration of the rank-and-file does not happen. Why? Going from my experience, it appears that SP full timers, including those who work in the national office, remain very much rooted in the life of the branches. Building sustainable and self-perpetuating branches through the development of local political strategies is the way the SP builds its organisation, and is something every member of the party is involved in. It means full timers out in the regions find their work guided more by local branch strategy than recruitment and fund-raising targets issued by the centre. By virtue of this method leading cadres are able to keep their feet on the ground and make them better able to assimilate the lessons from the branches when it comes to the development of new analyses and strategies.

. . . .
Our regional full timer is based in a particular West Midlands city where he is a member of the branch like any other - the difference being of course that he works for the party full time. Unless he has a branch position, and authority he has flows from the dedication, record and experience he has accumulated over the years - an authority tempered by that of other long term members of the branch.

Part of his work involves visiting new contacts across the region and that kind of thing. He is not expected to nor does he intervene in the internal lives of the branches in the same way reports about SWP full timers suggest. When he visits our branch every so often he contributes to the discussions we're having and may give a report about how the party is doing in the rest of the WestMids.

He does play a leadership role in coordinating our regional committee, but again this is in a chairing capacity. He has his ideas about building regionally and the delegates have theirs. Because he is full time doesn't give his opinions a special status - they are discussed and debated in the same way as any contribution from any member is.

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/12/john-rees-and-revolutionary-elitism.html

 

[Udo Erasmus]

So basically the S P's analysis is that Russia was a deformed workers' state, yes?

This analysis I always found a little odd. I spoke to an adherent once and he said the USSR was a degenerated workers state and Cuba was a deformed workers state. I said, 'yes, but Cuba was never a workers state like Russia, where were the soviets' to which he replied, 'oh, it had the features of a deformed workers state'

Which seemed a bit of a weird analysis.

Having said that, some might argue that this kind of analysis has more of a sense of socialism as a process that might be drawn out than the state-cap which could be seen as simplistic and impresionistic.

I haven't studied either theories in depth.

 

[butchersapron]

So basically the S P's analysis is that Russia was a deformed workers' state, yes?

No, it's not. A little research.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I just wondered if anybody was interested in making sense of these comments from the socialist party.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6802

So if it was not state capitalist, what was the Soviet Union?

 

[dennisr]

So basically the S P's analysis is that Russia was a deformed workers' state, yes?

Can I just make a suggestion, with respect to you. instead of polemics against SW, if you answer the simple question with simple answer, you get a lot further a lot quicker.

Actually there was plenty more meat there than a 'polemic against the SWP' - as you claim (I've linked to a polemic if you fancy reading it). I am well aware that other folk are reading threads so I am bringing up the various points that will be raised.

But thanks for the 'advice'

 

[TremulousTetra]

No, it's not. A little research.

if you don't want to contribute to the discussion board discussion, fuck off sticking Ur oar in U twot.

 

[butchersapron]

The difference between a degenerated and a deformed workers state - you must understand this. Otherwise your OP and subsequent posts are mince.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Actually there was plenty more meat there than a 'polemic against the SWP' - as you claim (I've linked to a polemic if you fancy reading it). I am well aware that other folk are reading threads so I am bringing up the various points that will be raised.

But thanks for the 'advice'

yes, I couldn't agree more. I wasn't being facetious. there was a veritable feast of meat, I didn't realise it wasn't for my consumption. So in future please do feed the masses, but highlihgt the snacks i require.

ie "the alternative is, deformed workers state."



PS. I am being gently facetious now.

 

[dennisr]

I was interested to read this blog that suggested that the SP who also have paid organisers don't have such problems:

its not fair to say there isn't the danger of the same thing happening in the SP (much as I would like to say it is so) - but we do our best to counter that. There is always the danger of self-serving 'professional revolutionaries' thinking they know whats best.

As a full-timer you have to be fully involved in branch work (a practical problem I had working long hours in a technical job while a full timer) - they have to mix constantly outside of full time circles and get a lot of grief if they don't. More importantly there is constant accountability - the full-timers are accountable, in effect, to lay members through the national committee - which is the controlling body of the organisation. There's also a - imo -healthy attitude among the membership who see the full-timers as 'working for them' - actually there is a healthy disrespect and cynicism towards any full-timers who get to 'big for their boots'. One key control over full-time staff is a well educated, confidant membership who think for themselves

Ultimately the best counter is number two - constant rotation of jobs. Its what we aim for - but that is not always practical (especially for technical jobs)

 

[TremulousTetra]

The difference between a degenerated and a deformed workers state - you must understand this. Otherwise your OP and subsequent posts are mince.

so enlighten 'the masses' or fuck off. better still just fuck off, and let dennisr answer the question asked of him, not you.

 

[butchersapron]

Ask a better question. Preferably before making the OP. However, if this leads you the path of being slightly better informed, well good on you.

 

[dennisr]

I didn't realise it wasn't for my consumption.

yep avert your eyes you toerag (of course its for you too...)

ie "the alternative is, deformed workers state."

'deformed w s', 'degenerated w s', 'state capitalist' etc etc - it all sounds a bit bananas, understandably, to folk - like arguing over the number of angels on a pinhead but behind the hot air and terminology is an attempt to analyse how that state comes into being, what and who's interests it represents, what the basis of its 'power' is etc etc - and, from that, you can draw lessons on how it is to be defeated/changed/improved upon.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I haven't studied either theories in depth.

http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/

Files with the keyword state capitalism:

State Capitalism
- Part 2 Tony Cliff < - Length: 36 + 25 +8 minutes

US, Japan, Germany and State Capitalism
Kostas Cossis 1992

State Capitalism in Crisis
Chris Harman 1987

State Capitalism
John Molineux 2004

State Capitalism and Russia Under Stalin
Sean Vernell 2006

The theory of state capitalism
Ben Selwyn 2008 < - Length: 71 minutes

 

[butchersapron]

I haven't studied either theories in depth.

Why not?

 

[dennisr]

dennisr answer the question asked of him, not you.

what is is you want to know? - the OP quote is saying that the decline of the SWP is directly linked to its mistaken understanding of what the collapse of the stalinist states effect is on the nature of class struggle at this moment in time - its significent in my book.

but that just another way of saying the same damn thing



or do you want me to give examples - say, the approach of the SWP (as a result of their misdiagnosis) towards the ex-workers parties - combined with it mistaken idea of what 'united front' work actually means? Or the collapse of attempts to build organisations of class struggle by the SWPs international grouping in the ex-stalinist states?