Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact
  • Hi Guest,
    We have now moved the boards to the new server hardware.
    Search will be impaired while it re-indexes the posts.
    See the thread in the Feedback forum for updates and feedback.
    Lazy Llama

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

dennisr said:
of course not and you can see i was not saying that - unless you consider self-organised and controlled worker's councils -potential instruments of control over the state machine - as 'distorted' of course (I don't imagine you do).

isn't the class content in weather the means of production is in private hands - run for private profit - rather than nationalised? (even if in the hands of a bureaucracy as in the case of the various distortions of a workers state)

Ultimately - the state cap view cannot see a state as a body that can have a certain independant existance from the society around it.
Click to expand...

butchersapron said:
I said the exact opposite of that.
Click to expand...
of course you did, so why didn't you respond to post 73? That's why I don't understand.
 
if dennisr original post you contradicted
dennisr said:
of course not and you can see i was not saying that - unless you consider self-organised and controlled worker's councils -potential instruments of control over the state machine - as 'distorted' of course (I don't imagine you do).

isn't the class content in weather the means of production is in private hands - run for private profit - rather than nationalised? (even if in the hands of a bureaucracy as in the case of the various distortions of a workers state)

Ultimately - the state cap view cannot see a state as a body that can have a certain independant existance from the society around it.
Click to expand...
is rewritten by the way dennis suggests
dennisr said:
of course not and you can see i was not saying that - unless you consider self-organised and controlled worker's councils -potential instruments of control over the state machine - as 'distorted' of course (I don't imagine you do).

isn't the class content in weather the means of production is in private hands - run for private profit - rather than nationalised? (even if in the hands of a bureaucracy as in the case of the various distortions of a workers state)

Ultimately - "Cliff's version of state cap in the USSR" cannot see a state as a body that can have a certain independant existance from the society around it.
Click to expand...
it still wrong in your opinion isn't it?

This wouldn't be an unfair their presentation of your views would it?
butchersapron said:
There's nothing in "Cliff's version of state cap in the USSR" that denies the potentiial (relative) autonomy of the political - of the state acting as collective capitalist against the particluar capitalist interests.
Click to expand...
 
dennisr said:
if you want a question answered, i find, its best to ask that question in the first place?

At least that's what I find, but then my world's weird like that

:)
Click to expand...
OMFG!!!! I did in the very first post of this thread.

I never knew the socialist party had a degenerated workers' state theory of Russia, that was it. I had no assumptions, I had no ulterior motives.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
I never knew the socialist party had a degenerated workers' state theory of Russia, that was it. I had no assumptions, I had no ulterior motives.
Click to expand...

we claim to be 'trotskyists' (for all the misuse of that word) - I assumed you would know that

trostsky was this fella who... ah, it doesnt matter...

ps nightbreed had already replied to your question (23) - my first reply on this thread was to agree with him via the use of "yep"
 
dennisr said:
BA was pointing out that state capitalist theories recognise the potential (relative) autonomy of the state in reply to my mistake generalisation equating all state cap theories to the one - Cliff's.
Click to expand...
butcher's was pointing out that cliffs theory recognised the potential (relative) autonomy of the state. Butcher's knows that Tony cliffs theory of 'Deflected Permanent Revolution' is based upon that notion. I was just trying to get Butche's to say it, instead of me.
 
dennisr said:
we claim to be 'trotskyists' (for all the misuse of that word) - I assumed you would know that

trostsky was this fella who... ah, it doesnt matter...
Click to expand...
but that's what you do all the time. You constantly assume ulterior motives. you constantly answer questions, you foresee people asking. If you just accept I'm a little bit more honest than you seem to think I am, it would make it easier for me to learn from you, because when you DO answer the right question, you do it honestly and informativly.


btw we claim to be 'trotskyists'.
 
dennisr said:
In your case I sometimes assume 'lack of any rational motive'

Yep, I am aware you say you are trotskyists too :)
Click to expand...
there you go again. if in exasperation I flippantly charachature Ur deg,ws as appoligist for stalin, you SCREEEEAM foul. well do on to others mate. my 1st post had an obvious rational motive. any subsequent loss of rational, flowed from Ur irational deg,ws theory, as butchers has shown is factually wrong.
 
BTW there is a parallel discussion going on here:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3901

I certainly don't claim to be an expert in all this - just struggle to see how a bureaucracy defending the interests of "planning" in the form of a planned economy based on the ongoing exploitation of the working class can be described as any kind of "workers" state, even a very "degenerate" one.

If a state can operate against the interests of private capital without it being run in the interests of the workers (let alone run by then directly), then it's hard to see why the particular forms of nationalisation in the USSR were uniquely "reclaimable"
 
articul8 said:
BTW there is a parallel discussion going on here:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3901
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Should keep "resistance" occupied.

I like Mark Ps (whoever s/he may be) point:
"While Trotsky was certainly wrong that Stalinism could not survive a world war, his underlying point that Stalinism was not a stable or viable social system seems to have been thoroughly confirmed by the history of the 20th Century. This may come as a shock to some, but no version, of Stalinism has managed to survive much more than 60 years and most variants considerably less time than that. That’s a blink of an eye in historical terms. Whatever else you can say about the inadequacies of Trotsky’s theory, this is a pretty odd line of attack to pick. He argue that either there would be a political revolution, smashing the Stalinist bureaucracy, or that capitalism would be reestablished, and that prediction looks fairly solid with the benefit of hindsight.

Personally, I tend to lean towards the “Proletarian Bonapartist” theory, developed by Ted Grant from Trotsky’s earlier theory. However, that preference is based on that theory having fewer holes than its competitors rather than on it being fully adequate. As Andy notes, in general the major theories have been better at pointing out each other’s flaws than at providing a fully convincing account of the Stalinist phenomenon.

By the way, I’m not sure that most of the larger Trotskyist groups are “hermetically sealed” on this question. The CWI for instance contains people who adhere to a “state capitalist” analysis, as does the USFI. In fact, if all that separated the Socialist Party from the SWP was our respective analyses of Stalinism I’d be pushing for a merger immediately"
 
dennisr said:
Good to hear - do clarify?
Click to expand...
fucking hell dennis, AGAIN!!!!!!!!!:eek:

IF you had SIMPLY answered the question that was asked
ResistanceMP3 said:
So if it was not state capitalist, what was the Soviet Union?
Click to expand...
with, "degenerated workers' state". That would have been it. I'd have thought to myself, 'that crock of shite' and fucked off. I wouldn't tried to convince you you are wrong, or anything else. You see, I'm aware of the debates, but don't necessarily want to keep squabbling about. I look at the debate, come to a conclusion, and then move on.

THE ONLY REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION, IS BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER. THAT IS RATIONAL.
 
articul8 said:
BTW there is a parallel discussion going on here:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3901

I certainly don't claim to be an expert in all this - just struggle to see how a bureaucracy defending the interests of "planning" in the form of a planned economy based on the ongoing exploitation of the working class can be described as any kind of "workers" state, even a very "degenerate" one.

If a state can operate against the interests of private capital without it being run in the interests of the workers (let alone run by then directly), then it's hard to see why the particular forms of nationalisation in the USSR were uniquely "reclaimable"
Click to expand...
well you seem to be interested in the question, rather than a sectarians squabble, so,,,,,

the theory of state capitalism answers your question, they weren't uniquely reclaimable. What's more you don't need two different theories, deformed workers' state and degenerated workers' state. State capitalism covers them both, [though Cliffs Permanent revolution deflectedexplains how two different routes, came to the same conclusion.]

for all his attacking of the state capitalist theory, there things about it dennis has got completey wrong such as butchers point [see Cliffs DPR for proof], imperialism [neo], and I think he misunderstands what cliff means about there bureaucracies consumption of surplus value etc. There for in my opinion, if you are interested in the question, you would find looking into the theory of state capitalism more profitable. If you need any help with that, I cannot point you in the right direction. If you want to do your own thing, cool, best wishes. ResistanceMP3 www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
I look at the debate, come to a conclusion, and then move on.
Click to expand...

In between 'screaming'? (while accusing others of precisly that...)

Let me repeat this for you: nighthingy had already answered you 'question' - I agreed with nightthingy

you see:
i assume that all of the bits around the sentence (and the title of the thread) you have now taken out of context but seperating it from are actually part of the point/question etc you are trying to make. i also assume you have some basic understanding of the thing you are asking about (ie that every other trotskyist on the plant would agree with trotsky over cliff and what trotsky - as opposed to cliff - considered the soviet state to be)

<capital shouty letters>this is ever so slightly more rational</capital shouty letters>

again, i am just weird like that. :)

naturally, if i had been a mind-reader rather than a marxist i would have been able take out that single line and realise that all you had wanted was a one line reply.

sorry for my failings in this respect...
 
dennisr said:
The difference being that both Cliff and Marxists would agree that before 1928 capitalist relations in the USSR had been overthrow (not so with the general date put forward for the end of the post war capitalist boom in the west). The capitalist state had been overthrown.
Click to expand...

dennis to show capitalism ( NOT just the capitalist state ) was destroyed you need to show

1 that exchange was not carried out based on money in russia after 1917?
2 that money abolished?
3 that no financial surplus was extracted?
4 that the wage wage system was destroyed
5 that what is generally regarded as communism, ' from each according to their ability or to each according to their needs' had been implemented

i am sure you acknowledge as lenin himself did that communism had not been reached .. so what economic system WAS then in use?
 
dennisr said:
yes i do (obvious answer) and i already have above
Click to expand...

ok this? "..isn't the class content in weather the means of production is in private hands - run for private profit - rather than nationalised? (even if in the hands of a bureaucracy as in the case of the various distortions of a workers state).."

to which the answer is simply , NO .. yes the capitalist state was overthrown, yes individual private property was abolished ( generally ) but capitalism as an economic system as described by marx was not .. or certainly not entirely ..

which is why i asked those questions and i think your answers will be interesting for this debate ;)
 
durruti02 said:
to which the answer is simply , NO .. yes the capitalist state was overthrown, yes individual private property was abolished ( generally ) but capitalism as an economic system as described by marx was not .. or certainly not entirely ..

which is why i asked those questions and i think your answers will be interesting for this debate ;)
Click to expand...

I have been arguing that the transitional society in place was not capitalist that the workers initiially had control over the capitalist elements still in existence.

BA pointed out that state cap theories do recognise the relative independence of the state on occasion saying:

butchersapron said:
There's nothing in any state capitlaist view that i've ever come across that denies the potentiial (relative) autonomy of the political - in fact, a good chunk of of them are based on the idea - of the state acting as collective capitalist against the particluar capitalist interests.
Click to expand...

I am arguing that the relative independance of the state can also be seen in a transitional socialist society. For example post 74:

dennisr said:
The idea of the degenerated workers state viewpoint (the one that says this continued after 1928... unlike Cliff) is that the soviet state bureaucracy was acting in its particular collective interests - defending a nationalised means of production, planning and monopoly of foreign trade - BUT - against the longer-term, general interests of the soviet working class.
Click to expand...

Hence my minor point - if badly worded and even if completely wrong it does not change the overall arguement - which prompted BAs copied above, that Cliff's theory does not recognise the relative independant role of the state also being possible in a transitional socialist society just as it was possible in a capitalist or feudal society. Cliff on the other hand sees the state bureaucracy becoming in itself a 'class'. (i do not see the need as Cliff did to try and prove Trotsky or Lenin's mistaken analysis - I think it stands relatively well, the test of time)

I believe it took more that a change in the relative surplus taken by the bureaucracy in 1928 to wipe out the political and social gains of the revolution of 1917. That the counter-revolution in the soviet stare was not carried through in 1928. I think that was further prolonged by the end results of the second world war.

I have argued throughout that for a long period - until the eventual restoration of capitalism in those transitional states (which, again I would argue it has taken decades for the agents of that counter-revolution to be able to achieve - almost impossible while productivity of labour and living standards were still improving due to the advantages of even a horribly distorted planned economy) - the working class therefore had a greatly simplified task in having to carry through a political overthrow of the bureaucracy and re-introduction of the political control over the state machine.
 
dennisr said:
I have been arguing that the transitional society in place was not capitalist that the workers had controll over the capitalist elements still in existence.

BA pointed out that state cap theories do recognise the relative independence of the state on occasion saying:



I am arguing that the relative independance of the state can also be seen in a transitional socialist society. For example post 74:



Hence my minor point - if badly worded and even if completely wrong it does not change the overall arguement - that Cliff's theory does not recognise the relative independant role of the state also being possible in a transitional socialist society just as it was possible in a capitalist or feudal society. Cliff on the other hand sees the state bureaucracy becoming in itself a 'class'.

I believe it took more that a change in the relative surplus taken by the bureaucracy in 1928 to wipe out the political and social gains of the revolution of 1917. That the counter-revolution in the soviet stare was not carried through in 1928. I think that was further prolonged by the end results of the second world war.

I have argued throughout that for a long period - until the eventual restoration of capitalism in those transitional states - the working class therefore had a greatly simplified task in having to carry through a political overthrow of the bureaucracy and re-introduction of the political control over the state machine.
Click to expand...
ok i accpet that you ( and lenin) saw it as transistional

but do you deny that capitalism was still the economic system in russia post 1917?

( and please answer those questions;))

while it is obviuously of relevence WHO is in charge it is still critical what the actual economic system is ..
 
durruti02 said:
ok i accpet that you ( and lenin) saw it as transistional

but do you deny that capitalism was still the economic system in russia post 1917?

( and please answer those questions;))

while it is obviuously of relevence WHO is in charge it is still critical what the actual economic system is ..
Click to expand...

No, I do not need to answer your list because I am not talking about a fully-formed communist society

I have said:
dennisr said:
I have been arguing that the transitional society in place was not capitalist that the workers initiially had control over the capitalist elements still in existence.
Click to expand...

Clear enough, no?

That's why I would argue that it was not a simple task of 'increasing the percentage of surplus stolen' on the part of the growing bureaucracy to overthrow all of the political and social gains of that revolutionary movement in 1917 and re-introduce private property relations. Who controls/is in charge is central to the nature of the society. My point about the bureaucracy (in its relatively independant role) is that they defended the nationalised property relations, state control of how the economy ran etc. And that does not equate to some judgement that how and why they did this makes them, any the less, filth. A crude example (using the French Revolution): the Jacobins being replaced by the Bonapartes does not mean a return to Fuedalism.

You would argue the society was at root 'capitalist' - I disagree with you (actually Lenin's points about the limitations of the revolution were primarily about the nature of the soviet state)
 
Why don't you folk try to explain your theories: (hey - even you "resistance")


If I was to draw out the iltimate conclusions that one must draw from the verious theories on offer (as I see them...):

For the Cliff version of state capitalism - We should ultimately look at the birth of a new class - go beyond the old and seemingly outworn marxist theories and discuss the new new type of society between capitalism and socialism/communism? Would that be true to say?? Or should we draw a more libertarian communist theory? and say - the Russian revolution changed little - it was still a capitalist society (actually, I imagine, practically one could conclude as the mencheviks did that Russia was not ready for a socialist society and we should have stopped and defended capitalist development in the soviet union - maybe??) - it would certainly make more sence if accepting a marxist theory of class, no?

For the libertarian/left communist or anarchist viewpoint (I don't know the accurate labels you would wish to use - but to generalise...) - We would say that either the revolution in Russia was doomed if it did not abolish the state, wages etc etc overnight? No? - OR that the revolution must spread directly - straight away - internationally or (given the international capitalist relations that still exist) it remains doomed? No??

Actually, in some ways that second idea agrees with the points made by the likes of Trotsky and Lenin (and followed by old style marxists like me...). Trotsky talked of the possibility of even 'sacrificing the Russian soviet' to support a revolution in an advanced capitalist country (looking to the german movements of the time). So are those ideas so far removed from your own? what are the differences??

Am I pulling hen's teeth here?
 
dennisr said:
Trotsky talked of the possibility of even 'sacrificing the Russian soviet' to support a revolution in an advanced capitalist country (looking to the german movements of the time).?
Click to expand...

Not claiming to answer for anyone else - But what of the emancipation of the working class being the task of the workers themselves? Who is doing the "sacrificing" here and what is their authority to do so?

It seems that the Bolsheviks are prepared to support the idea of workers councils in the abstract, but essentially want to instrumentalise them for a different project in which workers are led/directed/managed for their own good. The critical question is not just "who has their hands on the levers of state" (private capital or political representatives of the w/c), but what those levers have leverage over - and where the limits of that power lies with reference to the authority of the working class over the conditions of its own social existence.
 
dennisr said:
No, I do not need to answer your list because I am not talking about a fully-formed communist society

I have said:


Clear enough, no?

That's why I would argue that it was not a simple task of 'increasing the percentage of surplus stolen' on the part of the growing bureaucracy to overthrow all of the political and social gains of that revolutionary movement in 1917 and re-introduce private property relations. Who controls/is in charge is central to the nature of the society. My point about the bureaucracy (in its relatively independant role) is that they defended the nationalised property relations, state control of how the economy ran etc. And that does not equate to some judgement that how and why they did this makes them, any the less, filth. A crude example (using the French Revolution): the Jacobins being replaced by the Bonapartes does not mean a return to Fuedalism.

You would argue the society was at root 'capitalist' - I disagree with you (actually Lenin's points about the limitations of the revolution were primarily about the nature of the soviet state)
Click to expand...

dennis .. what was the economic system is place in russia post 1917?

your talk of society is missing that question .. i accept that the capitalists were overwhelmingly replaced but as long as the actual system remains capitalist the swops have surely a right to say so .. that is is ALSO a workers state is important yes but does NOT cancel out that capital/wages etc remains .. so i am NOT arguing with a definition of 'degenerated workers state' .. i am not unhappy with that definition BUT it is equally importnat to acknowedge that the russian revolution did NOT overthrow the capitalist system

why is this important? well as marx says, Capital dictates the political system above .. and we quite clearly see that result ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nigel
First Sikh Court To Be Established In Britain: London
Replies
15
Views
830
tonysingh
tonysingh
tim
Anyone worried about the UK becoming a one party state?
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Kid_Eternity
Kid_Eternity
Fozzie Bear
Neo Nazi has-beens Blood and Honour sanctioned by the Treasury
Replies
16
Views
415
The39thStep
The39thStep
scifisam
What MIGHT be better under Labour this time round? (Try to be positive)
Replies
27
Views
861
Epona
Epona
Cloo
What is the best way to combat a populist right victory in next GE?
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
3K
LDC
LDC
Back
Top Bottom