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

[Knotted]

disagree .. all the obscuring imho has been by contemporary leninist wishing to defend their revolution

"A society is capitalist if most production is carried on by employees working with means of production (equipment and materials) belonging to their employer, producing commodities which belong to the employer."

http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l06.html

I say the definition of 'capitalism' is vague and the above is a suitably vague definition. Most production... So how much is 'most' when does quantity become quality?

"How would I define 'capitalism'? I think you have to focus on the concept of surplus value. In Capital Marx wrote that "The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus value, and consequently to exploit labor power to the greatest possible extent."3

Really the above is not a definition of 'capitalism' as in a capitalist society, it is the definition of capitalist production. You could say a capitalist society is a society where most production is capitalist. But then we are back to the question of how much is most?

What is surplus value, then? Well, very briefly, it is the concept that workers produce more than they actually get paid for. For part of the day their labor goes towards their pay; for the rest of the day they work for free for the capitalist. (Officially they are usually paid for every hour they work, but the total amount they are paid still comes to only a fraction of the value they produce, so it amounts to the same thing.) Slightly more formally, surplus value is the increase in capital after the production process (i.e., after deducting wages, the cost of raw materials and machinery used up, and overhead). There are two excellent little pamphlets by Marx that explain this critically important concept of surplus value in careful detail, and answer the objections sometimes raised against the concept: "Wages, Price and Profit" and "Wage-Labor and Capital". No person who has not read at least one of these (or else vol. 1 of Capital) can really be said to have much of an understanding of Marxism."
http://massline.org/PolitEcon/ScottH/capitalism.htm

The problem with the above is that it defines surplus value only in terms of production it does not consider how the state consumes surplus value. Definining 'capitalism' in terms of surplus value is useless even if defining capitalist production of extraction of surplus value is useful. The extraction of surplus value is a necessary feature of capitalist production but the extraction of surplus value is not sufficient to define capitalist production.

"..Capitalism is distinctive, Marx argues, in that it involves not merely the exchange of commodities, but the advancement of capital, in the form of money, with the purpose of generating profit through the purchase of commodities and their transformation into other commodities which can command a higher price, and thus yield a profit. Marx claims that no previous theorist has been able adequately to explain how capitalism as a whole can make a profit. Marx's own solution relies on the idea of exploitation of the worker. In setting up conditions of production the capitalist purchases the worker's labour power — his ability to labour — for the day. The cost of this commodity is determined in the same way as the cost of every other; i.e. in terms of the amount of socially necessary labour power required to produce it. In this case the value of a day's labour power is the value of the commodities necessary to keep the worker alive for a day. Suppose that such commodities take four hours to produce. Thus the first four hours of the working day is spent on producing value equivalent to the value of the wages the worker will be paid. This is known as necessary labour. Any work the worker does above this is known as surplus labour, producing surplus value for the capitalist. Surplus value, according to Marx, is the source of all profit. In Marx's analysis labour power is the only commodity which can produce more value than it is worth, and for this reason it is known as variable capital. Other commodities simply pass their value on to the finished commodities, but do not create any extra value. They are known as constant capital. Profit, then, is the result of the labour performed by the worker beyond that necessary to create the value of his or her wages. This is the surplus value theory of profit..."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/

That's much better. Though I should say that the Stanford Encyclopaedia article is not very good in general (compared to other entries in the encyclopaedia), the entry on Hegel isn't very good either.

ok these are the first 3 links i clicked on a google search for 'marxist definition of capitalism' .. and they all say the same thing .. and by their definition there is no question that Russia was a capitalist and thus state capitalist post 1917 .. that it was also a form of workers state is debatable but it is in the mix i accept

They say three different things. The first illustrates exactly the problem I was talking about, the second and third are fine but don't define 'capitalism' per se, the second definition is a real muddle. We have to be precise, especially when things aren't clear.

 

[Knotted]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-305714611434727244

I think I was there!

Edit: No I wasn't. I have seen Hillel Ticktin talk at a similar event.

 

[Knotted]

To durruti on factory committees etc. The problem is that I don't see Smith's book backing what you say. There was dissillusionment with the Bolsheviks in 1918 but Smith puts this down to the Bolsheviks failure to resolve the economic crisis not down to the policy with respect to the committees. The problem was unemployment not lack of workers control/management. As I say, I'm puzzled as to why you come to these conclusions.

 

[durruti02]

To durruti on factory committees etc. The problem is that I don't see Smith's book backing what you say. There was dissillusionment with the Bolsheviks in 1918 but Smith puts this down to the Bolsheviks failure to resolve the economic crisis not down to the policy with respect to the committees. The problem was unemployment not lack of workers control/management. As I say, I'm puzzled as to why you come to these conclusions.

hi tbh i can't remember his conclusions .. i did say up the thread that he bursts lots of balloons inc those of my tradition .. yes i remmber making differrent interpretations of his data than he did .. apparrently he is was a SWPer so it is possibel we have interpreted things differrently!

you read it already?!

 

[durruti02]

I say the definition of 'capitalism' is vague and the above is a suitably vague definition. Most production... So how much is 'most' when does quantity become quality?



Really the above is not a definition of 'capitalism' as in a capitalist society, it is the definition of capitalist production. You could say a capitalist society is a society where most production is capitalist. But then we are back to the question of how much is most?



The problem with the above is that it defines surplus value only in terms of production it does not consider how the state consumes surplus value. Definining 'capitalism' in terms of surplus value is useless even if defining capitalist production of extraction of surplus value is useful. The extraction of surplus value is a necessary feature of capitalist production but the extraction of surplus value is not sufficient to define capitalist production.



That's much better. Though I should say that the Stanford Encyclopaedia article is not very good in general (compared to other entries in the encyclopaedia), the entry on Hegel isn't very good either.



They say three different things. The first illustrates exactly the problem I was talking about, the second and third are fine but don't define 'capitalism' per se, the second definition is a real muddle. We have to be precise, especially when things aren't clear.

ok on my level of interpretion they are similar enough .. and critically imho ( though not of Ticktin ) define Russia as clealry capitalist and state capitalist

tbh i think you need to have a stab at a definition

 

[Knotted]

hi tbh i can't remember his conclusions .. i did say up the thread that he bursts lots of balloons inc those of my tradition .. yes i remmber making differrent interpretations of his data than he did .. apparrently he is was a SWPer so it is possibel we have interpreted things differrently!

you read it already?!

I only read the last two chapters (off books.google ie. missing some pages). I've only got a gist of it...

 

[Knotted]

ok on my level of interpretion they are similar enough .. and critically imho ( though not of Ticktin ) define Russia as clealry capitalist and state capitalist

tbh i think you need to have a stab at a definition

I don't think you need a definition of capitalism, I don't think there is one either. State capitalism needs a definition though.

 

[durruti02]

I only read the last two chapters (off books.google ie. missing some pages). I've only got a gist of it...

all the good stuff that backs my position is in the middle

 

[durruti02]

I don't think you need a definition of capitalism, I don't think there is one either. State capitalism needs a definition though.

but i have a working definition ( which is pretty common to many people on the left inc the extraction of SV ) and from that i feel i can say that one society or another is capitalist or state capitalist .. surely if you want to discuss state capitalism or deny someone elses, you must have a def or capitalism? or at least a working definition?

 

[Knotted]

but i have a working definition ( which is pretty common to many people on the left inc the extraction of SV ) and from that i feel i can say that one society or another is capitalist or state capitalist .. surely if you want to discuss state capitalism or deny someone elses, you must have a def or capitalism? or at least a working definition?

If we're talking state capitalism as in the state is a capitalist enterprise (not just a tool for maintaining the rule of the capitalist class) and if extraction of surplus value is what defines a capitalist enterprise then every state is a capitalist enterprise and the taxman is engaging in capitalist exploitation. I don't think this definition is common on the left including anarchists, in fact I don't think anybody takes it seriously except when they're talking about the USSR and similar states. It is a contrived definition.

We (including I) should get out of the habit of talking about 'capitalism' - it is a sloppy term when applied to a society and it just confuses things when discussing Russia or China etc. Marxists, at least, should talk about class rule instead. Having said that, 'capitalism' does make sense when talking about particular enterprises and if the state is or has become a capitalist enterprise then this should have a definite meaning the problem is that I've seen a coherent definition except one given by Trotsky in the most off-hand way.

---
I'll have another look at the Smith book.

 

[butchersapron]

If we're talking state capitalism as in the state is a capitalist enterprise (not just a tool for maintaining the rule of the capitalist class) and if extraction of surplus value is what defines a capitalist enterprise then every state is a capitalist enterprise and the taxman is engaging in capitalist exploitation. I don't think this definition is common on the left including anarchists, in fact I don't think anybody takes it seriously except when they're talking about the USSR and similar states. It is a contrived definition.

The modern state, whatever its form may be, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal aggregate capitalist

What states do anarchists and the left define as non-capitalist then? And what do they define them as?

(edit: should say that've not been following this thread, in fact i've not read it for a week or so, really shouldn't have just read the last post and commented - esp when i've little time.)

 

[Knotted]

Engels is talking about state ownership in the context of a capitalist economy. The state is integrated in the broader economy. It is funded by bonds and taxes which are primarily taken from capitalists' profits, plus the workers are all part of the same job market. The state serves the purposes of the capitalist class collectively even if it sometimes moves against individual capitalists. The Russian state, especially in the 1930's, was less and less integrated into a capitalist economy as it was oblitorating that economy - taking it over completely. The closest thing to capital in Russia were bonds, but the bond owners were in no sense calling the shots either individually or collectively. As far as I know nobody has ever theorised that bond holders were the ruling class in Russia, but really there are no other candidates for a capitalist ruling class.

 

[butchersapron]

You said that every modern state (except Russia) is capitialist if you follow through the logic of durruti's position. I said that Engel's fully agreed with you on your interpretation - that yes, every modern state is capitalist -and that this is also the basic understanding of marxists ever since, rather than your suggestion that it's very rare.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course, the usual response to this is the circular logic that Engels wasn't talking about the Soviet union as the soviet union wasn't capitalist.

 

[Knotted]

You said that every modern state (except Russia) is capitialist if you follow through the logic of durruti's position. I said that Engel's fully agreed with you on your interpretation - that yes, every modern state is capitalist -and that this is also the basic understanding of marxists ever since, rather than your suggestion that it's very rare.

I say every state including Russia is a capitalist enterprise if you follow durruti's logic. Perhaps the term 'enterprise' is ambiguous. Is the state a privately owned firm or a conglomorate of some type? I don't think this is what Engels was saying. If that was what he was saying then he was completely wrong. The state's purpose is not to make profits for the state's owners (whoever they are). The capitalist state's purpose is to facillitate the profit making of capitalists. This last does not apply to Russia as it is plainly and vividly true that the state demolished the ability of capitalists to profit.

 

[Knotted]

Of course, the usual response to this is the circular logic that Engels wasn't talking about the Soviet union as the soviet union wasn't capitalist.

That's the correct resonse but it isn't circular.

Firstly saying the soviet union was capitalist has two meanings. One it means that the state defends the private property of capitalists. This is really impossible to argue. If Engels had meant to insist that all states no matter what their character do this then he was wrong and there is overwhelming evidence that he was wrong. I think Engels should have qualified that statement, but at the time it wasn't so important.

The other meaning is that the state itself is a capitalist firm. I don't think that any state has ever been a capitalist firm and I see no reason to make an exception with Russia.

 

[butchersapron]

ooops - sorry, yes, meant including, not excepting russia - the point being that this is a perfectly orthodox postion rather than being an isolated individual interpretation.

Engels was saying that the state provides the conditions for continued capital accumulation - there's various prerequisites for this that the state takes responsibility for when capital is unable to (large scale infra-structure, internal re-orgnanisation, national education and so on) These functions are met in diferent forms in different states due to differing conditions (the state of political struggle, the stage at which the state entered into the path of modernity, natural resuources and so on) but that they need to be met nonetheless. In Russia the form these measures took and the manner in which profits appeared differed from other regions (and they had much in common too). In similar manner all states over the last 30 years have been under the common pressure to attract newly mobile capital but have tried to do that in different ways - there is no monolithic systen of capitalist production, there's many different forms - as that Engels quote makes explict.

 

[butchersapron]

That's the correct resonse but it isn't circular.

Firstly saying the soviet union was capitalist has two meanings. One it means that the state defends the private property of capitalists. This is really impossible to argue. If Engels had meant to insist that all states no matter what their character do this then he was wrong and there is overwhelming evidence that he was wrong. I think Engels should have qualified that statement, but at the time it wasn't so important.

The other meaning is that the state itself is a capitalist firm. I don't think that any state has ever been a capitalist firm and I see no reason to make an exception with Russia.

Well, if it isn't circular it's certainly self-excepting.

If the state does not act as a capitalist firm in the USSR (what does this mean?) then it certainly controls the overall means of production, distribution and so on - this is the socially owned means of production that are supposed to put the USSR beyond capital? But how? If the surplus is appropriated, and the surplus value realized in sale on the foreign market is appropriated by that same state how does it differ from a private firm? A piece of paper saying that you legally own the means of your exploitation (but that you have no control over) make no difference to the essential relations. They're empty forms.

This insistence on private capital as the only characteristic of capitalism is surely based on an outdated model of the growth of early capital in conditions of formal domination, a model that was outdated by the 1930s and the global state-directed responses to crisis.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm also perfect happy to equate state capitalism with state socialism btw

edit: going to flick through Ticktin later to get a quick refresh on his USSR as non-mode of production.

 

[Knotted]

ooops - sorry, yes, meant including, not excepting russia - the point being that this is a perfectly orthodox postion rather than being an isolated individual interpretation.

Engels was saying that the state provides the conditions for continued capital accumulation - there's various prerequisites for this that the state takes responsibility for when capital is unable to (large scale infra-structure, internal re-orgnanisation, national education and so on) These functions are met in diferent forms in different states due to differing conditions (the state of political struggle, the stage at which the state entered into the path of modernity, natural resuources and so on) but that they need to be met nonetheless. In Russia the form these measures took and the manner in which profits appeared differed from other regions (and they had much in common too). In similar manner all states over the last 30 years have been under the common pressure to attract newly mobile capital but have tried to do that in different ways - there is no monolithic systen of capitalist production, there's many different forms - as that Engels quote makes explict.

First sentence: the state takes responsibility. Why? Out of the kindness of its heart? Because it is run by responsible people? What about states run by irresponsible people? Surely it takes responsibility on behalf of the capitalist class - in order to perpetuate the rule of the capitalist class. If you phrase it that way then when you look at Russia you can ask yourself on whose behalf are these measures taken? If you insist that the nationalisations were undertaken to preserve the rule of the capitalist class then you should at least be able to pinpoint a capitalist class at the end of the process. The problem is that you can't.

 

[butchersapron]

First sentence: the state takes responsibility. Why? Out of the kindness of its heart? Because it is run by responsible people? What about states run by irresponsible people? Surely it takes responsibility on behalf of the capitalist class - in order to perpetuate the rule of the capitalist class. If you phrase it that way then when you look at Russia you can ask yourself on whose behalf are these measures taken? If you insist that the nationalisations were undertaken to preserve the rule of the capitalist class then you should at least be able to pinpoint a capitalist class at the end of the process. The problem is that you can't.

Why? Out of self-preservation in modern conditions. And if you look at Russia you get the same answer - preservation of the state, the state as evolved into a merged party-state, a merged party-state that still relied on extracting and appropriating surplus-value from the proletariat for its continued existence.

 

[Knotted]

Well, if it isn't circular it's certainly self-excepting.

If the state does not act as a capitalist firm in the USSR (what does this mean?) then it certainly controls the overall means of production, distribution and so on - this is the socially owned means of production that are supposed to put the USSR beyond capital? But how? If the surplus is appropriated, and the surplus value realized in sale on the foreign market is appropriated by that same state how does it differ from a private firm? A piece of paper saying that you legally own the means of your exploitation (but that you have no control over) make no difference to the essential relations. They're empty forms.

This insistence on private capital as the only characteristic of capitalism is surely based on an outdated model of the growth of early capital in conditions of formal domination, a model that was outdated by the 1930s and the global state-directed responses to crisis.

Again I'm going to insist that 'capitalism' doesn't have a precise meaning. For example, Marx never uses the term. The problem is not characterising capitalism, nor is it in characterising the Soviet economy. There are certainly analogies between the Russian economy and Western economies, pretty much everyone (except perhaps Hillel Ticktin) accepts that the Russian economy was capitalist like in some respects. In fact there would be no way to run a bureaucratically planned economy without certain features of capitalism being retained. The real question is in identifying where the Soviet state comes from and where it was heading, which is much easier now in hindsight. The problem is in the relation of class forces.

To look at the problem of trade, this is a very general problem. A thoroughly vibrant revolutionary society run by the workering class with workers' control over industry or even workers direct management of industry will have the same problem - even if they can abolish the state.

 

[Knotted]

Why? Out of self-preservation in modern conditions. And if you look at Russia you get the same answer - preservation of the state, the state as evolved into a merged party-state, a merged party-state that still relied on extracting and appropriating surplus-value from the proletariat for its continued existence.

The NHS relies on appropriating surplus value from the proletariat. Indirectly of course as it primarily appropriates surplus value which is already extracted from the working class by the capitalist class. However, if you want to abolish all appropriation of surplus value then you should be saying, 'smash the NHS' loudly and clearly.

 

[butchersapron]

So you agree that the USSR did expropriate surplus-value, i.e exchange value - not use value? I think you need to make the distinction between surplus and surplus-value here.

I'd like to pause here and actually go and read the thread now - i don't want to repat what has already been discussed or turn it back onto groun that has already been covered. Odd, these thread used to appear every few months but this has been the first one for a few years (i think)

 

[TremulousTetra]

I agree with what you say above.

Capitalism, feudalism etc. are vague terms. If we are talking about class rule, class analysis then it is fine. But trying to understand a society by trying to work out how capitalist or how feudalist it is is just like counting angels on pinheads. You have to look at class relations. I don't think Marx ever talked about 'capitalism' per se. Hope that answers durrutti as well.

Marx was talking about class rule, a class analysis. It is with the centrality of class you can understand the form of the whole society, the contradictions within it, and the driving force behind its change, in other words the dialectic.

So as we've agreed, in feudalism private individuals could control the means of production, and alternatively a bureaucracy could control the means of production, it remained feudalism from the perspective of a class analysis. Now if you noticed I've been very careful in this thread not to say own the means of production. When you talk about property relations, you seem to get hung up on who owns them, but it doesn't matter who owns them, property relations is talking about the relationship various classes have to of the means of production. Who controls them, and for what purpose.

Who is to know how an NHS' will be funded in a anarchist or communist society? It will be for them to decide. However, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that surplus value will be extracted from the universal proletariat, BUT if the universal proletariat is is controlling that surplus value, directing that surplus value to satisfying the needs of the universal proletariat, such as directing it to fund Health Care, then that surplus value becomes a socialised surplus value, or social surplus. What distinguishes surplus value from a social surplus, who controls it and what for.

Now the capitalist class in Britain benefit from a healthy workforce, thus NHS. Liberals first introduced welfare, Healthcare etc., Because the working class were not fit enough to fight there wars, [see the early Liberal v Tory debate, I think I was about the Boer war.] But the working class etc. benefit from it as well. Does this make it a social surplus? No! For surplus value being directed into making the mode of production more efficient at extracting surplus value, is still a surplus value being controlled by a class, the capitalist class, whose interest are diametrically opposed, or in contradiction to, the proletariat. But how does military spending benefit the British working class?

You have spoke a lot about Cliff and military spending in Russia, but this is a central point he was making. Military spending in Russia, competing with military spending abroad, did mean that the Russian bureaucracy had to rationalise the Russian economy in a capitalist fashion, to maximize surplus value extraction to spend on military production. So from the neo trotskyite perspective, it is in 1928 with the first 10 year plan aimed at maximising surplus value extractionn that you can truly see that there bureaucracy has become a class, it has become a group who are aware of their own interests as a group, and impose their interests on society. This does not deny for one second that this process began before 1928, it is just pointing to when the last straw that broke the camel's back, when quantitative changes became a qualitative change.

Edited to add.

Again I'm going to insist that 'capitalism' doesn't have a precise meaning. For example, Marx never uses the term. The problem is not characterising capitalism, nor is it in characterising the Soviet economy. There are certainly analogies between the Russian economy and Western economies, pretty much everyone (except perhaps Hillel Ticktin) accepts that the Russian economy was capitalist like in some respects. In fact there would be no way to run a bureaucratically planned economy without certain features of capitalism being retained. The real question is in identifying where the Soviet state comes from and where it was heading, which is much easier now in hindsight. The problem is in the relation of class forces.

To look at the problem of trade, this is a very general problem. A thoroughly vibrant revolutionary society run by the workering class with workers' control over industry or even workers direct management of industry will have the same problem - even if they can abolish the state.

I think my post tackles that very "real question", where the "Soviet State was heading".

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well, if it isn't circular it's certainly self-excepting.

If the state does not act as a capitalist firm in the USSR (what does this mean?) then it certainly controls the overall means of production, distribution and so on - this is the socially owned means of production that are supposed to put the USSR beyond capital? But how? If the surplus is appropriated, and the surplus value realized in sale on the foreign market is appropriated by that same state how does it differ from a private firm? A piece of paper saying that you legally own the means of your exploitation (but that you have no control over) make no difference to the essential relations. They're empty forms.

This insistence on private capital as the only characteristic of capitalism is surely based on an outdated model of the growth of early capital in conditions of formal domination, a model that was outdated by the 1930s and the global state-directed responses to crisis.

this is absolutely spot on knotted. This is what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned Japan's direction of capital in both before and after the Second World War, and those of other examples in the west, beyond the state capitalist regimes.

 

[TremulousTetra]

My understanding is that Marx turned Hegels Dialectics upside down. I dont recall him turning 'evolution in society' upside down. Marx was taking the philosophy of Hegel and turning it upside down, at least thats my limited understanding of it.

the most illuminating event to Hegels in his life was the French revolution. This brought up his central question, why does society CHANGE. All I have done is substitute for change, a more modern concept of what he was talking about, evolution.

Hegel came to the conclusion, you change the world by changing your mind. Marx turned this idea on its head, by synthesising a materialist analysis with a dialectical analysis. He did say being determines consciousness, but he also remained a dialectical materialist. He didn't just throw Hegel away.

PS. The only reason I couched in the way I did, "Marx stole his idea from Hegel", was in response to knotted's, " cliff stole his idea from shachman". The nearest thing you can do to original thought, is to synthesise other people's thoughts in a way it has not been done before, but you can never be truly original.

Edited to add
pps. See the quote in boast 239 as well.

 

[TremulousTetra]

disagree .. all the obscuring imho has been by contemporary leninist wishing to defend their revolution

BUT this contemporary Leninist is agreeing with you, and opposing the obscuring.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There's a lot to reply to so I will focus on this for the minute.

You say you have never read Hegel but you know he's a genius. The problem is that I don't think Hegel is the philosopher you think he is. Marx and Engels do not paint a faithful picture of Hegel, later Marxists are much worse.

I would say that 1) above is flat out wrong. This is not what Hegel thought. At a stretch you could interpret Spinoza's philosophy and Eleactic philosophy as being something like 1) ie. the contemplation of the indeterminate absolute, contemplation of the infinite. This is important for Hegel, but Hegel wanted a role for God in his philosophy. What emerges is something more subtle, Hegel recognises distinctions. He would recognise that it is possible to consider determinations such as the economic superstructure but only in their relation to the absolute. However no part of Hegel's philosophy looks like what you have written. It is in no sense saying everything is causally connected. Hegel's philosophy deals in logic - the motion of thought - not in terms of causality - the motion of matter. See in particular:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpspinoz.htm

I think mythology around this point is what is leading you astray.

2) is sort of right. This is the Heraclitan aspect of Hegel. However, just as with 1) you are giving it a dynamic spin. Hegel's history, for example, is not very dynamical at all, in fact he considers societies in the most frozen way. Change in Hegel is the motion of the mind.

This brings us to 3). Contradiction is a logical concept, not a dynamical, mechanical concept.

yes but you have to recognise the change, the dialectic, in Hegel himself as well. He became more and more conservative, the further he got from the most important event in this life, the French revolution. However;

On that point 1.
'The true is the whole,' Hegel wrote.1 http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj78/callinic.htm
On that point 2.

This totality, however, is a contradictory one. The essence of dialectical thinking consists in the recognition that antagonism, conflict and struggle are not a secondary aspect of reality which can be removed through a bit of social engineering or the decision of rival classes to fall in love and become 'partners'. 'Contradiction is at the root of all movement and life, and it is only in so far as it contains a contradiction that anything moves and has impulse and activity,' says Hegel.2 He understood this thesis primarily in terms of the contradictions which develop within concepts: the evolution of nature and human history are an expression of this conceptual dialectic

 

[Knotted]

So you agree that the USSR did expropriate surplus-value, i.e exchange value - not use value? I think you need to make the distinction between surplus and surplus-value here.

You are right. Surplus value is only in reference to commodity production. I think there is a distinction between extraction of surplus value and appropriation and consumption of a surplus. State expenditure, including possibly vast wealth consumed by the state's bureaucracy, is not evidence of extraction of surplus value but only of consumption of surplus. The extraction of surplus value occurs when the owner of the means of production gets a return on the production of commodities sold in a market.

It is quite possible that these Marxist terms are a nonsense. It seems quite possible to me that the appropriation and consumption of surplus is identical to the extraction of surplus value in the former Soviet Union. I would be quite sympathetic to this point of view. But otherwise we have to identify who it is who gets a return on their capital.

Even more than that, we have to identify why anybody cares about getting a return on their capital. Its not pure greed that motivates the capitalist, its the need to stay in the market. A theory of state capitalism is a theory of super-monopoly capitalism where there is only one giant conglomerate ie. the state. Sure this conglomerate buys and sells its commodities on the world market, but it can shield itself from the world market when it needs to - monopoly on foreign trade. It does not need to remain competative because foreign capitalists are prevented from buying it out - there are no supra-national laws regulating the market that it need comply with. The conglomerate would not need to increase exploitation of the workers. It could extract greater surplus simply by raising prices and there would be nothing to stop it doing that. The working class would be exploited equally as consumers as they are as producers - they would cease to be a proletariat in any classical Marxist sense. The conglomerate would not need to invest in new productive forces - if the state capitalists don't need any more riches they don't need to develop anything - just let exploitation continue at its current rate. Why collectivise agriculture?

Of course Tony Cliff has the state capitalists motivated by military competition. But military expenditure is not, for the most part, commodity production ie. they cannot extract surplus value via state expenditure on the military except when they sell arms. But Cliff's theory is not to do with arms sales. If military competition is so vitally important then state capitalism would have to be abolished as state capitalism would be far too lethalgic to bother with military matters.

In short if Russia was state capitalist the economy would be far more stagnant and the society would actually be far less exploitative than it was. State capitalism relies on an analogy with capitalism not super-monopoly capitalism while it nevertheless theorises the existence of super-monopoly capitalism. The very fact that Russia had similarities with capitalist economies disproves the theory of state capitalism.