it also encourages dogmatism and, honestly, just not reading shit. even the most, basic introductory text like Principles of Communism should disabuse someone of the idea that "Dengism" or "state capitalism" is something entirely unlike Marxism (see: section 17) if taken seriously, yet these debates go on and on. the communism button hasn't been pressed so the revolution is betrayed and it's just capitalism.
essentially every narrative of such and such socialist state betraying the revolution, from whatever tendency, ultimately boils down to a refusal to consider socialism as a transition that will necessarily have traces of capitalism for a long time. and the history of capitalism as a whole should show that is the case for every mode of production. Endless back and forth about whether revolutionary states are Socialist or State Capitalist or Dgnerated Worker's States or Bureaucratic Collectivism or whatever label are exactly as useless to me as trying to pinpoint exactly in what moment capitalism stopped being feudalism or if mercantilism is or isn't fully capitalist. Capitalism transitioned gradually out of feudalism, had revolutions to conquer political power like socialism had and will have, and remnants of feudalism remained well into the 20th century in many parts of the world. There is historical value in trying to identify proximate causes of capitalism (e.g. primitive accumulation through enclosure in England, as Marx identified), but trying to find some hard line in time for when this mode of production stops and this new one starts seems fundamentally misguided. England in 1700 had many, many holdovers from feudalism (hell, in 2022 it still has literal aristocrats with hereditary government positions!) but in retrospect it's clear that it was on the capitalist road, that capitalism was developing further and further. The question shouldn't be "Are they really socialist?" it should be "Are they building socialism?".
i have nothing to add, just want to say it's a fantastic comment. i've been thinking about this a lot recently and i don't understand why some marxists have such an unscientific idea of what a socialist transition looks like. you can't implement communism by decree, the same way no mode of production was instated this way.
I think the history of the USSR as the first ever successful proletarian revolution plays a really big part in everyone’s perception of socialism and communism, whether they’re communist or liberal or whatever else, and even what the words themselves mean.
There are entire tendencies that are essentially defined by being unlike the USSR or unlike it after a certain point. Leftcoms after the soviets are integrated with the party state (so basically immediately lol), Trotskyists after 1928, “anti-revisionists” like Hoxhaism and Maoism after 1956-1960. Not to get too sectarian in here, I’m not even saying those positions are necessarily wrong (Khrushchev really did suck!), but the history of the USSR and splits from it has led to a form of dogmatism that is opposed to presence of markets and/or bourgeois elements in basically all circumstances. The party state is seen as becoming bourgeois in some way and the economy is seen as insufficiently communist. Economic dogmatism can come from severe critique of the USSR.
But, it can also come from too uncompromising support for its model. USSR made great achievements and its economy could be directed to certain goals powerfully and impressively, but ultimately it grew more and more unwieldy, did not surpass the West, and the project collapsed. The collapse obviously was not only because of that underperformance but it is absolutely a part that we shouldn't ignore just because we are sympathetic to the USSR and its model.
I've come to agree with John Ross's view that the Chinese econony is fully in line with Marxism and that the Soviet economy was essentially a left-deviation from classical Marxism adopted out of the necessity of fighting World War 2. After all, even the USA basically did central planning and a wave of nationalization to be able to win that war. There were very real, immediate reasons to prioritize heavy industry above all else and have the state direct almost every aspect of production, but just because an economy is good at industrializing quickly and winning a conventional war of colossal proportions doesnt mean it is sustainable or efficient.
And that is where the most impressive Soviet growth was, was that preparation for war by massive industrialization. The 60s, 70s, and 80s never matched the Stalin era's leaps towards catching up the West. Chinese economic growth, by contrast, is consistently superior to the West over decades and is rapidly developing the productive forces and gradually socializing them, as Marx envisioned would be part of the transition to communism.
I think the political conditions of AES has necessarily affected their ideology and approach to the econony. The PRC did not at all start in an ideal position and also had to fight fascism in its fetal state before '49, but compared to the USSR and especially after reproachment with the US, has been able to follow a more "normal", gradual path of development. Reproachment and the resulting loosened grip of imperialism gave it breathing room that the USSR never had, and its economy since has not been forced to adapt urgently to massive impending destruction like WW2 or the Cold War. Compare USSR military spending of as much as 20% of national income in the late 80s to China's 2.45% of GDP in 1989. The conditions of imperialism made siege socialism a necessity for most AES, and in those conditions, allowing the presence of a market sector is (perhaps entirely correctly) viewed as dangerous, too open to imperialist infiltration and politically unviable even if the benefits to development are recognized.
A totally state-directed, state-owned economy is good at war. It was good at fighting World War 2, and it is good at fighting imperialist class war and encirclement. When these states have basically always been in a state of total war with the capitalist world, it makes sense that they would deviate to this defensive model rather than a more classically Marxist one that would develop more quickly and naturally. In contrast, the peculiarities of the Sino-Soviet split and the PRC's relationship with the West have allowed it to take its time and socialize steadily and efficiently.
The USSR could probably have taken a path more like China's in a different political situation. Stalin after World War 2 desired quite close cooperation with the West and to avoid conflict with them as much as possible. That is why he made decisions many of us here view as rather liberal, naive mistakes, like not supporting the Greek communists to abide by his agreement with Britain. That is easy to say in retrospect, but we only view 1945-1948 as the dawn of the Cold War because we know what followed after. Those who were living through it did not, could not conceive of their situation that way. It seemed plausible that socialist states could peacefully coexist and even cooperate with capitalist ones after they had just fought and won the greatest war in human history together. Stalin believed this, socialists and nationalists in the Third World believed this. So many nations during the Cold War tried to be friendly with both the US and the USSR, and they paid steep prices for this.
Had the international situation really been more like these perceptions and aspirations, where imperialist siege could be at least temporarily avoided, other AES states could have taken a route more like China's. I think a lot of them readily would have. One did, in fact, because Yugoslavia had a much better relationship with the West (due to splitting with Stalin, partly over said lack of support for Greek communists), and it had an economy with state, cooperative, and market sectors coexisting. The relationship between intensity of imperialist encirclement and acceptance or unacceptance of a market sector's role in developing the productive forces seems quite strong to me.
explain to me how China is not capitalist. i'm not even saying that if they're capitalist they're just as bad as the US, or that the communist party is actually, ideologically capitalist, but what mode of production are they operating under if thats where Tim Apple gets his iPhones from? what the fuck is Jack Ma even doin if he's not making money from other people's surplus labor value?
I don't really get triggered by people saying capitalism instead of "socialist market economy" or whatever because it seems to be mostly signaling and semantics, but it's probably worth pointing out that not all of China's economy is like that. The commanding heights of the economy (e.g. finance, heavy industry, construction) are controlled more closely by the Party, and surplus value extracted there is spent on social good without passing through the hands of a capitalist first. In the market economy there's also the matter of, like, regulations and worker protections and whatnot that are only possible when capitalists don't run the state as if it's their personal playground, but I'm not sure that's as clear of a point.
okay that's a good explanation thank you. i do want to learn more about chinese society at some point it just doesn't seem super relevant rn.
It's worth quantifying this for some perspective, 60% of their entire GDP is state owned.
The 14 year old white kid from Ohio takes in the vast majority of historical proletarian movements in the 3rd world, bows his head, and posts: "tankie redfash state capitalists". Thank god he's here to enlighten the world.
"state capitalism/ist" is literally just a buzzword for anti-ML types to use against every example of actually existing socialism.
just the ones the cia likes to work with instead of against. and also cuba now i guess. :(
Maybe I'm weird or misinformed, but I don't really get why using the term "state capitalist" is offensive if being used to describe a path to socialism that uses the power of the state as a means to transition to socialism. Here's how Lenin himself describes it:
Capitalism is a bane compared with socialism. Capitalism is a boon compared with medievalism, small production, and the evils of bureaucracy which spring from the dispersal of the small producers. Inasmuch as we are as yet unable to pass directly from small production to socialism, some capitalism is inevitable as the elemental product of small production and exchange; so that we must utilise capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediary link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces.
Not all state capitalism is carried out for the purpose of transitioning to socialism, of course, but in cases like the USSR or China (or other AES states) it's clearly used as a way to increase productive forces leading to the eventual abolition of capitalism and introduction of true socialism/communism.
Am I wrong to view it this way? I'm guessing there's maybe some history behind the use of the term that I'm not fully aware of, but on its face it seems to me to be a necessary step in the transition to socialism in most cases and not something that should automatically be viewed as some terrible thing, but I'd love to be enlightened here if I'm way off base.
Using it as a perjorative for someones entire ideological system is essentially implying that all they want and intend to work towards is "state capitalism" and that that is the core of their ideology, its the same shit as like "State socialist", its discarding all nuance about the utility and necessity of a state and instead just going "THESE GUYS ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY JUST LOVE STATES AND WANTS TO OPPRESS EVERYONE UNDER A STATE".
"State Capitalist" is so effective for a certain type of leftist because they have the fundamental delusion that economy is separate from the government. This makes 'State Capitalism' worse than the supposedly neutral liberal capitalism where most aspects of life are relegated to the free market. Even if they are socialists or even communists, they have rhetorical license to trivialize the struggle of anyone who ever fought for these causes as oppressed lackeys for backwards oriental despots.
These same types LOVE martyrs though, name a failed left wing struggle and they'll write you a poem about it. It's only the groups that fought fascism/imperialism/capitalism and won (even for a short time) that deserve condemmnation.
Wasn't the intent there to describe basically "heavily regulated capitalism with social welfare programs being established as possible, as a placeholder while the institutions required for socialism were built up" (because that's what the early USSR did: their infrastructure, logistics, and central planning systems didn't spring fully formed simply from the success of the revolution, and instead took years to be built up during which something had to be done in the meantime) and it's just worded/translated awkwardly? If anything it sounds like he's saying "we literally do not have the ability to do more than this right now" and trying to couch it in historical materialist theory instead of admitting the limitations of the party and Soviet government at the time.
If anything it sounds like he’s saying “we literally do not have the ability to do more than this right now”
This is how I read it, but I don't think it's unique to the USSR. In my view, there has to be some kind of transition and transition plan, and since we live in a capitalist system, that plan would involve capitalism in some way, shape, or form, albeit under the guidance of the state. To me it's just being realistic.
and trying to couch it in historical materialist theory instead of admitting the limitations of the party and Soviet government at the time.
Again, I think there's always going to be limitations and hurdles that need to be overcome under almost any conditions, though the conditions the USSR was under at the time were especially harsh, and so I don't think Lenin or the early Soviet leaders should be faulted for embracing what was entirely necessary to move the USSR forward.
Relevant Marx quote from The German Ideology:
We shall, of course, not take the trouble to enlighten our wise philosophers by explaining to them that the “liberation” of man is not advanced a single step by reducing philosophy, theology, substance and all the trash to “self-consciousness” and by liberating man from the domination of these phrases, which have never held him in thrall. Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse...
I don’t think it’s unique to the USSR
It's definitely not unique. China at least did the same thing in the early 50s, regulating a still-capitalist economy while transitioning to communes and state-owned businesses, a process which required massive literacy programs and bringing a lot of former landlords, businessmen, and other upper/middle class professionals into the fold because they were systemically the only literate groups pre-revolution and the need for literate functionaries was so dire that pardoning any who peacefully surrendered their claims to properties and agreed to work with the new system was seen as necessary.
I don’t think Lenin or the early Soviet leaders should be faulted for embracing what was entirely necessary to move the USSR forward.
Right. I'm just looking at his words through the lens of them not making much literal sense, but in the context of what they actually, materially did and the conditions they were faced with they make sense as an attempt to explain a pragmatic move (allowing regulated capitalism to persist as a holding pattern until collectivization and state-run industries could be accomplished) with a marxist theory explanation rather than openly admitting weakness or limitations at a time when they were beset on all sides by reactionaries.
Like the general progression of economies and the conditions for revolution exist more in a general sense than a strict order that a given place must follow. Like a socialist state offering aid to indigenous horticulturalists wouldn't say "oh well first we need you to establish an agricultural slave-based economy administered by a city-state with an oligarchic council, then get yourselves a king, then kill the king and get some businessmen, then kill the businessmen and we'll give you tractors, modern medicine, and a railway," because they have to progress through all the stages, because that's obviously not true. At the time of the Russian Revolution they materially had the precursors they needed to go on to establish the industrial socialist state that they'd become, but they needed time to actually build up and create those institutions: they didn't need regulated capitalism to produce the conditions they needed to build socialism, they needed it as a harm-reducing stop-gap measure to keep people working, fed, and housed while the state and party was building institutions needed for a socialist system.
I don't even know what such a stop-gap measure would look like in an imperial core country these days. Trying to quickly nationalize as much corporate logistics infrastructure as possible while trying to bring agricultural workers to the table to keep nationalized corporate agricultural holdings productive, while working to fully coopt Amazon supply lines and move smaller private businesses to a coop model under some local umbrella? I don't think there's a more solid answer than "literally whatever concession it takes to keep food growing and supplies moving while people stay busy and provided for, until a better system can be built," which is generally what successful revolutionaries have done in the past.
trying to couch it in historical materialist theory instead of admitting the limitations of the party and Soviet government at the time.
you yourself pointed out that these were the limitations of the time and the particular level of development, contradictions, material conditions and foreign position the ussr found itself at the time. And Lenin thouroughly talked about these things in any of his writtings in that era and maybe that specific passage seems that way to you cause it specificaly talks about a nep style direction economicaly. Also Tax in kind is an amazing work to read thats often ignored by people. But in general Lenin never pretended the USSR economy was something that it wasnt. He never said to the people "we have achieved socialism and smashes capitalist production" or "we will be able to do so in the near future". He is just describing and accepting a reality and his desciptions of it and of soviet economy in that post revolution era are honest but also changing a lot year by year cause a lot of huge shit and shifts were happening so you cant parse some general underlying tactic or economism from just what he wrote in lets say 1921 regarding something.
Perhaps my reading of it is colored by how people tend to talk about that quote, either pointing to it to claim the later Soviet model of centrally planned state-owned businesses with a quasi-market system was "state capitalist" because Lenin used that term for the long-since-ended NEP, or to try to argue an idea of a strict progression through systems of economic organization and say that Soviets "had to make capitalism first because you can't just go from feudalism to socialism" which is also missing the point because it paints the capitalist stage itself as contributing a necessary character or the like (and also misrepresents pre-revolution Russia as fully feudal and agrarian, when it was actually an underdeveloped industrial capitalist state, albeit one that was rather far behind the other great powers in many respects), when the actions the early Soviets took were much more pragmatic and grounded in the material realities on the grounds.
I may also have worded my take on it poorly: what I mean is that I don't believe the early Soviets were just dogmatically following a prescribed order of development (which I've seen people misrepresent the NEP as before), but instead acted pragmatically based on their material limitations, that the regulated capitalism of the NEP wasn't because private enterprise is universally necessary to go from underdeveloped aristocratic capitalism to socialism but because the Soviet state itself had not yet established the sorts of central planning institutions and the logistics chain to support them that they would later rely on.
