File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9706, message 218


Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:31:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka-AT-acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: state capitalism (Reply to Yoshie)


James,

Your posting goes in the direction I have been arguing,  More
elaboration of my own position would be in my article "The Development of
State Capitalism in the Soviet System", RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,
1992 and there seems little point to restate arguments made there.

Paul

P.S. I think there is a typo in the second paragraph of your post: "In
general property relations..." for In general production relations...".A

*************************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting the  RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY  Web site at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka,  and using OS/2 Warp.
*************************************************************************


On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, James Farmelant wrote:

> If I understand Andy's point correctly he is criticizing the state
> capitalist model of Soviet-type societies on the grounds that
> ownership must be prior to control.  Thus Andy asserts that since
> under late capitalism legal ownership of the means of production
> the power of managers still derives from the legal owners of capital.
> Likewise Andy challenges the state capitalist model on the grounds 
> that the ruling elites of the former Soviet Union were not the legal
> owners of the means of production. Since the Soviet system did not
> provide for the private ownership of the means of production this
> means that the bureaucracy could not therefore be an ownership
> class and so the Soviet Union could not in any sense have been
> capitalist.
> 
> Andy has emphasized that an adequate model of 'existing socialism'
> must be consistent with historical materialism.  Looking at 
> G.A. Cohen's *Karl Marx's Theory of History:A Defence* I noticed
> that Cohen drew a sharp distinction between the relations of production
> and property relations.  The former are a part of the economic base
> while latter are a part of the superstructure.  Generally property 
> relations will tend to match production relations but lags can occur
> from time to time.  In general production relations will be what they
> are because they help to stabilize the production relations.  
> If this is the case then it would seem to be possible to have a social
> formation where the  actual relations of production might involve
> the exploitation of labor by a bureaucratic class despite the fact that
> the existing property relations are quite different with legal ownership
> of the means of production vested in the state. In fact it could be
> argued that this apparent contradiction between production relations
> and property relations was for a time functional because it mystified
> the real nature of Soviet production relations.  Exploitative relations
> were given a socialist veneer. The state capitalist theorist could
> then explain the current transformation of Russian property relations
> to a more conventional capitalist form by arguing that under current     
>                              conditions this 
> will better stabilize the actual relations of production that had existed
> all along anyway.
> 
> In short I if I understand Andy's position correctly it can be criticized
> for
> ignoring the crucial (in G.A. Cohen's view anyway) distinction between
> property relations and production relations. This does not mean,
> however, that I necassarily endorse the state capitalist position either.
>                                                                          
>         James F.
> 
> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Andrew Wayne Austin
> <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu> writes:
> >Paul,
> >
> >You make a fine point. Power stems from control over productive 
> >forces. 
> >You are defining "control" as the structured arrangements that give 
> >one
> >class the capacity to define ownership in a society. In capitalism, 
> >that
> >power comes from the private control over the means of production 
> >LEGALLY
> >DEFINED AS OWNERSHIP. The fact that this is, admittedly, tautological 
> >is
> >your business. You sort of caught me in a linguistic turn, I suppose.
> >
> >My argument was using control in a different sense--in the context of
> >state capitalist theory. I am concerned with control at a point after
> >property relations have been established. I am concerned with
> >differentiating control in a capitalist society, on the one hand, and 
> >a
> >socialist society, on the other. 
> >
> >So let me put my statement in the context of state capitalist theory. 
> >Some
> >neo-Marxists argue that, in an age where ownership is increasingly
> >passive, that those who control, but do not own, capital have the real
> >power. The argument is that there is an increasing distinction between 
> >the
> >owning class and the ruling "class." There are the passive owners, 
> >usually
> >held to be stock holders, on the one hand, and the controllers of 
> >capital
> >decisions, the CEO and managers, on the other. (The IWW makes this
> >argument, as well, claiming that because of this ownership doesn't 
> >mean
> >anything anymore.) It is not really correct, because owners and
> >controllers of capital all generally own capital and live off of 
> >surplus. 
> >It is better to recognize the ruling class as the politically active
> >sector of the owning class. Nevertheless, some neo-Marxists (and 
> >Soviet
> >Marxist theorists) claimed that late capitalism should be understood 
> >as
> >state monopoly capitalism, where the state intervenes to shore up the
> >increasing crisis of capitalism and owners became increasingly passive 
> >and
> >anonymous. Who comes forward to run capitalism is the technocrat and 
> >the
> >capital manager. There is where the real power is--because they 
> >CONTROL
> >capitalism for the owners. See, here this control is subsequent to 
> >owning,
> >and the controllers are hired by the owners. This is what I understood 
> >by
> >the term control in the context of our discussion. Another advocate of
> >state capitalism made this argument day before yesterday, I believe, 
> >when
> >he wondered if it were possible for a bureaucrat to rise to power 
> >through
> >channels other than class power, or something like that.
> >
> >In any event, the neo-Marxist argument for late capitalism is 
> >transferred
> >to the Soviet social formation in state capitalist theory. Given the
> >body of theory at the time, it was easy to look at the Soviet Union 
> >and
> >see a massive bureaucracy, a large and powerful state apparatus,
> >technocrats making economic decisions, and suppose some sort of state
> >capitalism was going on. After all, if capitalism in the West didn't 
> >need
> >the owners of capital making decisions in order to be capitalist, then
> >maybe the Soviet Union didn't need owners at all to be capitalist.
> >Ultimately, what this supposes is that capitalism can exist without a
> >capitalist class! (And this was Yoshie's point, as I understood it.
> >Somebody else made this point, too, I think.)
> >
> >The point is this, and this is where the semantics confuse the point. 
> >If
> >private ownership is a principal component of capitalism, whether
> >ownership is a legal definition or not--a legal definition, I should 
> >point
> >out, that rises upon a particular mode of production where the means 
> >of
> >production are privately held and controlled--then it does not seem
> >reasonable at all to continue calling something capitalism when the
> >capitalist economic relation is abolished and the legal category is
> >negated.
> >
> >So, while you scored a point for the phenomenologists, Paul, you 
> >continue
> >to obfuscate the real material basis of the capitalist mode of 
> >production,
> >a material basis that must include the private holding (ownership,
> >whatever we choose to call it--it still remains an objective, 
> >ontological
> >fact despite our ideations on the matter) and control of the 
> >productive
> >forces.
> >
> >It is my understanding that ruling elites in the Soviet Union did not
> >privately own the productive forces. I also do not believe that the 
> >legal
> >system of the Soviet Union viewed them as the owners. I believe that
> >Yoshie's point stands.
> >
> >Look, the point is whether we want to accept the Weberian position 
> >that
> >capitalism is a status-"class" relation where people compete for power 
> >and
> >status in the political realm and transform these gains into economic
> >power, or whether we want to accept a historical materialist position
> >based on the struggle between social classes rooted in production
> >relations. 
> >
> >Andrew Austin
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu 
> >---
> >
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005