Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:40:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: state capitalism


On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Lew wrote:

> What's to confuse? Marx made no distinction between socialism and
> communism as systems of society. Can we have evidence that, for Marx,
> socialism/communism was not classless, wageless and stateless?

Lew, we have been through this before, and, as I recall, I, along with
others, posted sources and direct quotes to substantiate this. As I
remember, without the advantage of archives, and somebody may be able to
back me up on this, you would deny the content of each of these posts and
continue on like nobody proved you wrong. Marx deals with the matter in
*The Civil War in France*, the 1844 Manuscripts, and *Critique of the
Gotha Programme*. Rather that develop another version of the arguments I
have given in the past, after a few preliminary clarifications on
terminology, I will quote some sources with whom I agree. 

One of things that is generally not understood is what Marx meant by
communism in the first place. In *The German Ideology* Marx and Engels
wrote that "Communism is for us not a *state of affairs* which is to be
established, an *ideal* to which to which reality will have to adjust
itself. We call communism the *real* movements which abolishes the present
state of things." For Marx, communism was not some already established
endpoint towards which history was unfolding. It was not the "end of
history." Communism was a revolutionary process that was seeking some
highly malleable goals, goals that were generally to be realized in the
form of a classless-stateless society, one communists call communism, what
some anarchists call communist-anarchism. This understanding of communism
had long been held by Marx. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx wrote that
"Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the
immediate future, but communism is not itself the goal of human
development--the form of human society." Nobody can know what ultimate
form society will take. And goals, according to Marx, are historically
contingent, and therefore can only be roughly adumbrated. 

But we know, from Marx's writings, that he believed there were at least
two stages in the post-capitalist transformation of society. The first was
socialism, or what Marx called "crude communism" in the *Manuscripts*, and
there was communist society, however open to historicity that stage of
social evolution will be. Again, not a preordained stage, but the emergent
outcome of struggle. And it must be stressed that the stages are only very
rough collections of a wide-open and historically differentiated and
speculated social facts. Social transformation is uneven, both symmetrical
in some elements and asymmetrical in others, recursive and nonrecursive,
proceeding by fits and starts, regressions, tempered by historical
conjuncture, contingency and context, etc. Why do we think Marx was always
so vague on the matter? Because by his own theoretical standpoint he knew
that history had to be made, and that it would be made only within the
context of past, present, and future developments, all of which held
objective, hidden structures and unpredictable twists and turns. And some
blow off the dialectical method?!

"The first stage of communism is the socialization of the means of
production which makes society into the only employer. Wage labour
continues to exist; it becomes the sole and universal mode of labour,
though surplus value is diverted to investment in economic growth and
social services and not private consumption" (Avineri 1968:225). The
Soviet Union (SU), despite the siege conditions and world capitalist
context in which it struggled, approximated this stage at certain stages
of its development. "Though wages are not egalitarian...but depend on
production, the principle underlying wage differentials ('to each
according to his work') remains egalitarian and preserves the bourgeois
element of property rights related to commodities as objects of
consumption" (ibid:225). Here we see, Lew, and you can, of course, read
this for yourself, that even Marx understood that bourgeois elements would
survive into socialist society, well into the first stage of communist
transformation. This is in keeping with Marx's theory of social formation
(SF) and the multiplicity and coextensivity of modes of production (MoP). 

I am not going to go into a discussion of the latter stage of communist
transformation because the controversy here is over whether socialism is
synonymous with communism. It obviously is not. First, it is
differentiated as a stage of development. Second it is differentiated
qualitatively: socialism is a historical system; communism is a
revolutionary process that leads to an emergent as of yet unspecified
historical system (or SF), that we may call communism. There are other,
non-Marxist conceptions, if you want to accept these. I want to be clear,
in this argument I am using Marx as my anchor.

Does the state exist in socialism? Of course. In *The Critique of the
Gotha Programme*, Marx argued that "Freedom consists in converting the
state from an organ superimposed upon society into one complete
subordinated to it...." Marx saw "existing society (and this holds good
for any future ones) as the *basis* of the existing state (or of the
future state in the case of future society)." (He disagreed with those who
were wanting the German Worker's Party to accept the Gotha Programme that
treated "the state rather as an independent entity that possesses its own
*intellectual, ethical and libertarian bases*.") Okay, now that we
understand (I hope we understand) Marx's conception of the state (and it
is really more complicated than this, as most things are), let's examine
how Marx uses this conception to describe the state in future society.

"The question then arises," Marx writes: "what transformation will the
state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions
will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state
functions?" And here is where multistage postcapitalist transformation
rears its head again. "Between capitalist and communist society lies the
period of revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. 
Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the
state can be nothing but *the revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat*." The transitional society is socialist society. The
political regime that will see this socialist society through its
metamorphosis into communist society is the dictatorship of the
proletariat, where the state still exists, only in the hands of the
proletariat. I refer your to the Communist Manifesto, to the section after
the 10-point program, where Marx and Engels tell you what happens after
the socialist stage is completed (this post will get long if I do all your
work for you--I want to get to the point). 

The state, social class, bureaucracy, etc., do not disappear magically
upon the abolition of capitalism. These are stubborn and persistent
constituents of a historical picture that has been thousands of years in
development, with a substantial degree of inertia and autonomy. The state
and bureaucracy, regardless of their character in whatever SF they happen
to be situated, are the result of asymmetrical causal processes--the
assumption of symmetry lies behind the fallacy of Engels and Lenin's
"withering away of the state" thesis (which Engels quickly realized).
 
> You repeat the legal fictions that there was no profit motive, private
> ownership of the means of production or priviliged income. Yet as a
> matter of social fact there was capital accumulation out of the surplus
> value pumped out the workers, there was a ruling class who wielded
> effective political power over the working class and lived on a
> priviliged income which was the envy of some of the capitalists in the
> west. Yes, the SU was not based on market logic; that's why state
> capitalism is the best description.

As with most societies that can produce a surplus, there was accumulation
of surplus in the SU for several purposes. But it was not, for the most
part, capital accumulation (CA). CA is the conversion of surplus
production into profit through market relations for the purpose of
expanding private wealth. Because of the multiplicity/coextensivity of
MoP, there may have been sectors of the economy in the SU that, at
different times and places, engaged in this practice. Early on there
certainly was. But it was not the dominant MoP, and it is the dominant MoP
that determines the character of the SF. The dominant MoP in the SU over
most of the time of its existence was collectivist and redistributive, and
therefore that SF carried the imprint of the dominant MoP, i.e., a
socialist character. Just as feudal relations still lingering in a
capitalist SF no more make capitalist society feudalism, lingering
capitalist relations in a socialist SF do not make state socialism state
capitalism. For the same reason relations with the character of slavery in
the context of capitalism, such as existed in the US, does not make that
society a slave society. The US was capitalist, despite having
characteristics of a slavery MoP. The SU was socialist, despite having
characteristics of capitalism. This is basic Marxism, Lew. This is why I
went out of my way to announce my previous error.

While it is true that workers in some Soviet controlled countries were the
envy of Western workers (such as East Germany), and while it is true that
education, healthcare, and quality of life was better in the Soviet Union
than it was for most of the capitalist world, it is not true that the
lives of Soviet officials were the envy of the capitalist world, including
among the possibly envious some of the poorest capitalist countries,
where tyrants in client states lived as kings off the foreign rape of the
people's land. As Parenti (1997) notes: "The perks enjoyed by party and
government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West, as
were their personal incomes and life styles. Soviet leaders like Yuri
Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like
the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project
near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at
their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas
where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the
immense personal wealth that most US leaders possess" (49). He goes on to
write that "the 'lavish life' enjoyed by East Germany's party leaders, as
widely publicized in the US press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard
currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of
Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared
by all the residents... The US press never pointed out that ordinary East
Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and
electronics.... Nor was the 'lavish' consumption enjoyed by East German
leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style by the Western
plutocracy" (49-50). Of course, it also went without mention that the East
German worker enjoyed a per capital income that only lagged behind the US,
Canada, and Japan, and in a context of much greater equality of income
distribution (I can dig out the sources on this if anybody likes).
 
Let me return to Parenti for some observations that are relevant. A few
points he makes. (I recommend this book, *Blackshirts and Reds*, his most
openly Marxist-Leninist book to date, for the details on these matters. I
also enjoyed the book because of its lack of pretension and simple
language. He has a very interesting chapter called "Stalin's Fingers" 
where he debunks the mass murder charge.) "First, in communist countries
*there was less economic inequality*" (49). "Second, ...*productive forces
were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public
ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership*." 
"Third, ...*priority was placed on human services*." And "fourth,
*communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other
countries*" (50). 

> As for the professed movement towards communism, based on a deepening
> and widening class structure, this was regarded as a joke by workers
> within the SU and only taken seriously by Trotskyists and Stalinists
> from outside and at a safe distance.

Perhaps we might consider the SU in the context of the capitalist world
economy. Socialism in the SU was a siege socialism. The chances of a
single country or union of countries managing to move to communism within
the structural context of a global SF stamped with the character of
capitalist social and productive arrangements, not to mention a capitalist
policy that was bent on destroying the autonomy of nations to choose a
path different from capitalism, were not very good. This is why we have to
judge the matters on the basis of a constant comparison between empirical
reality and our theoretical and ideal conceptions of that reality. But I
don't want to get into an epistemological discussion here. 

One of my mistakes was to buy into an anticommunist line. I wanted to
argue to that the arguments of those who constantly hold up the SU as a
reason not to move towards communism were irrelevant because in fact the
SU was not socialism but a form of capitalism. This way I could blame the
(largely mythical) monster of the SU on capitalism. Of course, at the
time, I was not aware that I was deceiving myself. I had bought into an
interesting thesis by some very sharp thinkers. But, nevertheless, I was
deceiving myself. I was proceeding on ideological needs, however
stealthed, not on correct social scientific grounds. I can understand how
this may seem to be a useful ideological trick. The Soviet Union has been
successfully depicted as a murderin', barbarian, godless nation bent on
subjugating the world, it leaders depicted as power-hungry, hungry for
power for its own sake, self-serving bastards operating in the name of the
worker, but deceiving them. With that characterization, anybody who
demonstrated the wild exaggerations of death in the Soviet Union, or the
lies of life in the Soviet Union, is branding an apologist for a nightmare
world of bureaucratic surveillance. Here is the paradox: When we accept
the anticommunist line, on the one hand, but, on the other hand claim that
we are still for communism, our only way out is to deny that the Soviet
Union was not socialist and was not moving towards communism. But this is
a false dilemma and a false solution. First, the characterization of the
Soviet Union by the anticommunists is a lie. Sure, the SU had problems,
but so does every society. On balance, the SU was much better place to
live that most of the capitalist world during that, or any other, period. 
When you accept this critique you are accepting the position of our
enemies (sorry to be so blunt). Second, an analysis of the SU proceeding
on historical materialist grounds finds that it was, in fact, a state
socialist society. So why deny it simply because the rap on the SU was
bad? This makes us look no better than capitalist ideologues. Fascism was
a form of capitalism, but the apologists for capitalism work tirelessly to
make fascism into a socialist movement. They disown fascism. But we know,
on objective grounds, that fascism is a form of capitalism. Communists who
try to disown the SU in the same way look the same to me (now). But, more
important than committing hypocrisy, it is false praxis for a Marxist,
whose theoretical and analytical prowess comes from an empirical-realist
position, to deny reality.

Now, this last criticism is not meant to say that those who are in the
present debate are guilty of this. I am pointing out one of the
realizations, and an important one I think, that led me to rethink my
position. I think that this ideological roadblock must be dealt with
before one can move, in their own mind, to a more objective position in
their historical analysis of the Soviet Union, what it was, what is
wasn't. But it points to something that is generally applicable, and that
is that we need to proceed on our analysis unflinchingly and critically.
We have to avoid the fallacy of attacking anybody who wishes to point out
the positive aspects of the SU as somehow apologizing for Stalin. I have
made this error in the past. Knowing this error was part of the reason why
I submitted my initial post.

Sincerely,
Andrew Austin








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