Date: 03 Jul 97 01:53:28 EDT
From: neil <74742.1651-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: M-I: state capitalism


dear friends,

This is in reply to additional source information  'requested'
by Louis P. on Russian imperialism and state
capitalism, and again more  on basic marxism  to blow off 
some of the  smoke  that emanates from  Andrew A's last posts. 
Their personalist slanders  against  Lew and myself  are 
acts of desperate (and dying) political trends.
I cannot  not stoop to their level. Let's Debate!.

Earlier in this thread, the  temporary alliance and spheres of
influence and trade deals  of the USSR with Nazi Germany  (1939-41)
 and then the democratic imperialists  USA, UK, France . etc (1941-5)
 was discussed .

In the postwar period , the Russian conquest of  E. Europe 
and defeat of German  fascism . Russia was slow to reliance 
 on the export of capital due to war devastation  , but they they were
 in dire need of use values , new technology,  minerals, foodstuffs, etc based 
 on gaps created by the incredible mount of waste in the
state cap economy. (1)

Use values all have value but the Russian reason for choosing
these  is to aid the overall Russian capital to maximize its value .
In the post WW2 period Russian imperialism  was impelled 
to restore its shattered economy first --even at the expense of
its (state cap) allies and of course mainly the workers of 
E. Europe .

They use 3 main methods of  exploiting their direct satellites as
well as attempting to exploit allies (Yugoslavia, etc)
a) the bourgeois method of reparations--for this the Russians 
stripped parts of E. Europe, dismantling factories nad machines
and shipping them to the motherland. Even Manchuria, a province
of the  Chinese ally, was stripped economically and looted.

b) In E. europe , the Russian state  took over large entersprizes
that had previously  been fascist  booty  and declared them 
"joint stock companies' with property rights shared  between 
the USSR and the local satellite/ally and a major portion 
 of the profits transferred back to the USSR  as  an absentee
owner,  in  'agreement" that was really booty by conquest.
Obviuosly so when even E. Europe countries  that were 
the victims of Nazi occupation as well as  allies were 
dealt with in the same manner of domination. (2)

Like many a western imperialist  occupying power, the Russians
enforced unequal trade relations within their sphere of domination,
demanding high prices for Russian goods  and squeezing 
their allies for cheap prices fro their imports --especially the 
use-values it  needed.
This came out quite clearly in the compalints of Russian 
imperialism by both Yugoslavia in 1948 (3)  and later by 
China in 1960-1 when they broke  normal  relations with 
Russia  (4)

To be fair, let me say that after the 1953  E. German workers revolt
against Russian  parasitism/looting  and espeicially after crushing 
 the Polish riots and Hungarian soviet revolt of 1956. The Russians , to
keep the lid on, revised their trade realtions and agreements
with some E. European countries and a for a number of years, 
even  ended up taking losses. But by  1970 , things were reverting 
back to the old  Russian imperialist  "up against the wall" methods.
And the Russians  were economically impelled to step up their 
exploitation once again when their own new  economic crisis began
to break out in the early 70s. (5)

Now , getting back to some basics on Marxist  political-economy on
 the modes  of exploitation in exposing the  "secrets'
of the capital-wage labor commodity realtionship. 
Capital opens with the following;

"The wealth of  those societies in which the capitalist mode
of production prevails presents itself as "an immense collection
of commodities" its unit being the single commodity . Our 
investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a 
commodity." (6)

and at the end of Capital the following:

 "it is always the direct relationship of the owners of the 
conditions of production to the the direct producers -
a relationship whose actual form always naturally corresponds
 to a definite state of developement in the ways and means of labor 
and hence its social productive power --which reveals its innermost
secret , the hidden foundation of the total social structure and 
hence also of the political form of the soverignty dependency 
relationship --in short the specific from of state in each case.
   
 This does not gainsay the fact that , due to the innumerable 
different circumstances (mutual conditions, racial relations,
outside historical influences , etc.) the same economic basis-
the same in terms of the main conditions--can show infinite variations
and gradations in the phenomenon, which can be grasped  only
by analysing these empirically  given circumstances.' (7)

Here Marx  shows the connection  linking the  form of exploitation,
the social structure and the political  state. 
Now when we look at capitalism , this means clearly the realtion of 
waged labor commodification is the foundation of the BOURGEOIS
state.
Marx notes  further  that this state and its social structure can take many 
DIFFERENT FORMS  ("infinite variations and gradations in appearance")
Nonethe less, all these states are capitalist  ("the same economic base....
with regards to the principal conditions ") as long as surplus labor
is extracted thru waged labor. This means the surplus product here
takes the from of surplus value .(8)

Marx is dealing with the mothod of exploitation here. For Marx
the  form of surplus extraction here --wage labor  exposes the
mode of exploitation (capitalism and state capitalism)that is 
the realtion of the ruling and producing CLASSES.

The defenders of state capitalist regimes a la ex-USSR, China,
Cuba, North Korea etc. are exposed by the daily workings of the
capitalist  SOCIAL RELATIONS of the societies they falsely 
label and prop up as "Degenerated workers states"  or
"state socialism" or 'existing socialism".
In none of them can they show any socialist institutions 
of  waged workers control over production and distribution
or where production is for human need and not for sale and
profit. (9)
Defenders here  of the state capitalist regimes clearly  don't
mind the capitalist  wages system, they just think it should be 
run by (bourgeois)  state managers!

References:
1)  T. Cliff, "Stalins Satellites in Europe" 1952 
2)  W. Daum, The Life and Death of Stalinism , 1990  LRP, Pg 26
Box 3573, NY, NY 10008 
3) M. Djilas , The New Class , HBJ,  1956
     M. Djilas , Reminiscences of Stalin , HBJ, 1962
     V. Dedijer, The Battle Stalin Lost, 1971 
      (M. Djilas and V. Dedijer originally  were both 'well connected ' Yugoslav

       government  officials for 10  years+ . Djilas ,a "partisan hero' came to
the 
       conclusion  that Russia was a state cap exploiter 
       based on his first hand experience of '40s  Russian 
       "joint stock company' schemes which the Yugoslav
       state cap leaders could not countenance. As Djilas
       and Dedijer point out , It was not just a political friction
       of Stalin vs. Tito that caused the '48 split, but attempts 
       by the ex-USSR to make Yugoslavia its own colony as well.
4) The "Red Papers" Journal  #8 , RCP Pub. , 1974
5) Life and Death of Stalinism (LDS) , pg 26
6) K. Marx, Capital , Vol 1, Int'l Publ. Ed. Pg 35
7) K.  Marx, Capital , Vol 3, (IPE) Chap 47, Sec 2 (p. 791)
8) LDS, Pg 27
(9) Socialism or Barbarism , CWO--UK, Box 338, 
Sheffield, S3 9YX, UK 

Neil



        

   
       

 







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