From: "ricardo" <davidb-AT-ak.planet.gen.nz> Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Re: Money capital & Soviet Union Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:32:09 +1200 Bob, Agreed that SU was a degenerated workers state up to 1992/3, i.e. still a workers state. After the state turnover with Yeltsin's victory in 1991 when he was able to begin the rapid destruction of the plan and the reintroduction of the law of value, the state was no longer a workers state but a capitalist state. There is no way we could defend that state! All we mean by state capitalism is that the state became capitalist before it had restored fully capitalist social relations by privatising the SOE's etc. The state was running the whole show - hence state capitalism as distinct from free market capitalism. This process of complete restoration that Rebecca is talking about will take some time given the massive destruction and restructuring that industry has to undergo before it is able to compete efficiently on the world market. The important thing is when the state changes its class character, and this happens before it is able to fully transform the social relations. We cannot meanwhile go on defending a state which has destroyed the plan and is doing everything in its power to reintroduce capitalism, as any kind of "workers state", which seems to be the political consequence of Rebecca's position. Dave. ---------- > From: Robert Malecki <malecki-AT-algonet.se> > To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU > Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Re: Money capital & Soviet Union > Date: Friday, September 19, 1997 11:32 > > Dave writes; > > >Rebecca and Bob, > > > >Rebecca. Yes I agree that money as a measure of value is not the same thing > >as money capital which contains realised surplus value. Nor do I say that > >capitalist social relations are restored in Russia. What I do say is that > >the state is now a capitalist state trying its best to restore capitalism > >and doing so by means, among others, of re-introducing money as a measure > >of value, so that the law of value can re-assert itself. The question for > >marxists is what is the character of the state? This is determined by the > >social relations that the state defends. We say that in this case a > >capitalist state defends capitalist social relations by actively creating > >the conditions for their re-introduction. > > > >Bob.This is not running the film of reformism backwards, but running the > >film of the Boshevik revolution backwards. Lenin talked of state capitalism > >in a very specific sense of the workers state coexisting for a time with > >bourgeois property but where the class character of the workers state was > >determined by the social relations the state defended. Trotsky talked about > >the path back to restoration taking the form of state capitalism by which > >he meant the state switching from supporting planned property relations to > >capitalist social relations. The fact that it occurred without a bloody > >civil war also runs the film backwards. Most of the blood was shed before > >and sometime after the October revolution. The important thing is the class > >character of the state. As soon as the class turnover takes place we can no > >longer call for a political revolution, we have to call for a social > >revolution to smash the state apparatus and restore planned property social > >relations. > > > >Dave > > Well, then I think we agree on the neccessity of a new social revolution and > this is a vital programmatic question. But I am very confused about this > "state capitalist" > stuff you bring up because running the Bolshevik revolution backwards must > take into consideration the question of who has state power and what > intersts they are running it for. Because basically talking about a > transitional state going backwards > almost makes the Stalinists look like some sort of healthy workers state up > until Jeltsin and co took power transforming this to a "state capitalist" > state in transition. I think the transition already took place in the late > twenties with the Stalinists in power linked to it being a degenerated > workers state heading eiher towards capitalist counter revolution or workers > political revolution lead by a trotskyist party. > Thus the formulation "degenerated" workers state. resting on the gains of > October. > However I can not equate "state capialist" state resting on anything other > then capitalist counter-revolution.. > > Yeltsin taking power with the storming of the parliment not leading to a > civil war was the last nail in the coffin of the degenerated workers > state.We have the same conclusion a new social revolution is neccessary but > we don't have the same analisis of why. Because I am very skeptical to this > "state capitalist" phase that you talk about.. > > Bob Malecki > ------------------------------------------------------- > Check Out My HomePage where you can, > > Read or download the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara, > Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball! > > And Now the International Communist League Page! > Just push on the "Spartacist" Button. > > Or Get The Latest Issue of, > > COCKROACH, a zine for poor and working-class people. > > NEW! "RADIO TIME" In cooperation with Stratfacts, Bob > Malecki will be giving occasional reports to Stratfacts > Radio audiences in the United States. Text for these > reports now on line. > > http://www.algonet.se/~malecki > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005