File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9709, message 382


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005