From: "Karl Carlile" <joseph-AT-indigo.ie> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:05:14 +0000 Subject: Walter and state cap. I would like to expand on Adam's initial comments on the similarities (and differences) between the Stalinist states and "intermediate" state capitalisms like Egypt and Algeria. My point is that the "Egypts" and "Cubas" of the post-World War 2 world had parallel histories. Bourgeois nationalists in the oppressed countries looked to the Soviet Union for support against imperialism and as a model for their own countries. To fend off the imperialists, the nation needs to mobilize and retain the bulk of its own internally produced surplus value, so that the fruits of exploitation can be put to use at home rather than abroad. It also has to repress internal capitalists who have interests tied more directly to imperialism. And it has to keep down independent activity by workers and peasants, whose aspirations for a better life are whetted by the anti-imperialist struggle. These conditions require a centralized state apparatus, and the Stalinist Soviet model (not the 1917 example of workers' revolution!) provided it. In countries where the old bourgeoisie was too weak, the CPs took over and carried out nationalizations bureaucratically. But they first sought to lead coalitions with shadow bourgeois parties, to legitimize their own role in defense of the national capital. At a second stage, when imperialism wouldn't accept the CPs' leading role, they moved to eliminate most private property, after having incorporated some bourgeois elements into the state apparatus. But the exploitation relation between capital and labor is not changed simply by statification from above. In most of the former colonial countries, separation from imperialism was won by non-Stalinist petty-bourgeois forces who neither could decapitate their proletariats as effectively as the Stalinists nor wished to centralize property to the same extent. Whether Stalinist or not, the new nationalist rulers saw their goal as defending and expanding the nation-state and the national capital. Some chose to welcome imperialist investment; others preferred to build up local industries with state aid to produce needed goods at home rather than import them. Almost all used some form of socialist or populist rhetoric to justify strengthening the state and capital. In this light, the theory of permanent revolution has to be extended. A central point of Trotsky's theory was that the bourgeoisie feared to challenge *any* form of property, given the potential threat of the proletariat. Therefore throughout this century it has been unable to carry out the democratic and national tasks of the bourgeois revolution: Trotsky assigned that task to the proletariat. But under specific conditions -- where the proletariat has been defeated or decapitated and its threat to property thereby temporarily removed, and where the traditional bourgeoisie is too feeble to pose even a temporary break from imperialism -- elements from the bureaucratic middle classes have seized the reins of power. Such nationalists could even resort to the dangerous step of statifying property, if the workers had been effectively excluded from independent activity. The theory of permanent revolution illuminates the initial success and the later collapse of third-world nationalism. In 1930 Trotsky wrote a perceptive critique of Stalin's policy of "national socialism," which applies with equal force to the postwar third-world countries: "Marxism proceeds from world economy, not as a sum of national parts but as a mighty, independent reality, which is created by the international division of labor and the world market, and, in the present epoch, predominates over the national markets. The productive forces of capitalist society have long ago grown beyond the national frontier. The imperialist war was an expression of this fact. In the productive-technical respect, socialist society must represent a higher stage compared to capitalism. "To aim at the construction of a *nationally isolated* socialist society means, in spite of all temporary successes, to pull the productive forces backward even as compared to capitalism. To attempt, regardless of the geographic, cultural and historical conditions of the country's development, which constitutes a part of the world whole, to realize a fenced-in proportionality of all the branches of economy within national limits, means to pursue a reactionary utopia." Indeed, national economic independence for the ex-colonial countries could only be temporary during the period of relative prosperity after the war. This was the time when the bureaucratic middle strata grew rapidly in all countries. The illusions of viable third systems and in third-world nationalism reflected the self-inflation of these layers. The new nationalist rulers eventually had to break from the fantasy that they could flourish independent of international capitalism. China today is following a path heading the same way as the "African socialists" and "Arab socialists" of yesteryear. Yours etc., --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005