Re: State capitalism?

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

> On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Adam Rose wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you not think the common elements I pointed out existed in the four
> > countries : India,Egypt,Algeria,Cuba ?
> >
> > 1. Revolutions, led by sections of the middle class.
> > 2. Working class prevented from playing leading role by Stalinist CP's.
> > 3. State plays a central role in production after revolution.
> >
>
<cut>
>
> The other problem is that even on the basis of Adam's own doctrine, there
> are striking differences between India and Cuba. The "revolution" in India
> never targeted the national bourgeoisie. Behind Ghandi's populist
> obfuscations there was always the obvious presence of the ruling elite who
> would constitute themselves as the Congress Party.
>
> In Cuba the bourgeoisie was put out of business. If you don't believe me,
> look up this fellow Mas Canosa in Miami.
>
> What's interesting to me about Algeria and Egypt is that the bourgeoisie
> *was not* put out of business. Behind all of the "socialist" spectacle
> (especially in Algeria), there was always a national bourgeosie operating
> behind the scenes. I will try to shed some light on this class in
> subsequent posts.
>

Indeed. In some countries, the state took over 100% of the economy, in others
less. I would argue that the difference was quantitative and not qualitative.
Presumably you would argue differently.

I think what determined the difference was the extent to which there was
a real independent capitalist class existing before the revolution. This
certainly explains the difference between India + Egypt on the one hand
and Cuba on the other. Algeria, I can't comment.

These differences were a result of many things - size, history of nationalist
revolts, the fact that Britain had to coopt elements of each society in its
formal or informal Empire, since it just didn't have the manpower to dominate
it completely by military force, etc. Britain simply couldn't have the
same relationship with large nations thousands of miles away that the
US had with Cuba.

The Cuban bourgeoisie, such as it was, was very closely tied up with sugar,
ie with a foreign market, and also tended to invest its profits abroad. Their
interests and the interests of building an even slightly diversified Cuban
economy diverged. By following their investments and fleeing Cuba, they risked
losing a relatively low proportion of their capital.

In contrast, Egyptian and Indian capitalists already produced for a home market,
and were already fairly diversified, and because of this reinvesting profits
at home was for them a viable strategy. So their interests did converge with the
strategy of building up a diversified, balanced national economy. Hence they
provided a base for the political leadership to build upon, and there was
therefore no point in nationalising them, nor any point in them fleeing.

Because Egypt and India did have these significant industrial bases, they
found it relatively easy to shift from one super power block to the other
and back again, whereas Cuba tried to break free of the USSR but couldn't
manage it. Also, particularly in the case of Egypt, it explains the role
the working class played in the revolution. Same Stalinist politics, but
in the case of Egypt anyway the working class was central to the process,
[ similar perhaps to Iran in 1979 ] , in a way that it wasn't in Cuba.

So, similar, essentially pragmatic, national leaderships found themselves
pushed in different directions.

Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---