Re: State capitalism?

[Jorn Andersen <ccc6639@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:25 20-06-96 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Jorn Andersen wrote:

>> Yes, Louis this is the basic distinction. It is not formal and
>> schematic. It is based on an assumption that socialism equals
>> workers in power - collectively and democratically. Nothing more,
>> and nothing less.

>Louis: Socialism is an ideal, isn't it? We have the same ideal.

Jorn:
Yes - socialism is an ideal, but as materialists we have to relate this to
the real world. That's why Marx (and very clearly Lenin in _State and
Revolution_) used the term *communism* when he talked about it as an ideal.
The term socialism they both reserved for the type of society where the
workers have taken over, classes still exist, but class power has changed
>from the bourgeoisie / capitalist class to the proletariat / working class.

Of course, Louis knows all this. But the problem is that if we use the terms
with a different content, then the debate is leading nowhere. Socialism may
be dirty, or it may be beautiful - but first of all it is a *power* relation
(exactly as capitalism). The stronger the workers, the more beautiful is
socialism.

But OK - Louis seems to agree that Cuba is not socialist. Why not, by the way?

Louis:
>There is absolutely no difference between the USSR in its infancy and Cuba
>today. The analogies are actually quite striking if you choose to examine
>Cuba in any kind of depth. There are problems with bureaucracy. It is a
>single-party state. It is making concessions to the international
>bourgeosie through NEP-like measures. It has a revolutionary foreign
>policy. It encourages bold innovations in the arts. It has produced
>dramatic improvements in the everyday lives of workers and peasants.

Jorn:
There are actual very *big* differences if you go behind the surface. A
minor point: Russia was not a single-party state during the first years
after the revolution.

The real difference was in the birth of these two states. I have re-posted
to the list something I wrote in March about how Castro became a "Marxist"
and two years after the revolution found out that it - whoops - by the way
was a communist revolution.

The point here is that while Lenin and the Bolsheviks had to *convince* a
majority in the Russian working class that they had to take power, Castro
and the 26 July Movement did not have to use time on such details. They
could more or less walk right in and take over from a Batista regime that
nobody wanted anymore.

Sure there where strikes, there were riots in the countryside, there was
widespread hatred of the Batista regime, but never to the extent that these
struggles built up organs of class power. Very unlike the mass movement that
got rid of dictator Machado in Cuba in 1933-35. And the eventual defeat of
which paved the way for Batista.

Why is this so important? First af all because there is a hell of a
difference between workers conscious of their own aims and workers standing
in the roadside clapping their hands while the Barbudos are marching in.

Marx once said:
" revolution is necessary ... not only because the *ruling* class cannot be
overthrown in any other way, but also because only in a revolution can the
class *overthrowing* it succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages
and become fitted to found society anew." (German Ideology)

This exactly is the difference between January 1959 and October 1917. Not
the level of *support* but the level of *conscious activity*.

Louis:
>If you think capitalism could produce such profound and positive change in
>Cuban society, then perhaps we should take a more critical look at the
>"Communist Manifesto" or maybe write something called the "State
>Capitalist Manifesto".

Jorn:
This is not necessary. Read the Communist Manifesto - page after page Marx
and Engels are praising capitalism for exactly this. And this was 100 years
before anaybody had seen what capitalism could produce of profound and
positive changes in the boom after WW2.

This *is* an important point - also in relation to Cuba: One of main reasons
why Castro could have success despite all of the zig-zagging of its policy
and despite US blockade was that he came to power in the boom years. (In
contrast to the Sandinistas who came to power when world economic crisis had
been going on for years.)

Jorn

-------
Jorn Andersen

Internationale Socialister
Denmark



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---