Re: [Marxism] Two question

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

I examine the International Socialist Tendency's theory of a permanent 
arms economy here:

After openly admitting that âsupply and demandâ did not operate in the 
USSR, [Tony] Cliff is forced to accept the conclusion that flows 
logically from that, ânamely that in the economic relations within 
Russia itself, one cannot find the autonomy of economic activity, the 
source of the law of value, acting.â He adds, âHence if one examines the 
relations within Russian economy, abstracting them from their relations 
with the world economy, one comes to the conclusion that the source of 
the law of value as motor and regulator of production is not to be 
found.â So if the âlaw of valueâ does not operate within the borders of 
the USSR, where does it exactly come into play?

The answer can be found in the Soviet arms industry that produces use 
values in the form of tanks, planes and battleships that serve to 
protect the economy from being flooded by outside competitors. Cliff writes:

"If there were extensive trade between Russia and other countries, the 
Stalinist bureaucracy would aim at the production of such commodities as 
would fetch a high price on the world market, and the purchase of the 
cheapest commodities possible. It would then strive, as individual 
capitalists do, to increase the sum of values at its disposal by 
producing one or another use value, indifferent to which is produced, as 
long as it serves its end. But if the competition with other countries 
is mainly military, the state as a consumer is interested not in values 
for their own sake, but in certain definite use values, such as tanks, 
aeroplanes, etc. Value expresses the existence of competitive relations 
between independent producers. The results of Russiaâs standing in 
competition are expressed by the elevation of use values to an end, the 
end being victory in this competition. Use values, therefore, while 
being an end, still remain a means."

This is a rather long-winded way of saying that the USSR competed with 
the capitalist world to have bigger guns rather than bigger profits. It 
is an argument that oddly enough evokes Seymour Melman or Paul Mattickâs 
writings on the âpermanent arms economyâ but neglects the Keynesian 
dimension found there. In Melman and Mattick, it was understood that the 
Western economies and particularly the USâs relied on arms manufacturing 
in order to stave off crisis. In Cliffâs article, arms production does 
not serve conventional prime-pumping needs, but only as âuse valuesâ to 
defend the Soviet state.

I donât want to dwell on this at any great length, but two things seem 
fairly obvious. Even if Stalin had never gained control over the Soviet 
party and state, there still would have been an overwhelming need to 
stay armed to the teeth. The USSR was invaded by 21 countries in 1918. 
Despite frequent attempts to conclude treaties with the Western powers, 
Marxists inside and outside of Russia always understood that they were 
temporary in nature. For that matter, the one person who seems to have 
unfounded trust in such treaties was Stalin himself who interpreted the 
Soviet-Nazi Nonaggression Pact as an excuse to relax the nationâs guard 
on the Western borders. The net result was a catastrophic loss of life 
and treasure.

It is not easy to gauge how deep this hostility toward Soviet arms 
production has been internalized by state capitalist proponents, but I 
have been startled more than once by outbursts from Kevin Murphy, a 
recipient of the Isaac Deutscher Prize last year and a darling of the 
American ISO and British SWP press. On the subject of North Korea having 
nuclear weapons, Murphy advised (I am the Stalinist idiot, btw):

"Marxists are against nuclear weapons you Stalinist idiot. You worship 
Stalinist rulers as if they actually represent the interests of 'the 
people', this is just third-worldist crap that has absolutely nothing to 
do with Marxism. The 'North Korean people' had absolutely no say on the 
issue of food versus famine plus 'workersâ bomb'. I suspect that if that 
if given a choice they might have voted against starvation, but thatâs 
just a wild assertion, not a profound apologia by a 'Concerned Asian 
Scholar'. Good thing that the North Koreans have brain-damaged 
'postcapitalist' thug rulers to decide for them."

I honestly wasnât aware that âMarxists are against nuclear weapons.â My 
guess is that this is largely a matter of tactics. In light of the 
rather gingerly approach taken by American imperialism vis-Ã-vis North 
Korea, I would advise any country included in the âaxis of evilâ to get 
some nuclear weapons lickety-split. I might even look into getting one 
myself if thereâs room in my bedroom closet. It is probably the one way 
to avoid the fate that befell Iraq. If Iraq had detonated a nuclear 
weapon about 10 years ago, I imagine that Saddam would still be in power 
and the Iraqi people would have been spared 4 years of hell.

full: 
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/state-capitalism-theory-and-reality/

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu