[JoanOfArc]

To mcolome1 i'm sorry if i'm not as well read as you in the history of socialist utopiabut i must hasten to add that i don't believe any one person or indeed any one party can say what utopia looks likeas my belief is that each and every one individual needs to have input into what utopia isfor each is a piece of a jigsaw. you do not get the whole picture nor insight to of or to this world without taking every single person into consideration.so your utopia may look completely different to mine. much like gardens. we all have different tastes. so neither of us are right nor  wrong.i am not trying to show anything. i am merely stating where i am at the moment in thought. and maybe my outlook will change in time, of which i'll be happy about as presumably i would have progressed.for now though i am working on a very simplified theory.lastly i am most certainly not advocating capitalism as favourable to socialism. i am merely enquiring as to whether a capitalist state in competition with private capitalsm would be a means to socialsm rather than the end in itself.i'm sorry you think i am bullshitting, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

[JoanOfArc]

thanks for this thoughtful reply. i do apprecaite the discussion.may i ask how you perceive the way to socialism if not initially through state capitalism? thank you

[JoanOfArc]

robbo203 wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

 in russia the capitalst owned corps were taken under government control. i do not agree with taking over one culture with another. it has to be done gradually and purely at the will of the people, many people. not just a few so called socialist dictators.  as Engels pointed out that state capitalism would provide tools for socialism. it would make the state richer that's for sure. and that then can be used to bring about socialism. i see different models of ownership being piloted and time for experimentation. but you need financial resources within this capitalist system to do this.]

 JoanI would argue that state ownership is simply a variant of private property,  It is certainly not common property and therefore by default, has to be some form of private or sectional property – namely, the collectivised property of a ruling class –  who own the means of production in de facto terms by vyrtue of their ultimate control over those means via their strangelhold on the state apparatus. If you ultimately control something you own it and vice versa Common ownership of the means of production is logically incompatible with a system of economic exchange and this is certainly what exists under a system of state capitalism . In the Soviet Union, goods and services were bought and sold, there were employers and employees and thus the commodification of labour power itself ,  other means of production (constant capital) are also subject to market exchange and legally binding contracts.  The Soviet union was a fully functioning capitalist system in every sense that mattered Might I recommend to you this brilliant work by Paresh Chattopadhyay  which you can download and readhttps://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience I cannot see any advantage whatsover for preferring state capitalism to any other form of capitalism. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto made a serious blunder, in my view, in advocating the centralisation of the means of production in the hands of state  – though they latter backtracked on thiis.  They reasoned that this would hasten the development of the forces of production and hence the arrival of socialism.  They also reasoned that it would facilitate the changeover to socialism though unlike Lenin never made the mistake of equating socialism with state ownership. Large scale socialised production, they argued, makes it easier for the revolutinary movement to take over the means of  production.  Stalin explained away the continuance  of commodity production in the Soivet Union mainly because of the agricultural sector which was comprised of numeorous small to medium sized production units. I think the whole argument is bogus.  State capitalism does not bring us one step closer to socialism at all.  On the contrary I would say state capitalism in its full blooded sense belngs to an era of early capitalism. It is the sign of an immature capitalism based on extensive rather than intensive growth via technological innovation. And it has been rednered obsolete by the globalisation of capitalism itself There is no warrant for advocating any kind of capitalism today as a supposed transitional step towards socialism since the forces of production are already more than adequately developed to underwrite and sustain a genuinely socialist society – and have been for at leat a century now

phew! how brilliant to see people making the effort to put their ideas forward to lil ol me hehei'm just making a cuppa and will get back to this later on.many thanks.

[JoanOfArc]

mcolome1 wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

  well i think it's clear from this paragraph that no he did not think that state capitalism on its own would end capitalism.  he did though, think it would provide the tools.Norway, Singapore and China have a strand of state capitalism and it seems pretty successful.but no it's not the be all and end all, for sure. it's more a means to an end.[/quoteI do not think you can provide any evidence that Engels said that, you are a Wikipedian. There is not such thing mentioned in Engels book either, the Communist Manifesto might contain certain state capitalist measures, and despite that,   Marx and Engels did not support state capitalism eitherState capitalism has failed in all the countries where it has been tried and applied, one of the biggest example is the soviet union. Capitalism can. not contain itself within its own border, it must expand itself. State capitalism is one of the most inefficient variety of capitalismState capitalism has been beneficial in China, or others countries for the ruling elites of those countries, but it has not been  beneficial for the working class, even more, state capitalism in certain historical period was a world phenomenon and it failed completely. Capitalism is a failure in all its forms and varieties ]

 and i repeat i am not talking over taking control of the capitalist owned companies. this is what happened in the Soviet Union. i am not suggesting we do what they did.i fail to see how my idea would benefit the elite ruling classes. can you show my how it would please? cheers.

[JoanOfArc]

mcolome1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

 please if you will Vin, can you give me an example of state owned profit making enterprise competing against big business.thanks if you can, very much appreciated mate. cheers.

A state owned profit making enterprise is big business.I was a miner when the mines were owned by the state. If we went on strike for safer working conditions, the state starved us back to work and its uniformed bully boys beat us with trungeons.State owned enterprises are owned collectively by the ruling class and run in its interests"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."Marx

Someone wrote that,  within state capitalism, the state becomes the largest corporation of the whole society, it control all the means of productions,  and all the wage slaves, the banking system, the education, the army, the production, the extraction of surplus value, its own financing,  etc, etc.  it is the perfect single  bourgeois class

but if it was a crap system people wouldnt vote for it with their money. they would boycott it instead maybe. you'd pay fair wages oh and a host of other ethical practices.  yeh go on call me an idealist and tell me it will never happen.  haha. maybe i should shut up. but for some reason i'm hell bent on this idea and keen to talk and discuss with others. if my opinion/view is influenced by others that i change it, then fine, it will mean hopefully that i've progressed and evolved in my thinking.  but i know of no better ideas so far. cheers.

[JoanOfArc]

mcolome1 wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

I know that Lenin admired Germany state capitalism, like Roosevelt admired the German Nazis, but the first Bolshevik who exposed the conception was Bukharin

 Do you possibly have a link to Bukharin's work on this? I know he mentioned somewhere that state capitalism was comparable to "white slavery" I think it was  Wilhelm Leibknecht, one of the founders of the German SDP who first coined the expression "state capitalism", In 1896 he remarked:  “Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists, nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism"  https://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm

There are too many works of Bukharin that have not been published yet. I did read from second hand, and I heard it from the person that wrote about it,  and it was Raya Dunayekaya on her book on Hegel. She was able to read in the Russian language.  I heard it from one of her secretary which was an intimate friend of mine which died several years ago. Dunayeskaya and CLR James made an extensive research on Russian state capitalismhttps://books.google.com/books?id=twndVCVCPZ4C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=bujarin+y+capitalismo+de+estado&source=bl&ots=N6XtKL8U-4&sig=_q_VCAtAgLRJec0PAgO3JlMdyRc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF-5e0tNrRAhVL42MKHYWoAD0Q6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&q=bujarin%20y%20capitalismo%20de%20estado&f=false There is also a research made by the University of Bolivia in regard to the polemic between Bukharin and Lenin on state capitalism. All those research conduct to conclude that it was Bukharin who brought the concept first, and then, Lenin started to use later onhttp://www.flacsoandes.edu.ec/libros/digital/44153.pdfOn page number 32 the author said that Bukharin was the first one of the Bolshevik that forumulated the concept of state capitalism ( CE) before the October revolution

 Singapore and Norway both exercise an example of a strain of state capitalism, doing quite nicely i believe.

[JoanOfArc]

Meel wrote:

I understand the SP’s stand on state capitalism – and you only need to consider the situation in the countries where it has been tried (the USSR, China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc) – to make you shudder at the suggestion that these are examples to uphold.I have a question for you, though.  At the moment the dominant flavour of capitalist ideology is the neo-con one; obsessively trying to shrink the state as much as possible.This is undoubtedly having detrimental effects on workers; the disabled are having benefits cut and some have committed suicide due to the stress of their situation, others in difficult situations face the same stresses.  Within the NHS, hospital queues are getting longer; serious mistakes are being made due to understaffing. Head teachers in schools are tearing their hair out trying to get shrinking budgets to stretch to basics like text books and enough teachers on their books to do a reasonable job.During a conversation over dinner recently, I spoke to a woman who heads up educational special needs in an area of the Cornwall; she said that before the cuts started biting, she was able to say to schools “and what else do you need”?  No more. Friends of mine who work in education or the health service are mostly voting Labour.  Not out of any hope that they will get to “socialism”, but out of a pragmatic expectation that they will get back to pre-cut days, when workers were at least a little shielded from the worst effects of capitalism.What would you say to them to convince them that voting Labour is not in their interest?

 i think actually that corbynomics isn't going to go away until it's tried. i feel this is the natural next step of the left. if it works well then who knows what the next move will be.but if it falls flat on it's face then the left will have to rethink. my own views on taxing etc. is that we become even more wholly dependent on the rich classes and the ruling elites.i feel we fall into their trap and they will still have us by the short and curlies.i feel we need to do this money generation for our poor our needy and generally a better quality of life and standard of living, ourselves.we need to do it independently as the people, and be proud.  us workers are good at grafting. we've had to be. we can put the efforts into the common good instead of making the wealthiest even more wealthy. Cheers.

[JoanOfArc]

Vin wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

p.s. pleased and proud to bump into an ex miner here…………that might sound daft………. but i just am…. (pleased to meet you Vin, not daft haha)

Pleased to meet you! and welcome to the forum. How did you find out about the forum? 

 Thanks Vin!well, i was perusing the website to try to find out the psrties views etc., just doing a bit of research really, and then came across the forum.i've known about the SPGB for some time now. i went to one of the meetings oh years ago now. planning to go to some of the South London meetings in Clapham in the near future.so where abouts are you Vin? up North?? cheers.

[JoanOfArc]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

Let the state compete with big business, let the people vote with the money in their pockets. Spend your money on state produced goods and/or services and see the profits be churned back into the peoples pockets via free further education, improve

The problem is entirely political: if the state were actively harming the profits of the capitalist class, they would start organising to remove that obstacle: unless we're consciously moving to abolish buying and selling, and determined to carry out common ownership, they'll just reverse the state ownership.  If we are aimed at the abolition of buying and selling, then why bother competing at that very game?  The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

 some ideas become universally popular and have to be adhered to by parties if they wish to get the majority vote.eg. the welfare state and the NHSit was only in 1948 that these were introduced, and since then any party that planned to do away with the welfare state would be buggered.  but it is and should be in the hands of the people.  which is good. if they wanted it to work they would be buying their services and and products from the state the profits of which would be used for the common good and ultimately used to bring about socialism, were the people to be in agreement of course.but if you've got any better ideas Young Master Smeat please do fire away! perhaps you see a way out of this mess that i havent noticed? what do you think would be a good plan?

[JoanOfArc]

mcolome1 wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

Engels saw state capitalism as providing the tools for socialism. state capitalism in a capitalist society has never been tried before where it is purely for profits that are churned directly back into the system for the common good. i do not mean forced takeovers…… please if you will Vin, can you give me an example of state owned profit making enterprise competing against big business.thanks if you can, very much appreciated mate. cheers.

It was Lenin, and he borrowed the idea or the concept from Nikolai Bukharin,  and he also absurdly indicated  that it  was for the benefits of the working class. Since when capitalism has been beneficial for the working class ? . The first intent and realization of state capitalism was the Soviet Union[/quotein russia the capitalst owned corps were taken under government control. i do not agree with taking over one culture with another. it has to be done gradually and purely at the will of the people, many people. not just a few so called socialist dictators.  as Engels pointed out that state capitalism would provide tools for socialism. it would make the state richer that's for sure. and that then can be used to bring about socialism. i see different models of ownership being piloted and time for experimentation. but you need financial resources within this capitalist system to do this.]

[JoanOfArc]

Thanks for this info Jon.

[JoanOfArc]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

In many ways, this is the most psychologically difficult (or should that be, temprementally) part of of the manifesto, since in many ways its an abdication of responsibility, it says 'We can't change the world by an act of will, we can only join in with actual existing movements', it is part and parcel with the ide that the emancipation of the working class must be its own act.  Substitution not allowed.  The question becomes, what do the blue sky thinkers and early adopters do?  Simply join in with the working class (even when we feel they are deadly wrong) or try to take charge of the movement to promote and guide its actions to speed the way?  Or, as in our case, stand vry much on the sidelines with a clear banner saying 'This way'?  It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.

 i would think it means that we all convene on socialist boards like this to battle a few ideas and concepts out about how to bring about socialism…..social media provides us with the tool to get ideas in front of peoplewhat we don't really want to do is telling people how to think.  we can all lead ourselves. we can only sow the seeds in peoples minds…. it's not until people are open minded enough can we either form our own party or infilitrate others….it is infiltration of ideas and thoughts. sharing in other words.  we must share ideas.  it is not for any one party to say how things should be.  for true socialism depends on the masses. not a few in charge.  we must give the people the power of change.  we can provide the tools for them. we can provide a way they can all be counted.  but true democracy relies on the masses.  we give them power to change as they see fit. not a few telling everyone what's what. a few can say, 'here you are, here are the tools to bring about change, but it's ultimately in you, the peoples' hands.  not just a few. even socialists seem to have this idea that everyone needs to be led instead of letting the people decide for themselves.  people are tired of being led. let them do the choosing.

[JoanOfArc]

mcolome1 wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Can you show any paragraph, or citation of Engels indicating  that state capitalism will end capitalism ? 

 well i think it's clear from this paragraph that no he did not think that state capitalism on its own would end capitalism.  he did though, think it would provide the tools.Norway, singapore and China have a strand of state capitalism and it seems pretty successful.but no it's not the be all and end all, for sure. it's more a means to an end.

[JoanOfArc]

p.s. pleased and proud to bump into an ex miner here…………that might sound daft………. but i just am…. (pleased to meet you Vin, not daft haha)

[JoanOfArc]

Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[Author]

Posts