State Capitalism is a valid Marxist Category : was Cuba

Adam Rose adam at
Wed Dec 13 01:44:46 MST 1995

>     Carlos Replies:
>     Annalysing the Soviet Union or Cuba requires two different          
>     approaches. You cannot utilize the same parameters since their
>     political, economical and social conditions were extremely
>     different.

Japan and Britain are both "Liberal Democracies" - but they got there 
by completely different routes. We can still say they are both 
Liberal Democracies, but we also need to examine the concrete historical
circumstances of their development.

I didn't do this for the USSR + Cuba in my first post - but I will later,
I promise.

>     You seems to annalyse *one aspect* of the economy of the former
>     Soviet Union and present-day Cuba -- namely, the state-capitalist
>     conditions of reproduction of capital -- without integrating
>     all the other political and *social* questions: namely the          
>     questions of class, caste, bureaucracy and state machinery.

As I said towards the end of my first post, I will give an account of how
the USSR became State Capitalist and a separate account of how Cuba
became State Capitalist.

>             a) The Soviet Union progress towards a socialist economy
>             rested entirely upon the possibility of worldwide           
>             overthrown of capitalism.  Stalinism made that possibility
>             (together with other *objective* conditions) impossible.
>             b) The Soviet Union, even under Lenin, fell into a category
>             of a workers state with "bureacratic deformations" -- Not
>             capitalist, not socialist -- an intermediate stage in which
>             the predominat conditions were, at one hand the             
>             overwhelming supremacy of capitalism as a world system and
>             on the other had the dictatorship of the proletariat as the
>             regime to maintain the control of the economy and its       
>             development under the control of the working class.
>             c) After Lenin, the defeat of the opposition to Stalin, the
>             trials, the purges, the destruction of the Soviets, etc the
>             Dictatorship of the proletariat (not the remains of         
>             the bourgeois state) withered away, little by little.
>             In its place, the "bureacratic tendencies" of the state
>             under Lenin's became the *nature* of the state.
>             This
>             process allowed capitalist economy to be, more and more,
>             the predominant factor in the Soviet Union.  Only the
>             bureacracy and its centralization remained of the previous
>             political stage.  Its overthrowing in 1980s and 1990s was
>             the final stage of an slow-motion counter-revolution that
>             succesfully restored capitalism in the Soviet Union.

The problem with this analysis is that the logical consequence of your
analysis was to side with the vestiges of what you think is a workers state,
ie the State Bureaucracy, against the people on the streets.

>             f) State capitalism is a *valid* Marxist term insofar there
>             is a current inside the Marxist movement that sustain that
>             as a major programmatic, theoretical and political issue.

This is a ridiculous thing to say.
Pink elephants don't exist just because you think about them.


Adam Rose

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list