Www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org



State Capitalism – looking critically for the roots of the theoryMay 31, 2016 at 7:29 am#6181REPLYMHIKeymasterIn pursuit of my task of clarifying my doubts and reservations on the theory of State Capitalism in general and specifically as arrticulated by Raya Dunayevskaya. I’m currently trying to track down the roots of the thesis of State Capitalism and am reading CLR James (with RD and Grace Lee Boggs) ‘State Capitalism and World Revolution’ original 1950. NB – in passing this 2013 edition includes all the subsequent prelim matter including the short but useful Introduction (1986) by Paul Buhle CLR James’s biographer – is a clear politically contextual piece identifying where the Forrest Johnson tendency fitted into the bigger picture and why perhaps some of their promising theorisation fell on stony ground at the time …I’m also reading Raya Dunayevskaya – selected writings on ‘The Marxist-Humanist Theory of State-Capitalism’ News & Letters 1992 which has a selection of useful materials on this and a helpful well referenced introduction by Peter Hudis …Some of the other materials I am referring to as sources in my path of discovery include …CLR James first writings on State-Capitalism 1941a James in 1941b very first essay written by Raya Dunayevskaya on the theory of state-capitalism interesting sources report of her debating the theory: of history of the J-F Tendency: an observation (written before a recent comment was shared on the lengthy correspondence, mutual appreciation and/or support given between Dunayevskaya and Marcuse)Interesting intellectual discovery – The Frankfurt School – seems to be one of the prime contenders for the origin of the worked up theory of state capitalism – as part of their project to theorise the rise and prospects of National Socialism – Pollock was [according to Rolf Wiggershaus 1986(German) 1994(English)] from 1933 describing ‘events in Italy, Germany and the USA … as a ‘new stage of “state capitalist” intervention’ Horkheimer was utilising these formulations in 1938 and ‘In 1940 Horkheimer took his ideas a step further in another article, which at first was called ‘State Capitalism’ but later had its title changed to ‘The Authoritarian State’ … Wiggershaus[1994.280] 9 of the Institute’s journal ‘Studies in Philosophy and Social Science’ (SPSS) 1941 was a special edition on State Capitalism including articles by Horkheimer, Pollock and had been planned to include Neumann, Kircheimer, Gurland, Leichter and Felix Weil.Marcel van der Linden is has given a very useful map of the debates and the literature: be continued …REPLIESJune 4, 2016 at 3:57 am#6188REPLYEric AndrianParticipantThe link for the 1950 “State Capitalism and World Revolution article” Tim recommended…. “In brief, Hegel’s critique of rationalism asserts:(a) Contradiction, not harmonious increase and decrease, is the creative and moving principle of history. Society cannot develop unless it has to overcome contradiction.(b) All development takes place as a result of self-movement, not organization or direction by external forces.(c) Self-movement springs from and is the overcoming of antagonisms within an organism, not the struggle against external foes.(d) It is not the world of nature that confronts man as an alien power to be overcome. It is the alien power that he has himself created.(e) The end toward which mankind is inexorably developing by the constant overcoming of internal antagonisms is not the enjoyment, ownership or use of goods, but self-realization,creativity based upon the incorporation into the individual personality of the whole previous development of humanity. Freedom is creative universality, not utility.”July 17, 2016 at 11:30 am#6491REPLYRalph KellerParticipantHi, I realise I joined the debate late. I’d like to offer comments and thoughts as I read each article, starting with CLR James first writings on State-Capitalism 1941a. There are two key statements that, if accepted, support the thesis of State Capitalism in the USSR.1) In Russia the proletariat is a class of wage-laborers. … This predominance of wage-labor makes the means of production capital.2) Was there wage-labor in Leninist Russia? In form only; … the form of wage-labor only on the one hand because on the other were the means of production in the hands of the laborer who owned the property through the -state.Though even the ‘in form only’ has been challenged. Andrew, somewhere on ‘With sober senses’ has an article in which he argues that money should be gone from day one — in accordance with what Marx had written in the critique of the Gotha ProgramJuly 17, 2016 at 10:47 pm#6498REPLYAndrew KlimanKeymasterHi Ralph,This is the article: wouldn’t say that money “should” be gone from Day 1, but that it will be gone. There just isn’t any role for money in a socialist society and, if money does have a role, the society isn’t socialist. Money is fundamentally a claim on the products of other people’s labor; in (the lower phase of) socialism, there’s no such thing, only reciprocity–if I work for others, they work for me, and vice-versa.July 18, 2016 at 5:02 am#6501REPLYRalph KellerParticipantThanks Andrew, that’s the article I had in mind. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download