Re: State Capitalism
Louis Proyect wrote: Yes, this is the analysis and it is faulty. This type of analysis can not distinguish between North Korea and South Korea. Both have extensive state-owned industry and employ various forms of planning. The difference is that the North had a proletarian revolution and expropriated the bourgeoisie, while the South did not. Yes, and South Korea generated one of the great booms in economic history, while North Korea is suffering from famine and under the influence of a truly bizarre personality cult. Now I know that the NY Times is often full of lies, and no doubt Shawgi Tell will set us straight on this one, but this item (from a story about the hereditary ascension of Kim Jong Il to leadership) brightened my morning today: Likewise, the Korean press has lately described phenomena like trees blossoming out of season, which to Westerners may seem an odd thing to make a fuss over but is understandable to Korean traditionalists as a sign that the Mandate of Heaven is passing. "On the morning of Sept. 22, fishermen of the fishery station in Rajin-Sonbong City caught a 10-centimeter long white sea cucumber while fishing on the waters off Chongjin," the official New Korea News Agency reported. "They said the rare white sea cucumber has come to hail the auspicious event of electing comrade Kim Jong Il as party general secretary." "Seeing the mysterious natural phenomena," the agency continued, "Koreans say comrade Kim Jong Il is indeed the greatest of great men produced by Heaven and that flowers come into bloom to mark the great event." Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
Re: State Capitalism
Doug Henwood: Yes, and South Korea generated one of the great booms in economic history, while North Korea is suffering from famine and under the influence of a truly bizarre personality cult. Now I know that the NY Times is often full of lies, and no doubt Shawgi Tell will set us straight on this one, but this item (from a story about the hereditary ascension of Kim Jong Il to leadership) brightened my morning today: Woudld the South Korean boom have been possible without mammoth support from the US, especially during the Vietnam war? The problem with gauging economic success is that there is no such thing as capitalism in one country. Yugoslavia was a success in the 1950s and early 60s for reasons that had little to do with its "market socialism" experiment. I suspect that North Korea's current economic woes can not be disassociated from the collapse of the Soviet trading bloc. North Korea's economic model was based on People's China and there was, after all, spectacular growth in China since WWII. All you will get from Tell is stupid Stalinist propaganda, but there is more to the North Korea than meets the eye in the NY Times. As far as bizarre personality cults are concerned, you should not forget that Reverend Moon is one of the most powerful political and industrial leaders in South Korea. Louis Proyect
Re: State Capitalism
Louis Proyect wrote: Woudld the South Korean boom have been possible without mammoth support from the US, especially during the Vietnam war? The problem with gauging economic success is that there is no such thing as capitalism in one country. Yugoslavia was a success in the 1950s and early 60s for reasons that had little to do with its "market socialism" experiment. I suspect that North Korea's current economic woes can not be disassociated from the collapse of the Soviet trading bloc. North Korea's economic model was based on People's China and there was, after all, spectacular growth in China since WWII. All you will get from Tell is stupid Stalinist propaganda, but there is more to the North Korea than meets the eye in the NY Times. As far as bizarre personality cults are concerned, you should not forget that Reverend Moon is one of the most powerful political and industrial leaders in South Korea. Of course South Korean growth wouldn't have been possible without support from the U.S., and even before the Vietnam war - Korean firms learned how to do large construction projects in part by building bases for the U.S. military in Korea itself. I share your admiration of Cuba, Lou, but it's very hard to hold up North Korea as much of a model for development; yes it did grow for a while, but not all that spectacularly. China's economic record under Mao is pretty mixed. Maddison's figures, if they can be trusted, show a PPP-adjusted per capita GDP of $614 in 1950 rising to $962 in 1958, falling back to $718 in 1962 (below 1952's level), rising to $1,025 in 1966, falling with cultural revolution, then rising again in the 1970s, to $1,205 in 1976, the year of Mao's death. So from 1950 to 1976, Chinese per capita incomes rose an average of 2.6% a year, which is good, but not "spectacular." I don't mean to deny the tremendous social gains of Maoist China, of course; man (and woman) doesn't live by yuan alone. I don't see how Rev Moon's status excuses hero worship in the North. Doug
Re: State capitalism
To avoid fruitless discussion, I want to amke make it clear that I c don't care very much what one calls the mode of production of the former USSR and similar societies. Bureaucratic Collectivism? Bureaucratic Socailism, bureaucratically-deformed e workers' state? "actually-exsisting social- ism"? "post-revolutionary society"? It doesn't really matter if it's an Apatosaurus or a Brontosaurus if it's about to step on you. What's important are not the labels as much as the implications for practice. (sorry about the typos.) On Sun, 17 Jul 1994 18:33:18 -0700 Walter Daum said: One problem with the theory of bureaucratic collectivism is that the USSR et al are now (or are becoming) capitalist, with the ruling class including most of the same people as before. But much of the old feudal and absolutist ruling classes also became capitalists during the transition to capitalism. Just as in Russia,, they were joined by upstart capitalists. I can't see a problem with a ruling class transforming itself, expecially when there's a hell of alot of pressure from the outside (the US) and the n inside (an economic crisis, class struggles, a lost war in Afghanistan). The problems arise if one thinks that a ruling class could abolish itself. I don't think that would happen unless the working class becomes a new w ruleing class (which seems unlikely at this point). Another classical problem with BC theory is, what class are the producers? Max Shachtman, a founding father, toyed with the idea that the producers were slaves. But he often as not referred to them as workers because, well, they were. And workers, whatever the infinite gradations of form, are exploited by capitalists. Max S. really didn't have much of a theory. He got very silly with his idea that workers were "state slaves" -- which seems almost o.k. if one has a superficial knowledge of the Stalin period. BTW, it was meant to be parallel to Marx's phrase "wage slaves" as applied to the capitalist system's wage-laborers. OK, working people in the xUSSR wre wre were "workers." So were the serfs under feudalism. But I doubt that teh they were wage laborers in the same sense as the workers under capitalism. After all, there was no capitalist-style reserve army of labor. Once the xUSSR stabilized, it became a realm of "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." which is quite different from capitalism. I'm curious to know whether any BC theorist has tried to analyze the laws of motion of this society. From what I've seen the society has been defined by what it isn't, not by what it is. Actually, I think its good to have a theory that is open to empirical study and doesn't pretend to know all the answers. Unlike, for exampkle, the xUSSR = state capitalism theory which seems to be saying that all our knowledge about capitalism can be transfered with minor modifications to understand xUSSR type societies. BTW, I'd recommend Hillel Tiktin's journal, CRITIQUE, if you're interested in further study of this stuff. There is sort of a theory of BC that can be summarized in very simple terms: BC is a non-capitalist class society. To understand its laws of motion, I would parallel an analysis of capitalism. To understand the laws of motion of capitalism, I'd examine class anatagonism and the battle of capitalist competition. For BC, one would look at class antagonism and the contradictions of centralised top-down planning. Of course, the two interact, with class antaonisms affecting the nature of the planning and vice-versa. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: State capitalism
To Jim Devine: One problem with the theory of bureaucratic collectivism is that the USSR et al are now (or are becoming) capitalist, with the ruling class including most of the same people as before. Another classical problem with BC theory is, what class are the producers? Max Shachtman, a founding father, toyed with the idea that the producers were slaves. But he often as not referred to them as workers because, well, they were. And workers, whatever the infinite gradations of form, are exploited by capitalists. I'm curious to know whether any BC theorist has tried to analyze the laws of motion of this society. From what I've seen the society has been defined by what it isn't, not by what it is. Walter Daum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: State capitalism
On the question of Soviet Union and state capitalism, check out an interesting paper by Paul Zarembka in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY vol.13, 1992. Also take a look at Paresh Chattopadhyay's paper in the same issue. Cheers, Ajit Sinha
Re: State capitalism
On Thu, 14 Jul 1994 18:21:18 -0700 Paul Cockshott said:
I agree that it would be interesting to see what people mean
by this [state capitalism] as opposed to socialism.
State capitalism implies to me a situation where enterprises
are owned by the state but remain juridical subjects capable
of owning property and which reproduce themselves through the
purchase and sale of commodities.
One would also have to specify that money effectively commands
the products of labour - ie, it does not simply exist as an
accounting entity reflecting planned allocations specified
in real terms.
Where the greater part of the labour force works in such
enterprises the social formation as a whole could be characterised
as state capitalist.
To my mind, "state capitalism" would have a labor-power market
very similar to that under the usual "private" capitalism,
involving among other things, a reserve army of unemployed
workers. This would distinguish "state capitalism" from
a USSR-type economy ("bureaucratic collectivism") in that
the latter has no overt reserve army. The latter would
differ from socialism ("democratic collectivism") in that
the state under b.c. would not be under the democratic
control of, for, and by the people.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
