====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Sartesian wrote: >I don't buy [nice choice of words, that] "state capitalism," for the simple reason that you can't have capitalism without a capitalist class; and a class, by definition, has a specific, and necessary social relation of production that it brings with it to power, and that brings it to power. So where is that social relation of production unique, specific, and necessary to the "state capitalists" in the USSR, or China, or Cuba, etc.?< Well I didn't, and don't want to get into an argument on the "Russian question". The immediate issue is whether the Chinese state can evolve into conventional capitalism without a rupture in the state. Yes, it can. But since you ask me directly: I agree you can't have capitalism without a capitalist class, meaning a social class that accumulates capital (dead labour) and exploits living labour via a wages system. It does not however have to be the bourgeosie. A state bureaucracy can drive, and be driven by the accumulation process. The social relations of production in the USSR included: top-down control of the means of production, alienated labour, a wages system, and a drive to accumulate capital. The latter was in turn driven by military competion with the west. The necessity for the bureaucracy to assume the role of "capitalist" arose from the historical coincidence which saw the workers lose power, with no bourgeois element capable of seizing it. Having taken the reins, it created a somewhat bizarre set of bureaucratic social structures to suit its needs, and a pseudo-Marxist ideology to validate the lot. This is a long way from Perry Anderson. Or is it? ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
