|
Are the Soviet Union and China
State Capitalist or "Transitional" Societies?
A Reply to Enokihara's Criticism of the Marxist Workers League
Written by Hiroyoshi Hayashi
Translated by Roy West
First published in the MWL(SWP) organ paper "Spark"(581) May/13/1983.
Contents
Introduction
In the eighteenth issue of the journal Communism, the Communist League
(the so-called RG League or "Enokihara" Group) criticized the
"historical view" of the Marxist Workers League's (MWL-now called
the Socialist Workers Party) theory of state capitalism. We are going to
throw this very criticism back at the "Enokihara" group. The
truth is that their theory of the Soviet Union is the Trotskyist dogma
that the Soviet Union and China are in a "transition to socialism"-the
empty concept that they are neither capitalist nor socialist. Basing themselves
on this empty concept they believe that they can criticize the views of
other groups. We are going to elucidate their appalling lack of an historical
perspective, that is their lack of the historical conception of history.
1. The History of the Russian Revolutionary Movement According to an Ignoramus
First of all, they accuse the MWL (SWP) of having the same view as the
Mensheviks. However, this only reveals that they are completely ignorant
of the history of Russian economic development and revolutionary movement.
"Their position [MWL (SWP) theory of the Soviet Union] is adopted
from the explanation of the Mensheviks that after the 1917 Revolution,
Russia as an economically backward capitalist state did not have the material
conditions for socialism, and even if the proletariat grasped state power
only state capitalism could be realized, not socialism."
If Enokihara and others are going to talk about the history of the revolutionary
movement in Russia they should first get their facts straight. There are
at least two factual errors here.
First of all, from the latter half of the nineteenth century to the twentieth
century there were several conflicting views of the character and outlook
for the Russian Revolution. The Social Revolutionary Party (and Trotsky),
not the Social Democratic Party, argued that the coming revolution would
directly be a socialist revolution. Both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks,
as political parties based on Marxism, recognized the coming revolution
as a democratic revolution to sweep away Czarism and the feudal system.
For example, in Lenin's Two Tactics this point becomes immediately clear.
Two Tactics was written on the eve of the 1905 Revolution, after the Bolsheviks
and Mensheviks had already split, and the main objective was to criticize
the Mensheviks. However, in this book Lenin clearly insists that the coming
revolution is a bourgeois democratic revolution, and that "only the
most ignorant people" think Russia can jump over capitalism!
Lenin wrote these sorts of sentences for the Socialist-Revolutionary Party,
which mistook a peasant revolution for a socialist revolution, and Trotsky,
who belonged to the Mensheviks, but also associated with political radicals
and spread the fantasy (permanent revolution) that socialism was immediately
possible in Russia, to bear in mind. Enokihara only reveals his own ignorance
when he says that only the Mensheviks advocated bourgeois revolution.
Does Enokihara's group prefer to discuss the history of 1917 instead of
1905?
However, even in 1917, Lenin discussed socialism with the utmost care.
Just prior to the October Revolution, he insisted that power should be
taken not to directly realize socialism, but because there was no other
way to fight against the economic collapse at the time apart from implementing
a series of "socialistic" methods.
Or, does Enokihara regard "wartime communism" as the realization
of socialism? Yet it is a historical fact that this was a temporary measure
to struggle against civil war and economic collapse, and that wartime communism
had to be transformed into NEP (state capitalism). Moreover, NEP itself
is an expression of the fact that the material conditions to build socialism
were lacking-namely insufficient productive power.
Enokihara's second error is the statement that the "Mensheviks intended
to realize state capitalism". But Enokihara himself must know that
the Mensheviks never had this position, not in 1905 nor in 1917.
What the Mensheviks hoped for was a "western European-style"
liberal bourgeois society, and the rule of capital under democracy. Thus,
they were ruined in 1917, and indeed this was inevitable because the historical
conditions for the development of "Western European-style" capitalism
did not exist.
2. The "Historical View" is Indeed the Question!
"The position of the MWL (SWP) is that after the Revolution it was
first necessary for the Soviet Union to create the material base for socialism
which made the formation of state capitalism inevitable. Since this could
only be realized through the exploitation of the workers and peasantry,
the revolutionary people's state could not avoid evolving to end up as
a despotic and barbarous Stalinist state."
At any rate, this correctly sums up the view of the MWL (SWP), but what
do they mean by "end up".
"The reasoning of the MWL (SWP) leads to the conclusion that during
the NEP period, the material foundation for socialism was lacking, agricultural
collectivization couldn't lead to socialism, and the nationalization itself
did not signify socialism. It is clear that in the end their argument is
based on choosing between either capitalism or socialism. However, the
MWL (SWP) doesn't consider the possibility that the Soviet Union can be
formed as an un-socialist society (!?), that is they don't leave room for
the category of a deformed transitional society. This is the biggest blind
spot in the historical view of the MWL (SWP)."
They criticize the MWL (SWP) for starting from a dogmatic or a priori "standpoint"
instead of reality, and then drawing the conclusion the Soviet Union is
capitalist, only because it is "not socialist".
But who is really starting from dogma instead of reality? Who has been
the slave to the Trotskyist dogma of a "transitional period"?
Aren't they the ones who explain the Soviet Union as a "transitional
society" because there is "space for the possibility of the category
of a transitional society".
However, "possible space" and actually existence are certainly
not the same thing. They refer to us as "not considering" the
"possibility of space for the category of transitional society. They
don't realize, however, that far from not considering the vulgar explanation
of the Trotskyist "transitional period", our position was formed
by thoroughly considering and critically overcoming this position. Here
again they are only exposing their own ignorance!
If they would only seriously examine our essays and position for a moment,
they would have to recognize that we faithfully followed the actual process
of the "progression" of the Soviet system, and that the concept
of State Capitalism was defined out of this. Actually ten years ago our
position was in a certain sense still a hypothesis-at that time in China
and Eastern Europe, the "socialist countries" of the world, the
"angry waves" of a bourgeoisification (economic liberalization)
that we now see, had yet to appear. The intrinsic bourgeois relations of
production were not so plain to see back then. We introduced our concept
that the Soviet Union and China are "state capitalist" during
the Chinese Cultural Revolution (that is, the opposite appearance of present-day
bourgeois China.). It is a shame that they cannot imagine the power of
insight and the correct "view of history" that were necessary
to do this!
The historical fact that in these past ten years the China of the Cultural
Revolution has "taken the capitalist road" and "evolved"
to transform itself into a bourgeois China, proves the correctness of our
concept. Our "hypothesis" has been splendidly confirmed by reality.
Enokihara's "transitional period", however, remains nothing but
a Trotskyist dogma no matter how one looks at it, and he is unable to provide
any rational or materialistic explanation to account for the appearance
of a bourgeois China! This is precisely what it means to "lack a historical
view".
Their claim that the MWL (SWP) presupposes something that needs to be proven,
is a criticism that actually applies to themselves. They simply presuppose
that the Soviet Union and China are "transitional" societies,
without giving the slightest proof as to why or how they are transitional.
At best, they just say that in a "transitional period" the formation
of commodity production is also possible (a troublesome point for them
is what to do about "profit"?), but can't or won't demonstrate
that in fact this is in a pure form.
They also don't carry out any essential reflection concerning the period
that Marx and Lenin called the "transition" from capitalism to
socialism. The foolishness and contradiction of trying to conceptually
define a "transitional period" in which commodity=capitalist
production has continued for decades (in Russia this has already stretched
to two thirds of a century) should be apparent immediately. If they don't
notice this then there is really no cure for their stupidity.
Their position that even without the material conditions for socialism,
it is possible to build socialism with the correct policies of "proletariat
power", ultimately returns to historical idealism, utopian socialism,
or Trotsky-like political radicalism (romanticism), They are satisfied
to waste their time with this sort of random subjectivist explanations.
3. The Concept of a "Transitional Period"
In a manner befitting speculative theorists, these Idealists offer the
"standpoint of logic".
"It is nothing but sophistry use as one's basis the characteristic
(price controls) that the overall development of the nature of capitalism
is suppressed. This is because, in a transitional society the overall development
of both the socialist and the capitalist nature is suppressed, and both
capitalist and un-capitalist elements exist. Therefore, to define this
as capitalism in which the overall development of the capitalist nature
is suppressed is not possible even from a logical standpoint."
He defines as "transitional", a system in which the nature of
both socialism and capitalism is suppressed. However, merely posing the
question of whether it is all right to define a "transitional period"
as a system in which the nature of socialism is suppressed is sufficient
to expose the nonsense of these vacuous definition. He doesn't define the
"transitional period" as a "transitional period", but
instead only defines it as an intermediate, or hybrid system which is not
capitalist or socialist, and in which the norms of both systems co-exist.
However, these "transitional states", which are said to only
need a "political revolution", have continued to exist in their
"transitional period" for decades and confront the bourgeois
states of the U.S. and Japan as national states which have nothing in common
with Lenin's essential characterization of "transitional states"
as "half" states. It is the RG League, not the MWL (SWP), who
are spouting rubbish that is not justified from a logical standpoint!
They criticize the SWP for defining a "transitional society as a society
devoted (?) to advancing towards socialism". In other words, they
are saying that there is such a thing as a transitional society that "doesn't
advance towards" socialism. Their newly invented argument is a completely
lifeless thing. To begin with they need to think a little bit more about
the concept of a "transitional period". A transitional society
"which isn't advancing towards socialism"! They definitely need
to begin by studying the "standpoint of logic".
"The MWL don't realize that a transitional society unable to reach
socialism through the extension of spontaneous development would require
a new revolution by the proletariat to overthrow the bureaucratic caste
in order to advance towards socialism."
Far from "not realizing" such a concept, we have been well acquainted
with Trotsky's (and the Trotskyists') concept as far back as 1960.
Until very recently, the JCP has not only affirmed that commodities, money
and profit exist in "socialist" society, they actually argued
that without sufficient "use" of these things the development
of "socialism" impossible. Today the New Left and Trotskyist
factions bring out essentially the same logic, and only differ from the
Stalinists in that they use the term "transitional period" in
place of "socialism".
However, whether one uses the term "socialism" or "transitional
period", essentially there is no difference. In either case, this
is a stage where capitalism has been overthrown and the rule of capital
is abolished (or being abolished).
If one were to draw a decisive borderline, it is clear that it would be
between capitalism and the transitional period/socialism, not between capitalism/transitional
period and socialism! It has to be recognized that a transitional period
is not capitalist society, but to the end a transitional period to socialism,
i.e. the first step towards socialism, and in a sense-as far as classes
are being abolished-socialism. Moreover, it cannot be seriously argued
the workers would gain power and be victorious, but not advance towards
socialism. What sort of "transitional" period are the members
of the RG talking about? They can only offer the negative definition that
this is "neither capitalism nor socialism", and thus they can
only offer an empty concept.
4. Marx's Theory of a "Transitional Period"
Marx did not say very much about a "transitional period", but
he did lay out the essential concept (the representative explanation can
be found in his "Critique of the Gotha Program". According to
Marx, this is the "period of revolutionary transition" from capitalism
to socialism.
We would like to ask the RG League (or the New Left in general) if there
is anything about the "Socialist states" in Soviet Union, Poland,
China, or North Korea that corresponds with this concept. Far from being
"half-states", these are the exact opposite.
The RG league, following Trotsky, believe that there is a need for "political
revolution" in the Soviet Union and other "socialist states".
If this is the case, however, this means that they are saying that these
states are completely different from a transitional state "working"
to abolish the rule of all classes.
Do they really earnestly believe that the Soviet Union and China are proletarian
states? Furthermore, have they given any serious thought to the essential
point that the state in the "transitional period" is working
for the elimination of class (i.e. fighting for socialism)?
Both Lenin and Mao admitted that even after the revolution, the Soviet
Union and China, objectively speaking, were not proletarian states. Lenin
advised Trotsky, who was brandishing the abstraction of a "proletarian
state", that in Russia there is not a proletarian state, but a "workers'
and peasants' state", i.e. a "people's state". Mao believed,
without any doubt, that the Chinese Revolution had given birth to a "people's
democratic state" (that is, before he lost himself in the fantasy
that socialism had been built in China through the victory of the "people's
communes".
Putting aside Mao, it is clear from Marx's expression of a "period
of revolutionary transformation", that he did not believe this "transitional
period" would last for fifty or even one hundred years.
Trotsky and the New Left don't understand that if a proletarian government
is a proletarian government in the true meaning of the term, according
to its internal logic it necessarily has to be advancing towards the abolition
of all classes, that is advancing directly towards socialism. Indeed, this
is the very reason for the appearance of a revolutionary transitional state.
Reality has demonstrated that the Soviet Union and China were not able
to directly shift to socialism and appeared as state capitalist systems
because the Russian and Chinese revolutions were not able to reach the
level of a true proletarian revolution (because of the low productive power,
the absence of the material conditions, the incomplete development of the
working class, etc.), and because they were unable to overcome the limits
of a radical "people's" revolution (despite the fact that the
proletariat "marked" this revolution as their own). We believe
that the starting point should be reality, not some concept or fantasy.
It should already be clear from the French Revolution (or the Meiji Restoration
in Japan) that the question of who leads the revolution (who stands at
the forefront) and the socio-historical content of the revolution are not
directly identical. In these revolutions (roughly speaking) a bourgeois
society sprang out of a revolution led by poor peasants and the petty bourgeoisie.
5. Whose Prediction Was Wrong?
Finally, let's look at the argument that the expectation of the MWL (SWP)
for "liberalization" is wrong. This is the conclusion (!) to
their criticism of the MWL (SWP) so I ask the reader to pay close attention
to this.
"At the time of the introduction of economic reforms in the Soviet
Union, the Chinese Communist Party criticized this as being the resurrection
of capitalism. The MWL (SWP) grasped this as the bourgeois evolution of
a Stalinist system which was capitalist from the start, but in which the
overall development of this nature was suppressed. They expected the 'liberalization'
to release the state suppression of the nature of capital so that bourgeois
relations of capital and wage labor would appear openly. However, the situation
did not progress as the MWL had foreseen. The fact that the predicted process
of the 'unfolding of internal contradictions" which was posited did
not agree with reality demonstrates that the MWL's theory that the Soviet
Union equals state capitalism is out of touch with reality."
The China of the Cultural Revolution has evolved into a bourgeois China-in
China the people's communes have dissolved, "profit" is increasingly
becoming the dominant economic relation, and "free" wage workers
have even appeared through the "reforms" carried out. In eastern
Europe capitalist relations have been officially recognized (even under
the military government in Poland), and the Soviet Union is in a situation
in which "liberalization" must advance. In fact, the only country
which is maintaining a Stalinist system is North Korea. In light of this
reality, how can Enokihara possibly say that the "outlook of the MWL
(SWP) couldn't keep pace with events".
It was exactly at the time that the RG League and other radicals were uncritically
praising China during the cultural revolution, that we clearly said that
China would transform, and "evolve" into a bourgeois China. This
shows the correctness of our concept, and that our theory "corresponds
to reality". If the RG League believes that our outlook was incorrect
because the Soviet Union and China did not develop into a "free"
or "western" capitalism, this only shows that they do not understand
our view.
We did not evaluate state capitalism as being this sort of form. Indeed,
it is precisely because these systems can not simply "revert"
to such a "free" capitalism that they are state capitalist and
their own particular contradictions must unfold.
6. Conclusion
Their "methodology" is simplistic and unreflective. Without any
analysis or "proof", they define the Soviet Union and China as
being in a "transitional period" from capitalism to socialism.
This dogma is their premise, and all of subsequent ideas are evaluated
or criticized on the basis of whether they agree with this dogma.
However, "seen from the standpoint of logic", they are completely
mistaken to say that a new revolution is necessary in a society that is
believed to be in a "transitional period" , or a shift towards
socialism. A society in a "transitional period" toward socialism
that needs another revolution is pure nonsense, and only exists ideally
in the minds of these radicals.
The Japanese Communist Party fears that the "transitional period"
may last tens or hundreds of years, but declare that the Soviet Union and
China are socialist states (following Stalin and Mao) because of state
property and cooperative property.
However, since the JCP cannot explain the real contradictions and reactionary
quality of the Soviet and Chinese states, they deceptively escape through
the theory of the "generative period" of socialism. They are
unable to explain what a "generative period" is exactly, and
can offer nothing but sophistry to account for why a socialist state would
give birth to the brutal despotism of Stalin, imperialism, and the production
of profit.
Whereas the JCP closes its eyes to the development of bourgeois relations
in the Soviet Union and China and glorifies them as "socialism",
the radicals see the bourgeois relations but call them "phenomenon
of the transitional period" and thus fill up the gaps in the theory
of the JCP. In the wide meaning, a transitional period is also a socialist
society which is no longer capitalism. If this were not so, what would
be the essentially significance of a proletarian revolution? Ultimately,
the understanding of the JCP and the radicals approximate one another and
are in agreement. Neither of them recognize that the Soviet Union and China
have appeared as bourgeois countries. By calling these bourgeois nations
"socialist states" or "transitional states", they either
take a vague attitude towards their reactionary qualities and imperialism,
or they forgive or glorify them, and thus (consciously or unconsciously)
assist the world's bourgeoisie, and betray the working class.
We, on the other hand, expose the reactionary bourgeois essence of the
socio-economic structure of China and the Soviet Union, and clearly say
that their overthrow and socialist revolution is necessary and inevitable,
and that this is the historical duty and task of the working class of the
world!
|
