In both cases doesn't the state own the means of production? Are they essentially the same? I know I've read stuff where the Soviet Union was referred to as both, so I'm a bit confused.
Aug 13 2013 01:28
Aug 15 2013 01:39
Hey, thanks for replying and clearing it up.
Aug 15 2013 02:52
To the extent that "state socialism" is a useful term, I suppose it could be used to describe what's favored by sincere communists who believe that the state can somehow reorganize capitalist social relations into communist ones. That's rather idealist, though, and I think it's best to avoid the term when discussing the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and other self-proclaimed "socialist" states where production was controlled by the state. As Rudolf Rocker wrote, "Socialism will be free or it will not be at all."
State capitalism is a much more useful term, I think. It accurately describes the societies of the "socialist" states--capitalism fully managed by the state--and draws together the tendency toward centralization of production, managed through the close cooperation of industrialists and state officials, that was evident to varying degrees in the 1920s and 1930s in both openly capitalist and supposedly "socialist" states, from Italy to Germany to the US to the USSR.
Aug 15 2013 09:00
I agree with Tyrion. State socialism might have been useful in the 19th century before the question of state capitalism was fully understood, but even by the end of that period the clearer elements (such as William Morris) were criticising those who called state socialists, and Marx had essentially laid the ground for this in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, which was aimed precisely at the 'state socialists' in the German party.
It is better to say simply that in socialism/communism there's no state, so state socialism is a meaningless term; while political tendencies who advocate state ownership today and see it as socialism or a step towards it are basically apologists for state capitalism.
Aug 16 2013 16:54
Lenin used them interchangeably in 1918 in his pamphlet for the British workers;
THE CHIEF TASK
OF OUR TIMES
and
The Political Forces &
Currents Facing the
Russian Revolution
By
VLADIMIR OULIANOFF (LENIN)
Chairman of the People's Commissaries
of the Russian Soviet Republic.
PRICE THREEPENCE
Published by
THE WORKERS' SOCIALIST FEDERATION
400, OLD FORD ROAD, B 3.
THE CHIEF TASK OF OUR TIMES
By LENIN, Chairman of the Executive of the Russian Republic
Aug 16 2013 18:36
In the mainstream 'state capitalism' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with socialism not even pretend socialism.
Aug 16 2013 19:33
State capitalism will have more "free enterprise", more market mechanisms, more actual capitalists competing in "the market". State socialism would be more of a "command economy". That's my two cents.
Aug 16 2013 22:01
State capitalism is what others here have already explained. It is a system by which the means of production are concentrated under the apparatuses of the state. In a sense, its not that much useful as a term. If its capitalism, it's just capitalism. But when we add 'state' or 'private' before capitalism, we're just talking about where ownership lies within capitalist society, who or what administers capital.
Now 'state socialism' is an even more useless label, and a complete contradiction in terms. Socialism can only exist without the state. The use of the term 'state socialism' was originally meant to describe the program of the authoritarians; to distinguish their approach to socialism from that of the anarchists. But it was a complete mistake to begin with because it gives people the impression that 'state socialism' is a form of socialism, that it is an option that the working class can choose among other options. We all know that the state can't be used as a means to socialism, and if that's the case, then such a label should be discredited. We all know that behind this label is a deeply reactionary program, so to continue to attach the word socialism to it would only serve to humanize that program. Its use is dishonest and it deserves to be discarded, as it has have. It is useless as a label in describing either means or ends.
Aug 17 2013 13:13
Wilhelm Liebknecht, in 1895, said (in talking about his political battles with the Lassalleans in the SPD) 'no-one has done more than me to show 'state socialism' is really state capitalism'.
I'm pretty sure the first use in English was by the SPGB in about 1908. This was I think in a polemic against the paternalistic and technocratic 'socialism' of the Fabians, who would I think have been happy to see themselves as 'state socialists'.
Can comment on articles and discussions
Matt,
It is my understanding that they mean the same thing but are used in different contexts.
If trying to distinguish between types of socialism, State Socialism is usually brought up as being fundamentally different then libertarian forms of socialism. If trying to describe why situations like the USSR really failed at the whole socialism thing, people sometimes call it State Capitalism. The idea being that the capitalists are fully integrated with the state, there is still an exploited working class and a bloated exploiter class and so on.
-b