Misplaced Pages

State monopoly capitalism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:33, 29 November 2009 editRobofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,579 editsm Added {{refimprove}} tag to article using Friendly← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:14, 16 July 2024 edit undoHelpful Raccoon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,852 editsm Reverted 1 edit by CaliforniaGood (talk) to last revision by 92.236.211.53Tags: Twinkle Undo 
(131 intermediate revisions by 86 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Marxist theory}}
{{refimprove|date=November 2009}}
{{State monopoly capitalism}}
{{Marxism}} {{Marxism}}
{{multiple|
The theory of '''''state monopoly capitalism''''' was initially a ] doctrine popularised after ]. ] had claimed in 1916 that ] had transformed laissez-faire capitalism into ''monopoly capitalism'', but he did not publish any extensive theory about the topic. The term refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy to protect large monopolistic or ] businesses from competition by smaller firms<ref>Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought</ref>.
{{More footnotes needed|date=August 2021}}
{{Update|date=August 2021}}
}}
The theory of '''state monopoly capitalism''' (also referred as '''stamocap''')<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fuchs|first1=Christian|title=Donald Trump: A critical theory-perspective on authoritarian capitalism|journal=TripleC|date=2017|volume=15|issue=1|pages=1–72|doi=10.31269/triplec.v15i1.835|url=https://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/835/0|doi-access=free}}</ref> was initially a ] thesis popularised after ]. ] had claimed in 1916 that ] had transformed ] capitalism into ''monopoly capitalism'', but he did not publish any extensive theory about the topic. The term refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy to protect larger monopolistic or ] businesses from threats.
As conceived by Lenin in his pamphlet of the same name, the theory aims to describe the ''final historical stage'' of capitalism, of which he believed the ] of that time to be the highest expression.<ref name="marxists_Lenin_191606">{{citation |first=Vladimir Ilyich |last=Lenin |title=Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism |date=June 1916 |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ |access-date=November 29, 2019}}</ref>


== The main thesis ==
Stamocap theory aims to define the ''final historical stage'' of capitalism following monopoly capitalism, consistent with Lenin's definition of the characteristics of ] in his short pamphlet of the same name.
The main Marxist–Leninist thesis is that big business, having achieved a ] or ] position in most markets of importance, ''fuses'' with the government apparatus. State monopoly capitalism protected monopolistic economics from competition by smaller firms.<ref> Coleman, Janet; Conolly, Willam; Miller, David; Ryan, Alan, eds. (1991). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought (reprinted ed.). Wifey/Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9780631179443</ref>


Lenin insists in '']'' (1917) that state monopoly capitalism is not a development beyond capitalism but a manifestation of it, countering liberal and social-democratic politicians who characterised this economic development as ],<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lenin |first1=Vladimir |title=The State and Revolution |date=1917 |url=https://en.wikisource.org/The_State_and_Revolution/Chapter_IV |chapter=Chapter IV: Supplementary Explanations by Engels |quote=The latter must be emphasized because the erroneous bourgeois reformist assertion that monopoly capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism is no longer capitalism, but can now be called "state socialism" and so on, is very common.}}</ref> for example with regard to the so-named ] initiatives in the ].
Occasionally the stamocap concept also appears in neo-] theories of ] as well as in ] anti-state theories.
The analysis made is usually identical in its main features, but very different ''political conclusions'' are drawn from it.


== Versions of the theory ==
==The main thesis==
Different versions of this idea were elaborated by economists of the ] (e.g., ]), East Germany's ], the ] (e.g., ]), the ] (e.g., ] and ]), and the American ] (e.g., ]).
The main Marxist-Leninist thesis is that big business, having achieved a ] or ] position in most markets of importance, ''fuses'' with the government apparatus. A kind of financial ] or conglomerate therefore results, whereby government officials aim to provide the social and legal framework within which giant corporations can operate most effectively.


== Political implication ==
This is a close partnership between big business and government, and it is argued that the aim is to integrate labor-unions completely in that partnership.


{{quote|Ever since monopoly capital took over the world, it has kept the greater part of humanity in poverty, dividing all the profits among the group of the most powerful countries. The standard of living in those countries is based on the ] of our countries.| ], 1965<ref> by Che Guevara, Delivered at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity in Algiers, Algeria - on February 24, 1965</ref>}}
==Versions of the theory==
Different versions of this idea were elaborated by economists of the ] (e.g. Eugen Varga), East Germany's ], France's ] (e.g. Paul Boccara), the ] (e.g. Ben Fine and Laurence Harris), and the American ] (e.g. Victor Perlo). One of the most prominent examples of Stamocap is modern day Singapore (Stamocap) compared to Hong Kong (individual capitalism).


The strategic political implication of the theory for Marxist-Leninists, towards the end of the ] era and afterwards, was that the labour movement should form a ''people's democratic alliance'' under the leadership of the Communist Party ''with'' the progressive middle classes and small business, ''against'' the state and big business (called "monopoly" for short). Sometimes this alliance was also called the "anti-monopoly alliance".{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}
==Political implication==
{{Cquote2|Ever since monopoly capital took over the world, it has kept the greater part of humanity in poverty, dividing all the profits among the group of the most powerful countries. The standard of living in those countries is based on the extreme poverty of our countries.| ], 1965 <ref> by Che Guevara, Delivered at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity in Algiers, Algeria - on February 24 1965</ref>}}


== Neo-Trotskyist theory ==
The strategic political implication of stamocap theory for Marxist-Leninists, towards the end of the ] era and afterwards, was that the labour movement should form a ''people's democratic alliance'' under the leadership of the Communist Party ''with'' the progressive middle classes and small business, ''against'' the state and big business (called "monopoly" for short). Sometimes this alliance was also called the "anti-monopoly alliance".
{{Unreferenced section|date=April 2024}}

{{Disputed section|date=April 2024}}
==Neo-] theory==
In neo-Trotskyist theory, however, such an alliance was rejected as being based either on a false strategy of ]s, or on political ], said to be incompatible either with a In neo-Trotskyist theory, however, such an alliance was rejected as being based either on a false strategy of ]s, or on political ], said to be incompatible either with a
] or with the principle of independent ] political action. ] or with the principle of independent ] political action.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}


The ] in Soviet-type societies was redefined by the neo-Trotskyists as being ''also'' state-monopoly capitalist. There was no difference between the West and the East in this regard. Consequently, some kind of ''anti-bureaucratic revolution'' was said to be required, but different Trotskyist groups quarreled about what form such a revolution would need to take, or could take. The ] in Soviet-type societies was redefined by the neo-Trotskyists as being ''also'' state-monopoly capitalist. There was no difference, in their view, between the West and the East in this regard. Consequently, some kind of ''anti-bureaucratic revolution'' was said to be required, but different Trotskyist groups quarreled about what form such a revolution would need to take, or could take.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}


Some Trotskyists believed the anti-bureaucratic revolution would happen spontaneously, inevitably and naturally, others believed it needed to be organised - the aim being to establish a society owned and operated by the working class. According to the neo-Trotskyists, the Communist Party could not play its leading role, because it did not represent the interests of the working class. Some Trotskyists{{Who|date=April 2024}} believed the anti-bureaucratic revolution would happen spontaneously, inevitably and naturally, others believed it needed to be organised - the aim being to establish a society owned and operated by the working class. According to the neo-Trotskyists, the Communist Party could not play its leading role, because it did not represent the interests of the working class.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}


==Market Anarchism== == Market anarchism ==


] typically criticize Neoliberal forces for inconsistent or hypocritical application of Neoliberal theory regarding Stamocap; that in those inconsistencies exist the basis of continued selective state guaranteed privileges for the plutocratic neoliberal elite<ref>"THE IRON FIST BEHIND THE INVISIBLE HAND: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege" by Kevin A. Carson </ref>. Generally, they envision a more consistently pro-market revolt would necessarily be a more petty bourgeois affair. ] typically criticize neoliberal forces for inconsistent or hypocritical application of neoliberal theory regarding stamocap (State monopoly capitalism); that in those inconsistencies exist the basis of continued selective state-guaranteed privileges for the plutocratic neoliberal elite.<ref> by Kevin A. Carson</ref>


==Eurocommunism== == Eurocommunism ==
The stamocap concept was to a large extent either modified or abandoned in the era of ], because it came to be believed that the state apparatus could be ''reformed'' to reflect the interests of the working majority. In other words, the ''fusion'' between the state and big business postulated earlier was not so tight, that it could not be undone by a mass movement from below, under the leadership of the Communist Party (or its central committee). The concept was to a large extent either modified or abandoned in the era of ], because it came to be believed that the state apparatus could be ''reformed'' to reflect the interests of the working majority. In other words, the ''fusion'' between the state and big business postulated earlier was not so tight that it could not be undone by a mass movement from below, under the leadership of the Communist Party (or its central committee).{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}


==Criticism== == Criticism ==
When Varga introduced the theory, orthodox Stalinist economists attacked it as incompatible with the doctrine that state planning was a feature only of socialism, and that "under capitalism anarchy of production reigns."<ref> Raya Dunayevskaya 1949</ref>
Critics of the stamocap theory (by e.g. ] and ]) claimed that:


Critics of the theory (e.g., ] and ]) claimed that:
*stamocap theory wrongly implied that the state could somehow ''overrule'' inter-capitalist ], the laws of motion of capitalism and market forces generally, supposedly cancelling out the operation of the ].
* the theory wrongly implied that the state could somehow ''overrule'' inter-capitalist ], the laws of motion of capitalism and market forces generally, supposedly cancelling out the operation of the ].{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}
* the theory lacked any sophisticated account of the ''class basis'' of the ], and the real linkages between governments and elites. It postulated a monolithic structure of ] which in reality did not exist in that way.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}
* the theory failed to explain the rise of ] ideology in the business class, which claims precisely that an important social goal should be a ''reduction'' of the state's influence in the economy. {{citation needed|date=April 2015}} However, neoliberalism does not oppose making states subservient to the aims of large corporations, in what is known as ].{{citation needed|date=January 2018}}
* the theory failed to show clearly what the difference was between a ''socialist'' state and a ''bourgeois'' state, except that in a socialist state, the Communist Party (or, rather, its central committee) played the leading political role. In that case, the ''class-content'' of the state itself was defined purely in terms of the policy of the ruling political party (or its central committee).{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}


== See also ==
*stamocap theory lacked any sophisticated account of the ''class basis'' of the ], and the real linkages between governments and elites. It postulated a ] structure of ] which in reality did not exist in that way.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== References ==
*stamocap theory failed to explain the rise of ] ideology in the business class, which claims precisely that an important social goal should be a ''reduction'' of the state's influence in the economy.
{{Reflist|20em}}


== Further reading ==
*stamocap theory failed to show clearly what the difference was between a ''socialist'' state and a ''bourgeois'' state, except that in a socialist state, the Communist Party (or, rather, its central committee) played the leading political role. In that case, the ''class-content'' of the state itself was defined purely in terms of the policy of the ruling political party (or its central committee).
* Guy Ankerl, Beyond ] and Monopoly Socialism. Cambridge MA, Schenkman, 1978, {{ISBN|0-87073-938-7}}
* ], .
* Gerd Hardach, Dieter Karras and Ben Fine, ''A short history of socialist economic thought.'', pp.&nbsp;63–68.
* Bob Jessop, ''The capitalist state''.
* Charlene Gannage, "E. S. Varga and the Theory of State Monopoly Capitalism", in ''Review of Radical Political Economics'' 12(3), Fall 1980, pages 36–49.
* Johnn Fairley, ''French Developments in the Theory of State Monopoly Capitalism'', in: ''Science and Society''; 44(3), Fall 1980, pages 305-25.
* Keitha S. Fine, ''The French communist party: the theory of state monopoly capitalism and the practice of class politics, 1958-1978''. Phd Thesis, Tufts University, 1979.
* ], ''Late Capitalism'', pp.&nbsp;515–522.
* Ernest Mandel, .
* Paul Boccara et al., ''Le Capitalisme Monopoliste d'Etat''. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1971 (2 vols).
* G. N. Sorvina et al., "The Role of the State in the System of State Monopoly Capitalism", in: ''The Teaching of Political Economy: A Critique of Non Marxian Theories''. Moscow: Progress, 1984, pages 171-179.
* Ben Fine & Laurence Harris, ''Re-reading Capital.''
* Jacques Valier, ''Le Parti Communiste Francais Et Le Capitalisme Monopoliste D'Etat'', 1976


==See also== ==External links==
* by ], '']'', February 2010
*]
*]
*]
*]


{{Authority control}}
==Some references==
*Guy Ankerl, Beyond ] and ]. Cambridge MA, Schenkman, 1978, ISBN 0-87073-938-7

*], ''Imperialism and World Economy''.

*Gerd Hardach, Dieter Karras and Ben Fine, ''A short history of socialist economic thought.'', pp. 63-68.

*Bob Jessop, ''The capitalist state''.

*Charlene Gannage, "E. S. Varga and the Theory of State Monopoly Capitalism", in ''Review of Radical Political Economics'' 12(3), Fall 1980, pages 36-49.

*Johnn Fairley, ''French Developments in the Theory of State Monopoly Capitalism'', in: ''Science and Society''; 44(3), Fall 1980, pages 305-25.

*], ''Late Capitalism'', pp. 515-522.

*Ernest Mandel, ''Historical Materialism and the Capitalist State''.

*Paul Boccara et al., ''Le Capitalisme Monopoliste d'Etat''. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1971 (2 vols).

*G. N. Sorvina et al., "The Role of the State in the System of State Monopoly Capitalism", in: ''The Teaching of Political Economy: A Critique of Non Marxian Theories''. Moscow: Progress, 1984, pages 171-179.

*Ben Fine & Laurence Harris, ''Re-reading Capital.''

*Jacques Valier, ''Le Parti Communiste Francais Et Le Capitalisme Monopoliste D'Etat'', 1976.

==More References==
<references/>


] ]
] ]
] ]
]

]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 23:14, 16 July 2024

Marxist theory
Part of a series on
State monopoly capitalism
Terms
Ideas
Theory
Issues
Ideologies
See also
Part of a series on
Marxism
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Theoretical works
Philosophy
Critique of political economy
Sociology
History
Aspects
Common variants
Structural
Hegelian
Both
Other variants
People
Journals
Related topics
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (August 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2021)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)

The theory of state monopoly capitalism (also referred as stamocap) was initially a Marxist thesis popularised after World War II. Lenin had claimed in 1916 that World War I had transformed laissez-faire capitalism into monopoly capitalism, but he did not publish any extensive theory about the topic. The term refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy to protect larger monopolistic or oligopolistic businesses from threats. As conceived by Lenin in his pamphlet of the same name, the theory aims to describe the final historical stage of capitalism, of which he believed the Imperialism of that time to be the highest expression.

The main thesis

The main Marxist–Leninist thesis is that big business, having achieved a monopoly or cartel position in most markets of importance, fuses with the government apparatus. State monopoly capitalism protected monopolistic economics from competition by smaller firms.

Lenin insists in The State and Revolution (1917) that state monopoly capitalism is not a development beyond capitalism but a manifestation of it, countering liberal and social-democratic politicians who characterised this economic development as state socialism, for example with regard to the so-named State Socialism initiatives in the German Empire.

Versions of the theory

Different versions of this idea were elaborated by economists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (e.g., Eugen Varga), East Germany's Socialist Unity Party, the French Communist Party (e.g., Paul Boccara), the Communist Party of Great Britain (e.g., Ben Fine and Laurence Harris), and the American Communist Party of the USA (e.g., Victor Perlo).

Political implication

Ever since monopoly capital took over the world, it has kept the greater part of humanity in poverty, dividing all the profits among the group of the most powerful countries. The standard of living in those countries is based on the extreme poverty of our countries.

— Che Guevara, 1965

The strategic political implication of the theory for Marxist-Leninists, towards the end of the Joseph Stalin era and afterwards, was that the labour movement should form a people's democratic alliance under the leadership of the Communist Party with the progressive middle classes and small business, against the state and big business (called "monopoly" for short). Sometimes this alliance was also called the "anti-monopoly alliance".

Neo-Trotskyist theory

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (April 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In neo-Trotskyist theory, however, such an alliance was rejected as being based either on a false strategy of popular fronts, or on political opportunism, said to be incompatible either with a permanent revolution or with the principle of independent working class political action.

The state in Soviet-type societies was redefined by the neo-Trotskyists as being also state-monopoly capitalist. There was no difference, in their view, between the West and the East in this regard. Consequently, some kind of anti-bureaucratic revolution was said to be required, but different Trotskyist groups quarreled about what form such a revolution would need to take, or could take.

Some Trotskyists believed the anti-bureaucratic revolution would happen spontaneously, inevitably and naturally, others believed it needed to be organised - the aim being to establish a society owned and operated by the working class. According to the neo-Trotskyists, the Communist Party could not play its leading role, because it did not represent the interests of the working class.

Market anarchism

Market anarchists typically criticize neoliberal forces for inconsistent or hypocritical application of neoliberal theory regarding stamocap (State monopoly capitalism); that in those inconsistencies exist the basis of continued selective state-guaranteed privileges for the plutocratic neoliberal elite.

Eurocommunism

The concept was to a large extent either modified or abandoned in the era of eurocommunism, because it came to be believed that the state apparatus could be reformed to reflect the interests of the working majority. In other words, the fusion between the state and big business postulated earlier was not so tight that it could not be undone by a mass movement from below, under the leadership of the Communist Party (or its central committee).

Criticism

When Varga introduced the theory, orthodox Stalinist economists attacked it as incompatible with the doctrine that state planning was a feature only of socialism, and that "under capitalism anarchy of production reigns."

Critics of the theory (e.g., Ernest Mandel and Leo Kofler) claimed that:

  • the theory wrongly implied that the state could somehow overrule inter-capitalist competition, the laws of motion of capitalism and market forces generally, supposedly cancelling out the operation of the law of value.
  • the theory lacked any sophisticated account of the class basis of the state, and the real linkages between governments and elites. It postulated a monolithic structure of domination which in reality did not exist in that way.
  • the theory failed to explain the rise of neo-liberal ideology in the business class, which claims precisely that an important social goal should be a reduction of the state's influence in the economy. However, neoliberalism does not oppose making states subservient to the aims of large corporations, in what is known as government-granted monopoly.
  • the theory failed to show clearly what the difference was between a socialist state and a bourgeois state, except that in a socialist state, the Communist Party (or, rather, its central committee) played the leading political role. In that case, the class-content of the state itself was defined purely in terms of the policy of the ruling political party (or its central committee).

See also

References

  1. Fuchs, Christian (2017). "Donald Trump: A critical theory-perspective on authoritarian capitalism". TripleC. 15 (1): 1–72. doi:10.31269/triplec.v15i1.835.
  2. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (June 1916), Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, retrieved November 29, 2019
  3. Coleman, Janet; Conolly, Willam; Miller, David; Ryan, Alan, eds. (1991). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought (reprinted ed.). Wifey/Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9780631179443
  4. Lenin, Vladimir (1917). "Chapter IV: Supplementary Explanations by Engels". The State and Revolution. The latter must be emphasized because the erroneous bourgeois reformist assertion that monopoly capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism is no longer capitalism, but can now be called "state socialism" and so on, is very common.
  5. At the Afro-Asian Conference in Algeria by Che Guevara, Delivered at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity in Algiers, Algeria - on February 24, 1965
  6. "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege" by Kevin A. Carson
  7. The Case of Eugene Varga Raya Dunayevskaya 1949

Further reading

  • Guy Ankerl, Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism. Cambridge MA, Schenkman, 1978, ISBN 0-87073-938-7
  • Nikolai Bukharin, Imperialism and World Economy.
  • Gerd Hardach, Dieter Karras and Ben Fine, A short history of socialist economic thought., pp. 63–68.
  • Bob Jessop, The capitalist state.
  • Charlene Gannage, "E. S. Varga and the Theory of State Monopoly Capitalism", in Review of Radical Political Economics 12(3), Fall 1980, pages 36–49.
  • Johnn Fairley, French Developments in the Theory of State Monopoly Capitalism, in: Science and Society; 44(3), Fall 1980, pages 305-25.
  • Keitha S. Fine, The French communist party: the theory of state monopoly capitalism and the practice of class politics, 1958-1978. Phd Thesis, Tufts University, 1979.
  • Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism, pp. 515–522.
  • Ernest Mandel, Historical Materialism and the Capitalist State.
  • Paul Boccara et al., Le Capitalisme Monopoliste d'Etat. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1971 (2 vols).
  • G. N. Sorvina et al., "The Role of the State in the System of State Monopoly Capitalism", in: The Teaching of Political Economy: A Critique of Non Marxian Theories. Moscow: Progress, 1984, pages 171-179.
  • Ben Fine & Laurence Harris, Re-reading Capital.
  • Jacques Valier, Le Parti Communiste Francais Et Le Capitalisme Monopoliste D'Etat, 1976

External links

Categories: