| Revision as of 22:26, 3 December 2017 editSlovinstein (talk | contribs)31 edits Incomplete sentence. Finished it with a place holder, should be further revised.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:14, 16 July 2024 edit undoHelpful Raccoon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,939 editsm Reverted 1 edit by CaliforniaGood (talk) to last revision by 92.236.211.53Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Marxist theory}} | |||
| {{State monopoly capitalism}} | |||
| {{Marxism}} | {{Marxism}} | ||
| {{multiple| | |||
| ⚫ | The theory of '''state monopoly capitalism''' was initially a ] |
||
| {{More footnotes needed|date=August 2021}} | |||
| ⚫ | 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> |
||
| {{Update|date=August 2021}} | |||
| }} | |||
| Occasionally the concept also appears in ] theories of ] as well as in ] anti-state theories. | |||
| ⚫ | 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. | ||
| The analysis made is usually identical in its main features, but very different ''political conclusions'' are drawn from it. | |||
| ⚫ | 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 == | == The main thesis == | ||
| The main Marxist–Leninist thesis is that big business, having achieved a ] or ] position in most markets of importance, ''fuses'' with the government apparatus. |
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 ]. | |||
| 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.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}} | |||
| == Versions of the theory == | == Versions of the theory == | ||
| Different versions of this idea were elaborated by economists of the ] (e.g., ]), East Germany's ], the ] (e.g., Paul Boccara), the ] (e.g., Ben Fine and Laurence Harris), and the American ] (e.g., Victor Perlo). | 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., ]). | ||
| == Political implication == | == Political implication == | ||
| {{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 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>}} | {{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>}} | ||
| 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". | 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}} | ||
| == Neo-Trotskyist theory == | == Neo-Trotskyist theory == | ||
| {{Unreferenced section|date=April 2024}} | |||
| {{Disputed section|date=April 2024}} | |||
| 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, 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. | 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 == | ||
| Line 41: | Line 46: | ||
| * 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 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 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 ]. | * 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}} | * 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}} | ||
| Line 48: | Line 53: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| == References == | == References == | ||
| Line 65: | Line 73: | ||
| * 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. | * 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. | * 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. 515–522. | * ], ''Late Capitalism'', pp. 515–522. | ||
| * Ernest Mandel, . | * Ernest Mandel, . | ||
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 |
 | 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)
|
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
- Capitalism
- Capitalist mode of production
- Crony capitalism
- Government-granted monopoly
- Late capitalism
- Left-libertarianism
- Marxism
- Monopoly Capital
- Neoliberalism
- State capitalism
- Supercapitalism
- White monopoly capital
References
- Fuchs, Christian (2017). "Donald Trump: A critical theory-perspective on authoritarian capitalism". TripleC. 15 (1): 1–72. doi:10.31269/triplec.v15i1.835.
- Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (June 1916), Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, retrieved November 29, 2019
- Coleman, Janet; Conolly, Willam; Miller, David; Ryan, Alan, eds. (1991). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought (reprinted ed.). Wifey/Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9780631179443
- 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.
- 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
- "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege" by Kevin A. Carson
- 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
- The Age of Monopoly-Finance Capital by John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review, February 2010