Whether capitalism exists or has existed anywhere in the strict technical sense is questionable. But if one wants to call the modern US economy capitalist then I think calling the Soviet economy capitalist or state capitalist or whatever is legitimate since both economies have a significant amount in common.
But more importantly, figuring out what capitalism actually means and arguing about where the term can and cannot be applied doesn't have anything to do with class struggle (what's really at the heart of the leftist matter whether we like to say so or not). Whatever distinguishing characteristics there may have been between the Soviet economy and our own the same problem with respect to class was and is present in both--i.e., both societies had (and continue to have as they exist today) prominent class stratification.
Furthermore, it is not fair to make the generalization that all critics of the Soviet economy, including those who use the word capitalism or state-capitalism to describe it, are naive romantic types hating industrialization. It is true that many on the left (however they regard the Soviet economy), dissatisfied with all historical examples of modern societies they are aware of, have adopted the unjustified belief that only some kind of more "primitive" society will have characteristics congenial to them. Clearly these folks present a flawed view that deserves criticism. However, it is not the case these individuals can be outed simply by virtue of using Marxist jargon incorrectly--a false association is being made, an intellectually dishonest tactic.
Finally, I should reiterate. Questions of this kind have no legitimate relevance to those struggling for social and economic justice. I admit this claim will leave many Marxist types cold. They will argue that Marxist theory provides insights of vital knowing if we hope to win the class battle. Prima facie this argument, with its pretense of omniscience, makes Marxism look like a religion rather than a science.* But there is plenty of empirical evidence around to bolster one's skepticism if one needs it--e.g., of successful struggles carried out by agents who have barely heard of Marx let alone have an inkling of the content of his theories. Of course, once this point is made the rejoinder that follows will be (since intellectuals are generally savvy enough to state, when the issue is raised directly, whether they actually believe it or not, that no man or body of theory is omniscient) to the effect that although Marxism doens't offer every answer it is of an vasty higher quality, even qualitatively better, than any other existing body of knowledge, just as no "alternative" body of knowledge seriously approaches physics in quality (of course, the absence of alternative even if in the case does not automatically vindicate the theory in question). And, regarding the empirical claims, they will point out that the examples of successful class struggle by those ignorant of Marx are either exceptions to rule or were in fact failures. At this point there are two answers: to go through the tenants of Marxism and refute them one by one or simply get out of the argument and focus on other things since there are more important things, for those who don't have the luxury of being professors, to worry about.
*Obviously the prima facie case doens't disprove the claim in question. But it's sufcient for one contemplating reading Marxist theory to decide instead isn't not worth bothering with since all analogous such claims that have been investigated in the past have proved fraudulent. This is not to say Marxism is devoid of insight. Personally, I think there are other authors who are more relevant and less ideologically encumbered (than Marx himself or Marxist theorists in general) and whom I would recommend first but from what I've read (a lot as a student) I do think there are some valid insights to be found. I file the same way about the New Testiment.
> From: Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 21:50:29 +0100
> Subject: [lbo-talk] State capitalism, or the real thing
>
> MacIntosh writes that the Bolsheviks went wrong "in instituting a project of the accumulation of capital (i.e. forced industrialization)"
> But industrialisation, forced or otherwise, is not identical to the accumulation of capital - not unless you abandon Marx's method of historical specification. The question is, was the direction of resources towards industrialisation commissioned by the outlay of capital. The answer, after Stalin's suppression of the N.E.P. is no, it was not. It was directed from the centre, bureaucratically. This is not a question of moral disapproval (or approval) of what Stalin did, but a scientific question of how we analyse the developments that took place in Soviet Society. If you subordinate that process to the categories Marx developed in the analysis of capitalist society (categories, may it be said that he took over from bourgeois economics and modified) all that you succeed in doing is making the thing that took place look like something it is not, i.e. capitalism, which is of course the result you are bound to come up with, because you imposed those categories in the first place.!
> But they just don't fit. What is the rate of profit in the Soviet Union? What is the value of fixed capital? You just cannot tell because there is no market exchange taking place, no capital, no equivalence between wages and access to goods, no equalisation of the profit rate, no destruction of capital values, no overaccumulation.
>
> It is an historical question, but more importantly it is a methodological one. Like the joke 'what's the difference between a postbox and a hole in the road?' 'I don't know' 'Well I won't be sending you to post my letters, then'. Or 'What's the difference between the Soviet Union and America?' I don't know. 'Well I won't trust you to explain what we have to do'
>
> The theoretical distinction between the technical labour process and the value relations is at the core of Marx's theory, it begins with the distinction between use value and exchange value, for the obvious reason that the theoretical distinction between industry and capitalism is the precondition to the practical distinction between industry and capitalism, which is to say the organisation of industry on a socialist basis (which the Soviet Union certainly never was). But those comrades who abandon Marx's theoretical differentiation between industrialisation and capital accumulation are letting go of the theoretical condition of transcending capitalism.
>
> Tub-thumping rhetoric (which, by the way, never fooled anyone) about how Russia is really capitalist, makes you feel good, but the price you pay is to turn your critique of capitalism into a romantic anti-industrialism, of the most reactionary kind.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/