Debate Topic: Is State-Capitalism a valid term?

 I was recently presented with this question on social media, and I felt prompted to respond since I'm currently reading Arrighi's excellent "The Long Twentieth Century" and hopefully going to do a review of it by the end of the week.

It seems as though people discussing the concept of "state-capitalism" mix it up with the overall general argument that "capitalism cannot exist without a state."  Anyone engaging in this discussion/debate needs to realize that these are two separate ideas.  The supposed "inability of capitalism to exist without a state" is an old argument; very old.  So old, in fact, that the philosophers of the 19th century were perfectly capable of accepting this facet, even though they may have supported one side or the other more (state versus capital).  

The other argument, pertaining to the existence of "state-capitalism", is much newer as an argument than the former.  The newer argument extends primarily from two sources:  V.I. Lenin's statements on State-Capitalism as a result of the Russian Revolution, and Raya Dunayevskaya's criticism of the USSR in 1935 by calling it a "capitalist society."  To understand these differences, I've laid out below a general explanation of how A) The first argument can be seen very plainly by simply observing history and B) the second argument has validity, even if it isn't fully correct in its depiction of specific states (USSR in particular).  Most importantly, I offer a definition for "state-capitalism" that rests on the differences between the First and the Second worlds in the capitalist world-system.

Capitalism manifests itself in various ways dependent upon not the whims and desires of those in reign of its controls, but rather upon the conditions and historical situation of geographic regions.  In the West, as the dominant Core of the capitalist world-system, it manifested a polarity between the State and the capitalist "class": The two are not the same, but they both serve the same interests. Giovanni Arrighi called the difference between the two a separation of "power ideology."  But Arrighi was referring specifically do the different approaches made by state power (West versus East, and England + France versus Spain).  I however, will use it to explain the duality between "state" and "capital."

The state operates on a primarily "territorialist notion of power"; meaning that it seeks to expand itself and bring more physical territory as well as people into its domain. Its support for capitalism is a means to an end: It allows capitalistic endeavors to occur provided that it ultimately yields more territorial control (both within and outside of its direct sovereign).

The capitalist class, however, operations on a "capitalistic notion of power"; meaning that it seeks to expand its accumulation of capital. In this, the State and its territorialist endeavors are the means to the end: The capitalist class supports the State to the extent that it ultimately yields more profits and concentration of resources.

It is here where the "unity" of State and Capital are made overt, but also blurred by ideological frameworks (such as saying the US is "state-capitalist" but France "isn't").

Consider how the United Provinces formed a loose alliance that allowed wars to continue between the states but agreements prevented a disruption of trade. This was a dual process: The state, dependent upon the profits made via trade (to expand its territory), prevented disruption of the economic order...not because they thought it was a good idea....but rather because the capitalistic class--the "monied elite"--would never have gone along with it. This class, however, was more than willing to support a State's war efforts if it ultimately yielded more accumulated capital.

Ultimately, what we see is that these two groups--not united--are engaged in two separate "power processes" that happen to overlap with regard to the MEANS by which each group obtains (or gets closer to) its goal.  The difficulty lies in determining at what point which "means to an end" is exerting dominance. In other words, it's hard to tell if a specific policy or act is the sole derision of "capitalistic" or "territorialist" notions of power.

Now that I've built up this explanation of the polarity occuring in the Core of the capitalist world-system, I shall explain "state-capitalism" as a term:


In the USSR and many other regions of the "Second World", however, there is no polarity between the State and the Capitalist class. There is no separation of power ideology. The goals of the state and those in charge of it are the same. In this sense, it doesn't matter if the nation is territorialist (like China) or capitalistic (like the USSR) in its notion of power; all that matters is that the polarity that exists in the Core (First World) does not exist in the Semi-Periphery (Second World).  As such, "state-capitalism" is a perfectly acceptable term to apply to Second World powers such as the USSR and China---they are not Western Capital bastions and they are not engaged in a dual process of power.

The big question, for those who regularly read this blog, is "what does this have to do with American Communism?"  Well, for one, it should be noted that the term "state-capitalist" has been used in reference to the United States since the 1980s.  This alone presents a conundrum:  How can the term which applies to nations that have no polarity between "capital" and "the state"...also apply to a nation from the Core where there *IS* the polarity?  The direct answer is:  You can't.

If I've tried to make anything clear, it's that "state-capitalism" as a term applies specifically to a nation where the aforementioned polarity does not exist, and power is wielded unilaterally by a single group.  What makes this group "capitalist" is not their position in the government, but rather their existence within a capitalist world-system.  There is no escaping a world-system that has come to entrench itself on all corners of the globe.  If we lived in a socialist world-system, then the term "state-socialist" would equally apply to a nation where there is no distinction between "the workers" and "the state."

American Communism, as a movement, has been historically resistant to the depiction of Core nations as endemic of "state-capitalism"---instead, it has typically been the argument that the capitalistic class (the bourgeoisie) are in control of everything.  It has also been common for American Communists to label politicians and leaders within the Core as subservient and slaves to the capitalistic class.  This suggests not capitalism, nor democracy, nor state-capitalism; it suggests an oligarchy.

Far be it from me to tell people what they should think and define; but American Communism has an overt tendency to dramatize terminology for the sake of rectifying pre-conceived notions of power and hegemony.


For further reading, I'd recommend:

Wallerstein, Immanuel. "Historical Capitalism"
Arrighi, Giovanni. "The Long Twentieth Century"
Harvey, David. "The Limits of Capital"

---