9-21-07, 8:56 am

For Marxist-Leninists, questions about the problems and prospects of socialist-oriented market economies are bound up with our understanding of the proper tasks of the proletarian state. A fundamental concern is whether markets are compatible with the political supremacy of the working class, a supremacy that is entailed by the notion of proletarian rule during the transition period between capitalism and socialism. In classical Marxist-Leninist theory the period of transition between capitalism and socialism is known as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, but this is not a tyranny or dictatorship of a minority of exploiters in the sense that we rightly associate with fascism or absolutism. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the political representatives of the vast majority of the people, the working class, take control of the state and use state power in the interests of the majority to abolish capitalism and defeat all attempts at capitalist restoration. This is a dictatorship only in the sense that it is a government which exercises extraordinary powers during a time of crisis when the vital interests of the whole society are under attack by a still powerful minority of exploiters. If capitalist society can be described as a dictatorship of the minority (the bourgeoisie) over the majority (the proletariat), then the proletarian state is a “dictatorship” of the working class majority over the capitalist minority that lasts until socialism is established and classes are abolished. But what about working class governments, such as those in China and Vietnam, that permit limited market economies to exist during the transition period between capitalism and socialism? Do socialist-oriented market economies represent a rejection of Marxist-Leninist theory regarding the proper tasks of the proletarian state?

In Chapter III of Class Struggles in France, originally written in 1850, Marx described the proletarian state as “the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionising of all the ideas that result from these social relations” (1978, 127). This well-known passage assigns four tasks to the proletarian state, tasks sometimes referred to as the “four alls,” because they include abolition of 1) all economic classes; 2) all relations of production that support class society; 3) all social relations arising from these relations of production; and 4) the revolutionary transformation of all ideas resulting from these social relationships.

The four alls are sometimes assumed to encompass all the tasks of the proletarian state, but this is not accurate. The Communist Manifesto speaks of three other tasks of working class governments that are not counted among the “four alls.” In the Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that once political supremacy has been gained, the task of the proletariat is 'to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible” (1976, 504). Therefore the three tasks mentioned in the Manifesto, in addition to the four tasks from Class Struggles in France, are relevant to this discussion.

How are these seven tasks related and how should the proletariat go about accomplishing them? Should they be pursued simultaneously, or should some come before others, and if so, in what order? Clearly, expropriation of capital must be carried out first, because it is necessary for beginning the process of centralizing the instruments of production, increasing the productive forces, ending class society, and achieving the other goals outlined above. But notice that Marx and Engels held that capital would be expropriated by degrees, not all at once.

This raises further questions, although Marx and Engels were probably wise not to attempt comprehensive answers to them. The statement that capital must be expropriated by degrees does not tell us very much. How could it be otherwise? In a complex capitalist society in which ownership is decentralized, it is a practical impossibility to expropriate all capital at once. Furthermore, the fact that capital must be expropriated by degrees tells us nothing about the targeting, speed, and scope of expropriation and how it will vary under different conditions. Nor does it tell us specifically how expropriation should be accomplished. Should it be done by decree, at the point of bayonets, through competition with, and takeovers by, publicly owned enterprises, or by other methods?

The task of increasing the productive forces also raises many questions. By itself, increasing the productive forces cannot be considered a means of achieving the tasks of the proletarian state. Capitalist society, for example, increases the productive forces relative to its predecessor, feudalism, but it achieves tasks opposite of those pursued by socialist society. Nevertheless, it is clear that rapidly increasing the productive forces, while managing the increase in the right way, is an essential task of the proletariat, because it is necessary for creating a strong, secure socialist nation in which living standards are constantly improving and the advance toward communist methods of distribution becomes possible. What is the right way of managing the increase? In general terms it must be managed in a way that strengthens a nation’s security and preserves its sovereignty against imperialist inroads while raising the people’s living standards, eliminating class society and making progress towards the other goals outlined above. It is certainly not necessary or practical to expect the working class to accomplish all of these goals during the transition period between capitalism and socialism. It is reasonable to expect the proletarian state to expropriate capital, eliminate classes, and increase the productive forces at a speed practicable under local conditions, but certainly such tasks as abolishing all social relations and all ideas left over from class society cannot be finished until the advent of communism. Marx would have agreed. By calling the proletarian state a 'transit point' (1978, 127) to the completion of such tasks, he implied that they would not be completed during the period immediately following capitalism, but rather by the socialist and communist societies that would follow.

What is the relationship between expropriation of capital and increasing the productive forces? The answer depends on the type of society undergoing socialist revolution. Consider an advanced capitalist society, the kind of society which Marx and Engels had in mind when they were outlining the tasks of the proletariat once in power. Here the dialectical contradiction between the existing mode of production and the further development of the productive forces has reached the point of maximum tension. The contradiction can only be overcome, that is, the productive forces can undergo further development, only through proletarian revolution, through the seizure of political power and expropriation of capital by the working class. Under these conditions, expropriation of capital undermines and leads to abolition of the economic and social relations of bourgeois society, thereby releasing the fetters on the productive forces. This allows their qualitative and quantitative expansion, and begins the process of capitalism’s supersession by socialism, a process which, if allowed to continue to its logical conclusion, will end in communism and the fulfillment of the four alls. In sum, when the proletariat takes control of an advanced capitalist society in which further development of the productive forces under the existing mode of production has become impossible, relatively rapid and extensive expropriation can result in the desired increase in the productive forces. In this example, the two tasks—expropriation of capital and a rapid increase in the productive forces—are compatible.

By contrast, consider socialist revolutions in underdeveloped countries whose economies are dominated by subsistence agriculture and small commodity production, albeit with a small capitalist sector. When these revolutions have tried to advance directly to socialism through a rapid expropriation of the capitalist sector and elimination of market forces, the long term results have been prolonged periods of slow growth, stagnant and even declining living standards, and shortages of food and manufactured goods despite often rapid initial gains in productivity and living standards. Why has this happened? In general it is a result of attempting to proceed directly to socialism by skipping the capitalist stage of economic development in which advanced productive forces are created with the help of market mechanisms. Underdeveloped socialist countries expropriated capital and attempted to abolish economic classes and market mechanisms, but they could not benefit from the expropriation of the advanced productive forces that are a legacy of mature capitalism, because these countries had never developed advanced capitalism. Inheriting the backward productive forces of their nascent capitalist, but predominantly feudal, societies, underdeveloped countries undergoing socialist revolutions could not sustain the economic growth necessary to construct socialism successfully and permanently.

The painful lessons learned from the excessively rapid and extensive expropriation of capital and the untimely elimination of market mechanisms have led some socialist countries, notably China and Vietnam, to develop “socialist-oriented market economies” that permit limited private capitalization and managed market mechanisms in an attempt to develop the advanced productive forces necessary for making the transition to a sustainable socialism. This is not a rejection of Marxism-Leninism, and it is not a return to capitalism; rather, it is a creative adaptation of the theory to the needs of socialist construction in underdeveloped countries. A close reading of the Communist Manifesto suggests that there will be a period of continued market relations even in advanced capitalist countries undergoing proletarian revolution. The Manifesto’s ten-point revolutionary program calls for nationalization of land, credit, communications and transport, but not for the immediate nationalization of industry and agriculture. It merely calls for the gradual extension of state-owned industry. Nor does it demand the immediate abolition of market relations. This suggests that Marx and Engels accepted the notion that markets would continue to function, at least for a time, under the proletarian state during the transition period between capitalism and socialism (1976, 505). Granted, Marx and Engels did not explicitly endorse the use of markets and the continued existence of private property during what they called the proletarian dictatorship. They clearly viewed private property and markets as institutions that would hinder the advance toward socialism; therefore, they marked them for relatively rapid extinction. They wrote that, “For us the issue cannot be the alteration of private property but only its annihilation, not the smoothing over of class antagonisms but the abolition of classes” (1978, 281). It should be remembered, however, that they were thinking primarily of proletarian revolutions in advanced capitalist countries in which further development of the productive forces called for rapid replacement of the anarchy of the market with planned economies. And even with advanced countries, Marx and Engels refrained from calling for an immediate expropriation of all private capital. They allowed that proletarian revolutions in the advanced countries could be considered successful if “at least the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletariat” (1978, 281). Notice that they did not say all the productive forces. There is nothing in Marx and Engels that prohibits the extensive use of market forces to develop the productive capacity of backward economies. The Communist Manifesto and other writings of Marx and Engels suggest a period of continued private property and market relations even in advanced capitalist countries, and this strongly suggests that they would favor even lengthier periods of market relations and private enterprise in less developed countries that are trying to make the transition to socialism.

Lenin unambiguously endorsed the view that the proletariat should use markets to prepare underdeveloped countries for socialism. It is common knowledge that his New Economic Policy used market mechanisms to stimulate economic recovery after the devastation of the Russian Civil War, but some do not realize that Lenin saw markets as more than just an expedient. He actually viewed market mechanisms as necessary for moving underdeveloped countries toward socialism. Lenin recognized that the economies of underdeveloped, agrarian countries in transition to socialism combine subsistence farming, small commodity production, private capitalism, state capitalism, and socialism, with small commodity production in the dominant role (1965, 330–31). These societies contain many more peasants than proletarians, and because peasants favor the petty-bourgeois mode of production, they tend to side with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. It is tempting to argue that this situation calls for an immediate transition to socialism, in order to force the peasantry to cooperate with the proletariat in defeating the bourgeoisie. But Lenin did not believe this. He argued that the attempt to push agrarian countries directly into socialism, that is, to eliminate markets before the build up of the productive forces had converted peasant agriculture and small commodity production into modern, large-scale industries, was a mistake that would actually hamper economic development and thwart socialist construction. The solution he proposed was for the proletarian state to use capitalism, i.e., commodity production, free markets, and concessions with foreign capitalists, to promote the growth of the productive forces, and to eliminate the conflict of interest between peasants and industrial workers by converting agriculture into a large-scale industry and the peasants into proletarians (1965, 330–33, 341–47).

But Lenin never held that socialism could be advanced by permitting unbridled capitalism, which would surely undermine proletarian rule and end the socialist orientation of economic development. Instead, he advocated state capitalism, capitalism under the regulation, accounting, and control of the proletarian state, which harnesses the energy of the free market to eliminate small commodity production, puts all economic sectors on a large-scale industrial footing, transforms the whole people into one united working class, maintains the economy’s socialist orientation, and raises the living standards of all people, both rural and urban. For Lenin the key task of the proletarian revolution during the transition period between capitalism and socialism is successfully to use state capitalism to advance the socialist revolution. Here are his own words: “Can ... the dictatorship of the proletariat be combined with state capitalism? Are they compatible? Of course they are.... state capitalism is a step forward compared with the small-proprietor ... The whole problem—in theoretical and practical terms—is to find the correct methods of directing the development of capitalism ... into the channels of state capitalism, and to determine how we are to hedge it about with conditions to ensure its transformation into socialism in the near future” (1965, 345).

Market mechanisms are compatible with the proletarian state, but an unrestricted market is not. That is why Lenin argued for state capitalism. Markets entail the growth of capitalism, and Lenin understood that flourishing capitalism, even if it is state capitalism, is a grave threat to the political supremacy of the proletariat and socialism. Capitalism tempts the people to engage in profiteering at the expense of social harmony and welfare. Capitalists try to evade state control by bribing communists into bending the rules and looking the other way. That is why, for a socialist-oriented market economy to remain truly socialist, the workers’ state must wage a long, determined struggle against bribery and other attempts to evade state control. It must also struggle against market engendered social problems such as the huge and increasing disparity between the living standards of the rich and poor and between the rural and urban populations; environmental degradation; mass unemployment; and the alarming crisis in workplace safety. Lenin famously remarked that the market economy “engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale” (1966, 24). This is undoubtedly true; thus, if the benefits of the market are to be gained without destroying socialism, the struggle against corruption and other social problems must be waged on an even more massive scale.

I will end on a note of cautious optimism. In the past the socialist countries were able to hold their own against the imperialist countries in military competition, but never in economic competition. Now that socialism, particularly in China, has learned successfully to use market mechanisms for the development of a truly competitive, world class productive capacity, the imperialist countries are for the first time facing the prospect of losing the global economic competition to socialism. In the recent past—I am thinking of the former Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe—the imperialist countries defeated the socialist countries in economic competition; the bourgeoisie took over the formerly socialist enterprises and turned them to the service of capitalism. Now the imperialist bourgeoisie faces a similar fate. Only this time, socialist enterprises have the opportunity to buy out their capitalist rivals and use these productive forces to advance socialism. This in brief is the most significant implication for developed capitalist countries of the successful development of socialist-oriented market economies by existing proletarian states.

REFERENCE LIST

Lenin, Vladimir I. 1965. The Tax in Kind. In vol. 32 of V. I. Lenin: Collected Works, 329–65. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

—. 1966. “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder. In vol. 31 of V. I. Lenin: Collected Works, 17–118. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, Karl. 1978. The Class Struggles in France: 1848-1850. In vol. 10 of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, 45–145. New York: International Publishers.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1976. Manifesto of the Communist Party. In vol. 6 of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, 477–519. New York: International Publishers.

—. 1978. Address of the Central Authority to the League, March 1850. In vol. 10 of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, 277-87. New York: International Publishers.

| | |