Capitalist Mode of Production - Criticism of The State-capitalist Interpretation

Criticism of The State-capitalist Interpretation

The "state cap" interpretation of the capitalist mode of production, however, has been held only by a minority of socialists. Its Marxist and socialist critics argue that:

• For the Western and Oriental bourgeoisie or capitalist class, capitalism is fundamentally about private enterprise based on private property and freedom for commercial trade on private initiative.
• The majority of Russian, Chinese, Cuban etc. people have viewed their own societies as being some kind of socialism. Why can there be only "one true socialism"? Why can there not be many different kinds of socialism?
• "State-cap" interpretations cannot in truth be reconciled with Marx's own texts. They are very selective interpretations of those texts, which try to find analogies between particular quotes from Marx and particular features of Soviet-type societies. This, it is argued, is essentially a theological interpretation, not a scientific analysis. Because of that, there is nothing that could refute or falsify it, the interpretation is an article of faith.
• "State-cap" theorists make their interpretation true by definition, by running together characteristics from very different historical epochs and forms of society. By the same token, they fail to identify what is specific about the socio-economic structure of different societies. The implication is that any society which is not socialist must be capitalist, and if not capitalist in Marx's own sense, then state-capitalist, i.e. just a "different kind" of capitalism than Marx envisaged.
• The "state-cap" interpretation makes it difficult to understand how a transition from capitalism to socialism could possibly occur, beyond general rhetoric about "workers power" and the danger of bureaucracy. There is no real economic analysis, only a statement about who holds power.
• The "state-cap" interpretation is essentially a moral-political condemnation of Soviet-type societies, but not a serious objective explanation of the real functioning of those societies and the real progress they made.
• The "state-cap" interpretation fails to distinguish between different kinds of markets, functioning in a very different way, and benefiting different groups and social classes.
• The supporters of a "state cap" interpretation fail to appreciate the difference between a state apparatus which has an autonomous economic base (because it owns the means of production) and a state apparatus which depends mainly on taxes and credit to finance its activities.

• The supporters of the "state-cap" interpretation keep changing their arguments about why Soviet-type societies are state capitalist, making their case true by definition. Initially, it was argued that state capitalism in Russia was a "more advanced" stage of capitalism, later that viewpoint was revised to a "proto-capitalist" stage.

This does not mean, according to the Marxist critics, that state capitalism cannot exist; of course it can, if the state plays a very big role in an otherwise capitalist society, or monopolizes a strategic resource of major economic importance. Examples might be Myanmar, Suriname, Egypt or Libya. But it does mean that the concept of the capitalist mode of production shouldn't be used indiscriminately, as, it is claimed, "state-cap" theorists do.