“State monopoly capitalism”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The theory of state monopoly capitalism (also referred as stamocap)^[1] was initially a Marxist doctrine 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.^[2]

Occasionally the concept also appears in neo-Trotskyist theories of state capitalism as well as in libertarian anti-state theories.

The analysis made is usually identical in its main features, but very different political conclusions are drawn from it.

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. A kind of financial oligarchy or conglomerate therefore results, whereby government officials aim to provide the social and legal framework within which giant corporations can operate most effectively.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}

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}}

Lenin insists in The State and Revolution (1917) that state monopoly capitalism should not be confused with State socialism.^[3]

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

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

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

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).{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}

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."^[6]

See also

References

1. ^{{cite journal|last1=Fuchs|first1=Christian|title=Donald Trump: A critical theory-perspective on authoritarian capitalism|journal=tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society|date=2017|volume=15|issue=1|page=1-72|url=https://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/835/0}}
2. ^[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism] V.I.Lenin 1916
3. ^{{cite book |last1=Lenin |first1=Vladimir |title=The State and Revolution |date=1917 |url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/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.}}
4. ^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
5. ^"The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege" by Kevin A. Carson
6. ^The Case of Eugene Varga Raya Dunayevskaya 1949