THESIS
The International Political Economy of Actually Existing Capitalism: 
Rethinking Globalisation and the Retreat of the State 



ABSTRACT 

This thesis presents an alternative tradition of classical Marxism capable of understanding what appears to be a shift in power from states to markets over the last two decades. It provides a theory of international political economy which explains both state ownership and control of the economy and its relinquishment, as aspects of ‘actually existing capitalism’ on a global scale. It is argued that this approach is superior to both Weberian-influenced International Political Economy (IPE), and the current tradition of classical Marxism in International Relations (IR), in that it has the potential to provide a deeper understanding of the apparent ‘retreat of the state’ as an aspect of so-called ‘globalization’. The core contribution of the thesis is a critique of the current classical Marxist approach in International Relations and the proposal of an alternative which differs in its analysis of the space, time and motion of capitalism. It is argued, through a rereading of Capital volumes 1 to 3, that this alternative is truer to Marx’s intentions. It is further argued that this more nuanced understanding of capitalism is well-represented through the writings of Hilferding, Bukharin, and Lenin, and is identifiable, though underdeveloped, in the work of contemporary Marxists influenced by these theorists. This alternative tradition of classical Marxism provides an understanding of capitalism in phases of both ‘nationalization’ and ‘privatization’, deepening our understanding of capitalism as it ‘actually exists’. The thesis has two main tasks. The first is to show that both Weberian-influenced IPE and classical Marxism in IR have an inadequate model of capitalism, a theoretical limitation that has become evident in the globalization debate over ‘the retreat of the state’. The second is to suggest an alternative theory of capitalism based on a rereading of Capital volumes 1-3. This theory of ‘actually existing capitalism’ is better able to capture the complexity of changing state market-relations including what is superficially described as the ‘retreat of the state’.

Introduction The Privatisation Revolution as the ‘Retreat of the State’ 1

Chapter 1 The Globalisation Paradox 13
1.1 Introduction 13
1.2 The Globalisation Thesis 15
1.2.1 The Nation State 17
1.2.2 The World Market 22
1.2.3 State-Market Relations 28
1.2.4 Paradox Within 35
1.3 The Internationalisation Counter-thesi s 37
1.3.1 Paradox Retained 40
1.4 An Attempt at Transcendence 41
1.4.1 Paradox Lost? 44
1.4.2 Paradox Postponed 47
1.5 Conclusion 50

PART ONE: STATES AND MARKETS: A QUESTION OF METHOD 52

Chapter 2 Weberian Pluralism: The Separation of State and Market in IPE 55
2.1 Introduction 55
2.2 Why IPE? 57
2.2.1 IPE on Interdependence 58
2.2.2 The IR Counter-thesis 60
2.2.3 Third Wave Interdependence Theory 62
2.2.4 IPE Beyond Interdependence 66
2.3 The IPE Method 70
2.3.1 Weberian Pluralism 1 1
2.3.2 The Spectre o f Weber in IPE 75
2.4 A Classical Marxist Critique 83
2.4.1 A Marxist Critique o f Weberian pluralism 83
2.4.2 A Marxist Critique o f IPE 86
2.5 Conclusion 94

Chapter 3 Classical Marxism: The ‘Apparent’ Separation of State and Market in IR 96
3.1 Introduction 96
3.2 The Empire o f Civil Society 98
3.3 Rethinking Empire o f Civil Society 108
3.3.1 The Poverty o f Analogy 109
3.4 Rethinking the ‘Apparent’ Separation of State and Market 117
3.4.1 The Purely Political State 117
3.4.2 The State Debate and the Relative Autonomy Trap 122
3.4.3 A Tale o f Two Sovereignties 125

3.5 Conclusion 130

PART TWO: ACTUALLY EXISTING CAPITALISM: AN ALTERNATIVE TRADITION 134

Chapter 4 Rereading Capital: From Volume One to Volume Three 137
4.1 Introduction 137
4.2 The Dialectical Method in Capital 139
4.3 The Geographical Scope of Capital 147
4.3.1 The Country Model o f Capitalism 148
4.3.2 Reading Capital 152
4.3.3 The Society o f Capital 156
4.4 The Historical Trajectory of Capital 161
4.4.1 Arrested Development 162
4.4.2 Reading Capital 165
4.4.3 The History o f Capital 169
4.5 The Core Dynamic of Capital 172
4.5.1 The Pristine Law o f Value 173
4.5.2 Reading Capital 177
4.5.3 The Dynamic o f Capital 183
4.6 Conclusion 186

Chapter 5 Imperialism and World War: Competing State Monopoly Trusts 188
5.1 Introduction 188
5.2 Hilferding 192
5.2.1 Historical Trajectory 192
5.2.2 Hilferding Revisited 202
5.3 Bukharin 209
5.3.1 Geographic Scope 209
5.3.2 Historical Trajectory Extended 214
5.3.3 Bukharin Revisited 222
5.4 Lenin 226
5.4.1 Core Dynamic 227
5.4.2 Lenin Revisited 234
5.5 Conclusion 239

Chapter 6 Cold War: State Capitalism and Beyond 241
6.1 Introduction 241
6.2 The Russia Question 247
6.2.1 Orthodox Trotskyist Position 247
6.2.2 New Class Theories 249
6.2.3 Internal Theories o f State Capitalism 251
6.2.4 International Theories o f State Capitalism 254
6.3 The State Capitalist Answer 258
6.3.1 Geographic Scope 259
6.3.2 Historical Trajectory 260
6.3.3 Core Dynamic 261
6.4 Beyond Russia 267
6.4.1 State Capitalism and Free Wage Labour 268
6.4.2 The Nationalisation Revolution on a Global Scale 275
6.5 Beyond State Capitalism 283
6.5.1 Geographic Scope 284
6.5.2 Historical Trajectory 287
6.5.3 Core Dynamic 293
6.6 Conclusion 297

PART THREE: RETHINKING GLOBALISATION AND THE RETREAT OF THE STATE 299

Chapter 7 Actually Existing Globalisation 303
7.1 Introduction 302
7.2 Globalisation in Practice 303
7.2.1 The 1970s 305
7.2.2 The 1990s and Beyond 313
7.3 Globalisation in Theory 323
7.3.1 Geographic Scope 323
7.3.2 Historical Trajectory 326
7.3.3 Core Dynamic 332
7.4 Rethinking States and Markets 338
7.4.1 A Riposte to Volume One Marxism 338
7.4.2 A Rejoinder to IPE 341
7.5 Rethinking the Retreat of the State 343
7.5.1 The Globalisation Paradox Resolved 343
7.6 Conclusion 346

Conclusion The Privatisation Revolution as Post Cold-War Reconstruction 348

References 366

YESTERDAY'S NEWS TODAY

Atlantic Council and Rhodium Group announce research partnership on China’s economic trajectory

RIGHT WING TALK SHOP

Press Release
ChinaEconomy & Business

Container barge passing by in Shanghai, China. Increasingly, the center of gravity of the global trade and financial system is shifting East, toward China, and South.

Source: Markus Winkler for Unsplash

Multi-year partnership to produce unique insights on China’s economy and implications for Biden Administration policymaking; Rhodium partner Daniel Rosen to be named as Atlantic Council Senior Fellow

WASHINGTON, DC – March 9, 2021

– The Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center and Rhodium Group today announced a multi-year partnership dedicated to understanding China’s economy.

The flagship project of the partnership will be a data visualization toolset for analyzing China’s economic trajectory. Building on Rhodium Group’s extensive past work tracking China’s policy choices, the first release is scheduled for June 2021, followed by quarterly updates. The project – titled Pathfinder: Anticipating China’s Economic Future – will examine China’s economic direction in six key areas: three external (trade, direct investment, and portfolio investment) and three internal (market competition, financial system, and innovation).

This regularly updated compendium of novel indicators will anchor a new publication series that helps inform the Biden Administration’s economic approach to China, complementing the GeoEconomics Center’s current China Economic Spotlight.

Josh Lipsky, Director of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center said, “We are proud to partner with Rhodium Group to shed light on the defining economic challenge of this generation – how to grapple with China’s power. The Atlantic Council’s growing body of work on China is designed to inform smart policymaking, and the crucial missing link in Washington and beyond is a full understanding of how China’s economy truly operates.”

We are proud to partner with Rhodium Group to shed light on the defining economic challenge of this generation – how to grapple with China’s power.
Josh Lipsky, Director of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center

Launched in 2020, the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center is organized around three pillars: the Future of Capitalism, the Future of Money, and the Economic Statecraft Initiative. The Center prides itself on impactful data visualization projects and has a proven track record of internationally recognized work. In the past several months, the Center produced major reports on the rise of central bank digital currencies, the dramatic changes in global monetary policy, and the shifting use of sanctions worldwide.

Addressing the goals of the project, Rhodium Group Founding Partner Daniel Rosen asks,

  “Is China’s economy diverging so fundamentally from market principles that the only appropriate response is decoupling? Leaders lack a sound analytical framework for approaching this crucial question. If they over- or under-react it will have severe consequences. By fairly gauging the aspects of China’s economic system that matter most we will provide that framework.”

Rhodium Group is recognized for pathbreaking, objective analyses of what makes China’s economy tick and its implications for the United States and other market economy nations, businesses, and workers.

To integrate the work of the two organizations, Rosen will also serve as a Senior Fellow within the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. He brings three decades of experience tracking China’s economic evolution.

For media inquiries, please contact press@atlanticcouncil.org

China is not heading toward a market economy, often due to its own policies, report concludes

China ‘is clearly not what was envisioned’ when it was admitted into the World Trade Organization in 2001, Atlantic Council and Rhodium Group find

The nation has back-pedalled from its stated economic objectives, and the US and other market economies must protect themselves when dealing with it

Jodi Xu Klein

Published: 12:01pm, 5 Oct, 2021

Shipping containers from China are unloaded at the Port of Los Angeles in California. A new report concludes that the country is not on a track to becoming a market economy. Photo: AFP

China has fallen short of meeting its stated reform goals and is not on track to become a market economy, a report assessing China’s development has concluded.

As a result, the United States and other market economies must develop commercial rules to protect their systems better when they deal with China until it becomes a more open economy, according to the report, China Pathfinder, published by the Atlantic Council and Rhodium Group on Tuesday.

The report found that while the last decade saw some progress, China’s back-pedalling from a more open economy, which began in 2016, was particularly prominent in the past year when Beijing began to crack down on private firms in the technology and education sectors and pursued a growth strategy intended to make China less reliant on the outside world.

BEHIND PAYWALL

Q: What is the latest data about China's economy?


Common prosperity and dual circulation? China’s economic buzzwords unpacked


Beijing’s master plan for Hong Kong far more than an economic blueprint


What is Mofcom and what role does it play in China?

ALL TOGETHER NOW; 

CHINA IS A STATE CAPITALIST REGIME, WITH ELECTRICITY!

LET'S CONFIRM THIS WITH THE LENNINIST TROTSKYISTS

Lenin and State Capitalism: Debunking a Persistent Myth

Posted on April 2, 2017 by Bolshevik

Something I have run up against repeatedly over years of discussing Marxist politics in person and online is the myth that Lenin mistakenly believed socialism to be a form of capitalism. One piece of “evidence” for this claim is a quote drawn from Lenin’s “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It.” In the section titled “Can We Go Forward If We Fear to Advance Toward Socialism?” Lenin argued, “For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly” (emphasis in original).

To critics of Bolshevism, this snippet represents a damning indictment of how far Lenin departed from Marx’s understanding of socialism. The social-democratic SPGB, one the groups who frequently employ the quote to dismiss Lenin’s politics, has claimed that “Lenin knew that he was introducing a new definition of socialism here which was not to be found in Marx.” Alongside the SPGB are a large number of anarchist or “libertarian communist” websites that have latched onto the quote as indicative of Lenin’s purportedly nefarious political designs. “Lenin was clear what kind of economy he was aiming for,” claims one anarchist brochure, “a state capitalist one.” Another anarchist site buries the quote deep within a pile of other quotes supposedly revealing a direct line of development from Lenin to Stalin.

The problem with such claims is that they fail to understand what Lenin meant by “state capitalism,” and how it differed from the “state capitalism” that they claim existed under the planning framework that was constructed during the First Five Year Plan. For Lenin, state capitalism still had profit-making capitalists (and some firms under joint ownership). It operated primarily through lease concessions to foreign industrialists, made by the proletarian state, to improve or generate investment in a particular industry. It tried to encourage bourgeois co-operatives among petty producers, and was geared toward checking the worst excesses of capitalist management and enterprise by enforcing “controls” in the interests of the working class. The system was quite different than the one that prevailed from the early 1930s onward in the Soviet Union.

Even if we set aside all outside knowledge of what Lenin did or did not mean by the term, the quote in question does not say anything even remotely similar to what its cherry-pickers have claimed it does. A close textual reading makes it clear that Lenin definitely saw a link between state-capitalist monopoly and socialism (otherwise, why even bring them up in the same sentence?). But the relationship is not one of strict equation between the two, for if it were, Lenin would not have identified socialism as “the next step forward from” capitalism.  Instead, Lenin thought that the relationship was one of sharing a specific feature: the existence of “monopoly.” In contrast to “state-capitalist monopoly,” though, socialist monopoly would be “made to serve the interests of the whole people” and would no longer be “capitalist monopoly.” Far from being a revision of Marxism, Lenin’s remarks are consistent with what any Marxist would support. After all, if a governing body under socialism did not have a “monopoly” or ultimate authority over all the means of production, that by definition would point to the continued existence of private property in the means of production. And what Marxist would argue for that?

But we honestly do not need to delve into this rather monastic kind of exegesis, because Lenin, in his aptly named pamphlet “‘Left-wing’ Childishness,” discussed at length how he envisioned state capitalism functioning in the process of transitioning to socialism. Conveniently, it even contains a clear explanation of what he meant in the aforementioned quote:

“No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

But what does the word ‘transition’ mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.

Let us enumerate these elements:

1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;

2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);

3) private capitalism;

4) state capitalism;

5) socialism.

Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific features of the situation.

… 

At present, petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia, and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called ‘national accounting and control of production and distribution.’ Those who fail to understand this are committing an unpardonable mistake in economics. Either they do not know the facts of life, do not see what actually exists and are unable to look the truth in the face, or they confine themselves to abstractly comparing ‘capitalism’ with ‘socialism’ and fail to study the concrete forms and stages of the transition that is taking place in our country. Let it be said in parenthesis that this is the very theoretical mistake which misled the best people in the Novaya Zhizn and Vperyod camp. The worst and the mediocre of these, owing to their stupidity and spinelessness, tag along behind the bourgeoisie, of whom they stand in awe. The best of them have failed to understand that it was not without reason that the teachers of socialism spoke of a whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism and emphasised the ‘prolonged birth pangs’ of the new society. And this new society is again an abstraction which can come into being only by passing through a series of varied, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state.

It is because Russia cannot advance from the economic situation now existing here without traversing the ground which is common to state capitalism and to socialism (national accounting and control) that the attempt to frighten others as well as themselves with ‘evolution towards state capitalism’ (Kommunist No. 1, p. 8, col. 1) is utter theoretical nonsense. This is letting one’s thoughts wander away from the true road of ‘evolution,’ and failing to understand what this road is. In practice, it is equivalent to pulling us back to small proprietary capitalism.

In order to convince the reader that this is not the first time I have given this ‘high’ appreciation of state capitalism and that I gave it before the Bolsheviks seized power I take the liberty of quoting the following passage from my pamphlet The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, written in September 1917.

‘. . . Try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

‘. . . For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly.

‘. . . State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs’ (pages 27 and 28).”

Lenin himself, then, is clear regarding what he meant by the quote. In a country where what Lenin called “patriarchal” production and “small commodity production” were pervasive, he envisioned “state capitalism” as a means of integrating small, isolated producers into a larger system of “national accounting and control of production and distribution.” It is in that sense, not in the sense of state bureaucrats operating as a new capitalist class, that Lenin understood state capitalism to be an important economic advance in the transition to socialism, which was viewed as something quite distinct (see numbers 4 and 5 in the quote). The idea that this stage could be skipped over, with petty producers being directly integrated into a smoothly operating planning apparatus, is utopian. Admittedly not any more utopian than the idea that workers have no need for their own state in the aftermath of a socialist revolution, or the idea that one can understand Lenin’s highly specific, contextually bound programmatic statements without having done any significant investigation into his political biography or even the history of the Russia circa 1918-1928. So, if nothing else, at least Lenin’s critics are consistent.

Certainly there are debatable criticisms that can be made of Lenin’s politics at various junctures of his life. But whatever the criticism, it should be an informed one, not the kind of dishonest distortions that have accumulated around out-of-context quotes. Such tactics do no credit to those deploying them, and short-circuit the process of intellectual and political development that must occur if socialist revolution is ever to be anything more than utopian moralizing.

State Capitalism in the USSR

There are varying conflicting debates on the left as to when the Soviet Union became State Capitalist.

Of course amongst the Trotskyists it was always a Degenerated Workers State, even under Stalin.

The theory of Bureaucratic Collectivism, State Capitalism, etc. all evolved out of the debates with Trotsky in the Fourth International during the 1940's by various factions.

Outside of the Trotskyists, Council Communists or Left Communists, as Lenin called them, already defined Bolshevism as State Capitalism and in some cases Nationalist Socialism, as Otto Ruhle did.

Anarchists point out that Lenin himself described the Soviet Union as State Capitalism;"socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people,"

Rosa Luxemburg herself a contemporary in the Social Democratic Movement with Lenin, accused the Bolsheviks of creating State Capitalism in the Soviet Union.

This new type of capitalism--properly called state-capitalism--persists to the present day in the ideological dress of 'socialism."

Well here is an interesting historical flashback from Time Magazine, I found on the web. We can officially date State Capitalism as being fully implemented under Stalin in the summer of 1931. Though it was already evolving from earlier decisions the Bolsheviks made.


TIME.com: Stalin Shifts the Helm -- Jul 13, 1931

Captain Lenin, Captain Trotsky and today Captain Stalin have never been afraid to alter Russia's course—the course of over one-seventh of the world—by a sudden titan's tug at the helm. Last week Captain Stalin tugged.

He issued no decree. He permitted the Press of Russia to disclose a speech he had made June 23 to a group of Soviet industrial executives. So awful is Comrade Stalin's power that not one of his many hearers had publicly breathed a syllable. His words, according to Moscow correspondents, will soon be law:

¶ "We have not yet reached our Communist goal," said Stalin with devastating simplicity. "Meanwhile emergency measures are necessary. ... It is unbearable to see a locomotive driver receiving the same wages as a bookkeeper!"

The wages of Soviet locomotive drivers and other skilled proletarians will be raised, Stalin indicated, above the wage level of unskilled proletarians and despised white collar yes-men. Up to last week the theory of Soviet wage scales (varied some-what in practice) was approximate wage equality between the skilled and the unskilled. With a mighty tug Stalin seemed to shift the whole Soviet wage structure —in a direction seemingly opposite to Communism.

¶"Break up the family!" was one of Russia's bywords when she went on the Five-Day Week (TIME, Oct. 7,1929). Factories began to run every day of the week with four-fifths of their personnel, the other one-fifth resting. Thus each man or woman has, under the present Five-Day week, one day of rest after each four of work; but the "rest day" of husband and wife may not be the same, thus tending to disrupt the family.

J. Stalin, happy family man, now said that factories in which the Five-Day Week does not seem to work well should return to the old system of five days' work and the same rest day for everyone at once.

¶. Still more striking was the Dictator's word that management of factories a la Soviet by voting councils of the workers must in some degree give way to management by a manager with power to manage and responsibility to show a profit. Obviously this is "State Capitalism." The State being the owner for whom the manager must earn a profit.

See:

State Capitalism

Trotskyist

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
statecapitalism, USSR, Russia, Stalin, Trotsky, FourthInternational, Lenin, Anarchism, Anarchist, Bureaucratic Collecitivism, Schactman, CLRJames, RosaLuxemburg, Time, 1931, SovietUnion, Bolsheviks, OttoRuhle, CouncilCommunists, LeftCommunists,

Neo-Liberal State Capitalism In Asia

Reading the Right from the Left.

Free Trade Zones are the newest formation of state capitalism. Of course the contradiction here is that they pose as a form of free trade. When in fact the difference between them and state enterprizes is simply a matter of ownership. Name change really. Of course there are concrete structural differences to. But for all intents and purposes both are forms of state capitalism.

Whether they are called new economic zones; in Canada's Maritimes (dominated by call centres rather than the traditional use of these zones for manufacturing), Maquiadoras in the Caribean, Latin and South America, or Special Enterprize Zones zones in Asia and Aftica or economic reconstruction Zones in American inner cities, they remain a market distortion.

In India they are finding that the creation of these Special Enterprize Zones (SEZ) distort the market place. And since they are implemented as one of the tools of neo-liberalism to free the market of state control it is another contradiction of real existing captialism, rather than the text book capitalism of the Austrian or Chicago schools. Such text book capitalism showed its failure in the melt down of the Russian economy after its failed attempts to privatize with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.


Attack on Indias economic zone plan

Since the passing of the Special Economic Zones Act in February, hundreds of businesses have rushed to take advantage of generous tax breaks, causing consternation in the finance ministry, the central bank and even the International Monetary Fund.

Special economic zones have been established in several countries, most notably in China, where they attracted the foreign investment and know-how that were central to the modernisation programme launched in 1978. However, critics claim SEZs attract investment only by offering distortionary incentives rather than by building underlying competitiveness and can delay real economy-wide reform

But economists believe the proposed SEZs are unlikely to help Indian manufacturers achieve scale efficiencies, since 133 of the 267 are less than 1 square kilometre in area. The average size is just 4.2 sq km.

“Mega-sized SEZs are the ideal solution,” said Chetan Ahya of Morgan Stanley. “We believe that in today’s highly competitive globalised world, the concept of small-sized SEZs is completely outdated.”

In a continuation of a long-running turf war with the commerce ministry, finance ministry officials said the scheme was providing unnecessary tax breaks to real estate development that would have taken place regardless of whether there was a SEZ scheme in place.

It remains the function of the state to create these zones, through cheap land, tax and regulation breaks, in particular labour laws, health and safety regulations, etc. In other words it is not about trade or even production but cheap manufacturing of goods, which can only be brought about by an attack on labours wages and benefits, which eat into surplus value (profit). When the neo-liberals call for de-regulation, ending red tape, etc. it is always the labour laws they focus on or laws that impact on workers. A couple examples from the Financial Times online should suffice to make the point.

UK in secret deal with Italy on China trade

Britain has just enough EU member states ready to support its exemption from the working time directive – seen as a vital part of Britain’s flexible labour market – but the coalition is flaky.But the proposed deal has hit a hitch: Italy has so far refused to give Britain the written assurances it wants on working hours. Communists and socialists in Mr Prodi’s coalition believe the UK’s working time “opt out” exploits workers and gives Britain an unfair advantage over countries where the 48-hour limit applies.



Another shift in ownership from an autarkic form of state capitalism to a monopoly state capitalism like India's (their so called Democratic State Capitalism) is currently occuring in China as part of its economic reforms. That is the creation of capitalist law, specifically bankruptcy law.

China state firms win stay of execution

The move, aimed at cushioning the social impact on employees of financially strained state companies, will slow the disposal of bad loans held by state banks and distressed debt companies and perhaps also reduce buyout opportunities for foreigners.

The bankrupcty law, passed in August after more than a decade of debate, is seen as crucial stage in China’s reforms as it enables creditors and investors to weed out underperforming companies by filing for bankruptcy to recover at least part of their funds.

However, the law, which is due to come into effect in June 2007, will not apply to 2,116 state-owned enterprises considered at financial risk by the Chinese authorities until at least the end of 2008.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Professor Li Shuguang, one of the authors of the new law, said that for those companies, employees’ health and wage claims would still take precedence over creditors’ claims, an arrangement that had so far slowed restructuring in some sectors.

Estimates of the claims by state employees range from hundreds to thousands of billions of renminbi, China’s currency.

In other words before the capitalist risks their investment, the public has alread invested more than the private capitalist ever would. Any change in the regulations of the state, do not minimize the state, they simply make it more open to the influence of monopoly capital for its own interest.

Private equity firms’ and foreign multinationals’ efforts to buy and restructure state companies would also suffer a setback.

Professor Li, who hosted a seminar for Wall Street analysts and investors at New York’s China Institute in September, said it was “the most important law in China’s development of a market economy”.

“It shows the central government’s commitment to introducing a market economy and to use the legal system to deal with the issues arising from a market economy. That would have been unthinkable 10 or even five years ago.”

Actually the most important development of the Chinese economy in its transition to monopoly corporate state capitalism from the autarkic variety was the opening up of the banking system to foreign investment and the development of a stock exchange.

The later was further enhanced by China's take over of Hong Kong one of the biggest market exchanges in the world. While the PR was that this was the end of British colonial rule over the island and the end of the age old battle between China and Britain which began during the opium wars, Hong Kong's value was its investment and banking window onto the monopoly capitalist world.

A major portion of the foreign investment in China consists of Chinese private capital
recycled through Hong Kong. The importance of Hong Kong for the growth of nonstate
enterprises in China lies in its efficient financial markets and legal system.
A Proposal to Privatize Chinese Enterprises and End Financial Repression
Cato Journal -Volume 26 Number 2, Spring/Summer 2006

This new bankruptcy law however is a major and significant change for enabling foreign captial to buy and operate state enterprizes, not create new ones with their own capital. In other words a Public Private Partnership (P3) the keystone of the neo-liberal economic reforms in this period of globalization.

Foreign Direct Investment, FDI in China is not being invested in new enterprize zones nor in the developing private sector. Rather it is focused on Partnerships in existing State Enterprizes or SOE's as they are called. This means that Western corporate monopolies financial and manufacturing, are partnering with existing state enterprizes awaiting the day they can buy them at fire sale prices.

The market reforms in China, as they have been applied elsewhere, once again shows the textbook liberaltarian idealists of the Von Mise institute and the neo-liberals at the CATO institute overlook the key determinant of the capitalist market that is the labour theory of value.

For them labour is reduced to an input value not unlike raw materials and technology. It is a form of variable capital investment. More importantly for this form of liberal economics, cost, price and consumption rule. Yet in reality, by their own admission labour value is the key to capital creation. Even in China during this transisition from the autarky of State Capitalism to a privatized state capitalism.

The key here is that the two components of liberalization are P3's in State industries and the transfer of the responsibility of social benefits to the State.
What makes private industry competitive is its ability to keep wages and benefits low even more than a cheap tax regime. The lattter is gravy.

China has allowed both private industry and its own state enterprizes to transfer their responsibility for wages and benefits to the state. Ironically the state has no infrastructure for the delivery of unemployment insurance, health care, welfare or social assistance, pensions etc. because these orginally had been the responsibility of the State enterprises.

With Dengs capitalist reformation the result was an uneven playing field. Free Trade Zones and private companies were allowed to exploit the vast labor market with low wages and no benefits. While the state enterprizes were expected to carry on with higher wages and benefits.

This produced the false impression that private enterprize and Free Trade Zone businesses are more productive than state owned enterprizes. They are not more productive, they are more profitable because they keep more of the surplus value of their labour due to lower wages and no benefits.

The sources of the Chinese economic miracle are well known. The
rise in rural incomes, with the adoption of the household responsibility
system (the shift away from collectivized farming) and the bonus
from the demographic transition with a fall in the dependency ratio
(the ratio of children and the old to workers), led to a marked rise in
savings rates.

A monumental unintended consequence of the decollectivization
of agriculture was the initiation of a boom in small-scale,
nonfarm rural enterprises, which began with Deng Xiaoping’s injunction
that it was virtuous to be rich. Local party officials took this to
heart, becoming directors and managers of township and village enterprises
(TVEs).

With the rise in farm incomes, the pent-up demand for manufactured
goods and housing was met by the TVEs, which were run as
profit-making capitalist enterprises, even though they were collectively
owned. They provided the local authorities with “extrabudgetary
revenues” and gave officials legal opportunities to become
rich.

Unlike SOEs, the TVEs did not carry any welfare responsibilities
and were free to hire and fire the abundant local labor. With Deng’s
creation of the Special Economic Zones in China’s southern rim in
the early 1980s, the TVEs—and later individually owned private
firms—became the spearhead of a Dickensian capitalism.

These nonstate enterprises have made China into the processing
center for manufactured goods in the world. Success has occurred by
using cheap labor in the Chinese countryside along with foreign technology,
and relying on self-financing from household savings and
enterprise profits, along with foreign capital from the Chinese diaspora
and a myriad of multinationals, and engaging in fierce locational
competition promoted by local municipal authorities.
This labor intensive industrialization is now spreading inland along
the Yangtze (The Economist 2004: 13).

These spin-offs from the decollectivization of agriculture were
aided by the massive buildup of infrastructure by the state.

Labor intensive export industries were further helped by domestic price
reforms and by one of the largest unilateral liberalizations of foreign
trade in history.

The rapid export-led industrialization in the private sector is based
on processing imported components with domestic and foreign
capital and technology, and cheap domestic labor.

In the pre-reform period (before 1978) China’s development strategy
provided only limited urban employment opportunities. Consequently,
the government assigned several workers to the same job,
leading to a large labor redundancy in the SOEs. As these industrial
workers only received a low wage to cover current consumption, the
government also had to cover their pension, health, housing, and
other social expenditures from the SOE revenues, which were mandated
to be remitted to the government.

In the reform period, the SOEs have been responsible not merely for wages but also for these “social” benefits, which has imposed a “social burden” on them that is absent in their non-SOE cousins. This burden has grown in the reform
period as wages and benefits paid by the SOEs have grown by 16 percent per annum between 1978 and 1996, while their output grew by 7.6 percent per annum (see Lin 2004).

A Proposal to Privatize Chinese Enterprises and End Financial Repression
Cato Journal -Volume 26 Number 2, Spring/Summer 2006

The new bankruptcy law as well as reforms to State owned companies, the ability to layoff and fire workers, reductions in wages and benefits, and a shift of the responsibility for these to the State, are being implemented in China. The profitability of SOE's is reduced because of the surplus value absorbed by labour.
Again it is not investment, nor techology nor the bueracracy that is the source of profit it is labour. In the case of the newly privatized corporations if the costs were the same they would actually be making less profit for Chinese investors as the techology and marketing aspects of these companies are in the hands of their foreign investors.

The fact is that both the private sector and the state owned enterprizes are kept afloat by the Chinese people by low wages and the banks investing their savings in these companies.

The key to the historic development of capitalism was the privatization of agriculture. The end of the commons and the creation of the encroachment acts. Historic capitalism developed in England before its advent anywhere else in the world. Because of the privatization of agricultural production. This has occured in China with the Deng reforms, privatization of land is the modern equivalent of the English encroachment acts, thus creating a capitalist economy regardless of the politics of the State.

The state can call itself anything it wants, communist, socialist, democratic, republican, blah, blah. The political ideology of the state is is irrelevant to capitalism as a system. Capitalism created the state in its image, for the centralized accumulation of capital. Its political forms regardless of the propaganda of the left and right, are neccasary for the primitive accumulation of capital. If a state is authoritarian at first, as the state was prior to the advent of capitalism, then it will be liberalized as it creates its own bourgoise, the private owners of wealth. Which accounts for the development of the national state in the 19th century and its further development in the 20th.

As long as the state functions to provide private land and labour for those with inherited wealth, then the economic system is capitalism. In the case of China instead of inheriting land, labour and wealth from ones aristocratic and fuedal status and holdings, the inheritance came from ones position in the Communist Party of China.

China’s task of moving from the plan to the market was much easier than that of the other
socialist transition economies of Russia and Eastern Europe because of differences in their
initial conditions. Russia and Eastern Europe had about 90 percent of their labor force in
industrial SOEs, while most of China’s labor force (80 percent ) was in agriculture. For
Russia and Eastern Europe the only route to a market economy was a “big bang” to
dismantle SOEs, which resulted in short-term losses in output and employment. In contrast,
China, by replacing its rural communes with the household responsibility system, all
but in name restored privately run and owned family farms. This Chinese rural “big bang”
led to a rise in output and allowed China time for gradual reform of its inefficient stateowned
industrial enterprises.

A Proposal to Privatize Chinese Enterprises and End Financial Repression
Cato Journal -Volume 26 Number 2, Spring/Summer 2006

China's advantage over India as stated at the begining of this article, is a matter of land. Both countries have labour capacity, manufacturing base, but it is land capacity that restricts India's ability to compete with China for manufacturing. Which is why India's techonolgical development has been centred, like our own in the Maritimes, around call centres, and the outsourcing of IT and software development, as well as phamaceuticals. Such tertiary businesses do not need large amounts of land, and with cheap labour can provide for high rates of profit.

India is the world's fastest wealth creator
So, where is the growth going to come from? The answer is infotech (IT), pharma and textiles. With more wealth, the investment pattern too is expected to change from predominantly cash deposits (which constitute over 60% of the AUM in India, China and Korea) to equities and more sophisticated instruments.

China is becoming like its neighbours , Korea and Japan, a market driven state capitalist economy. India is developing as primary resource based manufacturing economy; steel and developer of tertiary industries in its fordist economy.

The neo-liberal shaping of state capitalism in both China and India into market states relies soley on its devaluation of labour, not tax or land incetives.

See

China

India

Marx

Capitalism

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
development, CATO, China, Afghanistan, P3, state-capitalism, capitalism, industrialization, banks, IMF, NGO, Fordism, India, Marx, trade, free-trade, Third-World,neo-liberalism,

Huh?

NEW YORK, Nov. 13 /Standard Newswire/ -- The following text is of remarks by President Bush on Financial Markets and the World Economy:

History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market - but too much.

Huh?

Hoover proves lack of government involvement led to the Great Depression. Here is Republican historical revisionism in it most blatant stupidity.Right wing American ideologues whether Republican, Conservative or Libertarian all try and avoid this obvious fact instead blaming the Smoot Hawley Act which was protectionist for the long Depression. In fact it was Hoovers hands off approach to the markets for three years that created the spiral downward. Smmot-Haweley and protectionist measures in Europe only agrivated that downward rush.

Bush, the Republicans, heck the liberals and the Libertarians in America live in a cloud cookoo land, one that imagines an artisan/farmer free market, free of monopolies, cartels and special business interests tied to the state. A time that is a fiction, a myth, of American Capitalism.

Ain't ever been such a creature nor is it the nature of American Capitalism and Imperialism.

Bush admits that capitalism is in a crisis; Faced with the prospect of a global financial meltdown
nations have responded with bold measures, and at Saturday's summit, we will review the effectiveness of our actions. This crisis did not develop overnight, and it will not be solved overnight.

And his solution is to keep on keeping on, capitalism is great, yep it has crisis, but heck its still the best system ever devised by humans.

This is a decisive moment for the global economy. In the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and right are equating the free enterprise system with greed, exploitation, and failure. It is true that this crisis included failures - by lenders and borrowers, by financial firms, by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people around the world.
Like any other system designed by man, capitalism is not perfect. It can be subject to excesses and abuse. But it is by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy. At its most basic level, capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do, the opportunity to buy or sell the products they want, and the dignity that comes with profiting from their talent and hard work. The free market system also provides the incentives that lead to prosperity – the incentive to work, to innovate, to save and invest wisely, and to create jobs for others. And as millions of people pursue these incentives together, whole societies benefit.

A nation that gave the world the I-Pod which is manufactured in China. Because as Reason magazine announced in 1999 that the world of the 21 Century was no longer America as the producer nation but America the consumer/service industry nation. A predicition that failed to understand that this would ultimately lead to a credit crisis, when a nation fails to produce value but rather lives on the value produced by others and lent to them.

Free market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility – the highway to the American Dream. It is what makes it possible for a husband and wife to start up their own business, or a new immigrant to open a restaurant, or a single mom to go back to college and begin a better career. It is what allowed entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley to change the way the world sells products and searches for information. And it is what transformed America from a rugged frontier to the greatest economic power in history - a nation that gave the world the steamboat and the airplane, the computer and the CAT scan, the Internet and the I-Pod.

Bush went on to defend capitalism, specifically post WWII American Capitalism, which itself is not a free market economy, but one of protectionism combined with state capitalism of the Military Industrial Complex. America subsidizes its aircraft manufacturerers, its agribusiness cartels, its auto industry, and has since WWII. To hear the President proclaim the glory of free markets and free peoples, is to also deny the hisorical reality which is American Capitalism. He further equates Japan's economic boom with American Capitalism, when in reality it is the result of State Capitalism. Japan used the Military Industrial Banking model for its development.

Ultimately, the best evidence for free market capitalism is its performance compared to other economic systems. Free markets allowed Japan - an island nation with few natural resources - to recover from war and grow into the world's second-largest economy. Free markets allowed South Korea to make itself one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world. Free markets turned small areas like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan into global economic players. And today, the success of the world’s largest economies comes from their embrace of free markets.

South Korea which itself is an other model of State Capitalism, with Military and Finance capital under a pro-USA military dictatorship finally evolving into a manufacturing fordist economy modeled on the success of Japan. As for Singapore and Hong Kong these two islands of free market economies are ruled by dictators, proving that capitalism can function without democracy.

Meanwhile, nations that have pursued other models have experienced devastating results. Soviet communism starved millions, bankrupted an empire, and collapsed as decisively as the Berlin Wall. Cuba, once known for its vast fields of cane, is now forced to ration sugar. And while Iran sits atop giant oil reserves, its people cannot put enough gasoline in their cars.

Oh sure free markets really work well, except Cuba is rationing sugar because they cannot compete with American subsidized sugar and the American led economic boycott of their country. No free market here.

As for the Soviet Union it collapsed because it lost the military race under Reagans expansion of military spending, the USA Military Industrial Complex defeated the Soviet Unions Military Industrial Complex. Capitalism did not defeat Communism, rather the American model of State Capitalism proved to be more flexible than the autarchic command economy model used in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately China proves that this autarchic command model can be flexible, and now American Capitalism is beholden to China for its national debt.

But Bush was not the only one to proclaim that Capitalism may be melting down but its still not the problem. In listening to their Republican masters voice, our own Finance Minister and PM echoed Bush's doctrine that capitalism has not failed.

In a piece in the Financial Times, meanwhile, Mr. Flaherty too had rare kind words for the invisible hand, downplayed grand global financial architectural plans and suggested that reform -- like charity -- should begin at home. "The open market system did not fail in this crisis," he said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to join U.S. President George W. Bush in a defence of free-market capitalism and resistance to international calls for dramatic re-regulation of financial markets.


The ruling class recongizes that capitalism has once again failed, the bubble burst, the market crashed, what goes up must come down, the business cycle has not been superceded by globalization. The elephant in the room is socialism. The Republican Libertarian argument is to let the market decide, except contrary to their Libertarian dogma that market has come cap in hand to its State to bail it out. Opps. Guess real capitalism does not like the discipline of the marketplace. In attempting to not bail out the working class who is really suffering from this crisis with record home foreclosures, record unemployment and the very real threat of the meltdown of America's core manufacturing centre; Michagan, Bush and Harper need to couch the argument as a question of state intervention. The strawman they set up is to equate state capitalism, state intervention as socialism. Which it is not.

Capitalism cannot continue as it is. Temporary fixes like increased regulation, government bailouts etc. are not a solution to the crisis nature of capitalism. Socialization of capital is what is required. The fact that workers create captial, not business which only produces 'jobs', without workers capitalism collapses. This was clearly seen in Alberta last year during the height of the boom, when neither for love nor money could businesses find enough workers.
The result was many small businesses, you remember them they are the core of the economy according to Bush and Harper. closed.

Workers create captial, they circulate that capital by home purchases and by consuming the products they produce. They fund capital through their pension and benefit plans, pensions are called institutional investors in Wall Street, one of the largest sources of capital available currently.

The Canada Pension Plan fund said Wednesday it ended its latest quarter with a loss of more than $10 billion in the value of its assets, primarily because of the stock market turmoil that has battered share prices around the world.
But president and CEO David Denison said Canadians shouldn't worry that the loss will affect their current or future retirement benefits.
"This fund is designed to be able to withstand this short-term market volatility that we are living through, quite frankly better than any other fund in this country," Denison said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

Here is the true source of capital the working class blue, white and green collar, that produce and consume. And it is the means to change capitalism, the use of workers productive value matched by their pension funds and the corporate pension liabilities which are owed them, with capital from public pension funds, workers can then fund the corporations and run them themselves.

In Quebec there are labour funds as well as the Cassie Popular, the credit unions which have enormous reserves of workers capital to be able to use for promoting workers control of industry. In the rest of Canada workers whose credit unions are mimicing banks, need to take control of them and use this vast reserve of capital to invest in worker controled industries.

With the socialization of capital under workers control, the question of bail outs and regulation of the market become moot.

This is the socialism that Bush and Harper fear. This is why they distort the definintion of socialism equating it with state capitalism and command economies. Which socialism never was about. It is about the need to socialize captial to benefit those who create it; the working class.

It is the working class who are the real investors in capitalism, not those investors on Wall Street who play the market. The working class exists because of capitalism and capitalism exists because of the working class. As this crisis deepens and government intervention fails to stop the melt down, the only solution that will become clear is the need for socialization of capital under workers control.


SEE:
STFU 'W'
October Surprise Was The Market Crash
No Austrians In Foxholes
CRASH
The Return Of Hawley—Smoot
Canadian Banks and The Great Depression
U.S. Economy Entering Twilight Zone
What Goes Up...
Wall Street Mantra
Bank Run

Tags
unionization, labour, , economy, trade union, recession,
socialism,
capitalism,
workers control,
George W. Bush,
asset-backed commercial paper ,, goldhomes, mortgages, housing, bubble, US, economy, oil prices, sub-prime mortgage, Wall Street, crash, recession,Bernanke, Inflation, Staglation, Stock-Market, US, Federal-Reserve-Chairman, Oil, gold, commoditiesSmoot-Hawley, protectionism, tariffs, Herbert Hoover, U.S., U.S. economy, Canada, Great Depression, John McCain, market crash, free trade, Republicans, recession,