‘Marxists Against Stalinism: A Debate with Chris Harman’ by Ernest Mandel reviewed by Fabian Van Onzen


Marxists Against Stalinism: A Debate with Chris Harman

International Institute for Research and Education, Amsterdam, 2022. 193 pp., €18.00 pb
ISBN 978-0-902869-57-8

Reviewed by Fabian Van Onzen

About the reviewer

Fabian van Onzen received his PhD from the European Graduate School and is author of the …

More

The International Institute for Research and Education has recently published Marxists Against Stalinism, which contains articles from an important debate between Ernest Mandel and Chris Harman that took place in the pages of International Socialism. The articles were produced in the eighties against the backdrop of major political struggles in the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialist regimes. They were an attempt to make sense of the USSR of the late eighties, during which Gorbachov was carrying out political and economic reforms (i.e. Glasnost and Perestroika). This involved changes to the socialist planning system, political liberalizations, and increased worker activism. Some of the questions that they address are: is the Soviet bureaucracy a new class? Does the law of value rule the USSR? Has capitalism been restored in the Soviet Union?

The roots of the debate lie in a split within the Trotskyist movement, which occurred when Tony Cliff and his followers left the Fourth International to form the International Socialist tendency in 1962. One of the major reasons for the split was that Cliff and the IS disagreed with the Fourth International (FI) on how to view the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialist regimes, which was highly influenced by Trotsky’s Revolution Betrayed. Trotsky argued that the failure of revolutions in Germany, Hungary and China isolated the USSR and gave rise to a bureaucratic stratum led by Stalin. The Stalinist bureaucracy destroyed the autonomous organizations of the working class, such as workers councils (Soviets) and opposition forces, murdering their leaders and establishing a position of hegemony within the Soviet state. This strengthened the bureaucratic layer and significantly weakened the Soviet proletariat’s ability to participate in decision making, socialist planning, and management of production. As a result, the progressive socialist institutions of the October Revolution came into contradiction with the regressive Stalinist faction that was in command of these institutions, so that the USSR became a ‘deformed workers state’. Trotsky drew the conclusion that the new socialist institutions must be defended because they express the rule of the working class, but that the bureaucratic layer must be removed through a political revolution. It was this foundational thesis that Cliff, Harman and the International Socialists disagreed with, resulting in a major debate within the Trotskyist movement.

In his 1990 article ‘From Trotsky to state capitalism’ Harman argues that the Stalinist bureaucracy restored capitalism in the USSR after changing its strategy in 1929. What drove the industrialisation campaign in the thirties was a need of the Soviet bureaucracy to accumulate capital so that it could compete with international capital. In this process, the Soviet bureaucracy outgrew itself and became a new bourgeois class rooted within the Soviet state. He notes that since the bureaucracy controls the social surplus, it is involved in ‘exploiting the direct producers’ and that ‘a group which exploits the direct producers is, by definition an exploiting class’ (34). Harman points out that the Soviet state has a monopoly on the means of production, thereby ruling out competition between Soviet enterprises. He acknowledges that the state allocates resources to firms and that labor-power in the USSR was not a commodity. Soviet workers did not sell their labor-power, for they were assigned to jobs by the state. Although there was no labor-market, workers received a wage that was tied to productivity and plan fulfillment. Yet, the Soviet bureaucracy was a capitalist class that competed against the bourgeoisies of the imperialist countries, exploiting the labor-power of the working class, and deriving surplus-value from this process. Economic plans were made by bureaucrats, who had profit in mind when they made political decisions. Harman notes that the primary sector for capital accumulation in the USSR was arms production, which transformed the Soviet Union ‘into a massive arms economy, dominated by the drive to accumulate the economic basis of military power above all heavy industry’ (48). In this process, the Soviet working class became separated from the means of production and had no participation in decision making. Harman concludes that the Soviet Union was ‘on the side of “bourgeois society” and not on the side of socialism’ (48). He thus argues that the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not a shift from a non-capitalist workers state to a capitalist one, but rather from a state capitalist to a ‘normal’ capitalist regime dominated by private property.

In his articles ‘A theory which has not withstood the test of facts’ (1990) and ‘the impasse of schematism dogmatism’(1991) Mandel goes to great lengths to show why Harman is wrong. Following Trotsky, Mandel argues that the USSR is a non-capitalist society dominated by a bureaucratic layer that gains material privileges from its position in the state. The bureaucracy derived its power from ‘the usurpation of power from the working class, its de facto disenfranchisement and elimination from all exercise of power, in the state as well as the economy’ (126).  Mandel argues that the Soviet bureaucracy is not a class, but a social layer. The way that Mandel describes the Soviet bureaucracy often makes it look like a class, for it holds a monopoly on state-power and is defined in opposition to the working class. By establishing an opposition between bureaucrats and workers, it makes the bureaucracy appear like a class that exploits the workers in order to appropriate the products of their labor. Mandel would probably respond that the proletariat in the USSR was the ruling class, but its ability to rule was significantly limited due to bureaucratic deformation.

Despite being undemocratic, the Soviet bureaucracy was able to industrialize the USSR and maintain a high level of growth for an extended period. Since it was not capitalist, Mandel argues that the Soviet Union was never dominated by crises of overproduction, but rather ‘a combined crisis of disproportionate allocation of resources and of underproduction of use-values, especially of consumer goods’ (118). Mandel points out that this is not because of Marxist ideology or central planning, but the wasteful use of resources by the Soviet bureaucracy. This resulted in lower-quality goods for the Soviet working class, despite having the potential to drastically improve quality. The international capitalist market did influence what went on in the Soviet Union, but this does not mean the USSR had thereby become capitalist. First, the Soviet bureaucracy was able to import luxury goods, such as expensive wine, cars and electronics, which the bureaucratic planning system was unable to meet. This enabled the bureaucrats to gain access to these goods through special shops that were inaccessible to the majority of the Soviet population. Second, the stagnation resulting from the bureaucratic planning system forced the USSR to seek funds from capitalist banks, resulting in national debt. This put pressure on the Soviet bureaucracy to accept forms of structural readjustment and the privatization of public enterprises (i.e. Perestroika) that led to the restoration of capitalism in 1991.

One recurring problem in Mandel’s writing is that the concept of ‘bureaucracy’ lacks conceptual clarity. While Mandel has a clear understanding of how the bureaucracy operates in the Soviet Union, neither he nor Trotsky provide a precise definition of the bureaucracy. He ends up defining ‘bureaucratic elements’ through their occupational activities in the Soviet Union. In his 1991 book Beyond Perestroika, Mandel lists seven components of the Soviet bureaucracy: the state, enterprises, the army, the KGB, cultural organizations, mass organizations and the Party. Although the leaders of these components derived material privileges from their position, grouping them all under the concept of the bureaucracy ignores the specificity of each. It is an oversimplification to imagine that the leaders of these derive the same privileges and have identical motivations. An official of the KGB or military commander is going to have a very different attitude to Soviet society than a cultural worker or leader of a Soviet women’s organization.

The concept of ‘bureaucracy’ therefore groups together many different social forces without examining their differences or their unity. In the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), there were different currents that expressed different approaches to Soviet policy, political and economic reform, and Marxist theory. Although Mandel makes distinctions such as ‘the conservative wing of the bureaucracy’ and ‘progressive sections of the bureaucracy’, he often treats them as if they all had the same interests. Why would a hardline Stalinist party leader and a left opposition figure in the CPSU have the same motivations and interests? If Mandel provided a clearer definition and a theoretical elaboration of the concept of ‘bureaucracy’, it would enable the concept to gain more explanatory potential. Instead, the term is used so liberally and applied to so many different social forces that it loses its strength and unity as a theoretical concept for Marxist analysis and empirical research.

Mandel is correct to point out that Harman projects capitalist economic relations onto the USSR. Even if Soviet leaders often acted in a bureaucratic manner that limited worker participation, the priorities of the USSR remained the non-capitalist goals of the October Revolution. Harman is more sensitive than Mandel to the detrimental effects of capitalist influences on the Soviet working class. Some of Harman’s analysis is particularly helpful for thinking through the issues of actual capitalist restoration in Russia in 1991 and the process by which the Russian bourgeoisie established its hegemonic position. Without the highly bureaucratic layer in the USSR and the authoritarian system of governance, it would have been much harder to restore capitalism in Russia. Harman captures the effects of disenfranchisement on the working class and the way that this opened the way to capitalist restoration.

The debate contained in Marxists Against Stalinism is thoughtful and a good model of how revolutionary socialists can conduct democratic debate. While the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialist states may no longer exist, the debate is helpful insofar as it helps us to think about the challenges that any future socialist state will face.

28 February 2023

4 comments

  1. Most of the items in that exchange were published in International Socialism, but I believe the final one was not published, or at least nothing like in the full version in this volume.

  2. @Duncan: the contents of the reviewed book are (https://www.iire.org/node/1027):

    1. Revolutionary Marxism and late Soviet realities: Ernest Mandel’s confrontation with state-capitalist theory, Paul Le Blanc
    2. From Trotsky to state capitalism, Chris Harman
    3. A theory which has not withstood the test of facts, Ernest Mandel
    4. Criticism which does not withstand the test of logic, Chris Harman
    5. The impasse of schematic dogmatism, Ernest Mandel
    6. Trotsky’s economic ideas and the Soviet Union today, Ernest Mandel
    7. The laws of motion of the Soviet economy, Ernest Mandel

    Of course, the full far-Left debate involved far more articles and talks, that is true. If you reprinted all of them in a book, it would be quite a hefty volume (and it would be priced higher). The choice of articles which are recycled in this new book probably reflect the current political concerns of the publishers.

    As Marcel van der Linden and Paul Bellis pointed out in retrospect, the subject of the controversy was really broader than just “orthodox Trotskyism versus state capitalism theory”, insofar it concerned the social nature of the USSR in general (what sort of society it was, its economic, social and political structure, its dynamics etc.). See about this my translation of van der Linden’s book, Western Marxism and the Soviet Union. Leiden: Brill, 2007, and Marcel van der Linden (ed.), “Was war die Sowjet Union?”. Wien: Promedia, 2007. Also Paul Bellis, Marxism and the U.S.S.R. Palgrave Macmillan, 1979.

    The peculiarity of this debate in Europe and North America was, that it concerned mainly the “correct Marxist interpretation” of the Soviet Union, but most participants in the debate (1) did not speak Russian, (2) they had not visited the USSR, and (3) they lacked comprehensive knowledge of the history of Soviet politics, economics, culture and society.

    If you are interested the main English language contributions to the debate (insofar as Mandel was concerned), here’s an incomplete list provisionally arranged in five rounds, I have added hyperlinks for many articles, insofar as you can get them online (there were more contributions to the debate in other languages):

    ROUND 1: Mandel versus Kidron and Harman

    Michael Kidron, “Maginot Marxism: Mandel’s Economics”, International Socialism (1st series), No.36, April/May 1969, pp.33-36,. reprinted in Michael Kidron, Capitalism and Theory: London: Pluto, 1974, chapter 4.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/kidron/works/1969/04/maginot.htm

    Ernest Mandel, “The inconsistencies of state capitalism” International Marxist Group Pamphlet, 1969
    https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/img/img-pamphlets/the-inconsistencies-of-state-capitalism-ernest-mandel.pdf

    Chris Harman, “The Inconsistencies of Ernest Mandel”, (December 1969) International Socialism (1st series), No.41, December
    1969/January 1970, pp.36-41
    https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/harman/debates_in_state_capitalism-harman-mandel-kidron.pdf

    Ernest Mandel, The mystifications of state capitalism. International : theoretical journal of the International Marxist Group (London), new series No. 1., issue 2, 1970 (2), pp. 6-29 https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/img/img-pamphlets/IMG-%20Mystifications%20of%20State%20Capitalism%20-%20Mandel.pdf

    ROUND 2: Mandel versus Ticktin

    Ernest Mandel, “Ten theses on the social and economic laws governing the society transitional between capitalism and socialism,
    in: Readings on “state capitalism” : a debate between Ernest Mandel and the SWP (UK) ; (with appendices added). – Oxford : IMG, [1975] : pp. 51-59 https://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/txt/1973/ten_theses.htm

    Hillel Ticktin, “The Class Structure of the USSR and the Elite”, Critique, Volume 9, 1978 – Issue 1.
    https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Hillel-Ticktin-The-Class-Structure-of-the-USSR-and-the-Elite-1978.pdf

    Ernest Mandel, “The Laws of Motion of the Soviet Economy”, Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 13 No.1, Spring 1981, pp.35-39.
    https://marxists.wikis.cc/archive/mandel/1981/xx/sovecon.htm

    Hillel Ticktin, “Towards a Political Economy of the USSR”. Critique, No.3, Autumn 1974, pp.23-26.
    https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Hillel-Ticktin-Towards-a-Political-Economy-of-the-USSR-1974.pdf

    Ernest Mandel, Some comments on H. Ticktin’s “Towards a political economy of the USSR”
    in: Readings on “state capitalism” : a debate between Ernest Mandel and the SWP (UK) ; (with appendices added). – Oxford : IMG, [1975] : pp. 60-62 https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1974/xx/ticktin.htm

    Hillel Ticktin, “The ambiguities of Ernest Mandel”. Critique Journal of Socialist Theory, Volume 12, 1980 – Issue 1
    https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Hillel-Ticktin-The-Ambiguities-of-Ernest-Mandel-1980.pdf

    Frank Richards (pseudonym Frank Furedi) “The myth of state capitalism”, Confrontation, No. 2, Summer 1987, London: Junius Publications, pp. 87-113. https://archive.org/stream/MythStateCaps/MythStateCaps_djvu.txt

    John Molyneux, “The ambiguities of Hillel Ticktin”. Critique, Journal of Socialist Theory, Volume 20, 1993 – Issue 1.
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03017609308413358?journalCode=rcso20
    ROUND 3: Mandel versus Sweezy

    Paul Sweezy, “On the Relations of Production in the USSR, Monthly Review” Vol. 29, No. 1, May 1977 and reply to critics, October 1978

    Ernest Mandel, “Why The Soviet Bureaucracy is not a New Ruling Class” (1979) Monthly Review, 31.1979/80 (3) pp.63-86.
    https://marxists.wikis.cc/archive/mandel/1979/xx/sovbur.htm

    Ernest Mandel, “Bureaucracy and Commodity Production The theoretical bases of a Marxist interpretation of the USSR”
    Quatrième Internationale, April 1987 https://marxists.wikis.cc/archive/mandel/1987/04/bur-cp.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1987/04/bur-cp2.htm http://digamo.free.fr/powermoney92.pdf (first version in: Rethinking Marxism: Struggles in Marxist Theory. Essays for Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy, edited by Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff. New York: Autonomedia, 1985.)

    ROUND 4: Mandel versus Harman

    Ernest Mandel, Trotsky’s Economic Ideas and the Soviet Union Today (1990) Bulletin in Defense of Marxism, No.84, April 1991, pp. 24-26.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1990/xx/tecon.html

    Chris Harman, “From Trotsky to State Capitalism”, International Socialism, 2:47, Summer 1990
    https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/harman/debates_in_state_capitalism-harman-mandel-kidron.pdf

    Ernest Mandel, “A Theory Which Has Not Withstood the Test of Facts”. International Socialism, 2:49, Winter 1990
    https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/harman/debates_in_state_capitalism-harman-mandel-kidron.pdf

    Chris Harman, “Criticism Which Does Not Withstand the Test of Logic”, A Reply to Ernest Mandel (Winter 1990), International Socialism, 2:49, Winter 1990, pp. 65–88. https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/harman/debates_in_state_capitalism-harman-mandel-kidron.pdf

    Ernest Mandel, “The impasse of schematic dogmatism”, International Socialism, No. 57, Winter 1992. Also in: Mandel, Ernest: The fallacies of state capitalism : Ernest Mandel and Chris Harman debate the USSR. London : Socialist Outlook, 1991 : pp. 85-125.

    ROUND 5: Conclusions

    Catherine Samary, “Mandel’s Views on the Transition to Socialism”, chapter 8 in Gilbert Achcar (ed.), “The Legacy of Ernest Mandel”. London: Verso 1999, pp. 152-190.
    https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article2807

    Perhaps the main thing that the controversy revealed was that the Western Far Left could never agree on what capitalism is, what socialism is, and how the former can be transformed into the latter (or vice versa). Since they still cannot agree about these foundational questions, it is unlikely they can ever unite politically, at least not durably. The only thing that could possibly make a difference there, would be a far more persuasive interpretation of the origin, rise and fall of the Soviet Union – an interpretation that goes well beyond the old disputes, and considers the historical evidence we now have access to.

  3. According to the blurb, the Hoover Institution Library & Archives (Stanford, California) “acquired records of the Socialist Workers Party from the Anchor Foundation in 1992. [ https://pdf.oac.cdlib.org/pdf/hoover/socworpa.pdf ] A register to the collection, prepared in 1997 and updated in 2013, remains the principal overall description of and finding aid to the collection. Further records of the Socialist Workers Party were received from the Anchor Foundation in 2015. The Addendum describes this material.” The Ernest Mandel File within the Stanford SWP archive “might have been treated within the Individuals File, but has instead been established as a separate series because of its large size. The file includes his correspondence with SWP leaders, as well as a considerable body of his draft and printed writings.”

Make a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *