Our Goal: Seizure of states or of society?

Thanks to Alan Spector for re-posting his critique of "why socialism 
failed..."   It
is, in my view a generally accurate argument.  There are a couple of key 
points,
however, where our views differ, and these points rest on how we view and 
define
capitalism.   But my main argument -- what our goals should be -- comes at 
the end of
this post.

One point Alan makes is that there was not enough communism in the USSR and 
China.  I
take this as meaning that the goal of economic development was subordinated 
to
creating, then and there, more egalitarian political-economic relations.  I 
entirely
agree that formal democracy is a sham without economic democracy.  The 
golden rule
is, those with the gold make the rules.   But at least there is, in the core
pro-capitalist states, a sham.   However, workers didn't even get the 
benefits if
this sham in the states where the dictatorship of the proletariat assumed 
power.

It's bad enough to support any violence, murder, oppression prior to 
seizing state
power (and apparently without qualification) merely in the name of the 
"workers
struggle."  But it's even worse, after assuming power, to take the same 
position in
theory and practice in the name of building socialism, which in practice 
has meant an
effort to industrialize and catch up to the West without even the benefits 
of the
sham of democracy.

What emerged was the creation of state enterprises and a new socialist class
structure with the bureaucratic elite living high on the hog compared to 
the workers.
There is no evidence that the few remaining Leninist movements will be any 
different
if they were to seize state power.  However, the chances that they will 
seize state
power is much smaller today than in 1970 or 1980.  Which is an additional 
reason for
a new paradigm.

Nonetheless, the more fundamental point that I've been arguing (and is 
hardly
original), is that the seizure of state power and reformation of class 
relations in
any STATE, can never succeed.   Seizure of the state is only seizure of 
power to try
to effect change within a state against the global pressures of capitalism.
Socialist states led by A communist party were not socialist societies, but 
socialist
STATES.   That is, states of any kind -- pro-state enterprise or pro-private
enterprise --
are merely political-juridical units of the world-economy.  They are not 
independent
societies with their own independent paths of development.  State power is 
highly
limited.  Even when all private-enterprises are converted to state 
enterprises, the
forces of capitalism exist WITHIN these enterprises and the state.  The 
state
enterprises, shielded to some extent by protectionist tariff policies and 
trans-state
trade networks (such as that which existed within the Soviet bloc and with 
Cuba,
etc.) were still subject to the forces of the capitalist world-economy, 
including
world market pressures.  They were not independent societies but had to 
compete with
private enterprises.

Thus, my second slight difference with Alan is that I don't think it is 
accurate to
say that Castro overthrow capitalism.  Castro overthrew the capitalists in 
his state,
but not capitalism.  Capitalism spans the entire world-economy, including 
the state
enterprises formed by the socialist or "communist" states.    The state 
enterprise
that emerged, were not part of an independent socialist society, but part 
of the
capitalist world-economy (capitalist society).  This is true for the same 
reason that
cotton-producing slave enterprises in the US were not pre-feudal, but part 
of the
capitalist world-division of labor, so too have socialist state enterprises 
been part
of the capitalist world-economy.  What differs is the form production 
(which is
historically important), but not the "internal" content of the form insofar 
as it is
part of the world-economy, and thus insofar as the circuits of capital run 
through
the veins of all these enterprises.

And state run enterprises can never compete with private-enterprises in a 
capitalist
world-economy, in part, precisely because many of them do not exploit their 
workers
as intensely.  But also because many of these state enterprises were formed 
in the
periphery, which meant, insofar as they lacked the same access to 
technology and
finance, they had an even more difficult time competing.

I think Sweden, which Alan also mentioned, demonstrates the same point.  
Sweden,
Germany, Norway, etc. are in the throws of a crisis in which, to remain 
socialistic
in terms of the distribution of wealth and benefits, must rid itself of its
manufacturing industries (and suffer high unemployment) and shift capital 
into
high-tech (education intensive) sectors, as the US has been doing at a 
faster rate
because it doesn't have the safety nets to contend with, such as job 
security.  The
reason is clear and obvious: manufacturing enterprises can be relocated to 
the
periphery and they will be much more "efficient" because they utilize low 
cost labor.
Swedish workers cannot afford the level of benefits they have when 
enterprises close
down and shift operations to the periphery eroding the tax base and wages 
that make
the high level of benefits achievable.  Hence, to stop the evisceration of 
the middle
class, Sweden like all core countries, must move out of these highly 
competitive
sectors into more monopolistic sectors in which middle class workers will 
have well
paying jobs.
Sweden can shore up its high unemployment rates and continue is safety net 
policies
if it succeeds in this shift.

That may be good for Swedish workers, but what good is that for the rest of 
the
world's workers?  No good at all, since the core-periphery gap will 
continue to grow.
In essence, the free mobility of private enterprises (and even some state
enterprises) means that they can effectively search out the cheapest labor 
on the
globe.   The free mobility of capital, which grows as the WTO and other 
organizations
"break down all Chinese walls,"  essentially pits workers in one state 
against
workers in other states, driving down wages and increasing capitalist 
profits.

The problem is that enterprises (the capitalist world-economy) cannot be 
controlled
state-by-state.    This means that the only way for socialism to really 
emerge AS A
SOCIETY is not the seizure of states, since states are merely political 
boundaries --
products of the emergence of modern world-economy.   What is required to 
change
society is "seizure" so to speak, of the entire world-economy (possibly 
through
global multi-lateral state agreements via a global government).  This 
should be our
goal.

If the kind of democratic enterprises and re-distribution of wealth, as 
well as the
end of child slavery and child prostitution, pollution standards across the 
board
(across the world) that we'd like to see were implemented at the global 
level rather
than state-by-state, there'd be no periphery for enterprises to run to for 
cheap
labor.  They'd be forced finally to bargain with workers and others OVER 
THE LONG
RUN, and that'd be their undoing.  We'd all be in "one state," so to speak, 
and then
polices put into affect at this level, such as wage and price levels via 
trans-state
unions, liberty, enviornmental controls, etc.  could not be circumvented by
trans-state enterprises.   People could not be undermined by the mobility 
of capital.
Given the public control that could be exercized over private enterprises 
they would,
ipso facto, cease to be private-run enterprises.

There are many difficulties, however.  We still have yet to consider the 
method and
institutions by which global democratic (both in the spheres of economy and
government) are to be formed.  But a WP could be the start of such an 
effort.  And
however inadequate, its better to take action than to sit around waiting 
for the big
crisis to come (and its quite likely to come given that global profit 
levels are
likely to decline as China and India industrialize and cause a world labor 
shortage,
which would drive up wage costs).