This diary series is a slightly edited version of Contradictions of Capitalism, a book that I wrote in the early 90's which is still available now on Amazon. I have updated some parts of it to reflect the very important changes in the corporate economy since the mid-1990s with the appearance of a global economy rather than a national, which has important effects which much of the socialist movement has still not fully grasped.
Previous entries in this series can be found here:
Part One: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Part Two: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Part Three: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Part Four: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Part Five: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Part Six: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Part Seven: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Part Eight: http://www.dailykos.com/...
NINE: The Future of Leninism
As we have seen, the development of the Leninist state eventually leads to a growing class conflict between the petty bourgeois state-capitalists who control the means of production and the neo-capitalist classes which develop within this structure. This class struggle can only be hostile in nature, producing ever-stronger economic crises and faction fights within the existing political and economic structures. This conflict is exacerbated by the constant attempts of the neo-colonies to end their domination by the Soviet state. The interests of the neo-colonies and the neo-capitalists are the same; the overthrow of the Leninist state.
Eventually, the subjective and objective conditions meet, and the Leninist state falls to combined pressures from within and without. The now-victorious neo-capitalist enterprise managers will then restructure the state and the economy to form a new monopoly-capitalist state.
At the time of this writing, only the Soviet Union and its satellites, among the Leninist states, has reached a sufficient level of economic development so as to produce the crises and stresses of a fully-matured Leninist system. Gorbachev’s perestroika was a vain attempt to solve the internal contradictions which were crippling the Leninist system, by granting the decentralization which was demanded by circumstances, but attempting to keep this decentralization within limits that would not harm the Soviet state. That effort was doomed to failure.
Since, however, the Leninist mode of production is suited so well almost exclusively to the needs of an ex-colonial economy, we might ask the question, will every neo-colony in the world undergo a period of Leninist industrialization and expansion? The answer to this question must be “No”.
It should be apparent that, in order for a nation to achieve economic independence (through whatever means), it is necessary for this economy to possess or have access to sufficient resources to enable it to build an independent economy, one that is not dependent for vital resources on imperialist nations. Small nations which possess few resources are incapable of building a self-sufficient economy, since they will always be dependent on commercial relations with other countries. In a world of monopoly imperialism, these relations will always be lopsided. These small nations will remain neo-colonies.
Thus, successful Leninist industrial development is possible only in those neo-colonies which possess sufficient resources for an independent economy, in which the only thing holding back such a development is the crushing oppression of imperialism. Only a handful of neo-colonies have this capacity. If these nations are to achieve economic independence, they must take the “China Road” by closing themselves off to dependence upon either the monopoly capitalists or the Leninist imperialists.
Other neo-colonies in which anti-feudal and anti-imperialist revolutions are successful will be unable to maintain their economic independence. These smaller nations have insufficient resources for internal development and are locked into dependence upon one power bloc or another for these resources. They can successfully revolt in order to leave one power bloc for another, but they do not have the ability to develop economic independence.
As the process of the transition to capitalism in the Leninist nations is completed, therefore, the smaller neo-colonies will lack the economic aid and support to enable them to build an independent economy, and no new colonies will be able to fight their way to economic independence. As those nations with the capacity for Leninist growth and development do so, the possibility for successful anti-imperialist revolution fades.
Thus, as the independent Leninist states undergo a transformation to capitalism, the Leninist mode of production will disappear. The global economy will once again consist of rival monopolist blocs who fight amongst themselves over their neo-colonial dominions. The world will once again be sharply divided into a handful of monopolist exploiters and the vast mass of workers. At this stage, the monopolists are subjected ever more severely to their own internal contradictions and crises.