Search

Scholars have argued that megaprojects' turn away from issues of employment, and mass housing are among the core traits of neoliberalism. Turkey, though once seen as a paragon of neoliberalism, problematizes this generalization. Erdoğanist megaprojects have created jobs and residence for millions, and garner consent. 'Embedded neoliberalism', a concept frequently used to explain increasing state involvement under neoliberalism, sheds light on the governing AKP's power, but is insufficient in explaining its core dynamics. Whereas the 'embedded neoliberalism' literature downplays the role of the government as a producer, the 'state capitalism' literature, as applied to Turkey, overrates the extent to which this country has moved away from neoliberalism. The concept 'neoliberal statism' (which puts the emphasis on the consent-generating and political aspects of the new economy) better captures the AKP's path. Megaproject-driven growth and popular consent, however, are restricted by vulnerabilities that also afflict neoliberal statism as a broader growth strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's views regarding state capitalism. He notes that bourgeois economists and industrial personnel regard workers as human materials. He states that in the capitalist mode of production, an individual is exposed to exploitation of natural limits. He distinguishes work from productivity and notes that if people realize the slavery notion of work, it will induce alienated desire to work.

This article examines China's political economy since the 1949 revolution from a state capitalist perspective. The theoretical appeal of this perspective lies in how intense, military competition and concomitant development of the heavy industrial sectors dictated the path taken by the whole political economy. The article examines the gradual retreat of state control over the economy and the adoption of a 'dual track' approach. It analyses the factors that have led the Chinese economy to achieve an unprecedented growth rate, arguing that the retreat of state capitalism has resulted in the reconfiguration of classes which will have inevitable and significant political ramifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social history of state capitalist analysis emerged at least four decades before the Bolshevik-led October Revolution. Despite this analytic tradition, epistemic communities using state capitalist analyses have interacted sporadically. Differences in language, locale and political commitments have contributed to the lack of sustained exchange. Sensitive to future social change in formerly Marxist-Leninist systems and elsewhere, contributors to this issue of Critical Sociology have applied complementary and competing state capitalist analyses to the pre-1917 Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China (PRC), post-communist Russia and the PRC in the reform period. The contributing authors are convinced that clarifying the legacy of state capitalist analysis is a prerequisite for the success of social movements seeking to realize their preferred futures in Asia, the Pacific, Europe, Africa and the Americas. Setting the stage, the introductory essay also suggests issues for continuing debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the relevance of the idea of state capitalism in Russian development. It situates the idea within the framework of capitalist development which it argues is marked by global inequalities, power imbalances and economic and military competition. The Russian Revolution of October 1917 was an attempt to overthrow this system but its failure led to a highly intense form of state capitalism which lasted until 1991. The underlying continuities in the different regimes in Russia are then analysed in terms of the process of working class exploitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1917 analysts have debated what kind of economic system existed in the USSR and the PRC. They mostly juxtaposed 'socialism' there to 'capitalism' in Western Europe and the USA. The two sides were defined chiefly in terms of private versus state property and markets versus planning. We challenge this debate by means of Marx's focus on the organization of surplus labor. That is, we distinguish capitalism, socialism, and communism according to how these systems differently organize the surplus. They exhibit different ways of producing, appropriating, and distributing the surpluses generated in production. Not only does this approach yield a new and different analysis of the similarities between capitalism and socialism, it also conceives communism as more radically different from both of them than other approaches do. Finally, we indicate some current political implications of our approach and its conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's views regarding the issues on state capitalism. He compares state capitalism with different social systems including capitalism, short state capitalism or state form of capitalism, and true socialism. He argues that labor organization is not the same with the fundamental nature of class rule. He discusses how state capitalism happens, as well as the factors that consist its integration.