Kidron vs. Mandel: Capitalism's Crisis and State Capitalism

The 1969 debate between the Fourth International and the International Socialists tendency

The Hull debate between Michael Kidron and Ernest Mandel, reflected in recordings made by Chris Harman, centred on crucial questions facing revolutionary Marxists in the late 1960s. Their disagreements were not merely academic but had profound implications for understanding the historical period and formulating political strategy.

How the debate unfolded

The debate initially centres on the theory of state capitalism, particularly its application to Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. Kidron argues that capitalism persists in these countries, contradicting the theory of permanent revolution, which posits that capitalism must be overthrown to achieve socialist goals.

Mandel opened up the discussion, stressing revolutionary successes and opportunities. Mandel emphasises that only countries where capitalism has been overthrown have seen real agrarian revolutions and economic growth. The theory of state capitalism is criticised for its inconsistency and its failure to account for the unique characteristics of these countries' economies, which differ significantly from Western capitalist systems.

Kidron countered, arguing that while capitalism faces contradictions, it is not in a state of crisis. He cites the 1968 workers’ uprising in France as an example of capitalism's ability to absorb and manage crises. Kidron explores the differences between Western and Eastern capitalist systems, particularly the role of the bureaucracy in consumption versus accumulation. Additionally, he touches on the impact of revolutions in underdeveloped countries, emphasising the need for external resources and the interdependence of global revolutions.

The debate then centres on the strategies for achieving socialism, with Kidron criticising Mandel for lacking a clear definition of transitional societies and for focusing on pragmatic solutions rather than revolutionary action. Kidron emphasises the instability of the capitalist system, particularly due to the arms economy, and highlights the growing revolutionary potential in high-pressure points like ghettos and nationalist movements. The discussion also touches on the role of the peasantry in revolutions, the importance of unity among ideological terms within the working class, and the need for a revolutionary vanguard to prepare for future crises and advance revolutionary socialist programs.

Understanding with the benefit of hindsight

Although the quality of the recordings is poor, and Harman’s tape with a Q&A and discussion session is missing from the archive, the core of their dispute can be understood through four key thematic disagreements:

The Nature and Criteria of Capitalist Crisis

A central point of contention was the assessment of the state of the capitalist system. Michael Kidron argued that, at the time of the debate, there was "no economic situation without a way out" for capitalism. He looked for what he termed "normal criteria" of a crisis, such as the presence of a large revolutionary party. Kidron pointed to events like the French May 1968 uprising, arguing that capitalism had "managed to absorb it", suggesting it was not the beginning of revolutionary change at that moment. While acknowledging that capitalism is "riddled with contradictions", Kidron maintained it was "not in crisis," noting that "the rate of profit is going up. The expansion of the system is going along". According to Kidron, Mandel was searching for a crisis that was "not there". Ernest Mandel countered that the world had been in a period of "world crisis of the Capitalist system" since the outbreak of the First World War and the Russian Revolution. He described this as an "imperialist" epoch marked by "world crisis" and a "process which goes on with its ups and downs". Mandel argued that the "call of the French May 1968 revolution" demonstrated "How deep going was the crisis of world capitalism" and "How big were the contradictions of that system behind the cover, the apparent cover of a very stable, strong state". He saw this as a challenge not only to wages but to "the very nature of the capitalist relations of production". Mandel's later work, particularly on long waves, periodised capitalist development, suggesting a "systemic turning point of the seventies", which is linked to the onset of a depressive long wave preceding the economic crises of the 1970s.

Hindsight:

Based on the subsequent economic history, particularly the crises of the 1970s and the depressive long wave, Mandel's framework of a broader, ongoing systemic crisis since World War I, linked to the periodisation of capitalist development, appears more aligned with later developments described in the sources than Kidron's assertion of "no crisis" at that specific moment based on his criteria.

Revolution in the Periphery: Economic Determinism vs. Permanent Transformation

The debate also encompassed the nature and potential of revolutionary movements in underdeveloped countries. Ernest Mandel defended the theory of "permanent revolution," arguing that socialist revolutions in backward countries are "inevitable, unavoidable" to overcome misery and backwardness. He viewed victories in countries like Cuba as profoundly transformative and powerful allies for the world revolution, even arguing that they could fundamentally change life without immediate help from industrialised countries, contrary to Kidron's view. He criticised Kidron's focus on economic metrics like consumption as "crude economic determinism", suggesting it abstracted from the complex reality of revolutionary change. Michael Kidron agreed that revolution was necessary in the periphery but argued it was "not sufficient," requiring resources from developed countries. He suggested that the "withdrawal of the west from the underdeveloped countries" meant the "West is less dependent than it ever was economically on the underdeveloped countries," which leads to a "lessening interplay between revolutionary upheaval there and revolutionary upheaval here". According to Kidron, revolution in the periphery "can easily be isolated", potentially leading the new regimes to become "task masters, the people with a whip".

Hindsight

Mandel was too optimistic, and Kidron too pessimistic. While objective conditions make revolution urgent in the face of ecological crisis and past instances where revolution stopped war, the mediations towards revolutionary action are infinitely more complex today. The growing interaction between the sectors of the world directly contradicts Kidron's conclusion about a "lessening interplay" between revolutionary upheavals.

Classifying Post-Revolutionary States: The State Capitalism Debate

A highly contentious point was classifying bureaucratic regimes like the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba. Michael Kidron was presented as a "defendant of the State Capitalist" theory, including the USSR within this category. This perspective posited similarities with Western capitalism regarding the relationship between bureaucracy and workers and the drive for accumulation. Ernest Mandel strongly rejected the label "state capitalist" for these countries. He found this classification inconsistent with supporting their struggles, such as Vietnam's fight against US imperialism (Mandel asks: was the US really fighting to stop capitalism from the north?). Mandel argued that claiming capitalism existed where significant economic growth had occurred post-revolution contradicted the idea that capitalism struggled to impose such growth on backward countries. His analysis of the Soviet economy indicated it was "not a capitalist country" but also "not already a socialist country". Mandel delved into internal Soviet debates, discussing reforms like the introduction of profit indicators and the nature of property rights under state ownership, contrasting them with capitalist private property. He noted discussions with other Marxist economists like Bettelheim on the implications of these changes for developing a non-capitalist economy.

Hindsight

The debate shows Mandel's detailed engagement with the internal dynamics of the Soviet economy and his explicit classification of the USSR as "not a capitalist country" (though also not socialist). Kidron's argument for state capitalism is mentioned as a contrasting view, but less detail is provided on his specific economic analysis in the debate compared to Mandel's discussion of Soviet reforms. Mandel's classification and analysis within the debate appear more thoroughly elaborated based on the analytical depth presented in the debate.

Methodological Divergences: Theory, Reality, and Political Strategy

Underpinning the specific disagreements were differing methodological approaches. Michael Kidron critiqued what he saw as a focus on quoting classical Marxist texts rather than engaging with "reality as it is". He implied that some comrades (likely including Mandel) were too absorbed in theoretical debates without grounding them sufficiently in contemporary conditions, particularly the struggle between labour and capital in the capitalist centres. Ernest Mandel's methodology, as illustrated by his work presented in the sources, involved using Marxist economic categories to analyse current problems illuminated by contemporary empirical data. His book Marxist Economic Theory engaged critically with post-war non-Marxist economists and sociologists. Mandel periodised capitalist development, analysed empirical data on growth and crises, and discussed the interplay of subjective factors like class struggle. He criticised Kidron's method as "crude economic determinism" and using subjective criteria for assessing crisis. Mandel's emphasis was on starting from the "deep, going worldwide crisis of the Capitalist system since 1914 or 1917" to develop a revolutionary political line. His method aimed to move from an abstract analysis of categories, grounded in empirical study, to a concrete understanding of contemporary reality.

Hindsight

Mandel's methodology, as demonstrated through his analysis of long waves and engagement with empirical and theoretical debates across different schools of thought, appears within the sources as a comprehensive approach to understanding capitalist dynamics. This approach seems to embody an engagement with "reality as it is" through theoretical and empirical analysis, counteracting the critique of being solely focused on "definitional argument".

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both Kidron and Mandel raised fundamental questions about the nature of capitalism and the path to revolution, the debate reflects more detailed theoretical and empirical support for Mandel's positions on the nature of capitalist crisis, the classification of non-capitalist states, and his overall methodological approach. Our hindsight is less conclusive regarding the long-term fate of revolutions in the periphery: Mandel’s optimism certainly reflected the opportunities of the 1970s. The debate highlighted core divisions within revolutionary Marxism regarding interpreting global economic and political developments and translating that understanding into political strategy.