A Case For State-Capitalism: What is to be done?, by Ibrahim T.M. Tumsah
Radical Thought
“I believe that my opinions are correct, but I am cognizant of the fact that my opinions may be wrong.” – Abu Hanifa, early Sunni jurist.
Marxism and Leninism are different approaches to socialism working towards the same goal. Lenin’s approach is top down where the elites or intellectuals who have the knowledge and class consciousness to lead the revolution will take power and wield it in the name of the working class. Whereas Marx believed the workers would have class consciousness and would then lead the revolutionary conflict in their own name, —a bottom up approach. There is a need to separate these two theories not bind them together into an overlying ideology (Marxism-Leninism), because the theories are different. Marx theorized about communism and had no solutions or strategies to build a communist society after the workers had carried out their revolution and “seized the means of production.” Lenin on the other hand seized the means of production and had to cross the water and feel the stones; that is by experimenting with policies and observing their outcome. Lenin experienced the aftermath and knew that marxism alone had no answers to what happens next. That’s why he had to adjust and experiment with ideas and policies that fit the political situation in Russia after the October Revolution. It wasn’t possible to completely dispose of capitalist enterprises and it wasn’t feasible to completely transition to socialism in such a short amount of time. Lenin eventually settled on an economic system he called State-Capitalism, as he gradually implemented it in his New Economic Plan (NEP).
State-Capitalism as postulated by Lenin is an economic system or arrangement whereby a revolutionary socialist state takes measures to protect and guide private sectors i.e corporations, and other industries, to foster their growth. It is a symbiotic relationship between a central political government and a capitalist economy. Deng Xiaoping is the Chinese economic minister that implemented this system in China after Mao’s death, he explained it as such an “economic structure whereby private enterprise was allowed, and foreign investment was encouraged— promoted faster growth than could be achieved in capitalist economies. The fundamentals of the NEP.”
To theorize and work towards this theory by implementing its policies is the ultimate goal because you understand what works and what doesn’t. Lenin’s simultaneous top down and bottom up approach, with State-Capitalism and Marx’s bottom up communism approach are different from the authoritarian Marxism-Leninism as expounded by Stalin.
A Balance between a free market and a Socialist state in a State-Capitalist economy
“The worst sort of confusion is the tendency to use [Socialism] to describe, not a certain kind of society, but particular policies which are, or are thought to be, means to attain this kind of society.” – Anthony Crosland, British Labour Party parliamentarian.
Communist dictators such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have tarnished the image of whatever shred of dignity Marxism has held when it was theorized about in the 19th century. They continuously displayed a disregard for communist and socialist principles by infringing on the basic principles of Marxism. Mao can be said to have followed in Stalin’s footsteps in regards to policies with Chinese characteristics, while Pol Pot did the same with Mao— with Cambodian peculiarities. Stalin was not as great a theorist or intellectual in the same way Lenin or Trotsky were to be able to make policies regarding the intricacies of Marxism and made it up as he went, but this is in parallel to Lenin and Trotsky who also made economic and social policies after the October Revolution as they went along. What separates them is that they had the decency to consult and debate with each other on how to go about implementing their experimental policies. Stalin had no such compunction, he made himself dictator, which isn’t what Marx proposed. Even though Marx never had a plan for how the communists would rule once the proletariat gained power through a revolution, he nevertheless, implied that their would be some sort of sharing of power between the actors in the affairs of the state.
What is irksome is that Marxist waste too much time defending the actions of communist dictators, even making excuses for their horrific actions because they believe that to be loyalty to their doctrine. There is a lot of good that came from Marxist thought that gets overlooked often by its detractors; such as camaraderie between different ethnic groups and class backgrounds, it inspired people to think about the highest possible ideals of human capabilities and has made its adherents conscious of the inequalities of class struggles in highly capitalist societies.
It’s opponents say things like communism has contributed to massive death tolls on the population. While this is true, so has capitalism, in fact capitalism has contributed to way more deaths and suffering than communism. It was not the communists that invented the nuclear bomb, but an imperialist capitalist state that sought hegemony throughout the world. The capitalists (Western governments) sought hegemony by any means, that they felt the need to bring down any legitimate government run by those that called themselves communists or anything different from the dictated new world order.
The capitalists also say that communism is a gateway to despotic dictatorship, yet, they are the colonizers that made slavery a business by taking natives from their lands on ships never to return to their families or homelands ever again to subject them to the worst of human denigration without ever compensating the victims. The capitalists also are guilty of running tyrannical monarchies that has subjected more than half of the world’s population to much horrors, that even the earth sheds tears to what has been done in its belly. Capitalists have no moral high ground to stand on. The wealth that has been made will never disguise the means used to acquire it. The belly might be full, but the soul is empty and lacking nourishment.
A lot of people get squeamish when communism is mentioned which is understandable, but the policies and intentions of those implementing those policies matter. As stated by Deng Xiaoping after Mao died; it does not matter whether “a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.” Economic systems, policies and institutions that encourage production and economic growth to feed and pull people out of poverty should not matter as long as it is working and the people can see the results. 40% of Nigeria’s population approximately 90 million people are living in poverty. We cannot continue to overlook this worrying statistic because it keeps growing. While Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy— the so called “Giant of Africa”, Nigeria needs to harness its unrealized potential because our biggest resource is not the minerals found in the soil, but the people we see and interact with all across the 36 states of the country.
So, what is to be done?
My analysis of the economic dynamics of the Nigerian society goes beyond the class struggle of bourgeois and proletariat, this isn’t accurate in the Nigerian context. It is difficult to classify one group as bourgeoise or proletariat, because the class lines are blurred to make such leaps in analysis. Of course there are bourgeoise and proletariat, but those within the margins of both groups can easily fall into either categories. The middle class is not so much a middle class, but a marginal class. any crisis or emergency or contract can relegate one or elevate one into either category. There are no support systems set up to maintain one’s mobility or status into the higher classes. The bourgeois class in Nigeria in the marxist sense is the political class not the capitalist class. In this sense it is the political class versus everybody else.
The stratification of bourgeoise and proletariat classes is more accurate to states and regions than individual classes. For example Lagos and Abuja could be referred to as bourgeoise states (even with their own high levels of impoverished communities) compared to states like Taraba and Yobe in the northeastern region. Whereas in one state, opportunities for upward mobility are readily more available to individuals with better infrastructure and more capital than a place like Taraba where opportunities are scarce. Even though the government at state levels are highly responsible for this predicament, the federal government is also complicit in the whole scheme of things. Foreign investment and entrepreneurship are not prerequisite conditions for this development. Federal governance is needed to allocate resources to level the playing field.
Revolution in Nigeria will not be peaceful or violent but will be orderly disruptive and destructive in a social perspective. The mismanagement of Nigeria’s potential and resources by the political class is so significant that expecting a gradual evolutionary process of change will not only take decades, but will never happen nor will it then still be in our interests. A revolution in Nigeria will not be by the working class or the middle class, but by the intellectual and the elite classes, who are the most responsible for organizing it wherever they might find revolutionary zeal present. A collective action by the revolutionary class against the governments. A total rejection of the status quo.
For this revolution to occur, there needs to be a cultural development amongst the people of various classes that are not political. To attain this cultural development the people need to be taught to be literate and numerate. The people need to have technical accomplishments which the intellectual class and the marginal middle class alone can provide. So, there is then a need to create a central party, which we will use as a vehicle to coordinate strategies to achieve our goals. The Central party leaders will lead the local groups and the local groups will lead the workers. The workers will lead the other groups of discontented disenfranchised groups all within the various states.
“When the mob gains the day, it ceases to be any longer the mob. it is then called the nation. If it does not, why then some are executed, and they are called the canaille, rebels, thieves and so forth.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
State capitalism is Nigeria’s only solution to prosperity in the future. it allows us to have a centralized state while also pursuing a liberal economic structure that encourages business and entrepreneurship with Nigerian characteristics. Some might frown at this suggestion, my reply is, study the economies of South Korea (1960-2000’s), Japan (1945-1990’s) and even what China is now. I do not intend to explain the growth of these economies because they are self evident. It should also be noted that following a good model is not the same as copying it. Nigeria is a unique state with its own unique features that distinguish it from our Asian friends, but they do serve as a good model for comparison and emulation.
It is imperative for developing nations such as Nigeria and the rest of Africa to come up with new and ingenious economic systems to prop up their economy in non-inflationary ways (Nigeria’s inflation rate is 21% at the moment of writing). Rather than just copying what developed nations have tried and tested, which have no context on their own (developing nations) economies. After all, most of the developed nations come up with their own new models when they collude to that end based on their interests.
In Why Nations Fail, writers Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson explain that; neither geographic nor cultural nor ignorance based theories are helpful for explaining why some nations are poor and why some are not, some of the major reasons for this are the inclusive or extractive institutions i.e political or economic and a centralized state are major factors in explaining this. Extractive institutions like those present in Nigeria, by their logic must create wealth so that it can be extracted by exploiting the people who are not in the elite class as well as the disenfranchised in our society. To create inclusive institutions there needs to be a creative destruction of old institutions and outdated models of thinking.
“Any meaningful strategy and set of tactics for reform must take into account the political minefield, not just as an aside but as the very centrepiece of thinking about change.” — Jeffery Sachs.
Acemoglu and Robinson go on to say that, the fear of creative destruction has been the main reason why some societies like Nigeria, have seen no increase in the living standards of its people. technological advancements and innovations makes human societies prosperous, but heavily involves the replacement of the old with the new, and along with it the destruction of unequal economic privileges and political power of certain people. New technologies are needed for sustained economic growth and new ways of doing things. Thus, society needs newcomers to introduce the most radical innovations and often the creative destruction they wreak must often overcome several sources of resistance, including that from powerful rulers and elites.
The fear of creative destruction is often at the root of the opposition to inclusive economic and political institutions. The process of economic growth and inclusive institutions upon which it is based create losers as well as winners in the political arena and in the economic marketplace. New sectors attract resources away from old inefficient ones. New firms take business away from established ones. New technologies make existing skills and machines obsolete. So in employing inclusive institutions you improve prosperity, unlike extractive institutions that are tools of discrimination against the mass of the people. State governments, Banks and oil & gas companies that operate in Nigeria can be considered extractive institutions. Inclusive political institutions on the other hand like the ones created by socialist countries and state capitalism are meant to encourage a more equal distribution of income and wealth which empowers a broad segment of our society’s disenfranchised. It is very important for every nation to have a very strong and organized centralized state apparatus to curtail a struggle for power.
There is an old adage that goes; “The man who breaks through a rotting door acquires an unjustified reputation for violence; some credit should be given to the door.” Nigeria’s door is rotting. We the revolutionary class have to believe in Nigeria’s exceptionalism, like all other great nations. We have to believe that we are special, that we deserve good things. We believe in God, we believe that God likes goodness and wants us to be good and has blessed us with an abundance of natural resources, because He wants us to put them to good use. Since the beginning of time, those who follow the way have succeeded those who have lost the way. Those who have lost their virtue have been succeeded by those who are guided by virtue. Only time will tell if we are ready as a generation to take up the mantle of this herculean task.
