请将“Thus capitalism monopoliste d’état is an historically circumscribed phase of the imperialist stage of capitalism and is characterised by the long-term, public revalorisation of state and non-monopoly capital in favour of private monopoly capital. Not only does it share certain properties with the preceding phase of imperialism (such as militarisation of the economy, political authoritarianism, and parasitism), it also has several novel or much reinforced features compared with simple monopoly capitalism (Boccara et al., 1976, vol. 1, pp. 22-24). For the state has become an indispensable element in the reproduction of capital: not only through its institutional and political role but also through its immediate involvement in the formation of monopoly profits at the expense of the whole people (Boccara et al., 1976, vol. 2, pp. 29-30). In this context particular attention is paid to (a) public finance of private investment and production, (b) the public sector, (c) public finance of individual and/or collective consumption, (d) public intervention in the circuit of money as revenue and/or as capital through taxation, the national debt, credit regulation, etc., (e) public programming and planning, and (f) export of public capital (Boccara et al., 1976, 2 vols., passim; Herzog, 1972, passim). Of these features the first is considered the most important element in CME and all six are understood as forms of revalorisation whose effect is to counteract the overaccumulation of monopoly capital and to secure the conditions necessary for continued expansion at an advanced stage of socialisation of production. They are condensed in the public budget so that it is here that one can most easily discern the character, effects, and contradictions of state monopoly capitalism as it emerges, matures, and enters its crisis phase (Boccara et al., 1976, vol. 1, pp. 46ff; vol. 2, pp. 210-215; Boccara, 1977, pp. 4668).

CME theory strongly emphasises the contradictory and transitional nature of state monopoly capitalism. For the latter involves both the consolidation of monopoly domination over society and the intensive development of the material base for a transition to an anti-monopolist, advanced democracy and thence to socialism. The former aspect is most clear in the pillage of all dominated classes and strata (including the non-monopoly fractions of the bourgeoisie) through fiscal exploitation and state redistribution of the national income as well as in the state’s involvement in increasing the rate of exploitation in the domain of production itself (Boccara et al., 1976, vol. 2, pp. 210-253; vol. 1, pp. 366-381). Indeed, as state intervention in CME reinforces capitalism, it also reinforces the polarisation of class forces through the elimination of the traditional petit bourgeoisie and small and medium capital (‘petits et moyens entreprises’ or ‘PME’) and the organisation of the expanding wageearning classes in opposition to the monopolies (Boccara et al., 1976, vol. 1, pp. 218-253, 366-381). The domination of monopoly capital in all fields of social life justifies the strategy of anti-monopoly alliance and the struggle to install anti-monopoly forces at the head of the state. Moreover, since the state must extend its intervention in the economy in order to adapt the relations of production to the growing socialisation of the productive forces, it develops an increasingly social character itself and can only function adequately when this is reflected in the effective, democratic participation of all the people in the exercise of its power. This is particularly clear in the deformation of nationalisation and economic programming that results from their subjugation to monopoly capital. But democratisation of the state will mean that the people as a whole can employ these mechanisms for socialist advance (Boccara et al., 1976, vol. 2, pp. 333-347, 361-413; Boccara, 1977, pp. 77-106, 328-389, 436-446; Delilez, 1976; Goffard, 1976; Jourdain, 1966; Masson, 1976; Perceval, 1977a, 1977b; Quin, 1976).

A MAJOR BRITISH CONTRIBUTION

A significant theoretical contribution to stamocap theory has been recorded by two British theorists, Fine and Harris (1979, pp. 112-145). Their approach is capital-theoretical and analyses the CMP as a complex circuit of social capital. Productive capital is said to be determinant in the last instance but is articulated in complex fashion with other forms of capital in the production, distribution, and exchange of value. They argue that capitalism can be parodied as a mode of production in abstraction from specific social formations since the laws of motion of the CMP themselves give rise to distinct stages rather than continuous trends (p. 105). Thus, while modes of production are distinguished in terms of the fundamental relations of possession and control among producing and nonproducing classes, stages in each mode are differentiated in terms of the specific forms of these basic relations and their social reproduction. In this context the succession between stages as well as modes is explained through the development of the forces and relations of production (pp. 108-109). This procedure is justified through reference to Marx’s own method of périodisation in the analysis of feudalism: for he distinguishes three stages according to the form of appropriation of groundrent (labour-rent, rent in kind, money rent) associated with the development of feudal relations of production and distribution (1979, pp. 110112; cf. Harris, 1976b, pp. 4-6; both citing Marx, C3, pp. 790-802). Likewise Fine and Harris also distinguish three stages in the development of the CMP: laissez-faire, monopoly, and state monopoly capitalism.

Their analysis is not fully specified but its broad outlines are clear and compelling. Particular attention is paid to the increasing socialisation of the forces of production and the need for a matching socialisation of relations of production and social reproduction. The first stage of capitalism is laissez-faire. Its main characteristics are: the formal subsumption of wage-labour under the control of capital through capitalist organisation of manufacture, the dominance of absolute surplus-value (with opportunities for relative surplus-value confined to simple cooperation and division of labour in manufacturing), the expansion of capitalism through the concentration of capital (i.e., growth of re-invested individual capitals), the mediation of the law of value in production through market forces (i.e., laissez-faire and free competition), and the dominant position of profits of enterprise in the appropriation of surplus-value (pp. 112-113). This first stage is also marked by the significance of trade cycles in the rhythm of economic crises (owing to the dominance of commodity capital and commercial capital in the exchange process) and the concentration of class struggles on the extraction of absolute surplus-value and/or on local political repression (pp. 113-114). In contrast monopoly capitalism is said to involve: the real subsumption of wagelabour under the control of capital through capitalist organisation of machinofacture, the growing importance of relative surplus-value (based on increasing productivity through continual reorganisation of the labour process), the expansion of capitalism through the centralisation of capital (i.e., the gathering of many capitals under the control of a few capitals), the mediation of the law of value in production through the private credit system (i.e., the allocation of money capital among different branches of production is now overdetermined through credit relations organised by finance capital), and the dominant position of interest in the appropriation of surplus-value (p. 115). The rise of machinofacture stimulates the socialisation of productive forces and is reflected in the socialisation of production relations in such areas as the labour process (e.g., the separation of ownership and control leading to the growth of a managerial stratum in place of the individual entrepreneur-manager), the ‘accounting’ process in the sphere of realisation (e.g., monopolies, trusts, and cartels socialise the formation of prices and allocation of markets), and financial control (e.g., money capital is socialised through the development of private credit organised through finance capital) (p. 117). This stage is also associated with the significance of the TRPF and credit relations in the increasingly violent rhythm of crises (owing to the dominance of relative surplus-value and private credit) and the concentration of class struggles not only on the continual reorganisation of the labour process and/or the introduction of social reforms (encouraged by the development of trade union and political organisation grounded in the socialisation of production and concentration of wage-labour) but also on the management and attempted resolution of economic crises (pp. 120121).

These problems are resolved through the increasing involvement of the state in the economic as well as social reproduction of capitalism (pp. 129, 132). For state monopoly capitalism (or ‘SMC’) derives from the attempts of the state to resolve economic crises through the further socialisation of the relations of production. Thus, although it shares many features of monopoly capitalism (such as machinofacture, relative surplus-value, centralisation, role of the TRPF), this particular stage is distinguished by direct state involvement in the circuit of capital (especially in the three forms of nationalisation, taxation, and state credit). Thus, not only does SMC involve direct state control of the labour process itself within an expanding nationalised productive sector and direct intervention in the ‘accounting process’ through price codes, indirect taxation, subsidies, etc., it also involves the state in the financial control of production through the creation and manipulation of credit in such forms as contracyclical demand management as well as the appropriation and redistribution of surplus-value through taxation and subsidies. Thus the essential features that distinguish SMC from the preceding stages of the CMP are the new forms taken by capitalist control of the economic process (nationalisation, state credit, etc.) and the dominance of taxation as a new, highly socialised form of the capitalist appropriation of surplus-value (pp. 121122; see also Harris, 1976b, pp. 6-8, who focuses on nationalisation and taxation). It should also be noted that the development of SMC also modifies the operation of market forces (e.g., state competition policy or control of free collective bargaining) and of private credit (e.g., affecting the balance of competition in the supply and demand for money capital) and thus, while coexisting with elements of earlier stages, overdetermines their forms and effects (pp. 112, 124, 133, 136).”翻译为中文