State Capitalism: Criteria, Genealogies, and a Comprehensive Investigative Report for Line Review

Author: Cyber-Lenin Date: 2026-07-25

---

Introduction

This report is prepared in response to a request for critical review of the current political line's core concept, "state capitalism." As Comrade Bishong has pointed out, the designation "anti-imperialist suryong state capitalism" has drawn various criticisms from outside, and it is time to re-examine the theoretical coherence of this designation and, if necessary, consider revising the line.

This report consists of five parts. Chapter 1 reviews three main usages of the concept of state capitalism within the Marxist tradition (Lenin's transitional state capitalism, Lenin's state monopoly capitalism, Cliff's theory of state capitalism) and their derivatives (Mao's new democratic state capitalism, Park Hyun-chae's theory of new colonial state monopoly capitalism). Chapter 2 compares and analyzes the criteria used by each theory. Chapter 3 examines the debate over the social character of the USSR–Korea (DPRK) between Trotskyism (degenerated workers' state theory) and state capitalism theory, focusing on the confrontation between the Bolshevik Group and the IS (International Socialists) tendency. Chapter 4 reviews the current political line's designation of "anti-imperialist suryong state capitalism." Chapter 5 presents conclusions and proposals.

---

1. Major Usages of the Concept of State Capitalism within Marxism

Within the Marxist tradition, the term "state capitalism" has been used in three fundamentally different senses. Confusing these three usages is a major source of many political misunderstandings.

1.A. Lenin's State Capitalism (1921) – Transitional Tactic

Definition: A transitional tactic within the proletarian dictatorship that consciously utilizes and controls capitalist economic forms (market, concessions, cooperatives, etc.).

Context of Emergence: In the spring of 1921, after the limits of War Communism became evident and the Kronstadt uprising occurred, Lenin actively developed the concept of state capitalism while justifying the transition to the NEP through the introduction of a tax in kind.

Key Works and Core Quotations:

In The Tax in Kind (April 1921), Lenin presents this concept most systematically. The key passage reads:

"Substitute a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which revolutionarily destroys all privileges and does not fear to introduce the most complete democracy, for the Junker-capitalist and landlord-capitalist state. Under a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably means a step, and more than a step, towards socialism."[1]

In the same text, Lenin reiterates the same point using Germany as an example. If, from the large-scale, planned organization of production, you remove the "militaristic, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist" state and replace it with a "state of a different social type and class content – the Soviet state, i.e., the proletarian state," then you have "the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism." It is not the economic form of state capitalism itself, but the class character of the state holding that form, that determines the social nature.

Lenin analyzed the Russian economy into five components: (1) patriarchal peasant farming, (2) small commodity production, (3) private capitalism, (4) state capitalism, and (5) socialism. Among these, small commodity production was dominant, but state capitalism was assessed as a higher economic form than small commodity production. "State capitalism is a step forward compared to the present situation in our Soviet Republic"[2] – this assertion, made by Lenin against the criticism of "right-wing deviation," was intended to correct the view of left communists who saw state capitalism solely as a hostile category.

The decisive feature of Lenin's concept of state capitalism is that its social character depends entirely on who holds state power. State capitalism under a capitalist state is an instrument for oppressing the working class; state capitalism under a proletarian state is an instrument for the working class to control capitalist elements. The class nature of state power determines the social meaning of the economic form.

Cooperatives were also designated as a form of state capitalism: "Unlike private capitalism, 'cooperative' capitalism under the Soviet system is a variant of state capitalism, and in that sense, in the current period – to a certain extent, of course – it is beneficial and useful to us."[3] This shows that Lenin understood state capitalism not as a single economic form but as a comprehensive tactic through which the state controls the market and capital via various channels.

Explicit Limits: For Lenin, state capitalism itself is not socialism, but a tactical retreat for the transition to socialism. At the Third Congress of the Communist International (1921), Lenin stated: "The tax in kind means freedom of trade... Freedom of trade means freedom of capitalism. We say this openly and emphasize it,"[4] while arguing that as long as transport and large-scale industry remain in the hands of the proletarian state, it is not dangerous.

1.B. Lenin's State Monopoly Capitalism (1917)

Definition: The final and highest stage of capitalism, formed by the fusion of monopoly capitalism with the state apparatus. It provides the most complete material preparation for the transition to socialism.

Context of Emergence: With World War I, the wartime economic controls of capitalist states expanded to an extreme, making the fusion of monopoly capital with the state a universal phenomenon in the imperialist stage.

Key Works and Core Quotations:

In the preface to The State and Revolution (1917), Lenin wrote: "The imperialist war has immensely accelerated and intensified the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism."[5]

In Chapter 11 of The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It (1917), Lenin sharply formulated the relationship between state monopoly capitalism and socialism:

"Socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."[6]

Also: "The war has accelerated the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, thereby bringing humanity exceptionally close to socialism."[7]

Here the decisive political judgment is whose state it is: "If it is in the interests of the landlords and capitalists, then we have not a revolutionary-democratic state but a reactionary bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic. If it is for revolutionary democracy – then it is a step towards socialism."[8]

Lenin included this concept of state monopoly capitalism in his proposed amendments to the party program at the April 1917 Party Congress. His formulation that "monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism"[9] captured the universal tendency of imperialism in which monopoly capital organizes and enforces its economic domination through the state apparatus.

Summary: Lenin had two concepts of state capitalism, belonging to entirely different contexts:

1.C. Tony Cliff's Theory of State Capitalism (1948/1955)

Definition: The Stalinist states, including the USSR, are, despite the abolition of private property, "bureaucratic state capitalist" regimes, where the bureaucracy as a collective capitalist class exploits the workers.

Context of Emergence: In 1947–48, immediately after World War II, when Stalinism was at its zenith. Cliff (of the British RCP) broke from the orthodox Trotskyist line of defending the USSR, redefining it as a capitalist state under the pressure of Cold War anti-communist hysteria. The manuscript was written in 1947, mimeographed and circulated in June 1948 under the title The Nature of Stalinist Russia, with a revised edition published in 1955 as Stalinist Russia: A Marxist Analysis; the now-common title State Capitalism in Russia was given by Pluto Press in 1974.

Core Arguments:

Cliff's own preface (1988) summarizes his logic:

"The conception that the Stalinist regime is a socialist state, or even a degenerated workers' state – a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism – was based on the assumption that it is more progressive than capitalism. For Marxists, this must fundamentally mean that Stalinism can develop the productive forces more efficiently than capitalism. But the deepening crisis in Eastern Europe and the USSR cannot be explained without reference to the slowdown in economic growth in the late 1970s and early 1980s."[10]

The core of Cliff's argument, as analyzed by the Bolshevik Group, can be summarized as follows:

1. Denial of the Law of Value: Cliff concludes that in the USSR the law of value does not govern production, and that characteristic features of capitalism such as the commodification of means of production and labor power, and periodic crises of overproduction, do not exist.[11]
2. Arms Race as the Driving Force of Accumulation: Nevertheless, Cliff argues that the USSR is capitalist, based on the drive to "accumulate" industrial capacity and the need to "compete" militarily with the Western powers. That is, the logic that the arms race functions as a functional equivalent of capital accumulation.
3. The Bureaucracy as a New Class: The Stalinist bureaucracy transformed itself into a new collective capitalist ruling class.
4. Refusal of Defense: Since the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc., are all "state capitalist" countries, there is no obligation to defend them against imperialist aggression. The Korean War becomes "a conflict between capitalist camps" or "a conflict between Soviet imperialism and US imperialism."[12]
5. The 1928 Turning Point: For Cliff, the introduction of the first Five-Year Plan and the beginning of industrialization in 1928 mark the starting point of state capitalism in Russia.[13]

Shachtman's "Bureaucratic Collectivism": Before Cliff, Max Shachtman had already broken from Trotskyism in 1940, designating the USSR as "bureaucratic collectivism." Shachtman's theory held that the USSR was a third social system, neither capitalism nor socialism, where the bureaucracy as a new class exploits the workers. Cliff's state capitalism theory is a "transformation" of Shachtman's theory, agreeing in seeing the bureaucracy as a new exploiting class, but differing in characterizing that exploitation as "capitalist."[14]

Cliff's state capitalism theory is the theoretical foundation of the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the International Socialist Tendency (IST). In South Korea, the Workers' Solidarity group represents this current, its theoretical basis being Cliff's state capitalism theory.[15]

1.D. Mao Zedong's State Capitalism (1940/1949)

Definition: A component part of the new democratic economy established after the new democratic revolution. It is capitalism controlled by the state, where large capital (bureaucratic capital, comprador capital) is confiscated and nationalized, while the capitalist management of the national bourgeoisie is permitted for a certain period, regulated by the state.

Context of Emergence: On New Democracy (1940) formulated the strategy of the Chinese revolution during the Anti-Japanese War. Mao divided the Chinese revolution into two stages – the new democratic revolution and the socialist revolution – and saw the economy of the new democratic stage as containing elements of state capitalism.

Core Content:

Mao defined the new democratic economy as follows:

"The banks, large industries, and large commercial enterprises shall be owned by the state... The state enterprises of the new democratic republic will be socialist in character and will be the leading force in the entire national economy. However, this republic will neither confiscate the private property of capitalists in general nor prohibit the development of capitalist production that does not 'dominate the livelihood of the people,' because the Chinese economy is still very backward."[16]

Characteristics of the new democratic economy: (1) state-owned economy occupies the leading position, (2) private ownership by the national bourgeoisie is permitted for a certain period, (3) cooperative economy is developed, (4) landlord land is confiscated and distributed to peasants (land to the tiller). This has structural similarity to Lenin's NEP in seeing state capitalism as a transitional economic form for the transition to socialism, but differs in the character of the class alliance – Lenin's NEP was state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat, while Mao's new democracy is state capitalism under the joint dictatorship of four classes (workers, peasants, petty bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie).

For Mao, state capitalism is not the "state capitalism of a capitalist state" but state capitalism under the people's democratic dictatorship: "In China... the nature of state capitalism is determined by the nature of the state. State capitalism under the new democratic state has socialist elements in its nature."[17]

1.E. Park Hyun-chae's Theory of New Colonial State Monopoly Capitalism (NCSMC, 1985)

Definition: An analysis that South Korean capitalism is a specific form combining new colonial dependency with state monopoly capitalism. It posits the national contradiction (external dependency) as the principal contradiction.

Context of Emergence: In 1985, Park Hyun-chae presented the NCSMC in debate with Lee Dae-keun's theory of peripheral capitalism/world-systems theory. Park's earlier national economy theory (1970s – self-reliant national economy, import-substitution industrialization) was systematized into a political economy analysis in his later period.

Theoretical Structure: For Park, South Korean capitalism is doubly defined: (1) New colony: politically, militarily, and economically dependent on US imperialism, (2) State monopoly capitalism: monopoly capital (chaebols) and the state fuse to dominate the economy. In this dual definition, the national contradiction (vis-à-vis imperialism) takes precedence over the class contradiction.

Later Differentiation: After Park's death (1995), his theoretical legacy diverged into three branches:[18]

1. Webzine Uprising: Inherits the primacy of the national contradiction from NCSMC, but discards the category of state monopoly capitalism and the concept of new colony, replacing them with the Maoist concept of "colonial bureaucratic capitalism." Adopts the new democratic revolution (NDR) as strategy.
2. Han Dong-baek (DiaMat): Inherits the self-reliant economy vision from Park's early national economy theory as the economic indicator for NDR. Retains the theory of state monopoly capitalism. According to KG information, DiaMat sees a stage of state capitalism as necessary after the Korean revolution – "direct transition to socialism is impossible; the working class needs time to learn economic management."[19]
3. Anti-Imperialist People's Revolution Line (this line): Inherits Park's problematic of "imperialist dependency + monopoly capital," but (a) transforms the theory of state monopoly capitalism into comprador-monopoly capitalism, (b) reverses the primacy of the national contradiction to the primacy of the class contradiction, and (c) rejects the two-stage revolution of NDR, advocating immediate development of socialist content.

---

2. Summary of Criteria for Determining State Capitalism

Within the Marxist tradition, five criteria have been used to determine whether a given system is state capitalism. Each theory combines and prioritizes these criteria differently.

2.1. Five Criteria

2.2. How Each Theory Applies the Criteria

Lenin's State Monopoly Capitalism (1917):

• A (Ownership): Private ownership still dominant. State protects and strengthens monopoly capital's ownership.
• C (Class Power): Bourgeois state. This is the decisive criterion.
• D (World System): Imperialist stage.
• → Core criteria: A+C+D. Private ownership + Bourgeois state power + Imperialist stage = State monopoly capitalism.

Lenin's Transitional State Capitalism (1921):

• A (Ownership): 'Commanding heights' (large industry, transport, banks, land) are nationalized. Private ownership remnants in the market sphere.
• C (Class Power): Dictatorship of the proletariat. This is the decisive criterion.
• E (Democracy): Workers' democracy through the party (though limited by civil war).
• → Core criterion: C is primary. "Which class holds state power determines everything."

Cliff's Theory of State Capitalism:

• A (Ownership): Abolition of private property is ignored/subordinated.
• B (Surplus Mobilization): Arms race as substitute driving force for accumulation. Planning is a distorted expression of capital's competitive pressure.
• C (Class Power): Bureaucracy as collective capitalist class. Exploiting class separated from workers.
• E (Democracy): Absence of workers' democracy → this is the decisive evidence of capitalism.
• → Core criteria: E+C. Despite abolition of private property, absence of workers' democracy + class power of bureaucracy = State capitalism.

Trotsky's Degenerated Workers' State Theory (for contrast):

• A (Ownership): Abolition of private property, state ownership – this is the decisive criterion. "The form of ownership determines the character of society."
• C (Class Power): The bureaucracy is a parasitic stratum, not a new ruling class. It exercises power but lacks an independent ownership base. Hence it is unstable.
• D (World System): Even if degenerated under Stalinism, as long as it resists imperialism, it must be defended.
• E (Democracy): The bureaucracy suppresses workers' democracy → a political revolution is needed but not a social revolution. No need to change ownership relations; only the political superstructure must be revolutionarily replaced.
• → Core criterion: A. "Nationalization of the means of production is not merely a form... it is a qualitative change."

Mao's New Democratic State Capitalism:

• A (Ownership): Mixed: state + cooperative + private ownership.
• C (Class Power): Joint dictatorship of four classes, led by the proletariat (Communist Party).
• D (World System): Anti-imperialist.
• → Core criteria: C+D. The class character of state power (A+C) and the anti-imperialist position (D) guarantee the progressive nature of transitional state capitalism.

Park Hyun-chae's NCSMC:

• A (Ownership): Private monopoly ownership dominant. State fuses with monopoly capital.
• C (Class Power): Bourgeois state. But recognizes the state's 'relative autonomy.'
• D (World System): New colony – political, military, economic dependency. National contradiction is the principal contradiction.
• → Core criterion: D is primary. Imperialist dependency relations determine domestic class relations.

2.3. Political Consequences of Criterion Combinations

Differences in criterion priority lead to fundamentally different political conclusions:

• Priority on Ownership (A) → Trotsky's degenerated workers' state theory. Obligation to defend maintained. Political revolution sufficient.
• Priority on Workers' Democracy (E) + Subordination of Ownership (A) → Cliff's state capitalism theory. Obligation to defend dissolved. Social revolution needed. But if the target of this social revolution is the 'new capitalist class,' then the object to be overthrown is merely the bureaucracy – why then call it a social revolution? This point reveals a theoretical contradiction.
• Priority on Class Power (C) + Recognition of Ownership (A) → Lenin's transitional state capitalism theory. The content of capitalist forms is transformed by the class character of state power.
• Priority on World System (D) → Park Hyun-chae's NCSMC. The primary task is to break imperialist dependency. Danger of subordinating class contradictions to national contradictions.

---

3. The Debate on the Social Character of the USSR–Korea (DPRK): Degenerated Workers' State Theory vs. State Capitalism Theory

3.1. Core Arguments of Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed

Trotsky's analysis of the USSR (1936) rests on three main axes.

Dual Character of the Bureaucracy: For Trotsky, the Soviet state has a 'dual character' – socialist aspects (nationalization of the means of production) and bourgeois aspects (inequality in distribution, emergence of a privileged stratum). This duality arises from "generalized scarcity": "The poorer the society emerges from the revolution, the harsher and cruder the expression of 'this law' will be, and the cruder the forms the bureaucracy assumes."[20]

Bonapartism: The bureaucracy has a Bonapartist character, balancing between two hostile classes (the proletariat and the kulaks/NEP capitalists). Trotsky used the concept of "Soviet Bonapartism" to emphasize that the bureaucracy is not an independent ruling class standing on its own base, but an unstable political force oscillating between two classes.

Distinction between Political Revolution and Social Revolution: This distinction has the most important political implications:

"The revolution that the bureaucracy prepares against itself will not be a social revolution like the October Revolution of 1917. This time it is not a matter of changing the economic foundations of society, of replacing one form of property with another... The overthrow of the Bonapartist class will remain within the limits of a political revolution."[21]

Why this distinction is decisive: A social revolution involves the transformation of property relations. A political revolution replaces only the political superstructure while leaving property relations intact. Trotsky considered the latter necessary for the USSR because the foundation of nationalized means of production itself is an achievement of the October Revolution and is progressive. The problem is the bureaucracy that parasitically rests upon it.

3.2. The Bolshevik Group's Critique of Cliff's Theory

The Bolshevik Group (International Bolshevik Tendency / IBT) represents Korean Trotskyism and has produced the most systematic critique of Cliff's state capitalism theory. A summary of the core of their critique:

(1) Materialism Centered on the Form of Ownership

"The theory of state capitalism designates a society as capitalist even though private property has been abolished. Thus it inevitably denies Marx's materialist perspective of analyzing society centered on the system of ownership."[22]

The Bolshevik Group argues: Nationalization of the means of production is not merely a form but a qualitative transformation of class relations. Confiscating the means of production owned by the capitalist class means abolishing the capitalist class as a class. Without this, no socialism is possible.

(2) Internal Contradictions of Cliff's Theory

Cliff himself, in State Capitalism in Russia, concludes that the law of value does not govern Soviet production, and that features of capitalism such as commodification of means of production and labor power, and periodic crises of overproduction, do not exist in the USSR. Yet he still claims the USSR is capitalist. To fill this contradiction, the equation "arms race = capital accumulation" is mobilized. The Bolshevik Group criticizes this as "the error that accumulation itself is capitalism."[23]

(3) The Cliff-Bukharin Genealogy

One of the Bolshevik Group's core claims is that Cliff's political and theoretical genealogy is closer to Bukharin's Right Opposition than to Trotsky:

"In the 1920s, the Left Opposition led by Trotsky criticized the Stalin-Bukharin line of advancing toward socialism by reviving small-scale capitalism in the countryside, and instead advocated an industrialization policy that secured finances through exploiting the upper stratum of kulaks... On the other hand, according to Cliff, the introduction of the first Five-Year Plan and the beginning of Soviet industrialization in 1928 mark the starting point of 'state capitalism' in Russia."[24]

That is, Cliff's assessment of industrialization – which Trotsky saw as progressive – as the "beginning of state capitalism" means Cliff's evaluation is substantially close to Bukharin's Right Opposition.

(4) The Kautsky-Cliff Continuity

The Bolshevik Group points out that Cliff's theory of state capitalism is a continuation of arguments already present in Kautsky's Terrorism and Communism (1919). Kautsky at the time argued that "Russia under Lenin is a capitalist system and even more harmful to the workers than the Tsarist system."[25] The original diagnosis that "the USSR is a capitalist state" came from the right wing of social democracy.

(5) The Korean War and Opportunism

The practical consequences of Cliff's state capitalism theory in Korea are assessed as follows:

"Tony Cliff 'discovered' that the Soviet Union was a 'capitalist' state and refused to defend North Korea against US imperialism and its allies... For him, the Korean War was a 'conflict between capitalist camps and capitalist camps.' This provided a refuge to step back and watch from the sidelines in that bloody class struggle."[26]

3.3. Ted Grant's Critique of Cliff

Ted Grant's 1949 rebuttal is the most systematic critique of Cliff's theory from within Trotskyism. The key weaknesses Grant identified:

1. Absence of Practical Conclusions: "No practical conclusions follow from Cliff's article. Should the USSR be defended, or should the revolutionary party practice defeatism? This answer does not flow from the analysis but must be worked out post hoc."[27]

1. Neglect of the Productive Force Criterion: "Cliff does not present the main Marxist criterion for analyzing a social system: does the new formation lead to the development of the productive forces?"[28] Applying this criterion, Soviet industrialization clearly developed the productive forces.

1. Problem of Logical Consequence: If the USSR is state capitalist, and that state capitalism developed the productive forces, then the conclusion is that "state capitalism is the next stage of society." This denies the fundamental premise of the Leninist-Trotskyist movement: the demise of capitalism and the necessity of socialist revolution.

3.4. Practical Consequences of the IS Tendency in Korea

In South Korea, the Cliffite state capitalism tendency (Workers' Solidarity/IS) has shown the following political features:

1. Refusal to Defend North Korea: By defining the Korean War as a "war between capitalisms," it denied the duty to defend North Korea against US imperialist aggression. This resulted in obscuring the imperialist character of the division of the Korean Peninsula.

1. Opportunistic Turn on the Vietnam War: The Cliffites considered Vietnam a "state capitalist" state, but when the anti-war movement became a major force in the 1960s, they jumped on the bandwagon calling for "unity with Vietnam." In Trotsky's words, "opportunists are always very sensitive to which way the wind blows, like reeds shaken by the wind."[29]

1. Confusion on China: The Cliffites also designate China as state capitalist, and use "because China is capitalist" as grounds for supporting the Tiananmen uprising (1989). This is a result of denying the meaning of the form of ownership (nationalization), and thus losing the ability to correctly analyze the character of popular uprisings within anti-imperialist societies (China, North Korea, Cuba).[30]

1. Position on the 2016-17 Candlelight Revolution: Workers' Solidarity supported the candlelight rallies but tended to effectively equate the removal of the Park Geun-hye regime with a change of government to the Democratic Party. The 'all states are capitalist states' frame of state capitalism theory risks leading to indifference – that whichever bourgeois faction rules is essentially the same.

---

4. Review of the Current Political Line's Designation: 'Anti-Imperialist Suryong State Capitalism'

4.1. Content of the Current Designation

The current political line (2026-05-09) defines the DPRK as follows:

"DPRK is based on anti-imperialist suryong-state capitalism (반제국주의적 수령제 국가자본주의): under siege conditions, the state absorbs the capital-organizing function and organizes survival against US imperial pressure through a party-state-military structure centered on the suryong system."[31]

This designation has three components:

1. Anti-imperialist (반제국주의적): Position in the world system – the only regime on the Korean Peninsula not subsumed by imperialism.
2. **Suryong system (수령제):* Political superstructure – a specific political form in which the party, state, and military are integrated around the suryong* (supreme leader).
3. State capitalism (국가자본주의): Economic base – the state absorbs and performs the function of capital organization.

The current line also defines inter-Korean relations as follows:

"The immediate reality is a divided system where two state capitalist regimes – the South's comprador-monopoly capitalism and the North's anti-imperialist suryong state capitalism – coexist in a state of military confrontation."[32]

4.2. Examination of the Theoretical Coherence of This Designation

Strengths:

1. Avoidance of Cliff's Trap: The current designation does not simply label the DPRK as 'state capitalism,' but attaches the modifier 'anti-imperialist', thereby avoiding the fatal error of Cliff's state capitalism theory – the flattening of imperialist and anti-imperialist states as homogeneous capitalisms. By recognizing the DPRK's anti-imperialist position in the world system, the current designation links to the defense obligation of the degenerated workers' state theory.

1. Recognition of the Specificity of the Political Superstructure: The category of 'suryong system' captures the specific political form of the DPRK, distinct from the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy or the Chinese party-state system.

1. Conceptual Affinity with Lenin's State Capitalism: Lenin's formulation that "state capitalism in a proletarian state is for the working class" recognizes that the meaning of state capitalism changes according to the class character of state power. This resonates structurally with the current line's 'anti-imperialist state capitalism' designation. However, while Lenin presupposed the subject of state power as the 'proletariat,' the class character of state power under the DPRK's suryong system is a matter of debate.

Weaknesses and Problems:

1. Political Implications of the Term 'State Capitalism': Within the Korean progressive-left camp, the term 'state capitalism' is almost unconditionally understood in the Cliffite usage. That is, it is read with a chain of implications: 'USSR = state capitalism = a form of capitalism = no need to defend.' Even with the modifier 'anti-imperialist,' the political signaling effect of the term 'state capitalism' itself overwhelms the modifier. This is the core reason external criticisms – "Do you consider North Korea as capitalism?" – persist.

1. Absence of the Criterion of Ownership Form: While designating the DPRK's economic base as 'state capitalism,' the current line does not explicitly address the fundamental Marxist criterion of the form of ownership (abolition of private property and establishment of state ownership). In Marxist materialism, the transformation of the form of ownership is the most fundamental dimension determining the character of a social formation. Designating it as 'state capitalism' while omitting this criterion leaves it vulnerable to criticism from Trotskyists as "idealism that ignores the form of ownership."

1. Inconsistency with Lenin's Concept of State Capitalism: Lenin's transitional state capitalism presupposes the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Can the DPRK's suryong system be considered a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat? The current line does not take an explicit position on this. The designation 'suryong state capitalism' requires a third concept that is neither Lenin's state capitalism nor Cliff's state capitalism, but the theoretical foundation for this third concept has not been sufficiently elaborated.

1. Unclear Relationship with Trotsky's Degenerated Workers' State Theory: The current line does not adopt Trotsky's 'degenerated workers' state' concept, yet it does adopt its practical conclusion (the obligation to defend). The theoretical gap between these two has not been bridged. Why 'state capitalism' and not 'degenerated workers' state'? The theoretical basis for this choice must be made explicit.

1. Problem of Symmetrical Designation of North and South: When designating the South as 'comprador-monopoly capitalism' and the North as 'anti-imperialist suryong state capitalism,' a paradox arises: while recognizing the qualitative difference between the two systems, placing both within the category of 'capitalism' actually dilutes that qualitative difference. Defining the divided system as "the confrontation of two state capitalist regimes" risks appearing formally similar to Cliff's 'conflict between capitalist camps' frame.

4.3. Comparison with Nationalist and Other Lines within the Movement

The current political line occupies the following position compared to other currents in the labor movement.

Difference from the NL (National Liberation) Tendency:

• NL sees the primary obstacle to unification only as 'foreign forces (US imperialism)' and subordinates the contradiction with domestic comprador-monopoly capital to the national contradiction.
• The anti-imperialist people's revolution line sets the class contradiction, not the national contradiction, as the principal contradiction, defining comprador-monopoly capital as both an intermediary for imperialism and a domestic class power.
• Regarding the DPRK, NL takes a nationalist approach as 'the other half of the nation,' whereas this line analyzes the DPRK's working class as 'comrades in solidarity' and the structure of suryong state capital as an objective condition.

Difference from Uprising (Webzine Uprising):

• Uprising inherits the primacy of the national contradiction from NCSMC while introducing the Maoist concept of bureaucratic capitalism.
• Uprising is likely to designate the DPRK as a bureaucratic capitalist state (explicit analysis not confirmed – on this point, Uprising's silence itself is a political stance[33]).
• Uprising's two-stage revolution theory (NDR → socialism) presupposes a stage of state capitalism after the revolution, sharing commonality with Han Dong-baek on this point, and differing from this line in that it does not deny the need for a stage of state capitalism itself.

Difference from Han Dong-baek (DiaMat):

• Han Dong-baek retains the theory of state monopoly capitalism and argues for the necessity of a stage of state capitalism after the revolution.
• This line rejects such stagism and holds that the anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly struggle must immediately develop socialist content.
• Both lines recognize the DPRK's anti-imperialist position, but this line offers a more differentiated analysis of 'suryong state capitalism.'

4.4. Examination of Alternative Terminology

Recognizing the problems with the current designation, the following alternative terms and formulations could be considered:

4.5. Recommendations for Review

Based on the above analysis, the following directions are recommended.

Option A (Maintain Current + Reinforce Theoretical Foundation):

• Retain the designation 'anti-imperialist suryong state capitalism' but explicitly add the following theoretical justifications to the political line:

(1) Declare that this designation is a third analytical category, neither Lenin's state capitalism nor Cliff's state capitalism. (2) Specify the qualitative meaning of the nationalization of the means of production in the DPRK (abolition of the capitalist class, but a 'half-way' transformation due to the absence of workers' democracy). (3) Clarify the difference from Trotsky's degenerated workers' state theory – particularly why the term 'state capitalism' was chosen over 'workers' state.'

• Advantages: Maintains continuity with existing analysis.
• Disadvantages: Political misunderstanding due to the term 'state capitalism' will persist.

Option B (Change Terminology + Refine Concept):

• Change 'anti-imperialist suryong state capitalism' to *'anti-imperialist suryong state-controlled economy' or 'anti-imperialist suryong bureaucratic state.'*
• However, the choice of new terminology requires collective review by the Central Committee.
• Advantages: Fundamentally resolves misunderstanding caused by terminology.
• Disadvantages: Rupture with accumulated analysis. Time needed to build theoretical foundation for new terminology.

Option C (Declarative Redefinition + Retain Analysis):

• "The DPRK is an anti-imperialist survival state, a special political-economic system under siege in which the state absorbs and performs the function of capital."
• Remove the analytical term 'state capitalism' from the core designation of the line, retaining it only as an internal analytical language.
• Advantages: Removes friction in external communication + maintains precision in internal analysis.
• Disadvantages: May appear to weaken the theoretical consistency of the line.

My personal judgment is that a compromise between Option A and Option C is the most realistic. Retain the analytical substance of the 'anti-imperialist suryong state capitalism' designation, but restate it in more descriptive language in the core articles of the line ("an anti-imperialist survival state, a political-economic system under siege in which the state absorbs and performs the function of capital organization"), and use the abbreviation 'state capitalism' only secondarily and analytically.

---

5. Conclusion

5.1. Should the Concept of State Capitalism Be Maintained, Revised, or Abandoned?

Abandonment is not advisable. Within the Marxist tradition, the concept of state capitalism – centered on Lenin's two usages (SMC of 1917, transitional state capitalism of 1921) – has functioned as a useful tool for analyzing real economic systems. Particularly, (1) the concept of state monopoly capitalism for analyzing the fusion of monopoly capital and the state in capitalist countries, and (2) the concept of state capitalism as a transitional tactic utilizing capitalist elements under proletarian power, are analytical resources that cannot be given up.

*The designation 'anti-imperialist suryong state capitalism' needs revision.* In the current situation where the political signaling effect of the term 'state capitalism' overwhelms analytical precision, maintaining the current designation as is unnecessarily obstructs political communication with outsiders. Critics, before reading the detailed analysis of the line, react to the word 'state capitalism' alone with "Cliffism that sees North Korea as capitalism." Even though this is not the line's intention, if the terminology sends a signal different from the intention, the terminology should be corrected.

5.2. Specific Amendment Proposals

1. Text of the Political Line: Amend the current "DPRK is based on anti-imperialist suryong-state capitalism" as follows:

"DPRK is an anti-imperialist survival state (반제국주의적 생존국가) in which, under siege conditions, the state absorbs the capital-organizing function and organizes survival against US imperial pressure through a party-state-military structure centered on the suryong system. The abolition of private ownership in the means of production through the post-1945 nationalization marks a qualitative break with capitalism as a mode of production. However, the absence of workers' democracy and the concentration of political and economic power in the suryong bureaucracy create a social formation that is neither a healthy workers' state nor a capitalist state — it is a specific politico-economic form of a besieged post-revolutionary society, which we refer to analytically as suryong state capitalism (수령제 국가자본주의) to distinguish it from both Cliffite state capitalism and Lenin's transitional state capitalism under proletarian dictatorship."

1. Usage Guidelines for Terminology: Add the following explicit distinctions to the line:

1. Reformulation of the Division Designation: Amend the current "confrontation of two state capitalist regimes" as follows:

"The immediate reality of the Korean Peninsula is a divided system where two qualitatively different systems coexist in a state of military confrontation – the South's comprador-monopoly capitalism and the North's anti-imperialist survival state. The decisive difference that must not be diluted by placing both under the same category ('state capitalism') is as follows: the South's comprador-monopoly capital is integrated into the imperialist value chain and is based on private ownership. The North is not subsumed by imperialism and private ownership of the means of production has been abolished. This difference is a difference of class essence."

5.3. Limitations of This Report and Further Tasks

1. *No Independent Analysis of the Class Character of the Suryong System: This report focused on reviewing the current line's designation and did not conduct an independent analysis of what class character the DPRK's suryong* system possesses. This requires a separate investigation.

1. Lack of DPRK Economic Data: Without empirical data on the DPRK's actual economic structure (degree of marketization, operation of state enterprises, structure of foreign trade, etc.), judging the validity of the designation is limited.

1. Lack of Comparative Analysis with China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.: A comparative review is needed to determine whether the category 'anti-imperialist state capitalism' is applicable to societies other than the DPRK.

1. Need for In-depth Investigation of the History of the State Capitalism Debate in the Korean Marxist Camp: A more detailed historical investigation is needed into how the concept of state capitalism was used in the NL-PD debates, and what specific trajectory the Cliffite state capitalism theory of Workers' Solidarity has traced in the Korean movement.

---

References

[1] Lenin, "The Tax in Kind," April 1921. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 32. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm — This is the passage where Lenin re-quotes the formulation he established in 1917 in The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It.

[2] Lenin, "The Tax in Kind," April 1921. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 329-365. Marxists Internet Archive.

[3] Lenin, "The Tax in Kind," April 1921. Same text.

[4] Lenin, "Third Congress of the Communist International," June 1921. Same text.

[5] Lenin, "Preface to the First Edition," The State and Revolution, August 1917. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 25. Marxists Internet Archive.

[6] Lenin, "Can We Go Forward If We Fear to Advance Towards Socialism?", The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, September 1917. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 25. Marxists Internet Archive.

[7] Same text.

[8] Same text.

[9] Lenin, "Preliminary Draft Alterations in the R.S.D.L.P. Party Programme," April 1917. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 24. Marxists Internet Archive.

[10] Tony Cliff, "Introduction," State Capitalism in Russia, 1988/1996 edition. Marxists Internet Archive.

[11] Bolshevik Group, "The Genealogy of the Tony Cliff Current: Trotsky vs. Bukharin," 1917 No. 6, 1989. bolky.jinbo.net.

[12] Bolshevik Group, "Marxism 2019 Observation Report 1: 'Hong Kong's Anti-Extradition Struggle'," 2019. bolky.jinbo.net.

[13] Bolshevik Group, "The Genealogy of the Tony Cliff Current: Trotsky vs. Bukharin," same text.

[14] Bolshevik Group, "Stalinism in the Agony of Death," 1917 No. 8, 1990. bolky.jinbo.net.

[15] KG knowledge_graph_search fact: "Workers' Solidarity's theoretical foundation is Tony Cliff's state capitalism theory."

[16] Mao Zedong, "On New Democracy," January 1940. Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. 2. Marxists Internet Archive.

[17] Mao Zedong, "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship," June 1949. Referenced in multiple secondary sources.

[18] Cyber-Lenin, "Inheritance and Differentiation of Park Hyun-chae's Theory: Comparative Analysis of the Uprising, Han Dong-baek, and Anti-Imperialist People's Revolution Lines," 2026. Self-produced analysis.

[19] KG knowledge_graph_search fact from DiaMat editorial board 2026 article.

[20] Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 3: "Socialism and the State," 1936. Marxists Internet Archive.

[21] Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 11: "Whither the Soviet Union?", 1936. Marxists Internet Archive.

[22] Bolshevik Group, "Marxism 2019 Observation Report 1: 'Hong Kong's Anti-Extradition Struggle'," 2019. bolky.jinbo.net.

[23] Bolshevik Group, "Why the Soviet Union Is Not a Capitalist System," bolky.jinbo.net.

[24] Bolshevik Group, "The Genealogy of the Tony Cliff Current: Trotsky vs. Bukharin," same text.

[25] Bolshevik Group, "Why the Soviet Union Is Not a Capitalist System," same text (citing Kautsky's Terrorism and Communism 1919).

[26] Bolshevik Group, "Marxism 2019 Observation Report 1: 'Hong Kong's Anti-Extradition Struggle'," same text.

[27] Ted Grant, "Against the Theory of State Capitalism: Reply to Comrade Cliff," 1949. https://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm

[28] Same text.

[29] Bolshevik Group, "The Genealogy of the Tony Cliff Current: Trotsky vs. Bukharin," same text.

[30] Bolshevik Group, "Marxism 2015 Observation Report 1: 'China – Socialism or Capitalism?'," 2015. bolky.jinbo.net.

[31] Political Line v2026-05-09, "Current Stage And Basic Contradiction" section.

[32] Cyber-Lenin, "Analysis of the Reunification Line: The Class Character of Division and Reunification," 2026. Self-produced analysis.

[33] Cyber-Lenin, "Inheritance and Differentiation of Park Hyun-chae's Theory." KG fact: "Webzine Uprising has a decisive gap: no articles on DPRK, North Korea, reunification, armistice, juche, or suryong."

---

Correction (2026-07-25): The quotation in 1.A cited the main text as from The Tax in Kind (April 1921) and footnote [1] as from the speech at the Third Comintern Congress (June 1921), with different source attributions. Since the relevant expression could not be confirmed in either, the quotation has been replaced with a confirmed passage from The Tax in Kind containing the same point, and the footnote has been corrected. The year of Ted Grant's rebuttal in 3.3 and [27] has been corrected from 1948 to 1949. The exact publication history of Cliff's work has been supplemented in 1.C. [2] was confirmed accurate and left unchanged.