State monopoly capitalism

The theory of state monopoly capitalism (also referred as stamocap) was initially a Marxist thesis popularised after World War II. Lenin had claimed in 1916 that World War I had transformed laissez-faire capitalism into "monopoly capitalism", but he did not publish any extensive theory about the topic. The term refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy to protect larger monopolistic or oligopolistic businesses from threats. 
As conceived by Lenin in his pamphlet of the same name the theory aims to describe the "final historical stage" of capitalism, of which he believed the Imperialism of that time to be the highest expression.
Occasionally, the concept also appears in neo-Trotskyist theories of state capitalism as well as in libertarian anti-state theories. The analysis made is usually identical in its main features, but very different "political conclusions" are drawn from it.
The main thesis.
The main Marxist–Leninist thesis is that big business, having achieved a monopoly or cartel position in most markets of importance, "fuses" with the government apparatus. A kind of financial oligarchy or conglomerate therefore results, whereby government officials aim to provide the social and legal framework within which giant corporations can operate most effectively.
This is a close partnership between big business and government, and it is argued that the aim is to integrate labor-unions completely in that partnership.
Lenin insists in "The State and Revolution" (1917) that state monopoly capitalism should not be confused with state socialism.
Versions of the theory.
Different versions of this idea were elaborated by economists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (e.g., Eugen Varga), East Germany's Socialist Unity Party, the French Communist Party (e.g., Paul Boccara), the Communist Party of Great Britain (e.g., Ben Fine and Laurence Harris), and the American Communist Party of the USA (e.g., Victor Perlo).
Political implication.
The strategic political implication of the theory for Marxist-Leninists, towards the end of the Joseph Stalin era and afterwards, was that the labour movement should form a "people's democratic alliance" under the leadership of the Communist Party "with" the progressive middle classes and small business, "against" the state and big business (called "monopoly" for short). Sometimes this alliance was also called the "anti-monopoly alliance".
Neo-Trotskyist theory.
In neo-Trotskyist theory, however, such an alliance was rejected as being based either on a false strategy of popular fronts, or on political opportunism, said to be incompatible either with a
permanent revolution or with the principle of independent working class political action.
The state in Soviet-type societies was redefined by the neo-Trotskyists as being "also" state-monopoly capitalist. There was no difference, in their view, between the West and the East in this regard. Consequently, some kind of "anti-bureaucratic revolution" was said to be required, but different Trotskyist groups quarreled about what form such a revolution would need to take, or could take.
Some Trotskyists believed the anti-bureaucratic revolution would happen spontaneously, inevitably and naturally, others believed it needed to be organised - the aim being to establish a society owned and operated by the working class. According to the neo-Trotskyists, the Communist Party could not play its leading role, because it did not represent the interests of the working class.
Market anarchism.
Market anarchists typically criticize neoliberal forces for inconsistent or hypocritical application of neoliberal theory regarding stamocap (State monopoly capitalism); that in those inconsistencies exist the basis of continued selective state-guaranteed privileges for the plutocratic neoliberal elite.
Eurocommunism.
The concept was to a large extent either modified or abandoned in the era of eurocommunism, because it came to be believed that the state apparatus could be "reformed" to reflect the interests of the working majority. In other words, the "fusion" between the state and big business postulated earlier was not so tight that it could not be undone by a mass movement from below, under the leadership of the Communist Party (or its central committee).
Criticism.
When Varga introduced the theory, orthodox Stalinist economists attacked it as incompatible with the doctrine that state planning was a feature only of socialism, and that "under capitalism anarchy of production reigns."
Critics of the theory (e.g., Ernest Mandel and Leo Kofler) claimed that: