ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE U.S.S.R.
WAYS OF IMPROVING THE DRAFT TEXTBOOK ON POLITICAL
ECONOMY
During the discussion some comrades "ran down" the draft textbook much
too assiduously, berated its authors for errors and oversights, and
claimed that the draft was a failure. That is unfair. Of course, there
are errors and oversights in the textbook -- they are to be found in
practically every big undertaking. Be that as it may, the overwhelming
majority of the participants in the discussion were nevertheless of the
opinion that the draft might serve as a basis for the future textbook
and only needed certain corrections and additions. Indeed, one has only
to compare the draft with the textbooks on political economy already in
circulation to see that the draft stands head and shoulders above them.
For that the authors of the draft deserve great credit.
I think that in order to improve the draft textbook, it would be well to
appoint a small committee which would include not only the authors of
the textbook, and not only supporters, but also opponents of the
majority of the participants in the discussion, out-and-out critics of
the draft textbook.
It would also be well to include in the committee a competent
statistician to verify the figures and to supply additional statistical
material for the draft, as well as a competent jurist to verify the
accuracy of the formulations.
The members of the committee should be temporarily relieved of all other
work and should be well provided for, so that they might devote
themselves entirely to the textbook.
Furthermore, it would be well to appoint an editorial committee, of say
three persons, to take care of the final editing of the textbook. This
is necessary also in order to achieve unity of style, which,
unfortunately, the draft text book lacks.
Time limit for presentation of the finished textbook to the Central
Committee -- one year.
J. Stalin
February 1, 1952
REPLY TO COMRADE ALEXANDER ILYICH NOTKIN
Comrade Notkin,
I was in no hurry to reply, because I saw no urgency in the questions
you raised. All the more so because there are other questions which are
urgent, and which naturally deflected attention from your letter.
I shall answer point by point.
The first point.
There is a statement in the "Remarks" to the effect that society is not
powerless against the laws of science, that man, having come to know
economic laws, can utilize them in the interests of society. You assert
that this postulate cannot be extended to other social formations, that
it holds good only under socialism and communism, that the elemental
character of the economic processes under capitalism, for example, makes
it impossible for society to utilize economic laws in the interests of
society.
That is not true. At the time of the bourgeois revolution in France, for
instance, the bourgeoisie utilized against feudalism the law that
relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of
the productive forces, overthrew the feudal relations of production,
created new, bourgeois relations of production, and brought them into
conformity with the character of the productive forces which had arisen
in the bosom of the feudal system. The bourgeoisie did this not because
of any particular abilities it possessed, but because it was vitally
interested in doing so. The feudal lords put up resistance to this not
from stupidity, but because they were vitally interested in preventing
this law from becoming effective.
The same must be said of the socialist revolution in our country. The
working class utilized the law that the relations of production must
necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces,
overthrew the bourgeois relations of production, created new, socialist
relations of production and brought them into conformity with the
character of the productive forces. It was able to do so not because of
any particular abilities it possessed, but because it was vitally
interested in doing so. The bourgeoisie, which from an advanced force at
the dawn of the bourgeois revolution had already become a
counter-revolutionary force offered every resistance to the
implementation of this law -- and it did so not because it lacked
organization, and not because the elemental nature of economic processes
drove it to resist, but chiefly because it was to its vital interest
that the law should not become operative.
Consequently:
1. Economic processes, economic laws are in one degree or another
utilized in the interests of society not only under socialism and
communism, but under other formations as well;
2. The utilization of economic laws in class society always and
everywhere has a class background, and, moreover, always and everywhere
the champion of the utilization of economic laws in the interests of
society is the advanced class, while the obsolescent classes resist it.
The difference in this matter between the proletariat and the other
classes which at any time in the course of history revolutionized the
relations of production consists in the fact that the class interests of
the proletariat merge with the interests of the overwhelming majority of
society, because proletarian revolution implies the abolition not of one
or another form of exploitation, but of all exploitation, while the
revolutions of other classes, which abolished only one or another form
of exploitation, were confined within the limits of their narrow class
interests, which conflicted with the interests of the majority of
society.
The "Remarks" speak of the class background of the utilization of
economic laws in the interests of society. It is stated there that
"unlike the laws of natural science, where the discovery and application
of a new law proceeds more or less smoothly, the discovery and
application of a new law in the economic field, affecting as it does the
interests of obsolescent forces of society, meets with the most powerful
resistance on their part."[6] This point you missed.
The second point.
You assert that complete conformity of the relations of production with
the character of the productive forces can be achieved only under
socialism and communism, and that under other formations the conformity
can only be partial.
This is not true. In the epoch following the bourgeois revolution, when
the bourgeoisie had shattered the feudal relations of production and
established bourgeois relations of production, there undoubtedly were
periods when the bourgeois production relations did fully conform with
the character of the productive forces. Otherwise, capitalism could not
have developed as swiftly as it did after the bourgeois revolution.
Further, the words "full conformity" must not be understood in the
absolute sense. They must not be understood as meaning that there is
altogether no lagging of the relations of production behind the growth
of the productive forces under socialism. The productive forces are the
most mobile and revolutionary forces of production. They undeniably move
in advance of the relations of production even under socialism. Only
after a certain lapse of time do the relations of production change in
line with the character of the productive forces.
How, then, are the words "full conformity" to be understood? They are to
be understood as meaning that under socialism things do not usually go
to the length of a conflict between the relations of production and the
productive forces, that society is in a position to take timely steps to
bring the lagging relations of production into conformity with the
character of the productive forces. Socialist society is in a position
to do so because it does not include the obsolescent classes that might
organize resistance. Of course, even under socialism there will be
backward, inert forces that do not realize the necessity for changing
the relations of production; but they, of course, will not be difficult
to overcome without bringing matters to a conflict.
The third point.
It appears from your argument that you regard the means of production,
and, in the first place, the implements of production produced by our
nationalized enterprises, as commodities.
Can means of production be regarded as commodities in our socialist
system? In my opinion they certainly cannot.
A commodity is a product which may be sold to any purchaser, and when
its owner sells it, he loses ownership of it and the purchaser becomes
the owner of the commodity which he may resell, pledge or allow to rot.
Do means of production come within this category? They obviously do not.
In the first place, means of production are not "sold" to any purchaser,
they are not "sold" even to collective farms; they are only allocated by
the state to its enterprises. In the second place, when transferring
means of production to any enterprise, their owner -- the state -- does
not at all lose the ownership of them; on the contrary, it retains it
fully. In the third place, directors of enterprises who receive means of
production from the Soviet state, far from becoming their owners, are
deemed to be the agents of the state in the utilization of the means of
production in accordance with the plans established by the state.
It will be seen, then, that under our system means of production can
certainly not be classed in the category of commodities.
Why, in that case, do we speak of the value of means of production,
their cost of production, their price, etc.?
For two reasons.
Firstly, this is needed for purposes of calculation and settlement, for
determining whether enterprises are paying or running at a loss, for
checking and controlling the enterprises. But that is only the formal
aspect of the matter.
Secondly, it is needed in order, in the interests of our foreign trade,
to conduct sales of means of production to foreign countries. Here, in
the sphere of foreign trade, but only in this sphere, our means of
production really are commodities, and really are sold (in the direct
meaning of the term).
It therefore follows that in the sphere of foreign trade the means of
production produced by our enterprises retain the properties of
commodities both essentially and formally, but that in the sphere of
domestic economic circulation, means of production lose the properties
of commodities, cease to be commodities and pass out of the sphere of
operation of the law of value, retaining only the outward integument of
commodities (calculation, etc.).
How is this peculiarity to be explained?
The fact of the matter is that in our socialist conditions economic
development proceeds not by way of upheavals, but by way of gradual
changes, the old not simply being abolished out of hand, but changing
its nature in adaptation to the new, and retaining only its form; while
the new does not simply destroy the old, but infiltrates into it,
changes its nature and its functions, without smashing its form, but
utilizing it for the development of the new. This, in our economic
circulation, is true not only of commodities, but also of money, as well
as of banks, which, while they lose their old functions and acquire new
ones, preserve their old form, which is utilized by the socialist
system.
If the matter is approached from the formal angle, from the angle of the
processes taking place on the surface of phenomena, one may arrive at
the incorrect conclusion that the categories of capitalism retain their
validity under our economy. If, however, the matter is approached from
the standpoint of Marxist analysis, which strictly distinguishes between
the substance of an economic process and its form, between the deep
processes of development and the surface phenomena, one comes to the
only correct conclusion, namely, that it is chiefly the form, the
outward appearance, of the old categories of capitalism that have
remained in our country, but that their essence has radically changed in
adaptation to the requirements of the development of the socialist
economy.
The fourth point.
You assert that the law of value exercises a regulating influence on the
prices of the "means of production" produced by agriculture and
delivered to the state at the procurement prices. You refer to such
"means of production" as raw materials -- cotton, for instance. You
might have added flax, wool and other agricultural raw materials.
It should first of all be observed that in this case it is not "means of
production" that agriculture produces, but only one of the means of
production -- raw materials. The words "means of production" should not
be juggled with. When Marxists speak of the production of means of
production, what they primarily have in mind is the production of
implements of production, what Marx calls "the instruments of labour,
those of a mechanical nature, which, taken as a whole, we may call the
bone and muscles of production," which constitute the "characteristics
of a given epoch of production."[7] To equate a part of the means of
production (raw materials) with the means of production, including the
implements of production, is to sin against Marxism, because Marxism
considers that the implements of production play a decisive role
compared with all other means of production. Everyone knows that, by
themselves, raw materials cannot produce implements of production,
although certain kinds of raw material are necessary for the production
of implements of production, while no raw material can be produced
without implements of production.
Further: is the influence of the law of value on the price of raw
materials produced by agriculture a regulating influence, as you,
Comrade Notkin, claim? It would be a regulating one, if prices of
agricultural raw materials had "free" play in our country, if the law of
competition and anarchy of production prevailed, if we did not have a
planned economy, and if the production of raw materials were not
regulated by plan. But since all these "ifs" are missing in our economic
system, the influence of the law of value on the price of agricultural
raw materials cannot be a regulating one. In the first place, in our
country prices of agricultural raw materials are fixed, established by
plan, and are not "free." In the second place, the quantities of
agricultural raw materials produced are not determined spontaneously or
by chance elements, but by plan. In the third place, the implements of
production needed for the producing of agricultural raw materials are
concentrated not in the hands of individuals, or groups of individuals,
but in the hands of the state. What then, after this, remains of the
regulating function of the law of value? It appears that the law of
value is itself regulated by the above-mentioned factors characteristic
of socialist production.
Consequently, it cannot be denied that the law of value does influence
the formation of prices of agricultural raw materials, that it is one of
the factors in this process. But still less can it be denied that its
influence is not, and cannot be, a regulating one.
The fifth point.
When speaking, in my "Remarks," of the profitableness of the socialist
national economy, I was controverting certain comrades who allege that,
by not giving great preference to profitable enterprises, and by
tolerating the existence side by side with them of unprofitable
enterprises, our planned economy is killing the very principle of
profitableness of economic undertakings. The "Remarks" say that
profitableness considered from the standpoint of individual plants or
industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of
profitableness which we get from our socialist mode of production, which
saves us from crises of overproduction and ensures us a continuous
expansion of production.
But it would be mistaken to conclude from this that the profitableness
of individual plants and industries is of no particular value and is not
deserving of serious attention. That, of course, is not true. The
profitableness of individual plants and industries is of immense value
for the development of our industry. It must be taken into account both
when planning construction and when planning production. It is an
elementary requirement of our economic activity at the present stage of
development.
The sixth point.
It is not clear how your words "extended production in strongly deformed
guise" in reference to capitalism are to be understood. It should be
said that such production, and extended production at that, does not
occur in nature. It is evident that, after the world market has split,
and the sphere of exploitation of the world's resources by the major
capitalist countries (U.S.A., Britain, France) has begun to contract,
the cyclical character of the development of capitalism -- expansion and
contraction of production -- must continue to operate. However,
expansion of production in these countries will proceed on a narrower
basis, since the volume of production in these countries will diminish.
The seventh point.
The general crisis of the world capitalist system began in the period of
the First World War, particularly due to the falling away of the Soviet
Union from the capitalist system. That was the first stage in the
general crisis. A second stage in the general crisis developed in the
period of the Second World War, especially after the European and Asian
people's democracies fell away from the capitalist system. The first
crisis, in the period of the First World War, and the second crisis, in
the period of the Second World War, must not be regarded as separate,
unconnected and independent crises, but as stages in the development of
the general crisis of the world capitalist system.
Is the general crisis of world capitalism only a political, or only an
economic crisis? Neither the one, nor the other. It is a general, i.e.,
all-round crisis of the world capitalist system, embracing both the
economic and the political spheres. And it is clear that at the bottom
of it lies the ever-increasing decay of the world capitalist economic
system, on the one hand, and the growing economic might of the countries
which have fallen away from capitalism -- the U.S.S.R., China and the
other people's democracies -- on the other.
J. Stalin
April 21, 1952