6.8.3. To solve the problems.
Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness · перевод (English) · раздел 37 из 42
Перевод исходного произведения; точность перевода оценивается отдельно.
6.8.3. To solve the problems.
Having cleared out these principal worldview issues, let us get back to the essence of Stalin’s work in question. J.V. Stalin is precise about choosing its title “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” avoiding phrases like “Guidance on Managing the Socialist Economy on the Way to Communism”. This very subject-matter of UNSOLVED PROBLEMS including inappropriate Marxism and Tectology which prevent the further establishment of socialism and communism is the core of “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”.
What J.V. Stalin in his “Remarks” says seems enough if we base our world understanding on Marxism. But having once stated his standpoint on the problem in the “Remarks” he repeats himself twice in his answers to A. Notkin’s letter and A. Sanina and V. Venzher’s letter. That is why if you aim at understanding economic procedures and their management while reading “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” it is inevitable that the following question arises:
What was the purpose for Stalin’s including his answers to the two letters into the book? He just repeats the ideas stated quite clearly in the «Comments on the Economic Problems…» often quoting himself.
The answer to this question which is of great importance nowadays can be given neither on the basis of Marxism with its restrictions nor on the basis of the I-centered proprietorial world understanding of Capitalism. It cannot be given without consideration of the text of “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR ” from a historical point of view either.
To answer the question one should exceed the bounds of Marxism, for on the ground of its “elitist”-Marxist «esoteric» world understanding, the problems that J.V. Stalin writes about seem detached from real economic life. They appear to be of any importance only for the system of propaganda as a system of suppressing members of society’s mind and political will with certain opinions. That is the foundation of the ruling oligarchy in any crowd-“elitism”. Based on the world understanding of a crowd sincerely believing in Marxism, these problems seem to be solved by J. Stalin, the great leader and wise teacher of the Soviet people. From the position of the I-centered world understanding and the worldview of proprietorial capitalist entrepreneurs, the things that Stalin calls problems can be taken as defeatism and impossibility for socialist ideals and later on for communist ones to come true. They might be morally and ethically unprepared to solve such problems. It is this possibility that Stalin’s warning against risk of defeatism, made at the Central Committee plenum of October 1952, correlates with:
Without developing people’s world understanding and worldview proper economic problems of Socialism, i.e. problems of management and self-management organization in national economy, cannot be solved. The statement has been proved by the subsequent history of the USSR and former Soviet republics including Russia.
We have showed that there are «beacons» in “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” that enable a thoughtful reader to define the direction of development of his/her world understanding and worldview and to correlate it with the world understanding and the worldview prevailing in society. This view is “automatically” reproduced in the succession of generations through culture and noosphere.
Besides in order to get an answer to the question we have to get back to the historical reality of the period from 1930 to the early 1950-s.
Let us begin with the fact that J.V. Stalin knew well that the USA Capitalism was not the free market capitalism of private enterprise in the field of production and trade as described by K. Marx in his “Capital” and F. Engels in his “Anti-Duhring”, without taking into consideration the banking system and stock exchanges. It was not the Capitalism of state monopoly that Lenin tried to describe in his work “Imperialism as the Sublimity of Capitalism” either.
In particular it was not the freedom of private enterprise and market self-regulation that helped the USA fight the Great Depression, which began after stock market crash of 1929. It was limiting the freedom of market self-regulation while organizing state control of their multiindustrial system of production and consumption under the direction of president Franklin Delano Roosevelt (30.01.1882 - 12.04.1945). Following the state plan during World War II the USA met the demands of the population without restraining much their habitual mode of living, as well as the demands of the Armed Forces waging a cruel and costly [386] war against Japan over the Pacific Ocean. Besides they provided military and industrial equipment, foodstuffs and transportation for the Anti-Hitler Coalition allies [387]. Moreover during the war the USA carried out a directory guided project of creating nuclear weapons. State and private companies of almost all industries participated in it, often unaware of it.
The same things happened in Germany and even to a greater degree. The planned beginning of action on a national scale was one of the factors to enable Hitlerism regime to lead the country out of the economic crisis that broke out in 1929 because of the «liberal» regime of «the Weimar Republic» including «liberalism» in economy. Without a planned beginning on a national scale, introduced into the economy by Hitlerism regime, neither Germany’s preparation for the war with the reached military and economic power, nor its resistance to the Anti-Hitler Coalition (to the USSR mainly) during World War II could be possible. It had proceeded for almost four years beginning from June 22, 1941. The preceding events can be considered the period of Germany getting involved into the war.
At the same time Germany, unlike the USSR, suffered from lack of raw materials and almost complete foreign trade isolation during the war but for robbing Europe enslaved by Germany. Therefore the country had to work, to develop production facilities and up-to-date aircraft and tanks. Germany was just about to complete the program of rearmament air forces with jet-planes. The country added to its armory missile weapons of strategically tactical work range (cruise missiles FAU-1 and ballistic missiles FAU-2); they kept working at intercontinental ballistic missiles and enabling missiles to take-off from submarines. They carried out their own program of nuclear weapon making. It is a case for another investigation to find out the causes for their being late for the end of the war.
These well-known facts [388] proved that a planned beginning on a national scale suits in a way market regulation of capitalist states, at least the most advanced of them, without breaking the rules of a crowd-“elitism” organization of Capitalism [389].
As everybody knows in the post-war period the USSR was mastering scientific and technical progress of the Third Reich and the USA the USSR copied the American bomber B-29 which is a nuclear weapon carrier, studied and put into practice their specimen of various electronics. The Soviet nuclear project was not accomplished without studying American achievements that became available due to L. Beria himself and intelligence services’ work. The first post-war engines for jet-planes were copies and modifications of captured German materials. After the war Verner von Brown, German missiles’ creator, moved to the USA and worked there, but some of his developments reached the USSR and were examined working out Soviet missiles, for German proving ground and leading plant were located on the territory of Poland. Both military and domestic products were studied and copied.
During the war Germany suffered from lack of raw materials and almost complete foreign trade isolation, from cessation of scientific and technical information exchange, from brain-drain because of the immigration of many scientists and engineers related to Jewry, and from sabotage organized by Hitlerism regime antagonists in Germany and subordinate Europe. Still many products of the kind appeared in Germany. Some of them excelled the progress of Anti-Hitler Coalition decades. It was evident for many people it was not only the consequence of the fact that the Nazi regime was based on the traditional German culture which had encouraged education, raising the level of one’s skill, inventiveness and conscientious industry for centuries. It was also the result of the high quality of resources management provided by the Third Reich government, including uncovering and making use of diverse creative potential of its population.
The system of economy management and self-regulation created by the Nazi regime was put to evil ends by this very regime. Nevertheless it was a very effective producing and distributing system that would not be less effective when set to realize other goals. Its efficacy was achieved by a combination of the state planned beginning of defining the range of production and distribution of resources among projects first of all, and secondly among industries, and the market mechanism that kept the make-out of enterprises at the highest level due to reducing production expenses and costs.
We have cited the quality evaluation of macroeconomic systems of developed countries of 1930 - 1940s by well-known facts, which characterize them integrally. One should bear it in mind that several Soviet intelligence departments also effected a detailed interpretation and analysis of global political and economic proceedings and the situation in other countries. Analysts of any high-leveled intelligence service do not depend on prevailing or promoted ideologies or «public opinion» that they sometimes form themselves. That is why in the inner world of secret services they touch upon issues that cannot be discussed by ordinary people without being afraid of punishment. Calling things by their proper names they go as far as terminology, mastered by society and secret services, and «self-censorship» of crowd-“elitism” permit. It is another question whether their opinions will be made public and in what way they will be expressed.
Some of the USSR secret services worked for J.V. Stalin in person. That is why Stalin knew facts; he read analytical reviews that reached him through the system of «self-censorship» and personnel guardianship of him. They made it clear that a planned state beginning penetrates economy management of developed capitalist countries keeping market mechanisms of economy self-regulation, and thus enhancing labor productivity. It increased stability of the capitalist system in general, without enlarging hugely the number of bureaucracy as a burden for the producing and distributing system.
Looking back we are not trying to present J.V. Stalin more clever and far-sighted than he really was. But in his works he did write about the question of introducing a planned state beginning on a national scale into capitalist economy. In “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” we can find the following lines:
«4) Coalescence of the monopolies with the state machine.
The word "coalescence" is not appropriate. It superficially and descriptively (put in bold type by the authors) notes the process of merging of the monopolies with the state, but it does not reveal the economic import of this process. The fact of the matter is that the merging process is not simply a process of coalescence, but the subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies (put in bold type by the authors). The word «coalescence» should therefore be discarded and replaced by the words «subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 8. “Other Questions”).
In the given fragment J.V. Stalin does not seem to say anything about planning on a national scale under the conditions of Capitalism, but the following question arises:
What happens in the process of the so-called «coalescence of monopolies with the State machinery» or to be more exact, in the process of «submission of the State machinery to monopolies»?
If we imagine the activity of monopolies’ management and the State machinery, we can easily find the answer to the question:
A planned beginning means culture of development planning and production organization, new products’ development planning and organization, existing within intra-industry monopolies and multi-industry concerns in a capitalist society [390]. When it exhausts its capabilities to enlarge capitalists’ profits, it begins working in a new field that is production planning and organization on a national and transnational scale. Consequently monopolies’ managements have to subjugate by any means the State machinery. Under the pressure of monopolies’ managements the State machinery in its turn has to organize economic planning on a national scale for the sake of monopolies, to be exact for the sake of capitalists, monopolies’ owners [391].
Now this process has gone so far that nations under the pressure of transnational monopolies establish transnational planning bodies like International Monetary Fund, World Bank and others. They abandon their independence in national economy politics and finances more and more. But they prefer to avoid the term «planning» lest a number of private entrepreneurs and common people should think about the way the states are made to realize the plans and control their implementation on a global scale, and about the objective purposes of it [392].
Those were the external economic circumstances of developed capitalist countries that J.V. Stalin correlated the Soviet social and economic life with, and thought about the prospects.
By the end of 1950s multi-industry producing and distributing system of the USSR in general had been successfully developing [393] for a quarter of a century. The management was effective enough for:
· Preparing the USSR for the war;
· Winning the Great Patriotic War that was one of the hardest wars possible;
· Repairing war damage and eliminating the USA monopoly in the field of nuclear weapons within five post-war years;
· Leading the world in education of the population.
It was possible because the pace of social and economic development in the USSR during the years of Stalin’s Bolshevism was the fastest in the world, in spite of the sabotage of Socialism adversaries, acts of which occurred all over this period.
Consequently the USSR was the first country of Europe, that had been through the war, to abolish the rationing system of product distribution. The USSR was the first to repair war damage, though Hitlerists and later on our former allies hoped that it would take the USSR over 20 years. The fact that European countries were still supported by the USA on the ground of the «Marshall Plan», while the USSR restored national economy on its own did not prevent it. Moreover the USSR did everything possible to help other states that had chosen Socialism as their path of development. Just the assistance to the peoples of China with the initial industrialization and founding of scientific and technical schools cost very much.
At the same time by the end of 1950s industries determined by the number of population reached the level of maximum sufficiency in the USSR. Everybody could get education including higher education, medical care of high quality according to the standards of the time, food and clothing. There were no unemployed or homeless people, nobody boarding at garbage dumps. People had time for rest and personal development. The population of the USSR did not have a grievance against the range of supply and the quality of products, though it did not meet the “elite” consumer standards [394] of developed capitalist countries. It met the common standards of most of the people and was better than that of 1913 that they still remembered well. The level of social protection of a person was higher than in any capitalist country [395].
But further development of quality and quantity of production came into question. It was the result of the fact that national economy management had been based only on personal and addressing distribution of directive and checking information.
The so-called “elitarization” of professional managers that was in many aspects influenced by noosphere and culture inherited from the past. Though it would be wrong to blame everything on the «automatic» impact of noosphere and culture. Owing to the “elitarization” state officers’ aspirations of personal and family wealth displaced objectives suiting social interests [396], in their behavior motivation at work. As a result of the orientation toward their selfish momentary needs the body of professional managers “elitarized” presently losing the understanding of the pint of those technological, organizational and general social matters that used to be under their control. They would become to them.
As a result of the decline in managers’ qualification and necessity to provide management the body grew in number faster than production. Presently it turned into a gang ofdumb bureaucrats that parasitized on management processes and the life of society. It characterizes bureaucracy of the State machine as well as bureaucracy of other spheres of social life: spheres of the state organization, economy, education and science [397].
In the USSR both: abstract and applied science including design developments became the sphere of clannish mafia bureaucracy. It promised no good. J. Stalin also directly indicated the risk of clannish mafia bureaucratic degeneration of science:
«Question: Was “Pravda” [398] right to open a free discussion over the issues of linguistics?
Answer: It was right.
The way the problems of linguistics will be solved shall become clear by the end of the discussion. Now we can be sure that the discussion has brought much good.
First of all the discussion showed that in linguistics institutions both in the center and in republics there ruled a regime that in not characteristic of science and scientists. The slightest criticism of the present situation in the Soviet linguistics, even the most fragile attempts to criticize the so-called “new teaching” in linguistics were persecuted by the ruling linguistic groups. Valued researchers would be ousted or demoted for their critics of the heritage of N. Marr, for a slightest dissent with his teaching. Linguists used to be promoted not by their professional qualities, but by their implicit recognition of N. Marr’s teaching.
It is universally acknowledged that no science can develop and succeed without divergence of opinions and the freedom of critics. But this universally acknowledged rule was ignored and violated most impudently. There appeared a group of leaders without a sin that began to act willfully and outrageously, having secured themselves against any critics». - Here we cite the final pages of J. Stalin’s work “Marxism and questions of linguistics” [399] (“Pravda”, June 20, 1950), where he summed up another social and political discussion.
So it would be a lie to argue that J.V. Stalin was admiring himself for the progress the state he governed had made or for his own progress in his career. It would also be wrong to say that he did not see the problem of management inefficiency of the growing and turning bourgeois bureaucracy or did not try to find means and ways of solving this problem.
Here in chapter 6.7 we cited K. Simonov’s story about J. Stalin’s speech on the plenum of the Central Committee of October, 1952. It was belated and contained some libelous estimations of J.V. Stalin in the spirit of Khrushchev’s period imposing an idiotic «understanding» of history on everybody. The story was also one of the showings that J. Stalin was satisfied with neither anti-communist movements that grew stronger, nor with his personal position and his «associates» who belonged to parasitically regenerating [400] bureaucracy, inefficient from the point of view of management. Besides from the middle of 1920s till the end of 1930s L. Trotsky [401] constantly pointed to the bureaucratization of life in the USSR. No matter how Stalin treated Marxism in general, but being well-read in Marxism literature he knew that Marx was right giving his definition of bureaucracy as a phenomenon of life of crowd-“elitism” but for the last phrase. Here is this sociology term definition given by K. Marx:
«Bureaucracy is a circle that nobody can escape from. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The upper stratum relies in lower ones when the matter concerns knowledge of particulars. Lower strata rely on the upper one when it concerns general understanding, so they mislead each other mutually.[…] the universal spirit of bureaucracy is a secret, a sacrament. Complying with this sacrament is secured in its own environment by the hierarchic organization. Regarding the outward world «society» it is secured by its exclusive corporate organization. Therefore open mind of the state and national thinking seem to bureaucracy a betrayal of the secret. Thus authority is the principle of knowledge, and idolizing the authority [402] is the way of thinking [403]. […] As for a bureaucrat, a state goal becomes his personal goal, his rush for ranks, his career making». (bold type is supplied by the authors) (K. Marx. “To the Critics of Hegel’s Legal Philosophy”. K. Marx and F. Engels’s works. The second edition [404], volume 1, pp. 271 - 272.)
However concerning a single bureaucrat K. Marx is not right. It is just on the opposite: it is not the goal of the state that becomes personal for a bureaucrat (that would be any state’s dream), but wants to present his personal or family clannish purpose as a national necessity. It can happen because a bureaucrat is often a toady [405] or a subordinate to clans of high position in a certain sphere of society life. If he cannot do it he tries and does it as a secret to society. It is on the basis of this aspiration that bureaucracy forms as a mafia corporation [406] that is «a circle that nobody can escape from» alone and so on by Marx, except for his view on the essence of a bureaucrat activity as a phenomenon of the crowd-“elitism” society life that we have rejected [407].
According to this proactive warning J.V. Stalin knew that bureaucracy could not provide production management and distribution in society in compliance with the needs of Socialism and Communism building [408]. He regarded bureaucracy and every single bureaucrat as enemies of the idea and mission that he carried out sincerely.
Even during the Great Patriotic War it became clear that the warning was correct, but «one should never swap horses while crossing the stream» but for emergency cases. According to this fact after the war officers of high rank of the air forces and aircraft industry stood trial for malfeasance in office during the war. Both the parties mutually agreed that the air forces got from the aircraft industry defective equipment [409]; as a result many aviation accidents happened where pilots were injured and or died without being involved in operations.
Recent years this episode if the USSR history has been presented by mass media as an example of the supposedly «unjustified repressions» that took place in the post-war period. Yet it is not the only case of bureaucracy showing its anti-national essence. It just happened to be the most well-known one out of a great number of similar cases of the Soviet age that accompanied the bureaucratic management style in production development all over the history of Russia, from the rule of Peter the great to the present moment [410].
Slips made by the Soviet bureaucrats in the field of national economy management are also mentioned in “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR ”. We shall come back to it further on.
In order not to carry the yoke of the global biblical or another oligarchy of witch-doctors again the USSR peoples had to begin solving the problems of the unfinished building of Socialism. In life there is a certain correspondence in the system «aims - problems that have to be solved to achieve the aims». In other words «certain aims involve certain problems, other aims involve other problems». In “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR ” J.V. Stalin pointed out the aims of a regular stage of the USSR social development definitely and accurately:
«It is necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of society as will secure for all members of society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members of society may be in a position to receive an education sufficient to enable them to be active agents of social development [411], and in a position freely to choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives, owing to the existing division of labour, to some one occupation.
What is required for this?
It would be wrong to think that such a substantial advance in the cultural standard of the members of society can be brought about without substantial changes in the present status of labour. For this, it is necessary, first of all, to shorten the working day at least to six, and subsequently to five hours. This is needed in order that the members of society might have the necessary free time to receive an all round education. It is necessary, further, to introduce universal compulsory polytechnical education, which is required in order that the members of society might be able freely to choose their occupations and not be tied to some one occupation all their lives. It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods (put in bold type by the authors) [412].
These are the basic conditions required to pave the way for the transition to communism». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yarochenko”, part 1. “Comrade Yaroshenko's Chief Error”).
It appears from this that the USSR national economy was not to work for the man in the street to gorge himself, to get filled with bear and vodka and heaped up with clothes. It was not to give him time on account of reduction of working hours for lechery that is as befuddling as alcohol and other drugs promoting showbiz, pornographicand gambling industry. It was not to bear a new lordly “elite” that would become «cultivated» and detached from Life parasites, idlers of high society with the rest of people working like mules for them.
This is a well-grounded living alternative to that suicidal way of survival (not way of living) reached by developed capitalist countries having brought other countries to ruin, in the period after 1952. At the beginning of chapter 6.8.3 we talked about it in one of the footnotes.
National economy was to work for providing all people with free timethat was necessary for them to feel, to realize and to understand themselves, to recognize their potential of personal growth, to help their children and grandchildren to recognize their potential of personal growth; for enabling all people to become active makers of social development.
In other words if the level of social and economic development defined by Stalin as far back as the middle of the 20th century were achieved within the period of two or three generations, i.e. about 70 years, a new Man and his civilization could be born. If compared with it all present regional civilizations and the global civilization in general would come out in their true colors: in their inhuman savagery and anti-human demonism, in their underdevelopment, perverse morals and personality essence.
If this change happened it would exclude the very possibility of any tyranny towards society and any of its members.
Therefore «world backstage» did their best not only to prevent this level from being achieved, but to make everybody forget about it and to make the USSR society that was still crowd-“elite” to diminish the achievements made under J. Stalin.
If J.V. Stalin had not written “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” where he killed Marxism and pointed out a valid living prospect of development, if he had not spoken against the State machinery “elitarization” at the Central Committee plenum of October, 1952, «world backstage» would have added his name to history as an outstanding Marxist and Communist and would have begun propagating to developed capitalist countries the USSR achievements in curbing the race for consumption [413]. But all the achievements were connected with the name of Stalin, so they had to extirpate the spirit of Stalin’s Bolshevism out of society [414]. That was the reason why their periphery suppressed and perverted the processes started in the age of Stalin’s Bolshevism.
J.V. Stalin lived in society where materialistic worldview prevailed and many people did not think culture development and personal growth to be the most important things; therefore he began the cited fragment with the word «thirdly». But this word is preceded by two more conditions that secure practicability of this «thirdly» under the rule of materialistic worldview:
«1. It is necessary, in the first place, to ensure, not a mythical “rational organization” of the productive forces, but a continuous expansion of all social production, with a relatively higher rate of expansion of the production of means of production. The relatively higher rate of expansion of production of means of production is necessary not only because it has to provide the equipment both for its own plants and for all the other branches of the national economy, but also because reproduction on an extended scale becomes altogether impossible without it.
- It is necessary, in the second place, by means of gradual transitions carried out to the advantage of the collective farms, and, hence, of all society, to raise collective-farm property to the level of public property, and, also by means of gradual transitions, to replace commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange, under which the central government, or some other social-economic centre, might control the whole product of social production in the interests of society». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Concerning the Errors of Comrade L.D. Yarochenko”, part 1. “Comrade Yaroshenko's Chief Error”).
The first point in essence means that it is necessary to create technological basis of production in a short space of time by standards of history. The production basis would secure meeting all the demands of society conditioned by the number of population including cultural needs while daily working hours would not exceed 5 hours. It would satisfy the major law of socialism formulated by J.V. Stalin that we cited in part 4.4.
Creating the production basis demands development of new generation means of production. They must be produced up-to date instead of obsolescent means of production, so that in all industries of national economy equipment, up-to-date organization and technologies would prevail. Accordingly production of new effective means of production should prevail over production of consumptive use [415].
The second point in essence means that this process should be accompanied and provided for by founding a national system of development management, production and distribution, because it is impossible to reach the new level of social development determined by Stalin without it.
According to the three conditions public enemies hiding behind place-hunters who do not suit their posts because of their imbecility and behind know-alls subjected to pressure did the following:
· They began fighting against the impact of Stalin’s Bolshevism ideas on people’s worldview under the pretext of fighting «the cult of personality of Stalin» that they had created and supported themselves. For that reason they withdrew all Stalin’s works including “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” from libraries, excluded them from the course of political science and launch a libelous campaign against J.V. Stalin personally and all the age of Stalin’s Bolshevism.
· They supported bureaucratic mafia in the field of science, research and development and encourage it to persecute and deprave creative talented people, to suppress pioneer developments, to reject application of the achievements of science to production, to squander resources and intellectual potential for dead-ends. That was why by 1980 the USSR had one of the most out-of-date production bases in the world though possessed a number of world-recognized inventions and applications rejected by the Soviet patent agency that Japan was ready to buy wholesale.
· They prevented all fields of activity from organizing effective systems of public administration. For that purpose most of higher educational establishments had to exclude the subjects forming a general idea of management processes in life, enabling students to solve practical problems in the field of engineering, agriculture, science and politics as management problems. Such subjects as dynamic programming, linear and nonlinear programming, automatic control theory for the lack of a more general theory, they were unknown for the majority of alumnae in the USSR and Russia.
· They continued pressing on people, the young generation mainly, with the cult of Marxism, perverting their world understanding and idea of life prevailing in society.
Neither the crowd-“elitism” party, nor the crowd-“elitism” society of the USSR rebuffed this perversion of the course of Communism building. Therefore economic problems and problems of Socialism in the USSR connected with them appeared unsolved, moreover new problems added and previously unsolved problems «rose from the dead». Yet they have to be brought to light and solved because by the Predestination there is no room for the civilization of speaking human-like sensible apes and their demonic masters and bosses. So let us come back to the facts that J.V. Stalin regarded as incontestable progress of Socialism and to the way he understood problems that were to be solved.
J.V. Stalin regarded national economy of the USSR as an integral system, i.e. as an object of management constituted of a number of elements with different functions that interact with each other. He conceived developing this multi-industry production and distribution system as development and update of the element basis and the interconnection system of elements. Anybody can make sure that it is true after a careful consideration of the text of “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR ”. At the same time the integrity function should se subject to certain laws forming the hierarchy of mutual multiplicity.
The most important law among them must be the main economic law of Socialism formulated by Stalin the following way: «providing maximum satisfaction of ever-growing material and cultural needs of society by means of continuous growth and improvement of Socialist production on the basis of advanced techniques and equipment».
The law of planned (proportional) development of national economy is in its turn subordinate to the main economic law. In “Digression 6” we analyzed carefully the understanding of the words «planned» and «proportional».
Explaining the interrelation of economic laws of socialism and their interconnection with life, J.V. Stalin pointed out that unlike the force of law of value under spontaneous market capitalism, economic laws of Socialism do not have the characteristic of automatism of the kind. They take knowledge. Only after that effective planning and national economy management becomes possible according to the knowledge and public needs. In particular:
«…the law of balanced development of the national economy makes it possible for our planning bodies to plan social production correctly. But possibility must not be confused with actuality. They are two different things. In order to turn the possibility into actuality, it is necessary to study this economic law, to master it, to learn to apply it with full understanding, and to compile such plans as fully reflect the requirements of this law. It cannot be said that the requirements of this economic law are fully reflected by our yearly and five-yearly plans». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 1. “Character of Economic Laws Under Socialism”.)
Many people suppose that J.V. Stalin attached no importance to «the law of value» as a code of objective showings of economy efficiency such as production cost value, market prices and profitability and therefore national economy of the USSR appeared so inefficient. Actually is absolutely untrue.
J.V. Stalin attached special importance to «the law of value» that was impossible to achieve under the conditions of capitalist economy. But beginning from the first edition of “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” economists and first of all titled fools from the economic department of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and union republics or the present Russian Academy of Sciences could not or did not want to understand what J.V. Stalin wrote. Neither they understood what there was behind accountants’ guides in the course of economical activities. J.V. Stalin wrote the following lines concerning «the law of value».
«…the sphere of operation of the law of value is limited by the social ownership of the means of production, and by the law of balanced development of the national economy, and is consequently also limited by our yearly and five-yearly plans, which are an approximate reflection of the requirements of this law (put in bold type by the authors: the important thing here is that saying approximately Stalin admitted inevitability of mistakes caused by different reasons. Any plan is subject to them therefore it is not the most precise realization of the plan that is the best way of using national economy production facilities among feasible ones).
Some comrades draw the conclusion from this that the law of balanced development of the national economy and economic planning annul the principle of profitableness of production. That is quite untrue. It is just the other way round. If profitableness is considered not from the stand-point of individual plants or industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, which is the only correct approach to the question (all put in bold type by the authors), then the temporary and unstable profitableness of some plants or industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of stable and permanent profitableness which we get from the operation of the law of balanced development of the national economy and from economic planning, which save us from periodical economic crises disruptive to the national economy and causing tremendous material damage to society, and which ensure a continuous and high rate of expansion of our national economy». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 3. “The Law of Value Under Socialism”).
«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 (all put in bold type by the authors).
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». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Reply to Comrade Alexander Ilyich Notkin”, “The fifth point”).
J.V. Stalin made a reserve bluntly. He wrote:
«…there can be no doubt that under our present socialist conditions of production, the law of value cannot be a "regulator of the proportions" of labour distributed among the various branches of production». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 3. “The Law of Value Under Socialism”).
The function of inter-industry proportions regulation should be performed the main economic law of Socialism. It results in defining the objects for the production system and in the law of planned (proportional) development of national economy. This law opens up possibilities of bringing production capabilities into accord with needs of society in the best way possible.
But here a question arises: how does the superior profitability of national economy correlate with profitability of every single industry? In other words with profitability of a number of enterprises in certain industries. These enterprises can work by any pattern of ownership, i.e. state, co-operative or kolkhoz and even sole proprietorship.
Normally sales return of a business should exceed expenses. Otherwise donation would be needed. If it is not needed and the business is profitable, then what does profitability of national economy as a unite system in the course of 10 or 15 years mean? Many people do not understand it.
First of all they do not understand it because a Socialist state is not one of the financial system users but the owner of it. Besides the state as the owner of the financial system and a number of enterprises gets no profit and suffers no loss if some values move from the balance of an enterprise to the balance of another one. This process is accompanied by the proper transfer of funds.
Actually it is not so difficult as it may seem. At a certain period gross output can be valued at cost or at a real price. Accordingly at the same period it can comprise capital goods expenditures including the equipment of production distribution system securing production storage and sale to ultimate consumers. After a while these means of production will produce products that a consumer will buy. The way consumers will pay for them and their prices do not matter when considering the question of national economy profitability as a whole. Another thing matters:
Introducing new means of production in all the industries results in a range of products. If national economy on the whole is profitable at a certain period of time then the cost of the range of production at a value cost of the beginning of the period must exceed the cost of means of production.
Certainly some time is needed for the products to compensate for the new means of production. It is natural that the shorter this period, the more effective and the larger the profitability of national economy as a whole. At this it is not production for consumptive use but manufacturing more effective means of production that should be of paramount importance. This is the pledge of stability of the given regime of national economy functioning in the succession of planned production cycles, i.e. intervals of all-system profitability control.
This approach estimates profitability of national economy only by the production activity including production distribution to ultimate consumers. Anything that is not directly relevant to production and distribution is excluded from the estimation of national economy profitability. The reason for it is the fact that other sectors’ activity is conditioned by the capability of the production and distribution sector to feed and to settle lives of those involved in other sectors. Scientific, technological and organizational advances are kept in stability store of estimation of national economy profitability. Speculative sector preoccupied with deriving an income from «securities» and on-selling is not taken into consideration for being parasite [416].
This is a general point of view. It is to be put into practice on the ground of a certain classified nomenclature of products and services. It forms a basis for planning, production record, production distribution and real consumption. They are to provide correlation between showings at the beginning and at the end of a control period. Otherwise uncertain nomenclature and changes in it during the period of time would prevent from correlating the showings.
The structure of industries and their relationship change in the course of time under the influence of scientific, technological and organizational advance. Therefore division of national economy into industries and classification of industries are secondary to classified nomenclature of production. In other words the system of long-term strategic planning of production, distribution, consumption and recycling can be and must be derived from stable nomenclature of a range of needs based on population study. It should not be the consequence of unstable nomenclature of industries [417].
J.V. Stalin determined the duration of the estimation period of national economy profitability on the whole as ten or fifteen years. It means that during tan or fifteen years virtually all investments should compensate for themselves in the described way and secure national economy profitability estimated at constant prices.
Besides J. Stalin’s wording about the rule of superior profitability of national economy actually implicated the requirements for planning. Those are to provide for high-quality renewal of all the equipment and organization of national economy as united system of production and consumption every ten or fifteen years. It does not mean that there cannot be more durable enginery and projects with a longer self-repayment span or planned unprofitable but socially necessary projects. It means that in every industry more up-to-date, more efficient equipment and technologies should be introduced extensively.
What has been said proves that that J.V. Stalin suggested no protracted building when a project would become obsolete, the execution of it would lose sense and when structures installations would begin ruining in course of construction. Such protracted building later becomes normal. But it is a perversion of Baibakov’s followers [418] in the State Planning Committees of the USSR and republics of Khrushchev and Brezhnev’s age.
J.V. Stalin wrote that the law of value was subject to the rule of «superior profitability of national economy» in the period of ten-fifteen years, while the multi-industry system of production and consumption was subject to «the main economic law of Socialism» and «the law of planned (proportional) development of national economy». Actually all these things implicated two associated goals:
· Maintaining balance of dues and grants in national economy, i.e. providing for financial stability of planned unprofitable enterprises and business of low profit. That is to be achieved owing to redistribution of excess profits of highly remunerative enterprises in favor of business of low profit;
· Using over and above the plan production facilities so that the produced output would find a consumer and would serve society. These facilities:
O inevitably exist because of mistakes in books and necessity to secure stability of the plan by resources and facilities involved [419];
O appear again due to scientific, technical and organizational advance in process of accomplishing state plan targets, - so that the goods which can be produced with these facilities could be in demand and use for the society.
Neither of these goals can be achieved under bureaucracy rule. It was one of the reasons for J.V. Stalin to write fairly that «under the present Socialist conditions of production (our splash text) the law of value cannot work as a «regulator of proportions» in labor division between different industries».
The matter is that non-profitability and low profitability of an enterprise can have different nature. It can result from poor bureaucratic management and Socialist property looting or from the public price-formation policy pursuing noneconomic objects and being guided by J. Stalin’s principle of superior profitability. A bureaucrat who is to manage the balance of dues and grants cannot differentiate between these types of non-profitability and low profitability. Therefore basically he can maintain the balance of dues and grants distributing donations in favor of fools and thieves at the expense of hard-working people. Being «quite well-meant» he violates the principle of the superior profitability of national economy trying ‘not to make a mistake’ and not to harm the public price-formation policy though he does not understand what objects it pursues. But it is within a high-ranking bureaucrat’s grasp to maintain the balance of dues and grants according to the principle of the superior profitability of national economy.
A bureaucrat of a lower rank is no better. He is to manage an enterprise. He does not understand the principle of the superior profitability of national economy; moreover it disgusts him thoroughly, because his personal and clannish objects substitute for social ones that determine the principle of the superior profitability. This principle secures his wealth in the future on a par with all people. Nevertheless the fact that business is subject to this principle, so that resources and production facilities are to be used according to it, prevents the bureaucrat from abusing his position and getting rich to the prejudice of others, both: at present and in the future.
In the same way it is impossible to use over and above the plan production facilities under bureaucratic rule. Using over and above the plan production facilities in essence requires expansion of the scope of commodity-money exchange in Socialist economy. The scope should embrace public enterprises of national economy. Then it would become possible to organize self-regulation of the usage of over and above the plan production facilities in national economy. It could be done when they would appear not to be used in a planned work. The immediate person in charge of the facilities would manage it without wasting time on forwarding ideas, arranging meetings, changing the plan in action. It would help to avoid standstill of facilities until they are used for planned production in the next planning period.
But bureaucratic rule left out such a possibility, because production facilities belonged completely to bureaucrats, that is business managers and directors. Legalization of the machine of market self-regulation when using over and above the plan production facilities led automatically to sabotage, both deliberate and accidental. Deliberate sabotage was aimed at discrediting Socialism and re-establishing Capitalism. Accidental sabotage was through ignorance. It urged to rush for profits in order to improve the well being of their own group to the detriment of production objects of great importance to society.
The rule of Marxism political economy rooted out the possibility to expose deliberate sabotage and to leave out sabotage through ignorance. Here some explanation is needed.
Henry Ford, being a private proprietor de jure, regarded his enterprises common wealth de facto. Therefore concluding purchase and sale deals and adopting the policy of planned reduction in price for output goods to serve people he objectively worked for the principle of the superior profitability of US national economy. He did not care about correlation of purchase and sale based on property law with the status of public property of his own enterprises. Political economy as a means of organizing sensible public work on the basis of a common world out-look did not matter to him. The reason was that he did not realize it had such a function. He regarded all contemporary political economy experts as windbags and drones whom conscientious working people had to feed. Actually that was essentially true.
In the USSR things were different. Bureaucrats regarded enterprises of public property as their private property within the limits of their authority. Marxism political economy would not answer to the following question:
What if a state owned (Soviet) enterprise transfers some money to the account of another state owned enterprise as a payment (or something else) for certain goods or services produced by the second enterprise?
Unlike H. Ford, J.V. Stalin being the leader of the ruling party and the head of the state thought over this problem and the consequences of it being unsolved. He realized the role of sociological theories and particularly theories of political economy as a means of organizing sensible public work on the basis of a common world out-look. J.V. Stalin wrote the following lines on the problem of an unintelligible interpretation of such questions in Marxism political economy:
«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?
(…)
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» (put in bold type by the authors). “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Reply to Comrade Alexander Ilyich Notkin”, part 3 “The third point”).
If we do not examine the problem within the bounds of Marxism we can come to the only right conclusion:
Marxism political economy does not call all things and phenomena by their proper names. Consequently there appears inconsistency of the form and the content of a phenomenon.
In situations of this kind concordance of form and content is a subjective matter:
· As far as H. Ford and J.V. Stalin are concerned it is in favor of public property de facto, planned beginning on a national scale, the principle of superior profitability of national economy based on effective management of business and prices according to real present and future needs of conscientious working people and the state concerning products and services;
· In case with a Soviet bureaucrat, a Marxist and dogmatist it is in favor of himself and to the prejudice of ideals and the cause of Communism. One cannot find fault with it: everything is justifiable by Communist advisability expressed in Marxism. A person has a right to interpret it in a certain way according to his/her position in the hierarchy of post subordination.
The inconsistency of form and content is not the result of Marxism only, but of any modification of the I-centered worldview. In order to establish the unity of form and content [420] an alternative comprehensive sociological theory was needed that would call things and phenomena by their proper names, thus secure uniqueness of life conception for different people.
If a theory of this kind were developed, well-meant but ignorant bureaucrats would begin changing the structure of their mind while mastering the theory. They would adopt their subjective ideas of life to reality and consequently would quit being bureaucrats. They would become good managers and businessmen, Bolshevik entrepreneurs. The theory would help most people expose ill-intentioned «know-alls» pursuing the object of destroying Socialism advances and re-establishing a kind of legalized crowd-“elitism”. As a consequence of this unsolved problem alongside with some others J.V. Stalin was right under those social and historic circumstances to limit the scope of commodity-money exchange (trade in the field of production). The limitation was implemented by means of interaction of the state economic sector and co-operative one on the basis of prices established by the state.
There was nothing to prevent profitability of co-operative business from growing to the level that could be reached on the basis of state planned shopping prices, but bureaucracy in management. The same concerns increasing profitability of state enterprises as compared to a planned level.
Here a question arises, why did J.V. Stalin write that common wealth increase should be ensured by means of:
· Direct wage raise;
· Further systematic cut in prices for articles of mass consumption.
The latter point is especially important.
The answer to the question shows that in Socialist economy the principle of superior profitability of national economy as a whole must go with the principle of achieving utmost self-repayment of enterprises. Note that the principle of superior profitability of national economy is manifested by a planned systematic cut in prices according to the increase of social labor productivity and of serving people’s needs in various products including services. As a result the savings of manufacturing a product as well as over and above the plan production should become apparent not only in price cutting and output rate increasing [421], but in the up growth of nominal cash income of enterprises. This enables groups to develop their funds of public consumption and to reward their employees thereby encouraging them to work conscientiously, without waiting for a national cut in prices.
During post-Stalin’s period this strategy was distorted. But it does not mean that J.V. Stalin was wrong in his idea of a planned state beginning on a national scale and principles of self-repayment (profitability) of national economy as a whole as well as of single enterprises.
The issue of commodity production under Socialism and accordingly the issue of market functioning is explained by J.V. Stalin in the following way:
«Commodity production must not be regarded as something sufficient unto itself, something independent of the surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed in slave-owning society, and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed in feudal society and served it, yet, although it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production, it did not lead to capitalism. Why then, one asks, cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism, bearing in mind that in our country commodity production is not so boundless and all-embracing as it is under capitalist conditions, being confined within strict bounds thanks to such decisive economic conditions as social ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the system of wage labour, and the elimination of the system of exploitation?
(…)
Of course, when instead of the two basic production sectors, the state sector and the collective-farm sector, there will be only one all-embracing production sector, with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy," will disappear, as being an unnecessary element in the national economy. But so long as this is not the case, so long as the two basic production sectors remain, commodity production and commodity circulation must remain in force, as a necessary and very useful element in our system of national economy. How the formation of a single and united sector will come about, whether simply by the swallowing up of the collective-farm sector by the state sector - which is hardly likely (because that would be looked upon as the expropriation of the collective farms) - or by the setting up of a single national economic body (comprising representatives of state industry and of the collective farms), with the right at first to keep account of all consumer product in the country, and eventually also to distribute it, by way, say, of products-exchange - is a special question which requires separate discussion.
Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state, the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which, together with its "money economy," is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 2. “Commodity Production Under Socialism”.)
«Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist.
In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the exchange of commodities through purchase and sale, the exchange, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.
But the operation of the law of value is not confined to the sphere of commodity circulation. It also extends to production. True, the law of value has no regulating function in our socialist production, but it nevertheless influences production, and this fact cannot be ignored when directing production. As a matter of fact, consumer goods, which are needed to compensate the labour power expended in the process of production, are produced and realized in our country as commodities coming under the operation of the law of value. It is precisely here that the law of value exercises its influence on production. In this connection, such things as cost accounting and profitableness, production costs, prices, etc., are of actual importance in our enterprises. Consequently, our enterprises cannot, and must not, function without taking the law of value into account.
Is this a good thing? It is not a bad thing. Under present conditions, it really is not a bad thing, since it trains our business executives to conduct production on rational lines and disciplines them. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives to count production magnitudes, to count them accurately, and also to calculate the real things in production precisely, and not to talk nonsense about "approximate figures," spun out of thin air. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives to look for, find and utilize hidden reserves latent in production, and not to trample them under foot. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives systematically to improve methods of production, to lower production costs, to practise cost accounting, and to make their enterprises pay. It is a good practical school which accelerates the development of our executive personnel and their growth into genuine leaders of socialist production at the present stage of development.
The trouble is not that production in our country is influenced by the law of value. The trouble is that our business executives and planners, with few exceptions, are poorly acquainted with the operations of the law of value, do not study them, and are unable to take account of them in their computations. This, in fact, explains the confusion that still reigns in the sphere of price-fixing policy (put in bold type by the authors: the integral evaluation of economic literacy of managers and economists generation brought up by Marxism political economy). Here is one of many examples. Some time ago it was decided to adjust the prices of cotton and grain in the interest of cotton growing, to establish more accurate prices for grain sold to the cotton growers, and to raise the prices of cotton delivered to the state. Our business executives and planners submitted a proposal on this score which could not but astound the members of the Central Committee, since it suggested fixing the price of a ton of grain at practically the same level as a ton of cotton, and, moreover, the price of a ton of grain was taken as equivalent to that of a ton of baked bread. In reply to the remarks of members of the Central Committee that the price of a ton of bread must be higher than that of a ton of grain, because of the additional expense of milling and baking, and that cotton was generally much dearer than grain, as was also borne out by their prices in the world market, the authors of the proposal could find nothing coherent to say. The Central Committee was therefore obliged to take the matter into its own hands and to lower the prices of grain and raise the prices of cotton. What would have happened if the proposal of these comrades had received legal force? We should have ruined the cotton growers and would have found ourselves without cotton». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 3. “The Law of Value Under Socialism”.)
These fragments show that J.V. Stalin understood that there was no way to escape the objective law of value in economy in the course of building Socialism and Communism. But management and economists’ ignorance prevented from achieving the utmost efficiency of planned Socialist economy of the USSR. The efficiency was improved by turning on market machinery of self-regulation of using available over and above the plan facilities. It was impossible to overcome this ignorance under the limitations of I-centered economic theories both: Marxism and private-owner theories. Without overcoming the ignorance they would not solve the problem of combining the plan of public utility conditioned by the population science and market machinery within one system of production and consumption.
This is not the whole story. If de-bureaucratization had been carried out it would have exposed ill-intentioned bureaucrats and would have enlightened ignorant bureaucrats on the basis of a theory alternative to Marxism. Then market machinery could have been subordinated to the planned beginning and the main economic law of socialism by means of the machinery of dues and donations and included into Socialism economy. But J.V. Stalin was not content with market machinery as a regulator. It did not guarantee superiority over Capitalism in the quality of economy management for in capitalism economy there had already been an attempt to combine a planned beginning on a national scale with market self-regulation. That was the reason for J.V. Stalin to set another object explaining the issue of the law of value under socialism. This object was more important than combining a plan and market machinery of self-regulation of using available over and above the plan facilities in the USSR national economy:
«In the second phase of communist society, the amount of labour expended on the production of goods will be measured not in a roundabout way, not through value and its forms, as is the case under commodity production, but directly and immediately - by the amount of time, the number of hours, expended on the production of goods «if we specify it as the time conditioned by techniques and organization and remember that scientific, technical, organizational and technological advance are held in store of plan stability then everything is right. There appear no unfounded man?hours needed to make a scientific discovery». As to the distribution of labour, its distribution among the branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will have ceased to function by that time, but by the growth of society's demand for goods. It will be a society in which production will be regulated by the requirements of society, and computation of the requirements of society will acquire paramount importance for the planning bodies» (put in bold type by the authors: comments will be given later). (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Remarks on Economics Questions Connected with the November 1951 Discussion”, part 3. “The Law of Value Under Socialism”).
If we go into particulars of direct responsiveness of people’s needs and production orientation towards them directly, it suggests the following. There should be created such systems of production and of production management and distribution that secure production of almost everything [422] at a pace that does not cause nuisance for a consumer during the time while his order is being executed.
J.V. Stalin realized this system was an alternative for the market, that could excel the market in efficiency. Naturally he did not wait for Communism to be built to move to this system but started it right away.
«We still have no developed system of products-exchange, but the rudiments of such a system exist in the shape of the "merchandising" of agricultural products. For quite a long time already, as we know, the products of the cotton-growing, flax-growing, beet-growing and other collective farms are "merchandised". They are not "merchandised" in full, it is true, but only partly, still they are "merchandised." Be it mentioned in passing that "merchandising" is not a happy word, and should be replaced by "products-exchange". The task is to extend these rudiments of products-exchange to all branches of agriculture and to develop them into a broad system, under which the collective farms would receive for their products not only money, but also and chiefly the manufactures they need. Such a system would require an immense increase in the goods allocated by the town to the country, and it would therefore have to be introduced without any particular hurry, and only as the products of the town multiply. But it must be introduced unswervingly and unhesitatingly, step by step contracting the sphere of operation of commodity circulation and widening the sphere of operation of products-exchange.
Such a system, by contracting the sphere of operation of commodity circulation, will facilitate the transition from socialism to communism. Moreover, it will make it possible to include the basic property of the collective farms, the product of collective farming, in the general system of national planning». (“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Reply to Comrades A.V. Sanina and V.G. Venzher” part 2).
If the state regarded this undertaking seriously more and more enterprises of all economic sectors would be involved in this system of self-regulation of production and consumption in the course of social and historic development. It could be achieved on the basis of virtual management structures of production and consumption products exchange [423]. But when J.V. Stalin died this way of development was cut short. Some economic reformers of the age of Khrushchev and Brezhnev and the period after the USSR break-up showed their readiness to capitulate to Capitalism, others showed their feeble mind for they concentrated on the problem of introducing a market machinery into Russian economy. First they tried it as a means to improve the planned beginning function, then as a supposed alternative to it [424].
While reading the given fragments concerning the substitution for commodity production (and trade correspondingly) by direct products exchange one should not think that J.V. Stalin was an idiot. He was not like those reformers of early 90-s of the 20th century who could not cope with adjustment of the financing system to maintaining product exchange because of their stupidity and grabbling and who drove the country to barter. Barter was a type of exchange trade of primitive society. Those who take his words about direct products exchange this way are idiots themselves, they insensible to the tenor of life and incapable of thinking. J.V. Stalin had figurative ideas of the way Socialism planned economy was to work in the process of changing to communism. But in the culture of society there was no conceptual system to express his thought clearly. J.V. Stalin did not create this system himself. It appeared too much for him to bear to govern the country day-to-day and at the same time to create philosophy and sociology afresh that agreed with ideals of Communism, building of it in practice and the atmosphere of Marxism cult that was essentially hostile to Communism.
Keeping the supreme public authority of the USSR under his thumb J.V. Stalin being the leader of the Party and the head of the state for thirty years led society successfully to another point of re-examining the past and forming intentions for the future. With the help of the means of expressing thoughts available in the culture of society at that time he revealed and defined the unsolved problems that prevented the USSR society and the global civilization from developing.
That is the reason for us to be thankful to him. Another reason is that he managed to organize the victory in the Great Patriotic War in spite of the tendencies characteristic of the crowd-“elitism”. It will not to do to succeed at others’ expense: these problems as well as some others were to be solved by science. The fact that mostly on the territory of the USSR they were not solved moreover forgotten demonstrates parasitism, mental and professional weakness. This refers to everybody with an academic degree in philosophy or economics and other branches of sociology beginning from Ph. D. “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” is their verdict of guilty.