Текст книги "Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness"
Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 22 (всего у книги 32 страниц)
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 som e thing else) for certain goods or services produced by the second ente r prise?
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[425] 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[426], 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 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[427] 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[428]. 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[429].
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.
* *
*
All the things cited here show that “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” also contains the answer to the following questions:
Why was not the economic reform of the age of N. Khrushchev with its system of «state public farms» designed to manage regional production systems justified?
Why did the reform of Kosygin of early 60-s of the 20th century lose its way? Why did not it produce a beneficial effect on Socialism and Communism as well as the generation of pro-bourgeois dissidents of the sixties who did not manage to «snatch the time of their life» at once.
But the present generation of Russian reformers has no future either if they do not solve the problems posed directly or touched upon indirectly by J. Stalin. Consequently the general global crisis of Capitalism will continue to aggravate assuming new faces such as ecology, terrorism, epidemics of insanity, etc.
Besides the discussed issues there are some less important (in our view) problems in the work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”. We shall not broach them in the present work for they do not correspond to the subject matter. Alongside with examining problems that were to be solved J.V. Stalin expressed his opinion on admissible and inadmissible management decisions in the course of the USSR further approaching Communism. His opinion was mostly conditioned by the social and economic reality of the USSR of those years. His mind was inseparably linked with it. Khrushchev’s rule adopted a new policy to drive the country to elimination of the achievements of Stalin’s Bolshevism. As a result social and economic circumstances changed. Therefore J. Stalin’s opinion lost its topicality. Now it is interesting only from the point of view of history. That is why if anybody is interested in these questions he/she should turn to J. Stalin’s direction to Bolsheviks for the future.
However to all appearance J.V. Stalin went beyond publishing “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”. That was a work oriented towards the specific conditions of the USSR mainly. In 1952 in Madrid the «NOS» publishers released a book by a Josef Landovskiy called “The Red Symphony” (“Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor”) translated by Mauricio Carlavia. The after word written by the translator said that the manuscript had been found in the years of World War II in a hut in the suburbs of Leningrad with a dead body together with Josef Landovskiy’s documents. A Spanish man called «A.I.» found it. He was probably one from Franco’s «Blue Division» fighting on Hitler’s side at the front of Leningrad. Later he brought it to Spain.
One of the chapters called «Radiography of Revolution» was published in Russia in the journal «Molodaya Gvardiya» numbers 3 and 4 in 1992. Spanish edition number 9 released in Barcelona[430] was cited there. In the first Madrid edition this chapter is on pages 421 – 461. All in all the book consists of 488 pages. This chapter is about the examination of the Trotskyist G. Rakovskiy. It supposedly took place in a special cottage of People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs[431] (PCIA) in 1938. The examination was held as a talk over dinner. It is said that during the examination G. Rakovskiy was under a psychotropic that made him unable to restrain himself. Therefore he answered frankly to the questions asked speaking what he really had on his mind.
The fragment published in «Molodaya Gvardiya»[432] creates an impression that J. Stalin’s secret services did it to introduce certain information concerning Marxism and the «world backstage» to the public. So they produced a hoax novel inculcated it in the culture of the West. But for all that the character has a real Trotskyist’s name that is G. Rakovskiy, sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment in 1938. Everything that he says about Marxism and the World Revolution during the examination is true.
Here are some details of the story. Doctor Josef Landovskiy was involved in the work of the PCIA owing to his outstanding achievements in narcology and toxicology. He happened to be present at the examination. With his two hands and a typewriter he managed to make an extra copy of the record of the examination. Later he quitted working for the PCIA and the PCIA forgot about their bearer of a secret and lost track of him. Consequently during World War II he turned to be alone at the front of Leningrad with his personal files that he had brought secretly from the special place of the PCIA where he had lived working for them. So he violated sequentially the system of State secrets protection functioning in the USSR. Due to that his personal files full of secrets was found with the dead body. This story is certainly a hoax made up to explain credibly how this information that could not be a subject of public speculation either in the USSR or in the West gained publicity[433].
We do not insist that Joseph Dzhugashvili besides writing under the pseudonym of Joseph Stalin once published a book in Spain under the pseudonym of Joseph Landovskiy. But the fact that «the Red Symphony» appeared almost at the same time as “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” and that they add to each other’s themes is not just a senseless twist of fate, it is not pure chance. «Chance is a powerful momentary weapon of Providence»[434].
7. The Prospects of Bolshevism
One can use the following quotation from H. Ford to describe the fortunes of those who regret the break-up of the USSR:
«More men are beaten than fail. It is not wisdom they need or money, or brilliance, «pull», but just plain gristle and bone. This rude, simple, primitive power which we call «stick-to-it-iveness» is the uncrowned king of the world of endeavor. People are utterly wrong in their slant upon things. They see the successes that men have made and somehow they appear to be easy. But that is a world away from the facts. It is failure that is easy. Success is always hard. A man can fail in ease; he can succeed only by paying out all that he has and is». (“My Life and Work”, Henry Ford, chapter 15. “Why charity?”)
But the words which H. Ford continues the above quotation with can be addressed to «democratizes» and Russian «nouveau riche» sjids of all nationalities and races who think that they have defeated bolshevism in Russia and therefore have defeated it in the entire world:
«It is this which makes success so pitiable a thing if it be in lines that are not useful and uplifting».
In the autumn of 1991 in Moscow a Soviet-American symposium was held at the Academy of labor and social relations which was among others attended by the Japanese. This is how the Japanese billionaire Herosi Teravama answered the Soviet economists and sociologists who kept talking profusely about the «Japanese economic wonder»:
«You are not speaking about the main thing. About your leading role in the world. In 1939 you Russians were smart, and we Japanese, were fools. In 1949 you became even smarter, we were still fools. In 1955 we became smarter, you turned into 5-year old children. Our economic system is almost entirely a copy of yours
