It would seem that the Stalinist period of Soviet history explored the length and breadth and should not remain any confusion regarding the device of the Stalinist socialist economy. Because it preserved a lot of documents, a lot of evidence that Stalin himself wrote several works and papers as Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers and the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b). But as in the days of Stalin’s understanding of the revolutionary achievements of the socialist economy and the unit of socialist society were few, and in our days has not increased. Basically, ordinary people is the number of people shot and repressed “by Stalin”, the Soviet economy interested in this little bourgeois power that helps in every way.
The Universities do not teach socialism, and that there is no understanding. Complained about the lack of understanding of socialism and Joseph Stalin in the course of economic discussion, where they discussed the project of the first Soviet textbook of political Economy”:
It is necessary that our personnel are well know Marxist economic theory. The first, older generation of Bolsheviks was theoretically savvy. We crammed Capital, summarized, argued each other checked. This was our strength. It helped us a lot.
The second generation is less prepared. People were busy with practical work the construction. Marxism studied the brochures.
The third generation is being raised on pamphlets and newspaper articles. They have no deep knowledge. They should be given food that would be palatable. Most of them were not educated in the study of the works of Marx and Lenin, and quotes.
If things continue to go well, people can degenerate. In America argue that it is all about the dollar, why do we need theory, why science? And we can talk: why do we need “Capital”, when build socialism. It threatens degradation, it is death. That it was not even in the particulars, you need to raise the level of economic knowledge.
– Conversation of I. V. Stalin on questions of political economy. Entry 24 APR 1950
How were the rights of the Stalin or how was low level of knowledge of Marxist-Leninist theory of the then Communists, showed the counter-revolutionary coup, carried out by the “khrushchevites” in 1953, which none or almost none of the millions of the party and the Soviet country did not notice. Today, the average person sees the works on Marxism-Leninism only in the book bazaars, if any, goes in there. To be honest, today’s Communists have not only not read the multi-volume “Capital” Marx, but also in the work of Stalin “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR” wander 50 pages. It is clear, easy to understand, Stalin has concentrated in his work, the whole experience of Communist construction, and even mapped out a specific path of transition to communism. Therefore, in Stalin’s work must be a grasp to understand.
The first thing grasping would-be Communists or the bourgeois ideologists, this phrase of Stalin’s Marxist conceptual apparatus:
“Moreover, I think you need to throw some other concepts taken from “Capital” Marx, in which Marx analysed the capitalism, and artificially pasted on to our socialist relations. I mean, among other things, concepts such as “necessary” and “surplus” labour, “necessary” and “surplus” product, “necessary” and “surplus” labor time.”
– I. V. Stalin, “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, 1952.
What insights do these words of the leader of the world proletariat: and the denial of Stalin’s Marxism-Leninism, and the infidelity of the Marxist-Leninist theory, and so some untrained fellow, indeed, is born of an inferiority complex. As well, Stalin rejected the concept of Marx!? So, we need to choose who to move on: “rejecting Marxism Stalin” or founder of the teachings of Marx. It would seem that nonsense, but it is underway! Let us dispel all doubts and read a quote of Stalin to the end:
“Marx analyzed capitalism in order to elucidate the source of exploitation of the working class, surplus value, and give the working class deprived of the means of production, spiritual weapon for the overthrow of capitalism. It is clear that Marx uses the notion of (b), it is appropriate to capitalist relations. But more than strange to use these concepts now, when the working class is not only deprived of power and of the means of production, but on the contrary, holds in his hands the power and owns the means of production. Sounds rather absurd now, under our system of labor as a commodity, and “hiring” workers: as though the working class owning the means of production, hired himself and himself sells his labor power. As strange to speak now of “necessary” and “surplus” labour: as though the work in our conditions, given to the society on the expansion of production, development of education, health, the organization of defence, etc., is equally necessary for the working class, standing now in power as the labor expended to cover the personal needs of the worker and his family.”
– I. V. Stalin, “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, 1952.
Here you can see that Stalin breaks with the Marxist-Leninist theory, and just use it, for example, historical materialism when he says that all the time. So, time surplus labor and surplus value passed together with the power of the capitalists and the private property of the means of production, concepts and categories of capitalism is irrelevant. Ie if today in the court of capitalism, surplus labor and surplus value relevant again. And if Stalin claimed in our time that the Marxist categories (forms of surplus value) should be rejected, then he would be wrong. But Stalin as a Marxist-Leninist, such a claim would not.
Under Stalin, the workers were the owners of the means of production and the government protected the interests of workers (the dictatorship of the proletariat), therefore, following the dialectical-materialist logic, the owner can not hire himself and can not assume what he produces for himself – exploitation. Therefore, Stalin and writes that it’s time to find the right words, to completely separate the surplus product under capitalism from the “surplus product” under socialism and communism. This is also evidenced by the economic debate preceding the work of Stalin and the textbook of political economy.
Very interesting to see how Stalin developed his idea of “surplus labour”, “surplus product under socialism over time.
1941:
“On the contrary, it is necessary to accustom the worker to the fact that the surplus product necessary for us, the responsibility will be greater, the worker must understand that he produces not only for himself and his family, but also in order to create the country’s reserves to strengthen the defense, etc.”
“Income remains, it takes on a different character. Surplus product is, but it is not the exploiter, and on the welfare of the people, yelenaharmony etc. the Surplus product converted”.
– Conversation of I. V. Stalin on questions of political economy. Record of the 29th January 1941
1952:
“The concept of “necessary and surplus labour, necessary and surplus product” is not good for our economy. That goes to education, defense is not a necessary product? Is the worker not interested in it? In a socialist economy would have to distinguish about this: work for yourself and work for companies. What used to be called in relation to the socialist economy required labor, hard to make for yourself, and the fact that earlier was called surplus labour.
– Conversation of I. V. Stalin on questions of political economy. 15 Feb 1952
Ie if in 1941, Stalin was ready to leave the concept of”surplus product” under socialism, the textbook of political economy, in 1952, he strongly insisted to replace the outdated terms are new to people have no more confusion. But in the 1940s, and in 1952 Stalin knew the economic content of these terms, their changing character under different historical circumstances, and that he explained to the economists.
Necessary product, the necessary labour under capitalism and work itself, the product itself – under socialism;
Surplus product, surplus labour under capitalism and work for the society, a product of society under socialism.
In the textbook of political economy from 1954 attempt to introduce new definitions have been made, but due to objective reasons, generated by the beginning of the counterrevolution in the USSR, in the scientific community and in everyday life concepts are not entrenched.
The second thing I love to talk to liberals and stumble pseudo-Communists, is “profitability” and “profitability of socialist enterprises. Here again the dual situation. On the one hand the enemies of the proletariat refer to the words of Stalin “unprofitable” enterprises in the USSR. Here, they say, and bent so your socialism. “Powerful” argument, do not say anything. On the other hand pseudo-Communists refer to the same work of Stalin, where the leader says that “the profitability of individual enterprises and industries is of great importance”. And those and others fetishizing the profitability of specific enterprises, although Stalin talked about the other:
“If you take the profitability from the point of view of individual businesses or industries, and not in the context of one year, and from the standpoint of the entire national economy and in the context of, say, 10-15 years that it would be the only correct approach to the issue, the temporary and fragile profitability of individual businesses or industries can not go to any comparison with the highest form of strong and permanent profitability, which gives us the law of balanced development of national economy and planning of the economy, saving us from periodic economic crises, destroying the economy and causing society enormous material damage, and providing us continuous digging of national economy with its high pace.”
– I. V. Stalin, “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, 1952.
Note that after the counter-revolutionary coup, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Brezhnev and Co. wanted to make every enterprise in the Soviet Union profitable, even put the indicators and profitability at the forefront, but slid into capitalism. The point here is, of course, not just in the choice of indicators, and failure to comply with the economic laws of socialism, which Stalin had formulated in his latest work.
So, the basic economic law of socialism:
“…ensuring the maximum satisfaction constantly growing material and cultural needs of society through the continuous expansion and perfection of socialist production on the basis of higher techniques.”
– I. V. Stalin, “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, 1952.
Another economic law of socialism formulated by Stalin:
“The law of balanced development of the national economy arose as a counterbalance to the law of competition and anarchy of production under capitalism. It arose on the basis of the socialization of the means of production, after the law of competition and anarchy of production had lost its force. It came into effect because the socialist economy can be conducted only on the basis of the economic law of balanced development of the national economy. This means that the law of balanced development of the national economy provides an opportunity for our planning bodies to plan social production”.
– I. V. Stalin, “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, 1952.
Of course, the theme of the observance of economic laws of socialism is very important and will soon be discussed in more detail. In this article I want only to note that an imbalance of the “khrushchevites” single national economic complex (the establishment of economic councils, the dissolution of MTS, delayed consolidation of the collective farms, the reduction of personal plots of collective farmers, delayed development of virgin lands, the change in the wage system, taxation, etc.) led to the aggravation of contradictions with the law of balanced development of the national economy and, as a consequence, the violation of the basic economic law of socialism. All this happened despite all attempts of Khrushchev and his followers to provide maximum satisfaction constantly growing material and cultural needs of society, if such thoughts ever took place. What Khrushchev and were the reverse (anti-Stalin), is in doubt only for fools or conscious enemies of socialism.
