When Did the USSR Become a Capitalist State?
A L L I A N C E ! ,A Revolutionary Communist Monthly
Where We Stand: "When Did the USSR Become a Capitalist State?"
First Chief Architect of Capitalist Restoration - Nikita S. Khruschev (1894-1971)
This recurrent question usually receives one of two answers:
Either that the state became capitalist at the death of Stalin in 1953;
or
at the accession to power of Gorbachov.
Alliance rejects both of these ?answers?,
The first as being mechanical and veering to the ?great man theory? of history;
and
the second as being naïve ? or opportunistic - in the extreme.
We will outline our views, in the form of an open reply to a reader who objected to our formulation as follows: LETTER TO THE EDITOR (shortened from original).
Letter Cmde G to HK: 25th February:
Dear Cmrdes, Re.: Announcement of 'Alliance!'
May I remind you that you promised to answer my queries on what you wrote in your 'announcement issue', that: ?...honest Marxists-Leninists who irrespective of their prior views - find themselves in agreement that the minimal statements are true:
(i)That the state of the USSR was on a Marxist-Leninist path, until approximately 1956, when under the increasing open revisionism of Nikita Khrushchev it became converted relatively quickly to a capitalist state."
I expressed serious doubts on the truth of this 'analysis'. If this was true, then the following questions arise:
1. Was the withdrawal of the Kominform resolution on Yugoslavia and the reconciliation with the Titoites 'Marxist-Leninist'?
2. Were Stalin and Berija really 'liquidated' as Bill Bland claims in his analysis titled 'The Doctors' Plot and the Death of Stalin' if no substantial line change followed these events?
So Stalin died a natural death after all and there was no revisionist coup?
3. Why the sudden sea-change in foreign policies in relation to the US after the coup?
4. Why the new emphasis in economic policies away from supporting heavy industries?
5. Why were exactly after Berija's removal and liquidation the Zaisser/Herrnstadt group of Marxists-Leninists in East Germany ousted by the Ulbricht revisionists and why were the Chinese Marxists-Leninists Kao Kang and Jao Shu-chi liquidated only a little later (1954/55) by the Chinese revisionists and after Khrushchev& Co. had been in Beijing in '54?
Why did similar events in East European countries follow exactly the same pattern?
In my letter I hinted that the Maoists look at the events the way you do it in your announcement that revisionism only prevailed after the XX. Party Conference of the CPSU. And there is a reason for that: They still want to cover up the fact that Mao Zedong and Liu Shao-chi had the Marxists-Leninists liquidated the way the Krushchevites did. ?..
So what I am now asking myself is this:
1. Why do you call things 'true statements? which have long been disproved by Bland?
2 Why do you call yourself a 'Blandist' if you are or seem to be in disagreement with at least some vital things Bill supported and which every 'honest Marxist-Leninist' must support because these things are based on facts and good Marxist-Leninist reasoning? Bill Bland always stressed that it must be the Marxists-Leninists aim to create an organisation 'free of revisionism'. However, if you open the door only slightly to let revisionism - 'left revisionism' in this case - slip in, you will find yourself on the first stage of a downward spiral. Then similar things could happen to your fledgling organisation that happened to the MLCP and to so many other ML-group such as 'KPD/Red Dawn' in our country to quote just two instances. You made a mistake here and you should try to rectify it.
Cmrdly regards ? G
REPLY OF ALLIANCE
Dear Comrade,
You take issue with our formulation that Alliance tries to organise:
??honest Marxist-Leninists who irrespective of their prior views ? find themselves in agreement that the minimal statements are true:
(i)That the state of the USSR was on a Marxist-Leninist path, until approximately 1956, when under the increasing open revisionism of Continued on page twenty. of Nikita Khrushchev it
became converted relatively quickly to a capitalist state.? Alliance! Monthly Issue 1, January 2003; cited by E-Mail G to H; 25th February.
Continued page twenty
Khruschev 1962 Leonid Brezhnev (1906-1982)
(Soviet revisionist Head state 1955-1964) (Revisionist First Secretary CPSU (1964-1982)
We appreciate frank criticism, and are prepared to examine it closely ? and prepared to honestly give self-criticism where we are wrong. However, we cannot agree with your current critique. PART ONE: WHAT DEFINES A SOCIALIST STATE?
Immediately we may argue that NONE of the items listed as ?proofs? of your view numbered as1-5 ? ?demand? that the change of the character of the state from socialist to revisionist-capitalist ? had to have taken place. At this stage ? we will not focus on this line of rebuttal. We will simply state our view, that all these items ? are political rather than economic ? questions. By and large, as far as Marxist-Leninists view it, it is economics that dictate the nature of the society. Thus all your points 1-5 ? have no bearing on the question of the economic base of the society. Except potentially, for your point (4), namely: ?Why the new emphasis in economic policies away from supporting heavy industries?? However, we would answer to this point that:
(i) This is not a single defining characteristic of when a qualitative societal change from socialism to capitalism or vice versa, occurs.
(ii) Under Brezhnev ? there was a shift to the predominance of heavy industry ? and yet the society was by then unequivocally capitalist. See: http://harikumar.brinkster.net/CommunistLeague/Sakharov_FINAL.htm
If this is not of itself a defining characteristic marking socialism - What in that case are the defining characteristics? In the Marxist-Leninist Classes adopted by the Communist League, The NCMLU (UK); and Alliance many years ago ? and originally written by Bland - the following definitions are given: ?WHAT IS SOCIALISM?
The social system constructed by the working people, led by the working class, after their seizure of political power in a socialist revolution. It is a social system in which the exploitation of man by man has been abolished and in which production is centrally planned with the aim of maximising the welfare of the working people. "
"HOW ARE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION OWNED IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY?
Collectively,
1) either by the state, representing the working people as a whole, or;
2) by cooperatives, representing the working people of particular enterprises.?
http://harikumar.brinkster.net/CLASSES/Course8-CL.htm
The relevant questions to determine the defining characteristics, then SHOULD become ? ?When did the state of the USSR shift production away from ?central planning?; And; ?When did private ownership of the means of production occur??
Firstly, let us examine the question of not WHEN revisionism took hold of the reins of power, but,
When it could turn the state socialism into a state that was unequivocally capitalist.
Bland?s ?Restoration Of Capitalism In the Soviet Union? (London 1980) (See http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html) discusses this.
In his Introduction, Bland talks of the first three phases of the attempt to defeat socialism in the USSR. He there discusses the ?intermediate? period of the Khrushchev regime, that was needed for the ?preparatory measures? that the ?embryonic capitalists? had to undertake to initiate the ?economic reforms?.
It is these ?economic reforms?, that formed the actual restoration of capitalism. Already, in his first detailed analysis of this period, Bland had pointed out that it was the Lieberman ?economic reforms? that had subverted the motive forces for production ? into the profit motives: ?On September 9th, 1962 "Pravda" the organ of the CC, of the CPSU(B) published an article by the Kharkov economist, Professor Yevsey Liberman, advocating a discussion on the question of reorientating the Soviet economy on the basis of the profit motive.? http//:harikumar.brinkster.net/CommunistLeague/Sakharov_FINAL.htm
Later on, Bland elaborated on the fourth phase ? the intermediate phase ? of the restoration of capital: ?The fourth phase of the political struggle to destroy socialism in the Soviet Union opened with the death of Stalin in March 1953. Shortly afterwards Nikita Khrushchev was appointed First Secretary of the Communist
Continued on page twenty-one Party, and in 1955 also Chairman of the Council of Ministers ("Prime Minister").
From one point of view the Khrushchev regime must be seen as an intermediate between the socialist society which existed in the Soviet Union prior to this period and the "economic reforms" introduced under the later Brezhnev regime. Thus it was responsible for a series of preparatory measures which were politically necessary before these "economic reforms" could be initiated. These were:
1) the denigration of Stalin, which allowed measures to be taken, in the name of "creative Marxism-Leninism", which were in direct conflict with Stalin's expressed political positions;
2) the removal from positions of influence -- or, in the case of Lavrenti Beria, the physical elimination -- of Stalin's remaining political allies: Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Lavrenti Beria;
3) the introduction of a degree of liberalism, associated with the attacks on the "dictatorship of Stalin", permitting Yevsey Liberman and other economists to organise a campaign for "economic reforms" which received official endorsement in 1962; and
4) the introduction in 1964 of a pilot scheme for the experimental" application of the economic reform in limited fields.
That the Khrushchev regime was not merely a preparation for the Brezhnev regime, however, is demonstrated by the fact that Khrushchev's successors were compelled to wage a fierce political struggle against him and his supporters and, when this had been victorious, make him an "unperson".
This conflict of interest was basically between two groups of embryonic capitalists:
One group, centred mainly in the Russian Republic and composed mainly of high managerial personnel involved in heavy industry, was represented politically by the faction around Brezhnev; the other group, composed mainly of high managerial personnel involved in light industry, was represented politically by the faction around Khrushchev.
The policy differences on the degree to which resources should be directed respectively to the heavy goods industries and the consumer goods industries, were accompanied by foreign policy differences. The Khrushchev faction, representing the economically less powerful embryonic capitalists involved in light industry, felt it necessary for the Soviet Union to follow a foreign policy which amounted in fact to subservience to the United States, while the Brezhnev faction stood for an "independent" foreign policy.
In October 1964 the embryonic capitalists involved in heavy industry in alliance with the military felt their position strong enough to jettison the internal and foreign policies of the Khrushchev regime, together with their author.? http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrintro.html
Lazar M.Kagonovich (1893-1991) Alexei Kosygin (1904-1980)
Bolshevik close to Stalin Soviet revisionist Premier - close to Brezhnev
PART TWO: WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THESE SO-CALLED ?ECONOMIC REFORMS??
Bland writes further on in the same book, that they were designed to disrupt central planning. Alliance - considers Central Planning as a constituent part of socialism. Yet the ?economic reforms? intended to do away with this: ?According to contemporary Soviet propagandists, the aim of the "economic reform" instituted from 1965 on was to "improve" and "consolidate" -- even "perfect" -- centralized economic planning: "A number of measures are envisaged to raise the scientific standards of state planning of the economy".
(A.N. Kosygin: in M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): Planning, Profit and Incentive in the USSR, Volume 2; New York;1966; p.15).
"The economic changes signify improvement of national economic planning... The reform consolidates centralized planning".
(Editorial: "Economic Policy and Work for Communism", in: Pravda (Truth), January 14th., 1966, in: The Soviet Economic Reform: Main Features and Aims; Moscow; 1967; p.9).
In fact, ? centralized economic planning, as it had existed under socialism, has been eliminated from the Soviet economy since the "economic reform". The first stage in the process leading to its elimination was an intensive propaganda campaign directed at centralized economic planning,
Continued on page twenty-two.
which was denounced as "obsolete", "restrictive", "bureaucratic", and, of course, "due to Stalin's distortion of socialism":
"These shortcomings in economic management should be eliminated not by making planning more complicated, more detailed and more centralised, but by developing the economic initiative and independence of enterprises ---Enterprises must be given broader initiative; they must not be bound by petty tutelage and bureaucratic methods of planning from the centre".
(E.G. Liberman: in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 1). ? http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap1.html
So the elimination of ?Central Planning? ? a key part of socialism came long after even 1956!
Secondly, what about the profit regulator as the motive force of production?
Again according to Bland this was far later than Khrushchev?s accession to power: ?Already, at the 22nd. Congress of the CPSU in 1961, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev declared: "We must elevate the importance of profit and profitability".
(N.S. Khrushchev: Report on the Programme of the CPSU, 22nd. Congress CPSU). http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap2.html
Finally, under socialism, and under Stalin ? the State was the owner of major land, resources and means of production ? or property.
Bland points out in Chapter 6, that this was: ?the position under the socialist system which formerly existed in the Soviet Union:
?A commodity is a product which may be sold to any purchaser, and when its owner sells it he loses ownership of it and the purchaser becomes the owner of the commodity, which he may resell, pledge or allow to rot. Do means of production come within this category? They obviously do not. In the first place, means of production are not ?sold? to any purchaser;.. they are only allocated by the state to its enterprises. In the second place, when transferring the means of production to any enterprise, the owner ? the state ? does not at all lose the ownership of them; on the contrary, it retains it fully. In the third place, directors of enterprises who receive means of production from the Soviet state, far from becoming their owners, are deemed to be agents of the state in the utilisation of the means of production in accordance with the plans established by the state. It will be seen, then, that under our system means of production can certainly not be classed in the category of commodities? .
(Bland Chapter 6: Citing J. V. Stalin: Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR).
However, Bland goes on to point out that under Khrushchev, and after the economic reforms? ? this no longer applied: ?Since the ?economic reform?, however, means of production in the Soviet Union are classed as commodities: ?Under socialism the market is a sphere of planned commodity circulation, a sphere for the marketing of products ? means of production and consumer goods manufactured by state and cooperative enterprises?.
(L. Gatovsky: Unity of Plan and Cost Accounting, in M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. Cit., Volume 2).
"Even where an enterprise pays for the use of its production assets (other than natural resources) by annual sums, it is regarded legally as the owner of these assets.
The Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, adopted by the USSR Council of Ministers on October 4th., 1965, gives an enterprise ?rights of possession? over the production assets which it holds:
?The enterprise will exercise the rights of possession.. of the property under its operational control?.
(Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.); op. Cit., Volume 2; ; p. 291).
The acquisition of production assets (other than natural resources) by an enterprise is therefore described as ?purchase?:
?Credits for the purchase of heavy technological and power equipment of Soviet manufacture? are issued?.
(S, Ginzburg: New Developments in Construction Financing, in: Ekomicheskaya gazeta (Economic Gazette), No. 43, 1965, in: M.E.Sharpe (Ed.): op. Cit., Volume 2; p. 65)."
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap6.html
In Conclusion:
Any calm consideration of the economic characteristics of the state after the death of Stalin ? cannot come to the conclusion that the restoration of capital took place before1961.
The transitional period following Stalin?s death was associated with political events that were designed to pave the way to force through the economic changes.
continued on page twenty-three
State Economic Planning Council 1936
PART THREE: IS ?ALLIANCE? A CRYPTO-MAOIST ORGANISATION?
You allege that we in ?Alliance? not only ignore ?stubborn facts? - but have adopted a Maoist perspective, as follows: ?In my letter I hinted that the Maoists look at the events the way you do it in your announcement that revisionism only prevailed after the XX. Party Conference of the CPSU. And there is a reason for that: They still want to cover up the fact that Mao Zedong and Liu Shao-chi had the Marxists-Leninists liquidated the way the Krushchevites did. Bill Bland proved all this in 'Class Struggles in China', ch. 6. I sent the analysis to various Maoists groups and they were all unable to disprove this, because Bill's findings are based on facts and 'facts are a stubborn thing' (K.Marx).?
In reply, it would appear to us, that the ?stubborn facts? supports our interpretation. We should say in passing, that the disagreement between the Maoists and ourselves should not be at issue for you comrade G. In fact we find it a little sad that you think it is a pertinent point to make at all. But then, it is right also that none of us can be too careful.
In that spirit ? we will try to show you, that by elevating your points about the political points made in 1-3 & 5 ? you are in fact following an ultra-leftist ? Maoist line. For the Maoist error in ?socialist? economics, involves the same problem that inadvertently you are making.
Namely, elevating the political relationships to a precedence over the economic relationships.
Thus in April 25, 1956, Mao made a major speech entitled, ?On The Ten Major Relationships? There Mao clearly states that there were supposed ?economic errors made by Stalin?: ?Particularly worthy of attention is the fact that in the Soviet Union certain defects and errors that occurred in the course of their building socialism have lately come to light. Do you want to follow the detours they have made??
?On The Ten Major Relationships?; Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1977; Vol. V, pp. 284;
http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/TMR56.html
One of the most fundamental errors, according to Mao, was the relationship between heavy and light industry. Thus here Mao openly agrees with many bourgeois economists in a critique of Stalin:
?Therefore, the relationship between heavy industry on the one hand and light industry and agriculture on the other must be properly handled. In dealing with this relationship we have not made mistakes of principle. We have done better than the Soviet Union and a number of East European countries. The prolonged failure of the Soviet Union to reach the highest pre-October Revolution level in grain output, the grave problems arising from the glaring dis-equilibrium between the development of heavy industry and that of light industry in some East European countries -- such problems do not exist in our country. Their lop-sided stress on heavy industry to the neglect of agriculture and light industry results in a shortage of goods on the market and an unstable currency. We, on the other hand, attach more importance to agriculture and light industry. We have all along attended to and developed agriculture and have to a considerable degree ensured the supply of grain and raw materials necessary for the development of industry. Our daily necessities are in fairly good supply and our prices and currency are stable.?
Mao ?On The Ten Major Relationships?; Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1977; Vol. V, pp. 285; http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/TMR56.html
In a series of speeches and talks, Mao critiqued heavily Stalin?s Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR?, emphasizing that Stalin ?walked on one leg? by ignoring politics: ?On the question of heavy industry, light industry, and agriculture, the Soviet Union did not lay enough emphasis on the latter two and had losses as a result. In addition, they did not do a good job of combining the immediate and the long-term interests of the people. In the main they walked on one leg. Comparing the planning, which of us after all had the better adapted "planned proportionate development?" Another point: Stalin emphasized only technology, technical cadre. He wanted nothing but technology, nothing but cadre; no politics, no masses. This too is walking on one leg!?
?Concerning Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (November 1958)?; http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/CSE58.html#TALK
According to Mao, it is political aspects ? most prominently ? ?Stalin?s distrust of the peasantry? ? that explain alleged ?failures? of the socialist economy in the USSR:
Continued on page twenty-four.
?The Soviet Union has adopted measures which squeeze the peasants very hard. It takes away too much from the peasants at too low a price through its system of so-called obligatory sales and other measures. This method of capital accumulation has seriously dampened the peasants' enthusiasm for production. You want the hen to lay more eggs and yet you don't feed it, you want the horse to run fast and yet you don't let it graze. What kind of logic is that! Our policies towards the peasants differ from those of the Soviet Union and take into account the interests of both the state and the peasants. Our agricultural tax has always been relatively low. In the exchange of industrial and agricultural products we follow a policy of narrowing the price scissors, a policy of exchanging equal or roughly equal values.? ?On The Ten Major Relationships?; Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1977; Vol. V, pp. 208;
http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/TMR56.html
?Stalin's book from first to last says nothing about the superstructure. It is not concerned with people; it considers things, not people. Does the kind of supply system for consumer goods help spur economic development or not? He should have touched on this at the least. Is it better to have commodity production or is it better not to? Everyone has to study this. Stalin's point of view in his last letter is almost altogether wrong. The basic error is mistrust of the peasants.?
Mao, Critique of Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR; 1958; http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/CSE58.html#TALK
Now, we do not intend to offer here, a full critique of Maoist economics. This is not the time nor the place to do that.
What we simply wish to highlight is that it is very easy to adopt the posture ?J?accuse!? ? without a due consideration of the full facts, or of the history of the organization and individual. Put simply ? to drive home the parallels between your view and those of Mao (?politics first?! ? in deciding the class character of a state) ? would be wrong.
We know you are not a Maoist. Surely ? you know that we are not Maoists!? Yours Fraternally,
Editors, Alliance!
Where We Stand: "When Did the USSR Become a Capitalist State?"
First Chief Architect of Capitalist Restoration - Nikita S. Khruschev (1894-1971)
This recurrent question usually receives one of two answers:
Either that the state became capitalist at the death of Stalin in 1953;
or
at the accession to power of Gorbachov.
Alliance rejects both of these ?answers?,
The first as being mechanical and veering to the ?great man theory? of history;
and
the second as being naïve ? or opportunistic - in the extreme.
We will outline our views, in the form of an open reply to a reader who objected to our formulation as follows: LETTER TO THE EDITOR (shortened from original).
Letter Cmde G to HK: 25th February:
Dear Cmrdes, Re.: Announcement of 'Alliance!'
May I remind you that you promised to answer my queries on what you wrote in your 'announcement issue', that: ?...honest Marxists-Leninists who irrespective of their prior views - find themselves in agreement that the minimal statements are true:
(i)That the state of the USSR was on a Marxist-Leninist path, until approximately 1956, when under the increasing open revisionism of Nikita Khrushchev it became converted relatively quickly to a capitalist state."
I expressed serious doubts on the truth of this 'analysis'. If this was true, then the following questions arise:
1. Was the withdrawal of the Kominform resolution on Yugoslavia and the reconciliation with the Titoites 'Marxist-Leninist'?
2. Were Stalin and Berija really 'liquidated' as Bill Bland claims in his analysis titled 'The Doctors' Plot and the Death of Stalin' if no substantial line change followed these events?
So Stalin died a natural death after all and there was no revisionist coup?
3. Why the sudden sea-change in foreign policies in relation to the US after the coup?
4. Why the new emphasis in economic policies away from supporting heavy industries?
5. Why were exactly after Berija's removal and liquidation the Zaisser/Herrnstadt group of Marxists-Leninists in East Germany ousted by the Ulbricht revisionists and why were the Chinese Marxists-Leninists Kao Kang and Jao Shu-chi liquidated only a little later (1954/55) by the Chinese revisionists and after Khrushchev& Co. had been in Beijing in '54?
Why did similar events in East European countries follow exactly the same pattern?
In my letter I hinted that the Maoists look at the events the way you do it in your announcement that revisionism only prevailed after the XX. Party Conference of the CPSU. And there is a reason for that: They still want to cover up the fact that Mao Zedong and Liu Shao-chi had the Marxists-Leninists liquidated the way the Krushchevites did. ?..
So what I am now asking myself is this:
1. Why do you call things 'true statements? which have long been disproved by Bland?
2 Why do you call yourself a 'Blandist' if you are or seem to be in disagreement with at least some vital things Bill supported and which every 'honest Marxist-Leninist' must support because these things are based on facts and good Marxist-Leninist reasoning? Bill Bland always stressed that it must be the Marxists-Leninists aim to create an organisation 'free of revisionism'. However, if you open the door only slightly to let revisionism - 'left revisionism' in this case - slip in, you will find yourself on the first stage of a downward spiral. Then similar things could happen to your fledgling organisation that happened to the MLCP and to so many other ML-group such as 'KPD/Red Dawn' in our country to quote just two instances. You made a mistake here and you should try to rectify it.
Cmrdly regards ? G
REPLY OF ALLIANCE
Dear Comrade,
You take issue with our formulation that Alliance tries to organise:
??honest Marxist-Leninists who irrespective of their prior views ? find themselves in agreement that the minimal statements are true:
(i)That the state of the USSR was on a Marxist-Leninist path, until approximately 1956, when under the increasing open revisionism of Continued on page twenty. of Nikita Khrushchev it
became converted relatively quickly to a capitalist state.? Alliance! Monthly Issue 1, January 2003; cited by E-Mail G to H; 25th February.
Continued page twenty
Khruschev 1962 Leonid Brezhnev (1906-1982)
(Soviet revisionist Head state 1955-1964) (Revisionist First Secretary CPSU (1964-1982)
We appreciate frank criticism, and are prepared to examine it closely ? and prepared to honestly give self-criticism where we are wrong. However, we cannot agree with your current critique. PART ONE: WHAT DEFINES A SOCIALIST STATE?
Immediately we may argue that NONE of the items listed as ?proofs? of your view numbered as1-5 ? ?demand? that the change of the character of the state from socialist to revisionist-capitalist ? had to have taken place. At this stage ? we will not focus on this line of rebuttal. We will simply state our view, that all these items ? are political rather than economic ? questions. By and large, as far as Marxist-Leninists view it, it is economics that dictate the nature of the society. Thus all your points 1-5 ? have no bearing on the question of the economic base of the society. Except potentially, for your point (4), namely: ?Why the new emphasis in economic policies away from supporting heavy industries?? However, we would answer to this point that:
(i) This is not a single defining characteristic of when a qualitative societal change from socialism to capitalism or vice versa, occurs.
(ii) Under Brezhnev ? there was a shift to the predominance of heavy industry ? and yet the society was by then unequivocally capitalist. See: http://harikumar.brinkster.net/CommunistLeague/Sakharov_FINAL.htm
If this is not of itself a defining characteristic marking socialism - What in that case are the defining characteristics? In the Marxist-Leninist Classes adopted by the Communist League, The NCMLU (UK); and Alliance many years ago ? and originally written by Bland - the following definitions are given: ?WHAT IS SOCIALISM?
The social system constructed by the working people, led by the working class, after their seizure of political power in a socialist revolution. It is a social system in which the exploitation of man by man has been abolished and in which production is centrally planned with the aim of maximising the welfare of the working people. "
"HOW ARE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION OWNED IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY?
Collectively,
1) either by the state, representing the working people as a whole, or;
2) by cooperatives, representing the working people of particular enterprises.?
http://harikumar.brinkster.net/CLASSES/Course8-CL.htm
The relevant questions to determine the defining characteristics, then SHOULD become ? ?When did the state of the USSR shift production away from ?central planning?; And; ?When did private ownership of the means of production occur??
Firstly, let us examine the question of not WHEN revisionism took hold of the reins of power, but,
When it could turn the state socialism into a state that was unequivocally capitalist.
Bland?s ?Restoration Of Capitalism In the Soviet Union? (London 1980) (See http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html) discusses this.
In his Introduction, Bland talks of the first three phases of the attempt to defeat socialism in the USSR. He there discusses the ?intermediate? period of the Khrushchev regime, that was needed for the ?preparatory measures? that the ?embryonic capitalists? had to undertake to initiate the ?economic reforms?.
It is these ?economic reforms?, that formed the actual restoration of capitalism. Already, in his first detailed analysis of this period, Bland had pointed out that it was the Lieberman ?economic reforms? that had subverted the motive forces for production ? into the profit motives: ?On September 9th, 1962 "Pravda" the organ of the CC, of the CPSU(B) published an article by the Kharkov economist, Professor Yevsey Liberman, advocating a discussion on the question of reorientating the Soviet economy on the basis of the profit motive.? http//:harikumar.brinkster.net/CommunistLeague/Sakharov_FINAL.htm
Later on, Bland elaborated on the fourth phase ? the intermediate phase ? of the restoration of capital: ?The fourth phase of the political struggle to destroy socialism in the Soviet Union opened with the death of Stalin in March 1953. Shortly afterwards Nikita Khrushchev was appointed First Secretary of the Communist
Continued on page twenty-one Party, and in 1955 also Chairman of the Council of Ministers ("Prime Minister").
From one point of view the Khrushchev regime must be seen as an intermediate between the socialist society which existed in the Soviet Union prior to this period and the "economic reforms" introduced under the later Brezhnev regime. Thus it was responsible for a series of preparatory measures which were politically necessary before these "economic reforms" could be initiated. These were:
1) the denigration of Stalin, which allowed measures to be taken, in the name of "creative Marxism-Leninism", which were in direct conflict with Stalin's expressed political positions;
2) the removal from positions of influence -- or, in the case of Lavrenti Beria, the physical elimination -- of Stalin's remaining political allies: Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Lavrenti Beria;
3) the introduction of a degree of liberalism, associated with the attacks on the "dictatorship of Stalin", permitting Yevsey Liberman and other economists to organise a campaign for "economic reforms" which received official endorsement in 1962; and
4) the introduction in 1964 of a pilot scheme for the experimental" application of the economic reform in limited fields.
That the Khrushchev regime was not merely a preparation for the Brezhnev regime, however, is demonstrated by the fact that Khrushchev's successors were compelled to wage a fierce political struggle against him and his supporters and, when this had been victorious, make him an "unperson".
This conflict of interest was basically between two groups of embryonic capitalists:
One group, centred mainly in the Russian Republic and composed mainly of high managerial personnel involved in heavy industry, was represented politically by the faction around Brezhnev; the other group, composed mainly of high managerial personnel involved in light industry, was represented politically by the faction around Khrushchev.
The policy differences on the degree to which resources should be directed respectively to the heavy goods industries and the consumer goods industries, were accompanied by foreign policy differences. The Khrushchev faction, representing the economically less powerful embryonic capitalists involved in light industry, felt it necessary for the Soviet Union to follow a foreign policy which amounted in fact to subservience to the United States, while the Brezhnev faction stood for an "independent" foreign policy.
In October 1964 the embryonic capitalists involved in heavy industry in alliance with the military felt their position strong enough to jettison the internal and foreign policies of the Khrushchev regime, together with their author.? http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrintro.html
Lazar M.Kagonovich (1893-1991) Alexei Kosygin (1904-1980)
Bolshevik close to Stalin Soviet revisionist Premier - close to Brezhnev
PART TWO: WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THESE SO-CALLED ?ECONOMIC REFORMS??
Bland writes further on in the same book, that they were designed to disrupt central planning. Alliance - considers Central Planning as a constituent part of socialism. Yet the ?economic reforms? intended to do away with this: ?According to contemporary Soviet propagandists, the aim of the "economic reform" instituted from 1965 on was to "improve" and "consolidate" -- even "perfect" -- centralized economic planning: "A number of measures are envisaged to raise the scientific standards of state planning of the economy".
(A.N. Kosygin: in M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): Planning, Profit and Incentive in the USSR, Volume 2; New York;1966; p.15).
"The economic changes signify improvement of national economic planning... The reform consolidates centralized planning".
(Editorial: "Economic Policy and Work for Communism", in: Pravda (Truth), January 14th., 1966, in: The Soviet Economic Reform: Main Features and Aims; Moscow; 1967; p.9).
In fact, ? centralized economic planning, as it had existed under socialism, has been eliminated from the Soviet economy since the "economic reform". The first stage in the process leading to its elimination was an intensive propaganda campaign directed at centralized economic planning,
Continued on page twenty-two.
which was denounced as "obsolete", "restrictive", "bureaucratic", and, of course, "due to Stalin's distortion of socialism":
"These shortcomings in economic management should be eliminated not by making planning more complicated, more detailed and more centralised, but by developing the economic initiative and independence of enterprises ---Enterprises must be given broader initiative; they must not be bound by petty tutelage and bureaucratic methods of planning from the centre".
(E.G. Liberman: in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 1). ? http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap1.html
So the elimination of ?Central Planning? ? a key part of socialism came long after even 1956!
Secondly, what about the profit regulator as the motive force of production?
Again according to Bland this was far later than Khrushchev?s accession to power: ?Already, at the 22nd. Congress of the CPSU in 1961, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev declared: "We must elevate the importance of profit and profitability".
(N.S. Khrushchev: Report on the Programme of the CPSU, 22nd. Congress CPSU). http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap2.html
Finally, under socialism, and under Stalin ? the State was the owner of major land, resources and means of production ? or property.
Bland points out in Chapter 6, that this was: ?the position under the socialist system which formerly existed in the Soviet Union:
?A commodity is a product which may be sold to any purchaser, and when its owner sells it he loses ownership of it and the purchaser becomes the owner of the commodity, which he may resell, pledge or allow to rot. Do means of production come within this category? They obviously do not. In the first place, means of production are not ?sold? to any purchaser;.. they are only allocated by the state to its enterprises. In the second place, when transferring the means of production to any enterprise, the owner ? the state ? does not at all lose the ownership of them; on the contrary, it retains it fully. In the third place, directors of enterprises who receive means of production from the Soviet state, far from becoming their owners, are deemed to be agents of the state in the utilisation of the means of production in accordance with the plans established by the state. It will be seen, then, that under our system means of production can certainly not be classed in the category of commodities? .
(Bland Chapter 6: Citing J. V. Stalin: Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR).
However, Bland goes on to point out that under Khrushchev, and after the economic reforms? ? this no longer applied: ?Since the ?economic reform?, however, means of production in the Soviet Union are classed as commodities: ?Under socialism the market is a sphere of planned commodity circulation, a sphere for the marketing of products ? means of production and consumer goods manufactured by state and cooperative enterprises?.
(L. Gatovsky: Unity of Plan and Cost Accounting, in M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. Cit., Volume 2).
"Even where an enterprise pays for the use of its production assets (other than natural resources) by annual sums, it is regarded legally as the owner of these assets.
The Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, adopted by the USSR Council of Ministers on October 4th., 1965, gives an enterprise ?rights of possession? over the production assets which it holds:
?The enterprise will exercise the rights of possession.. of the property under its operational control?.
(Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.); op. Cit., Volume 2; ; p. 291).
The acquisition of production assets (other than natural resources) by an enterprise is therefore described as ?purchase?:
?Credits for the purchase of heavy technological and power equipment of Soviet manufacture? are issued?.
(S, Ginzburg: New Developments in Construction Financing, in: Ekomicheskaya gazeta (Economic Gazette), No. 43, 1965, in: M.E.Sharpe (Ed.): op. Cit., Volume 2; p. 65)."
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap6.html
In Conclusion:
Any calm consideration of the economic characteristics of the state after the death of Stalin ? cannot come to the conclusion that the restoration of capital took place before1961.
The transitional period following Stalin?s death was associated with political events that were designed to pave the way to force through the economic changes.
continued on page twenty-three
State Economic Planning Council 1936
PART THREE: IS ?ALLIANCE? A CRYPTO-MAOIST ORGANISATION?
You allege that we in ?Alliance? not only ignore ?stubborn facts? - but have adopted a Maoist perspective, as follows: ?In my letter I hinted that the Maoists look at the events the way you do it in your announcement that revisionism only prevailed after the XX. Party Conference of the CPSU. And there is a reason for that: They still want to cover up the fact that Mao Zedong and Liu Shao-chi had the Marxists-Leninists liquidated the way the Krushchevites did. Bill Bland proved all this in 'Class Struggles in China', ch. 6. I sent the analysis to various Maoists groups and they were all unable to disprove this, because Bill's findings are based on facts and 'facts are a stubborn thing' (K.Marx).?
In reply, it would appear to us, that the ?stubborn facts? supports our interpretation. We should say in passing, that the disagreement between the Maoists and ourselves should not be at issue for you comrade G. In fact we find it a little sad that you think it is a pertinent point to make at all. But then, it is right also that none of us can be too careful.
In that spirit ? we will try to show you, that by elevating your points about the political points made in 1-3 & 5 ? you are in fact following an ultra-leftist ? Maoist line. For the Maoist error in ?socialist? economics, involves the same problem that inadvertently you are making.
Namely, elevating the political relationships to a precedence over the economic relationships.
Thus in April 25, 1956, Mao made a major speech entitled, ?On The Ten Major Relationships? There Mao clearly states that there were supposed ?economic errors made by Stalin?: ?Particularly worthy of attention is the fact that in the Soviet Union certain defects and errors that occurred in the course of their building socialism have lately come to light. Do you want to follow the detours they have made??
?On The Ten Major Relationships?; Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1977; Vol. V, pp. 284;
http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/TMR56.html
One of the most fundamental errors, according to Mao, was the relationship between heavy and light industry. Thus here Mao openly agrees with many bourgeois economists in a critique of Stalin:
?Therefore, the relationship between heavy industry on the one hand and light industry and agriculture on the other must be properly handled. In dealing with this relationship we have not made mistakes of principle. We have done better than the Soviet Union and a number of East European countries. The prolonged failure of the Soviet Union to reach the highest pre-October Revolution level in grain output, the grave problems arising from the glaring dis-equilibrium between the development of heavy industry and that of light industry in some East European countries -- such problems do not exist in our country. Their lop-sided stress on heavy industry to the neglect of agriculture and light industry results in a shortage of goods on the market and an unstable currency. We, on the other hand, attach more importance to agriculture and light industry. We have all along attended to and developed agriculture and have to a considerable degree ensured the supply of grain and raw materials necessary for the development of industry. Our daily necessities are in fairly good supply and our prices and currency are stable.?
Mao ?On The Ten Major Relationships?; Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1977; Vol. V, pp. 285; http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/TMR56.html
In a series of speeches and talks, Mao critiqued heavily Stalin?s Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR?, emphasizing that Stalin ?walked on one leg? by ignoring politics: ?On the question of heavy industry, light industry, and agriculture, the Soviet Union did not lay enough emphasis on the latter two and had losses as a result. In addition, they did not do a good job of combining the immediate and the long-term interests of the people. In the main they walked on one leg. Comparing the planning, which of us after all had the better adapted "planned proportionate development?" Another point: Stalin emphasized only technology, technical cadre. He wanted nothing but technology, nothing but cadre; no politics, no masses. This too is walking on one leg!?
?Concerning Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (November 1958)?; http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/CSE58.html#TALK
According to Mao, it is political aspects ? most prominently ? ?Stalin?s distrust of the peasantry? ? that explain alleged ?failures? of the socialist economy in the USSR:
Continued on page twenty-four.
?The Soviet Union has adopted measures which squeeze the peasants very hard. It takes away too much from the peasants at too low a price through its system of so-called obligatory sales and other measures. This method of capital accumulation has seriously dampened the peasants' enthusiasm for production. You want the hen to lay more eggs and yet you don't feed it, you want the horse to run fast and yet you don't let it graze. What kind of logic is that! Our policies towards the peasants differ from those of the Soviet Union and take into account the interests of both the state and the peasants. Our agricultural tax has always been relatively low. In the exchange of industrial and agricultural products we follow a policy of narrowing the price scissors, a policy of exchanging equal or roughly equal values.? ?On The Ten Major Relationships?; Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1977; Vol. V, pp. 208;
http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/TMR56.html
?Stalin's book from first to last says nothing about the superstructure. It is not concerned with people; it considers things, not people. Does the kind of supply system for consumer goods help spur economic development or not? He should have touched on this at the least. Is it better to have commodity production or is it better not to? Everyone has to study this. Stalin's point of view in his last letter is almost altogether wrong. The basic error is mistrust of the peasants.?
Mao, Critique of Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR; 1958; http://www.marx2mao.org//Mao/CSE58.html#TALK
Now, we do not intend to offer here, a full critique of Maoist economics. This is not the time nor the place to do that.
What we simply wish to highlight is that it is very easy to adopt the posture ?J?accuse!? ? without a due consideration of the full facts, or of the history of the organization and individual. Put simply ? to drive home the parallels between your view and those of Mao (?politics first?! ? in deciding the class character of a state) ? would be wrong.
We know you are not a Maoist. Surely ? you know that we are not Maoists!? Yours Fraternally,
Editors, Alliance!
.jpg)
