ECONOMIC FOUNDATION OF SOVIET DEMOCRACY

As a form of state system, democracy springs from the economic basis, being always dependent on society’s material foundation. It may be taken as axiomatic that in the final count the nature of democracy, its social substance and forms and extent are determined by the appropriate relations of production.

The degree of the people’s participation in public affairs and the enforcement of citizens’ rights and freedoms as legislatively recorded in the laws of a state, depend first and foremost on the existing mode of production and on what classes own the instruments and means of production.

Hence, in order to obtain a full picture of the nature and features of Soviet socialist democracy we must first analyse the socialist social system and the class structure of Soviet society.

Socialist system of economy. The actual foundation and material guarantee ensuring genuine democracy in the U.S.S.R. are the socialist system of economy and socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production. They ensure Soviet people with freedom from exploitation, economic crises, unemployment and poverty, and guarantee them equal rights to work and to be paid for their work in accordance with their contribution to social production.

The principal purpose of socialist production is systematically to improve the welfare of the nation as a whole. Lenin had specially emphasised the fact that socialist revolution replaces private with public ownership of the means of production, and introduces planned production to ensure the welfare and all-round development of all 10 members of society, because the new society is built in the name of and for the benefit of the people.

The socialist system of economy and socialist ownership of the means of production reign supreme in Soviet economy. Many years passed before this was achieved, for when the working people seized power in October 1917 they inherited a completely wrecked economy in an extremely backward country. Moreover, they had to repel the fierce onslaught of the internal reaction and the international counter-revolution. On account of all this it took the Soviet people almost two decades to build up a socialist economy.

In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism the economy of Soviet Russia was multistructural in character, i.e., it combined features of both socialism and capitalism.

“This transition period,” Lenin wrote, “has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism—or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble.” [10•*

 The economy of the transition period had three basic socio-economic sectors: socialist, small commodity and capitalist, [10•** which were backed by the three corresponding classes, namely, the proletariat, the peasants and the overthrown but still existing bourgeoisie.

The socialist sector promptly occupied the leading place, for it commanded the key branches of production (large industrial enterprises, banks, transport, communications, and the foreign and a considerable portion of the internal trade) that determined economic development in the country as a whole. Moreover, this was ensured by the socialist sector’s tremendous advantages over the small commodity and capitalist sectors thanks to elaborate planning.

In the first years after the Revolution, however, the socialist sector was not predominant. Suffice it to say that 11 in 1923–24 the socialised sector accounted for only 38.5 per cent of the gross industrial output, and was almost nonexistent in agriculture. In 1924 its share of the national income added up to only 35 per cent.

In order to establish a single socialist economy all sectors had to be completely socialised. This meant pushing ahead with socialist industrialisation as rapidly as possible, i.e., giving priority to the heavy industry and thus re-equipping the entire economy, helping the country achieve economic independence and defending the gains of the October Revolution. Moreover, this meant reorganising agriculture along socialist lines by gradually turning petty-peasant ownership into co-operative ownership with the object of replacing the labour of individual peasants with collective labour which excludes exploitation of man by man. Capitalist elements had to be ousted completely from all branches of the economy.

Because of the bitter class struggle and the desperate resistance of the capitalist elements, it was extremely difficult to put an end to the multisectoral structure of the economy. However, towards the mid-thirties the socialist remaking of Soviet economy was, in the main, completed. This gave undivided supremacy to the socialist sector of economy.

In the countryside, too, the economy was socialised with the establishment of collective farms and artisans’ and handicraftsmen’s co-operatives.

Lenin had stressed that the most important prerequisite for the co-operative plan was to build a large-scale socialist industry capable of supplying agriculture with machines, and that it was of immense importance to correctly combine the personal and public interests of the peasants. His co-operative plan substantiated the need for a gradual transition from simple to more complex forms of agricultural co-operation, and showed that co-operatives were the simplest and most accessible form of cultural and political education of the peasants.

Collectivisation worked a real revolution in the countryside. It transformed the mode of life and labour of millions of peasants along socialist lines and consolidated the alliance between the working class and the peasantry. Large-scale collective-farm production opened up broad 12 prospects for the growth of the productive forces in the rural areas and increased the output of farming and animal husbandry.

The private-capitalist sector disappeared completely with the ousting of the capitalist elements from industry, trade and agriculture. All avenues for the emergence and restoration of capitalist relations of production and exploitation were thus closed. On the other hand, socialist ownership of the implements and means of production obtained a stable basis for reproduction and development. It became the foundation of the new social relations, changed the character of work and ensured the rapid growth of the productive forces.

The principal contradiction between young and developing socialism and defeated but not destroyed capitalism was thus eliminated, and socialist economy, which knows neither crises nor unemployment and brings a prosperous and cultured life to all people, became supreme in the U.S.S.R.

As a result of the dedicated work of the Soviet people, a socialist society, whose formation Lenin had outlined, now exists in the world.

The victory of socialism was legislatively recorded in the 1936 Soviet Constitution. It states that the economic foundation of the U.S.S.R. is the socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production, that have been firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, private ownership of the instruments and means of production, and the exploitation of man by man. [12•*

Upon the completion of socialist reforms in town and country socialism began developing on its own foundation, on the basis of large-scale modern industry and mechanised collective agriculture.

Two forms of socialist property. In socialist society all instruments and means of production are socialised.

In other words, the means of production are collectively owned by the people using them, and this completely rules 13 out the possibility of one section of society turning them into a means of exploiting another.

Under socialism there are two forms of social property. It is either state property (belonging to the whole people) or co-operative property (the property of collective farms or co-operative societies). These forms arose from the different attitude of the victorious working class to largescale private capitalist property and to the small property of peasants and handicraftsmen. While expropriating private capitalist properly, which is based on exploitation, the working class permits no coercion whatever with regard to petty goods producers.

The small private property of peasants and handicraftsmen was socialised as soon as they joined the collective farms and co-operatives.

State property is the more advanced and perfect form of socialist property, and is characterised by a higher level of socialisation.

It covers all key branches of economy and therefore occupies a leading place in the country’s economy. In the U.S.S.R. nearly 90 per cent of the fixed assets of production are state property.

Initially, state socialist property appeared as a result of the nationalisation of large-scale industry, transport, and the banks, and the confiscation of the landed estates. [13•* But what has been confiscated from the bourgeoisie and the landowners comprises an insignificant part of the means of production possessed by the Soviet state.

Everything else was created by the working class and all other Soviet people in the period of socialist construction. In 1958–65 the state-owned means of production in industry have been doubled.

In the Soviet Union state property, that is, property belonging to the whole people, consists of the land, its mineral wealth, waters, forests, the factories and mines, rail, water and air transport facilities, means of communication, large state-organised agricultural establishments 14 (slate farms, repair and service stations, etc.), the bulk ol the housing in cities arid industrial localities.

Through the appropriate agencies the state manages its enterprises on behalf of the whole people. All the means of production and Ihe output of these enterprises are the property of the people.

Every enterprise is headed by a director appointed by the state who organises its work in accordance with the oneman management system and is fully responsible for its condition and operation.

This does not imply that the workers and office personnel at factories, mines, state farms and building projects take no part in economic affairs. On the contrary, they prominently participate in managing production.

The statute on state enterprises passed in 1965 by the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. rules that, being a key link in the country’s economy, a state enterprise operates under centralised management coupled with its own independent activity and initiative and the vigorous participation of its personnel in all production matters.

A self-supporting enterprise operating in conformity with its plan has to attain the best results with the minimum expenditure of labour, materials and financial resources. Its mass organisations and entire personnel participate in discussing and implementing measures to fulfil the state plan, develop and improve production and working conditions.

In capitalist countries the entire system of managing production is built in such a way as to prevent the workers from participating in the administration of capitalist economy. There the entire development of production is geared to amassing huge profits and enriching industrialists.

Work for the benefit of others and production as a force that is opposed to the worker cannot inspire the working man with creative interest, nor fill his work with a great spiritual content.

In socialist society, where the people possess not only political power but also all public wealth, the working people themselves guide the development of the economy.

Economic life, which in bourgeois countries is the sphere of activity of private capital, becomes a sphere of intense 15 public activity of millions of working people after the socialist revolution is accomplished.

 “Under the bourgeois system,” Lenin wrote, “business matters were managed by private owners and not by state agencies; but now, business matters are our common concern. These are the politics that interest us most.” [15•*

Management of socialist economy rests on profoundly democratic principles and on the active participation of the personnel in solving all important matters in the work of industrial enterprises.

It is implemented not only in the interests of the people, but by the people themselves. At the same time, centralised state control is improved simultaneously with the expansion of the forms of the people’s participation in the management of production.

Production conferences function at state enterprises, which also organise technical and economic conferences as well as conferences of front-rank workers in order to discuss ways and means of furthering technical progress and the economic growth of the enterprises concerned and to map out measures to eliminate shortcomings.

At every state-run enterprise general meetings of workers and other employees are convened to hear and discuss the reports of the management on draft production plans and on how these plans have been fulfilled. Great importance is attached to collective agreements and to controlling the fulfilment of the commitments made under these agreements, as well as to production problems and to problems connected with the everyday life of members of the staff and with providing them with cultural and other services. The management reports on the fulfilment of the decisions passed at previous general meetings.

In this way one-man management is combined with the active participation of the workers in promoting production.

 Now let us examine collective-farm and co-operative property. Collectively-owned property came into being when peasants and artisans voluntarily set up collective farms and other co-operatives in order to work collectively.

Initially this form of property included the peasants’ implements of production, which were socialised, i.e., became common property, when the peasants joined the collective farms. Later, however, this property was substantially increased thanks to the collective labour of the peasants, who received tremendous assistance from the socialist state in the form of machines, fertilisers, seeds, credits, and so forth.

All socialised enterprises of the collective farms and cooperatives with their livestock and dead stock, their output and commonly-owned structures comprise the socialist property of these collective farms and co-operatives.

No basic diii’erence exists between state and co-operative property. Both rule out exploitation and presuppose work for the benefit of all people. The socialist principle of remuneration according to the work done operates both at state enterprises and collective farms and their economy is managed according to a plan. Both forms of property open the road to a steady growth of socialist production and rise of the standard of living. Thus both are socialist forms of property.

At the same time, co-operative ownership has some features that distinguish it from state ownership.

To clarify this point let us examine what is meant by a collective farm. In the U.S.S.R. collective farms are large, highly mechanised socialist agricultural enterprises which are voluntary associations of peasants (collective farmers). In 1966 there were 37,100 collective farms in the country with over 15 million households. State enterprises hire their workers and other employees, whereas collective farmers are members of their collective farm. If a collective farmer wishes to move to another collective farm, he has to discontinue his membership at the old farm. All collective farmers work on state-owned land which is turned over to the collective farms free of charge for perpetual use. The right to perpetual use of land is set down in a deed issued to every collective farm. As regards the basic means of production and the output, they are the exclusive property of the collective farm concerned.

The collective farmers jointly own the collective farm to which they belong. The farm itself is managed by the general meeting of its members, and in the interim between 17 these meetings—by a board headed by a chairman elected at the meeting. Collective farms dispose of their produce at their own discretion. Part of this produce is sold to the stale by plan, another part is spent to enlarge the socialised economy and the rest is divided up among the collective farmers according to their work, which is measured by workday units. The collective farms and their members can market their surplus produce if they wish.

By selling their produce the collective farms replace their production outlays and receive cash which is used to purchase farm machinery, build production premises, clubs, schools, and so forth, systematically expand the economy and increase output.

In addition to its basic income from the collective farm, every member has a small plot of land, a subsidiary husbandry on this plot, a house, livestock, poultry and minor agricultural implements.

The collective farm household is a family association of persons based on the principle of labour. Its adult members contribute to the collective-farm socialised economy and in addition to this jointly conduct their small personal husbandry on a plot of land attached to their house. Naturally, the personal properly of the collective farmers cannot grow to the extent where il will hinder Ihe colleclive farmers from participation in social labour. That is why the Collective-Farm Rules slipulate the number of livestock a collective-farm family may possess. Subsidiary husbandries will outlive themselves economically and disappear on their own accord when the colleclive farms are able lo salisfy all the personal requirements of their members.

It has lo be borne in mind that as production associalions of peasants the collective farms arc components of Ihe economic structure of society and, at the same time, mass organisations that unite the peasants socially and politically. Collective farms are the principal media for politically educating the peasants and drawing them into the administration of state affairs. They are a school of communism for the peasantry. Mikhail Kalinin, who came of peasant stock and had a good knowledge of rural life, quite rightly said: “Collective production is the foundation on which socialism is built up in the countryside. The 18 psychology of the people changes, and their outlook develops to the level of understanding first collective-farm and then state, socialist tasks.” [18•*

The Soviet Government gives the collective farmers every incentive to increase output rapidly. The collective farms are receiving steadily increasing quantities of machinery, fertilisers and other supplies from state enterprises. More and more electric power is channelled to them from state power stations. The government is financing gigantic irrigation and reclamation projects for the collective farms.

It must be said that co-operative ownership is neither immutable nor eternal. It is gradually drawing close to stale ownership, and eventually these two forms will merge into a single communist ownership.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the transition to a single communist ownership does not mean that all collective farms will be reorganised into state farms. The gradual merging of the two forms of socialist ownership implies the all-round development of both state and collective-farm co-operative ownership. Practice shows that the latter form of ownership has not exhausted all its possibilities for further development.

The economic consolidation of the collective farms is accompanied by increased socialisation of collective-farm property and the greater supply of technical equipment to the collective farms.

Moreover, the distinctions between collective farms and state enterprises will gradually be erased in such fields as the forms of organisation, the level of payment for labour and social insurance for collective farmers. At collective farms rate setting, organisation of labour, payment for work, pensions and other benefits will approach the level of the state farms.

An important step in this respect was the establishment of guaranteed remuneration for labour at the collective farms in conformity with the wage scale operating at state farms.

All this enables the two forms of ownership existing today to draw closer to each other and subsequently to merge.

In socialist society there is personal property alongside socialised ownership of the means of production.

This property is derived from public, socialist property, for it is acquired by people through participation in social production. Thus, it is obtained through personal labour and can consist solely of items of personal use.

Planned economic development. Socialist economy is an integral organism whose development is guided by a single will. Resting on public ownership of the means of production and on Ihe underslanding of the social laws of economic development, socialist society plans the development of social production. A key objective law of socialist production is that of planned, proportionate economic development. This law is mirrored in state economic plans, whose cardinal objective is to increase the nation’s wealth, steadily raise the material and cultural level of the people and strengthen the independence and defence capacity of the U.S.S.R.

In the U.S.S.R. planning is strictly scientific. Carefully assessing all available resources and potentialities and proceeding from the tasks facing the country, the planning agencies—the U.S.S.R. State Planning Committee (GOSPLAN), republican state planning commissions and the planning commissions attached to the executive committees of the local Soviets draw up long-term (five-year) and annual economic plans. GOSPLAN determines the correct proportions of economic growth in the country as a whole and indicates the reserves for rapidly boosting production and the welfare of the population. Millions of people take part in drafting and discussing these plans.

Planned economic development enables the government to manage the economy effectively on a country-wide scale, to establish optimum proportions and rationally site productive forces, and to save material, labour and financial resources.

The new system of planning and economic stimulation which is being realised in the U.S.S.R. is of great importance for its economic development plans. This system reflects the changed conditions of socialist economic management and the increased scale of modern production, qualitative changes in its pattern and the requirements of the revolution in science and technology.

Being consistently socialist by its nature, the new economic reform involves a new attitude to economic 20 management. Its purpose is to strengthen the role of economic methods of guidance, to improve state planning and extend the economic independence and initiative of the enterprises.

The economic reform also stimulates the activity of the masses, enhances their role in running production and con tributes to the further economic growth of the country.

Centralised planning combined with the participation of the people in managing production and in drafting and discussing economic development plans allows making the most effective use of the advantages of the socialist system of economy.

An economic development plan establishes the quantity and type of products for every industry, states what new enterprises have to be built and names the sites, and determines the number of skilled workers that have to be trained. It sets the targets for the growth of labour productivity and reduction of production costs, and outlines what has to be done in order to achieve a further rise of the living standard and cultural level of the people. It ensures the creation of state reserves of fuel, metals, machines, food, raw materials and money. These reserves are needed to offset breakdowns in the fulfilment of the plan and cover unforeseen expenditures (for instance, in case of natural calamities) and other extraordinary circumstances.

The activity of every enterprise is subordinated to the fulfilment of the state plan targets. Lately the list of planned indexes handed down to enterprises has been substantially cut, thus permitting them to show more initiative. At the same time, new indexes have been introduced in order to speed up production and improve its quality. Previously, for example, there was an index for the volume of gross output, that is, every enterprise had to turn out goods worth a definite sum. This index, however, did not orientate an enterprise towards commodities that were most needed by the national economy and the people nor towards manufacturing high-quality goods. That is why enterprises arc handed down targets defining not the volume of gross output, but the quantity of goods they have to sell. Moreover, the plan defines the type of goods to be produced, the profits and some other indexes. This provides the economic foundation for scientific and technological progress, 21 improving the quality of the output and strictly observing the policy of stringent economy.

On the basis of the state plan every enterprise draws up its own technological production and financial plan, envisaging a definite volume of output, the installation of new plant, modernisation (or renewal) of operating equipment, and an improvement of technological processes, methods of work and the quality of the output.

Collective farms likewise draw up annual and long-term plans determining the size of the crop area and the yield of every crop, the growth of the commonly-owned livestock, the productivity level of this livestock, the outlay of manpower and financial resources, the volume of building, the distribution of incomes and other indexes.

The production and financial plans of the collective farms take the unconditional fulfilment of the collective farms’ commitments to the state into consideration and provide for a further expansion of their socialised economies, introduction of modern farming methods, improved labour organisation, higher labour productivity, and raising the standard of living and the cultural level of the collective farmers.

But the drafting of a plan is only the initial stage. No plan can envisage all the potentialities of the socialist system which are disclosed only in the process of work, in the course of the creative activity of the people. The creative labour of all members of society brings to light new reserves and results in the fulfilment and overfulfilment of the plannned targets.

Immense importance is also attached to regularly checking up on the fulfilment of plans and commitments. These checks, in which the public participates, prevent deviations from the plan and ensure precise, systematic and uninterrupted fulfilment of production targets and of the commitments given to the state.

Soviet achievements in fulfilling economic development plans arc widely known. The first of these was Lenin’s plan, adopted in 1920, for the electrification of Russia.

The Soviet Union has been carrying out five-year plans since 1928. A little less than 40 years have passed from the time the first of these plans was adopted and the first steps were made to build the economic foundation of socialism. All told, the Soviet Union has fulfilled seven five-year plans.

Every plan was a triumph of the Soviet people, a heroic stage in the development of Soviet society and a landmark in the building of socialism and communism.

The current (eighth) five-year plan for 1966–70 envisages large-scale economic tasks. In this period the material and technical basis of communism will be considerably enlarged, the economic and defence potential of the U.S.S.R. expanded, and Soviet society will make considerable headway in building communism.

The main economic task of the next five years is to secure a further considerable growth of industry and high stable rates of agricultural development through the utmost utilisation of scientific and technical achievements, enhance the efficiency of all social production, achieve higher labour productivity and thereby substantially raise the standard of living and more fully satisfy the material and cultural requirements of all Soviet people.

The targets of the five-year plan have not been set arbitrarily. They are based on the sum total of experience gained in building the new society, and on a profound scientific analysis of the objective trends and requirements of the social and economic development of Soviet society today.

Soviet successes in planning and promoting economic development prove that Soviet society is still better applying the law of planned, proportionate development in practice.

* * *

Notes

[10•*] Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 107.

[10•**] In addition, there were a patriarchal sector embracing natural peasant households based on personal labour and practically disconnected with the market, and a state-capitalist sector, that is, enterprises leased to foreign firms in the form of concessions.

[12•*] Soviet law allows individual peasants and handicraftsmen to possess small private property but categorically forbids them to exploit the labour of others. For many years already the share of these households in the country’s economy has been negligible, and in 1965 comprised only a few hundredths of one per cent.

[13•*] The establishment of slate property was initialed by the Soviet Government decrees on the nationalisation of land (November 8, 1917), banks (December 14, 1917), foreign trade (April 22, 1918) and large-scale capitalist industry (July 28, 1918).

[15•*] Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 430.

[18•*] M. I. Kalinin, Selected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 2, 1960, p. 588