Conversation I.V. Stalin on political economy. February 15, 1952
Archive: ARAN. F. 1705. Op. 1.D. 166.L. 57-68. Typescript.
(February 15, 1952, the beginning of the conversation at 22 hours - the end of the conversation at 23 hours 10 minutes).
Question (K.V. Ostrovityanov): Is it possible to publish "Remarks on economic issues" [1] in the press? Is it possible to use your "Notes" in research, pedagogical and literary work.
Answer : You should not publish the "Remarks" in print. The discussion on political economy was closed, people do not know about it. The speeches of the participants in the discussion were not published. It will be incomprehensible if I appear in print with my "Remarks".
It is not in your interest to publish the Notes in print. They will understand that everything in the textbook is predetermined by Stalin. I care about the authority of the tutorial. The textbook should enjoy unquestioned authority. It will be correct if what is in the "Remarks" is learned for the first time from a textbook.
You should not refer to the "Remarks" in print. How can you refer to a document that has not been published? If you like my Remarks, use them in the tutorial.
You can use the "Notes" in lectures, in departments, in political circles, without reference to the author.
If few copies are printed, more can be added, but not yet published in print. A textbook will come out, another year or two will pass, then the "Remarks" can be published. It will be possible to include them in one of the volumes of compositions.
Question (K.V. Ostrovityanov): In your "Remarks on the economic question m" it is said about consumer goods, but are the means of production goods for us? If not, how can one explain the use of cost accounting in industries producing means of production?
Answer : Goods are those that are freely bought and sold, such as bread, meat, etc. Our means of production cannot essentially be regarded as goods. These are not commodities entering the market, which are bought by anyone who wants to. We actually distribute the means of production. This is not a var in the generally accepted sense, not a commodity that exists in capitalist conditions. There the means of production are commodities. In our country, the means of production cannot be called commodities.
Our cost accounting is not the same as the cost accounting that operates in capitalist enterprises. Cost accounting under capitalism acts in such a way that unprofitable enterprises are closed. Our businesses can be very profitable, or they can be completely unprofitable. But the latter are not closed here. They receive subsidies from the budget. We have cost accounting for accounting, for calculation, for balance. Cost accounting is used to control economic managers, the means of production in our country appear as a commodity formally. Our commodities of consumption belong to the field of commodity exchange, and not as means of production
Question (K.V. Ostrovityanov): Is it correct to call the means of production goods of a special kind?
Answer : No. If a product, it must be sold to everyone, whoever wants to buy it. The expression "special kind of goods" does not work. The law of value affects the production of means of production through the sale of consumer goods. The law of value is needed here for calculation, for balance, for calculation, for checking the expediency of actions.
Question (K.V. Ostrovityanov): How to understand the terms - the general crisis of capitalism and the crises of the world capitalist economic system, are they one and the same?
Answer: It is the same. I stress that we must talk about the crisis of the world capitalist system as a whole. They often take one country from us, which is not true. Previously, the state of the capitalist economy was considered based on the position of one country - England. Now, to assess the state of capitalism, we must take not one country, but the capitalist system as a whole. The economies of all capitalist countries are closely intertwined. Some countries go up at the expense of others. The limitations of the world capitalist market must be taken into account. For example, the US found itself in a good position by eliminating its competitors Germany and Japan. The United States hoped to double production due to its monopoly position. But they did not succeed in doubling production, the calculation failed. One country - the United States moved forward, others went back. But the situation is unstable the ratio will change in the future. One country cannot be typical for evaluating capitalism. It is wrong to take one country, you must take the whole of capitalism as a whole. I emphasize: we must consider the world system as a whole, but we are used to taking one country.
Question (D. T. Shepilov): Is it possible to consider the scheme of the section "Socialist mode of production" given in the "Proposals " for the draft textbook correct ?
Answer : I agree with the scheme in the "Proposals".
Question (AA Arakel [2] ): How to name those parts of the national income of the USSR that were called “necessary product ” and “surplus product”?
Answer : The concepts of "necessary and surplus labor", "necessary and surplus product" are not suitable for our economy. Isn't that which goes to education and defense is a necessary product? Isn't the worker interested in this? In a socialist economy, it would be necessary to distinguish, approximately, like this: labor for oneself and labor for society. What was previously called necessary labor in relation to the socialist economy corresponds to labor for oneself, and what was previously called surplus labor corresponds to labor for society.
Question (A. A. Arakelyan): Is it correct, instead of the concept of "transformation" of the law of value in the USSR, to use the concept of "limitation of the operation" of the law of value?
Answer: The laws of science cannot be created, destroyed, canceled, changed and transformed. The laws must be reckoned with. If we break the law, we will suffer. We have a widespread belief that the time of laws is over. This point of view is found not only among economists, but among practitioners and politicians. This is not in accordance with the concept of the law. The provision on the transformation of laws is a distraction from science, it is from the philistine. The laws of nature and society cannot be transformed. If the law can be transformed, then it is possible to abolish it. If the law of science can be transformed and abolished, it means “we don't care about anything”. The laws must be reckoned with, mastered and used. Their scope can be limited. This is both in physics and chemistry. This applies to all science. We must not talk about transforming the law, but about limiting the scope of its action. It will be more accurate and more scientific. No inaccuracies in the textbook should be allowed. We are speaking to the whole world with a textbook on political economy. It will be used in our country and abroad
We are not limiting the laws, but the existing objective conditions. When the scope of the law is limited, the law looks different. The sphere of the law of value is limited in our country. The law of value is not quite the same as it was under capitalism. It has not been transformed in our country, but limited due to objective conditions. The main thing is that our private property has disappeared, and labor is not a commodity. These are objective conditions that have caused the limitation of the scope of the law of value. The limitation of the law of value in our country does not occur because we wanted to. but because such a necessity, such are the favorable conditions for this limitation. These objective conditions push us to limit the scope of the law of value.
The law is a reflection of an objective process. The law reflects the relationship between objective forces. The law shows the relationship between causes and results. If such and such a correlation of forces, such and such conditions are given, then certain results inevitably follow. These are objective conditions that cannot be ignored. If some conditions are missing, then the corresponding results are changed. Our objective conditions have changed in comparison with capitalism (there is no private property, labor is not a commodity), therefore the results are different. The law of value has not been transformed in our country, and its sphere of action is limited due to objective conditions.
Question (V. I. Pereslegin): How to understand the category of profit in the USSR.
Answer: We need a certain profit. Without profit, we cannot form reserves, accumulate, ensure the tasks of defense, and satisfy public needs. Here you can see that there is work for oneself and work for society. The very word profit is very dirty. It would be nice to have some other concept. But which one? Maybe a net income? We have a completely different content behind the category of profit. We do not have a spontaneous overflow of capital, there is no law of competition. We do not have a spontaneous law of maximum profit, as well as average profit. But it is impossible to develop our economy without profit. For their enterprises, a minimum profit is sufficient, and sometimes they can work without profit at the expense of the profits of other enterprises. We distribute your funds ourselves. Under capitalism, only profitable enterprises can exist. We have very profitable and unprofitable, and completely unprofitable enterprises. In the first years, our heavy industry did not give profit, and then it began to give. In general, the enterprises of heavy industry at first themselves needed funds.
Question (A.I. Pashkov): Is the position of the majority of participants 168 correct in the economic and military debate on the connection between Soviet money and gold? Some supporters of the minority who deny this connection, argue that in the "Remarks - -.ekonomicheskim issues related to the discussion of the November 1951" is not 1315: Answer ve that on this issue.
Answer : Have you read the "Proposals"? In my remarks it is said that on other issues I have no comments on the "Proposals". This means that I agree with the "Proposals" on the connection between our money and gold.
Question (A.I. Pashkov): Is it correct that differential rent in the USSR should be completely withdrawn by the state, as certain participants in the discussion assert?
Answer : On the issue of differential rent, I agree with the opinion of the majority.
Question (A.D. Gusakov [3] ): Does the connection between Soviet money and gold mean that gold in the USSR is a monetary commodity?
Answer : Gold is a monetary commodity for us. Earlier, our gold mining costs were bad, then we took measures to reduce costs, it got better. We moved on to a gold base. We are pursuing a line of making gold a commodity and we will achieve it. There is, of course, no need to exchange banknotes for gold. This is now not the case in the capitalist countries.
Question (N.NLyubimov [4] ): Do Soviet public finances refer to the basis or to the state-political superstructure?
Answer : Is there this superstructure or basis? In general, a lot has been said about the basis and superstructure. There are people who even classify Soviet power as the basis.
If, in this matter, we move away from the abstract characterization of the basis and superstructure, then it is necessary to proceed from socialist property. Our budget is fundamentally different from the capitalist one. Under capitalism, every enterprise has its own budget, and the state budget covers a much narrower area than our state budget. Our budget covers all the income and expenses of the national economy. It reflects the state of the entire national economy, and not just administrative costs. This is the budget of the entire national economy. Therefore, elements of the basis prevail in our finances. But there are also elements of the superstructure in them, for example, management costs are related to the superstructure. Our state is the head of the national economy, our budget includes not only the costs of the administrative apparatus, but also the costs of the entire national economy.
Question (AV Bolgov [5] ): Is it correct that the agricultural artel will exist during the entire period of the gradual transition from socialism to communism, and the agricultural commune belongs only to the second phase of communism?
Answer: An idle question. The artel goes to the commune, it is clear. The commune will be after the functions of the peasant household for servicing personal needs have disappeared. There is no need to rush to the agricultural commune. The transition to a commune requires the resolution of a multitude of issues, the creation of good canteens, laundries, etc. Agricultural communes will be there when the peasants themselves are convinced of the expediency of transition to them. The agricultural artel does not correspond to the second phase of communism, most likely the agricultural commune corresponds. The artel requires a turnover of goods, as long as, at least, it does not allow the exchange of products, especially since it does not allow direct distribution. Product exchange is still exchange, and direct distribution is distribution according to needs. While there is still commodity production, buying and selling, they must be reckoned with. The artel is associated with buying and selling, and direct distribution will be in the second phase of communism. When the agricultural artel will grow into a commune, it is difficult to say. It cannot be said for sure that the second phase of communism will already begin when the communes appear. But it is also risky to say that without a commune it is impossible to move to the second phase of communism.
You cannot imagine the transition to the second phase of communism - in a philistine way. There will be no special "entry" into communism. Gradually, without noticing ourselves, we will enter communism. This is not "entering the city" when "the gate is open - enter." At the present time, in some collective farms, the collective farmers are already in favor of freeing themselves from the shackles of the household, transferring livestock to collective farms in order to receive meat and dairy products from the collective farm. But the bird has not yet been abandoned. These are just isolated facts, sprouts of the future. Now the agricultural artel is not at all a fetter for: the ulceration of the economy. In the first phase of communism, the artel will gradually move to the commune. There is no sharp edge to be drawn here.
Collective farm production must be gradually brought closer to national production. There are a lot of difficult questions here. Collective farmers must be taught to think more about public affairs. Now the collective farm does not want to know anything except its own farm. Now there is no amalgamation of collective farms on a regional and regional scale. Shouldn't we go from above to the creation of an all-Union economic body composed of representatives of industry and agriculture, taking into account the production of both industry and collective farms, and then proceed to the distribution of only surplus production at first? It is necessary to establish funds that are not distributed and funds to be distributed. It will be necessary to gradually train the collective farmers to think about the interests of the whole people. But this is a long journey and one should hurry up here. There's nowhere to rush. We are doing well. The goal is strong. The paths are clear
Question (3.V.Atla [6] ): Why is the term “money economy ” enclosed in quotation marks in the “Remarks on economic questions connected with the November 1951 discussion” ?
Answer: Since there is a turnover, there must be money. In capitalist countries the money economy, including banks, contributes to the ruin of the working people and the impoverishment of the people, the enrichment of the exploiters. Money and banks under capitalism serve as a means of exploitation. Our money economy is not ordinary but different from the capitalist money economy. In our country money and money economy serve the cause of strengthening the socialist economy. Our money economy is a tool that we have taken and use in the Eteres of socialism. Quotation marks in order not to confuse our money economy with the money economy under capitalism. The words value and form value are given by me without quotation marks. This also includes money. The law of value unas determines a lot, indirectly affects production, directly - on enrichment. But our sphere of action is limited. The law of value does not lead to ruin: The most difficult thing for capitalists is the realization of the social product, the transformation of goods into money. It is happening with a creak, accompanied by the destruction of the workers. Our implementation is easy, going smoothly.
Question (GA Kozlov? [7] ): What is the content of the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy?
Answer: There is a difference between the law of planned development of the national economy and planning. The plans may not take into account what had to be taken into account in accordance with this law, with its requirements. If, for example, the production of a certain number of cars is planned, but the corresponding amount of thin sheet is not planned, then in the middle of the year the car factories will become. If the production of a certain number of cars is planned, but the production of the corresponding amount of gasoline is not planned, then this will also mean a violation of the links between these industries. In these cases, the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy will seriously make itself felt. When he is not violated, he sits quietly and his address is unknown - he is everywhere, and he is nowhere. In general, all laws make themselves felt when they are violated, and it does not go away with impunity. The law of planned development of the national economy reveals the discrepancy between the sectors. He demands that all elements of the national economy be in mutual correspondence, develop in accordance with each other, in proportion. And the law of planned development of the national economy corrects the gaps in planning.
Question (MI Rubinshtein [8] ): How to understand the main economic task of the USSR at present? When defining this task, do we need to proceed from capitalist production per capita in the size of 1929, or do we need to take for comparison the current level of capitalist production, which, for example, in the USA, is higher than in 1929, due to the militarization of the economy ? Is it correct to assume, as is often done in the press and in lectures, that achieving the production levels indicated in your speech of February 9, 1946 means solving the main task of the USSR and entering the second phase of communism?
Answer : The calculation method based on per capita production remains valid. Per capita production is the main measure of the country's economic power, there is no other measure, the measure remains the same. We must proceed not from the level of 1929, but from modern production. New calculations are needed. We must compare our production per capita with the modern figures of the capitalist countries.
The figures cited by me in 1946 do not mean the solution of the main economic problem and the transition to the second phase. By reaching these production figures, we will become stronger. This will secure us from accidents, from the dangers of attacks by the enemy, attacks by capitalism. But the solution of the tasks posed in the speech of 1946 [9] does not mean yet the second phase of communism. With the transition to the second phase of communism, some comrades are in too much haste. This transition cannot be overly accelerated, just as laws cannot be made. Some are still inventing the third phase of communism. The yardstick remains the same, it is necessary to compare it with the richer country, take modern data. It means moving forward.
[1] See: I.V. Stalin. Economic problems of socialism in the USSR. Sochineniya, M., 2012.T. 16. Part 2.P. 482-557.
[2] Artashes Arkadievich Arakelyan (1909-1993) - economist, art. Researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1936-1941, 1945-1960), Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR (since 1960).
[3] Gusakov Alexander Dmitrievich - acting Head sector of the Institute of Economics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
[4] Lyubimov Nikolay Nikolaevich - head. Department of the Institute of Foreign Trade.
[5] Bologoe Alexander Vladimirovich - Scientific Secretary of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
[6] Atlas Zakhary Veniaminovich (1903-1978) - economist, senior researcher at the Institute of Economics of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1937-1948) - head. Department of the Moscow Financial Institute (1946-1963).
[7] Kozlov Genrikh Abramovich (1901-1981) - economist, corr. Academy of Sciences of the USSR (since 1968).
[8] Rubinstein Modest Iosifovich (1894-1969) - economist, senior researcher at the Institute of Economics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
[9] See: I.V. Stalin. Speech at the pre-election meeting of voters of the Stalin electoral district of Moscow on February 9, 1946. // He. Compositions. M., 2011 T 16 Ch. 1.S. 198-211.
.jpg)
No comments